Part III Handbook

2010–11

Department of History and Philosophy of Science

University of Cambridge
Free School Lane
Cambridge CB2 3RH

Tel: 01223 334500 Fax: 01223 334554

hps-admin@lists.cam.ac.uk
www.hps.cam.ac.uk/students
Contents
Introduction 3

General information 4
Departmental staff 8

The course
Introducing the Part III 9
Programme specification 18
Key dates and deadlines 22
Part III-MPhil seminars 2010–11 23
How the Part III is examined 25
Applying for the PhD 30
A note about plagiarism 31

Graduate training 33

2
Introduction
This handbook is intended for current Part III students in the Department of History and
Philosophy of Science. A separate booklet, available from the departmental office, sets out
details of Part IB and Part II teaching in History and Philosophy of Science, including lectures,
supervisions and preliminary readings. There is also a graduate handbook for MPhil and PhD
students.

Here you will find information on departmental resources, and on members of staff and their
research interests. Details of the Part III course and teaching, and how to apply for a PhD are
included. There is a wide range of formal and informal seminars open to all members of the
Department, details of which are given here.

If you have any suggestions of further information that should be included in this handbook, let
us know. Contact the department office on 01223 334500 or email hps-admin@lists.cam.ac.uk.

If you would like to join the Department’s lively email discussion group please send an email to
hps-admin@lists.cam.ac.uk and ask to subscribe to the list.

3
General information
The Department
The Department is the largest of its kind in the UK, with an outstanding international reputation.
It is built around the Whipple Museum, which contains a world-class collection of scientific
instruments, the gift of R.S. Whipple to the University in 1944. The Whipple Library, founded
on Whipple’s gift of his rare scientific books, is the largest specialist library in the history and
philosophy of science and medicine in the country. It functions as the departmental library and
provides the basis for research and teaching at both undergraduate and graduate level.

There are nine established University Teaching Officers, including five Professors and two
Readers. The Department has strong links with other departments and faculties in the University.
Total undergraduate numbers are in the range 100–140. There are approximately 20 MPhil
students per year. PhD students at any one time total around 45. There are many Research
Fellows and Visiting Scholars also attached to the Department.

The Whipple Library

The Library is open to all undergraduates, graduates, visiting scholars and senior members of the
University, and others on application to the Librarian. The Library aims to support teaching and
research in the Department and holds copies of all readings used in the MPhil and Part III
seminar. It also has computers for accessing the Library Catalogue, the internet, electronic
journals and other subscribed electronic resources. See the website at
www.hps.cam.ac.uk/library for further details. There is available for use in the Library a
scanner, a microfilm reader printer/scanner and photocopier: £1 card (16 copies), £5 card (88
copies). User education sessions are held during Michaelmas Term.

Please register at the Library desk on your first visit with your University Card/University
Library Card. Graduate students may borrow up to ten items for up to three weeks, excluding
items which are ‘on reserve’, which can be borrowed from 4.00pm until 10.30am the next day
(weekends from Friday evening to Monday morning). A notice giving details of vacation
borrowing will be displayed on the notice boards towards the end of each term. Opening hours:
9.30am – 5.30pm (9.30am – 5.00pm in vacation time), closed Saturday and Sunday.

Other University libraries

Cambridge has some of the finest research libraries in Europe. The University Library is entitled
under the Copyright Act to a copy of every book published in Britain and Ireland, including
American books with a British imprint. It contains about 6 million volumes, including many
early printed books, and over 127,000 manuscripts and 860,000 microforms. These include the
manuscripts of Isaac Newton, Charles Darwin, James Clerk Maxwell, Lord Kelvin, George
Stokes, J.J. Thomson, William Bateson and J.D. Bernal. The Library also preserves the papers of
several of the major scientific institutions of Cambridge University and, currently, the papers of
the Royal Greenwich Observatory. Many other archives are held on microfilm, and college

4
libraries and other collections hold papers of such scientists as William Herschel, John Herschel,
Joseph Larmor, Ernest Rutherford, Frederick Gowland Hopkins, James Chadwick and John
Cockroft. Several university museums are also important resources for studies in the field,
including the Sedgwick Museum of Geology and the Museum of Archaeology and
Anthropology.

The Whipple Museum

The HPS Department in Cambridge is the only one in the world to have teaching programmes
connected to a world-renowned collection of scientific instruments, models and books
(designated as one of only 26 pre-eminent non-national collections in the country by the
Museums and Galleries Commission). Students are encouraged to have hands-on experience of
studying and working with the extensive collection. This provides an exciting opportunity for
students to work in-depth on objects in the museum and MPhil and Part III students in particular
are encouraged to produce case studies which can be displayed in the museum gallery.

Research seminars and reading groups

The Department runs seminars and reading groups on a weekly or fortnightly basis throughout
the year. These are normally open to anyone who wishes to attend. They form an important part
of the Department’s research activities and ensure that the Department is a hive of intellectual
activity throughout the academic year. Seminar Programmes, produced at the beginning of each
term, are available from the departmental office and on the website (www.hps.cam.ac.uk/
seminars). Permission must be sought from the Head of Department to set up a new reading
group or seminar.

Computing facilities
Part III students are welcome to use the Basement IT Suite (BITS), which is next to Seminar
Room 2, and the computers in the Coffee Room. Students may also use the Phoenix Room
Public Workstation Facility (provided by the University Computing Service), which is at the
back of the Department.

Lapwing, the University’s wireless network service, is available in the Whipple Library, the
Coffee Room and the Phoenix Room.

Email
The Department conducts an increasing amount of its correspondence by electronic mail, so
make sure you check your email regularly as this will be the main way we will contact you. We
put all our students’ email addresses on the HPS Discussion list, which we use for disseminating
information. If you find that you have not been put on the list, please send a message to hps-
admin@lists.cam.ac.uk. A list of the email addresses of everyone in the Department is
available from the office.

5
Noticeboards
The noticeboards that run up the stairwell of the Department are an important information
resource. They contain official notices, such as changes to the lecture timetable and examiners’
reports, as well as details of postgraduate opportunities, and news of lectures and seminars
around the University and the country that may be of interest.

Pigeonholes
Staff pigeonholes are located in the main office; associate and student pigeonholes are located in
the corridor outside the office. You should check your pigeonhole regularly as you will receive
official notices, other messages and post.

Coffee room
Located in the upper echelons of the building, the students’ coffee room is a lively and
interesting place in which to meet other students, and there may be the odd member of staff who
is brave enough to venture there. Facilities include comfortable sofas, computer terminals for
reading emails and surfing the net, a microwave oven, kettle, fridge and dishwasher.

Monitoring Committee (aka Staff-Student Liaison)

The Monitoring Committee is a forum for discussion of matters directly affecting students. The
Department finds that obtaining feedback from students is a valuable way of monitoring the
quality of teaching. Providing consistent, effective feedback to students as to what has been done
as a result of their comments can also be very beneficial. In this department the Committee
normally meets once a term and discusses departmental teaching, notably co-ordination of
supervisions with lectures, and the organisation and taking of action on questionnaires. All staff
and students have an open invitation to attend all or any monitoring committee meetings.

Election and appointment of student representatives

In November each year there is an election of student members of the HPS Board: two
undergraduates and one graduate are elected by the other students in the Department. As well as
sitting on the Board, which meets twice a term, the student representatives sit on the Monitoring
Committee. Other students are welcome to attend the Monitoring Committee.

Student representatives have the following responsibilities:

 attending HPS Board meetings as Junior Members;
 organising questionnaires for Part III, Part II and Part IB students (between the end of the Lent
and the beginning of Easter Term, with the results made available at the next meeting of the
Committee);
 attending the Prospective Part II meeting at 6pm one evening at the end of February;
 helping to organise the Student Garden Party in June.

6
Equal opportunities
The University is committed to providing an environment conducive to learning and free from
discrimination. It is committed to an Equal Opportunities policy for both students and staff,
which means that persons with disabilities are considered on the same terms as any other person.
The University has produced guidelines on harassment and guidelines for persons with
disabilities and these are available from the Departmental Office. If you have any concerns about
these issues you may contact your College Tutor or the Department’s Disability Liaison Officer.

Complaints against supervisors

We very much hope that students will not have problems with their supervisors but if there is a
problem then HPS students should contact, in the first instance, any of the following: the Part III
Manager, the Head of Department, or their college tutor or Director of Studies.

7
Departmental staff
Administrative and Computing Staff Location Tel No
Ms Jenny Fox (Receptionist) Room 2 34500
Ms Tamara Hug (Administrative Officer) Room 4 34540
Ms Agnieszka Lanucha (General Assistant) Room 2 34500
Mr Mark Rogers (Computer Officer) Mond Building 62865
Mr David Thompson (Administrative Assistant) Room 3 34552
Library Staff
Mr Tim Eggington (Librarian) Whipple Library 34547
Ms Dawn Moutrey (Library Assistant) Whipple Library 34547
Museum Staff
Mr Steve Kruse Room A2 31103
Mr Derek Scurll Room A2 31103
Ms Alison Smith Museum Gallery
Ms Claire Wallace Room A2 31103
Teaching Officers
Prof Hasok Chang Room 14 34551
Prof John Forrester (Head of Department) Room 13 34548
Dr Nick Hopwood (Part IB Manager) Room 24 34542
Dr Lauren Kassell (Part II Manager) Room 11 67173
Dr Tim Lewens (Director of Graduate Studies, Michaelmas) Room 29 62867
Dr Eleanor Robson (MPhil & Part III Manager) Room 6 34555
Prof Simon Schaffer (Director of Graduate Studies, Lent & Easter) Room 15 34543
Prof Jim Secord (Acting Head of Department, Lent & Easter) Room 22 34544
Prof Liba Taub (Director and Curator of the Whipple Museum) Room A1 34545
Research Fellows, Teaching Associates and Affiliated Staff
Dr Salim Al-Gailani Room L3 31104
Dr Alexi Baker Room 11 30570
Dr Marie-Françoise Besnier Room 7 62868
Dr Elma Brenner Room L2 67174
Dr Kevin Brosnan Room L5 31105
Dr Jacqueline Cahif Room L3 31104
Dr Andrew Cunningham Room 5 34553
Dr Graham Cunningham Room 7 62868
Dr Marina Frasca-Spada Room 25 30466
Dr Vanessa Heggie Room 15 60893
Prof Nick Jardine Room 20 34546
Dr Stephen John Room 27 30465
Dr Natalie Kaoukji Room L2 67174
Dr Francis Neary Room L3 31104
Dr Jennifer Rampling Room L4 67175
Dr Nicky Reeves Room 11 30570
Dr Greta Van Buylaere Room 7 62868

The research interests of the Department’s teaching officers and associates are listed in the
booklet Dissertation and Essay Supervisors.

8
The course
Introducing the Part III
Greetings from last year’s Part IIIs, the very first batch to take this brand new option!
The following is a brief and very subjective introduction to the course, written from the
student’s point of view.

The people
Some of you will be continuing from HPS Part II. Your advantage lies in familiarity with the
department, a rich wide view of HPS and the fact you have already written an HPS dissertation.
The rest of you will be coming from other tripos (in our year we’ve had natscis, medics and
historians). Your advantage lies in a deeper understanding of the field of your previous tripos,
which can often lead to original essays and dissertations. My best advice for you is to help each
other. If you come from the Part II, give advice about supervisors, the department, writing HPS
etc. If you come from another tripos, offer your technical expertise – you and others will find it
useful once research starts taking unexpected turns.

You will also be studying alongside the MPhils, who follow a course very similar to yours. Most
of them come from other universities (and other countries), so do share with them all the inside
information you have gathered about Cambridge in the three years you’ve been here. In return,
you will get to know some very exciting people, who are familiar with other universities and
their little oddities, and who are usually very passionate about their research.

Structure of the course

The Part III is very much research-oriented. It consists of a 5,000-word critical literature review,
two set essays, a 5,000-word research paper and a 15,000-word dissertation. The dissertation
makes up half the total mark for the year. The critical literature review can either cover a single
topic in a wide literature, or engage closely with a single piece of literature – get advice from
your supervisor about the right scope. The set essays are chosen out of a list of eight optional
questions, and you get a week to write them. They are based on the topics of the Part III-MPhil
seminar (more on this later) and are supervised in advance – in the week of the take-home exam
you are on your own. Make sure to get advice from your supervisors about the right scope and
strategy for answering those. The research paper and the dissertation are exactly the same as the
third essay and dissertation of the MPhil. By this point the MPhils have already done two essays,
so ask them for advice about the process. Also, the research paper is a great opportunity to chase
up a niche topic that has been beckoning you for some time.

The spacing of the submission dates for the essays and the dissertation makes it easy to focus
entirely on one project at a time. However, it is preferable to keep your mind on the next project,
and even begin preliminary work on it, especially for the dissertation. It is strongly advisable to
start the year with an idea (however vague) for your critical literature review, which you will
begin work on almost immediately, with little time to hunt around for a topic. In terms of essay

9
topics, a good rule to always remember is: the smaller and more specific, the better. The essays
provide an opportunity to work on interesting and unfamiliar topics, which can be a lot of fun.
But be aware that the first essay can be of particular significance for those intending to apply for
a PhD (and PhD funding). This is the only piece of coursework already marked when
applications are made in February. For some of you, applying for a PhD by December, even that
won’t be available, so it is good to chat with your supervisor or someone else in the department
about your PhD proposal. Additionally, the research paper deadline is typically quite tight –
finding a topic, and starting work on it early, can be very useful.

It is essential to start thinking about dissertation topics, and to discuss these with potential
supervisors, early in the year. Such advance planning helps a great deal; it is really easy to
underestimate the amount of time and energy the dissertation requires (trust us on this!). A final
word on time management: be prepared to work over the holidays. The course is very short, and
nobody can afford to go home and forget about work for the entire vacation (though it is
important to make sure you take some time off). We would add that completing each piece of
work, and especially the dissertation, is extremely rewarding. It is worth remembering that you
can very quickly become expert in your field, and may even end up knowing more about it than
your supervisor!

Supervisions and seminars

As in previous years, and much more so this year, everything revolves around supervisions. For
the critical literature review, the research paper and the dissertation you will have a supervisor
who is ideally an expert on your chosen topic and who will guide you in the construction of your
essay. Generally, meetings with supervisors (‘supervisions’) involve submitting a piece of work,
however preliminary, and discussing it and any ideas/problems you may have. It is up to you to
decide how often you meet with your supervisor; it is sometimes tempting to avoid supervisions
if you feel you have not done enough work. However, these meetings can be an extremely useful
way of solving a problem or getting the ball rolling. It is very important to make good use of
your supervisor. As an expert in your research area, s/he is a wealth of information that can be
difficult to come by otherwise. Do not be afraid to ask questions or to get things wrong – that is
how you learn! The supervisor’s role is not to judge you, but to help you. This is particularly
important to remember if you do not have a background in HPS. The Part III manager should be
able to help you if you have any trouble finding a supervisor or if you’re having problems with
your current supervisor, so get in touch if there’s a problem (and do it early to make sure there is
enough time to resolve the issue).

Part III students are also required to attend at least three seminars: the weekly Part III-MPhil
seminar (which is just for you and the MPhils), the departmental seminar, and one (or more) in a
specialist area of your choice. The Part III-MPhil seminar is generally the only seminar that has a
required reading list. The topics of the Part III-MPhil seminar form the basis of your set essays,
and you will get supervisions on these topics in preparation of the set essays, which are a week
long take-home exam. Sometimes it is tempting to view the advanced seminar as irrelevant to
your own research. The weekly meetings and readings are designed to address issues in both
history and philosophy, and it is very easy to categorise yourself as either an ‘historian’ or a

10
‘philosopher.’ However, it is worth remembering that the more effort you put in to doing the
readings and talking in seminars, the more worthwhile they will be. It is also worth thinking in
advance which are the topics you would like to cover in the set essays, and do a bit of extra work
on them prior to the seminar. The various other seminars and workshops are extremely important
in helping you to develop a knowledge of HPS as a whole, as well as to pursue your own
interests by attending specialist talks given by respected academics.

There are also a great number of seminars that go on in other departments, and relevant ones are
generally well-advertised on the HPS Discussion list. It’s also worth keeping an eye on
talks.cam.ac.uk for talks going on in the University. As a member of the University you can
attend any undergraduate lecture course. The HPS Department offers numerous lecture courses,
and you may also find relevant lectures in other departments. If someone is offering a course
related to your research, attend their lectures, and don’t feel shy about approaching him or her as
a potential supervisor. Undergraduate lectures, in whatever tripos, are often the best general
introduction to a research area. As a Part III student, lectures are not compulsory, but are
definitely worth attending. The bonus is that you do not have to do additional work – you can
just listen and take notes for your own benefit! A word of warning though: don’t devote all your
time to attending lectures and forget to work on your essays!

Best of all, the Department not only houses the world’s foremost scholars (and scholars-in-the-
making) of HPS, they are also fantastically open and friendly people. Don’t hesitate to share
your work with members of the Department (even if they aren’t your official ‘supervisor’ for a
project), PhD students, and your fellow Part IIIs and MPhils. Most are delighted to help, and this
sort of one-on-one feedback can be invaluable. To really make the most of the expertise around
the department, we particularly recommend aiming to have a draft of each piece of work ready at
least a week before the deadline so that you can give people something to comment on.

Socialising
The HPS Department is small and notoriously friendly. There is a coffee/tea room for you to
lounge in, check your email, chat and share your woes with other students and the occasional
departmental staff member. One of the most important factors in having an enjoyable Part III
year is to get to know your fellow Part IIIs and MPhils, discuss your work and share your
experiences and concerns. Whilst it is tempting to restrict your social life to college activities or
your friends from previous years, socialising after the weekly Part III-MPhil seminars and on
other regular occasions is a great way to ensure a rewarding experience. In addition, the
Department’s staff and students always go to a local pub (The Eagle or the Bath House)
following the weekly departmental seminars, and afterwards move on to a restaurant for dinner.
This is a great chance to meet speakers, discuss research ideas, meet people, and just have fun. It
can seem a bit intimidating socialising with your lecturers and supervisors, but it is a good way
to feel at home in HPS.

The Department is a great place to make friends and to do research. Plan ahead, be organised,
involve yourself in the Department, and you can’t go wrong. If you do have any problems or
concerns, talk to your supervisor, the Part III Manager, or your DoS. If you have any

11
suggestions for improvement of the course, make use of your student reps. The Department does
actually listen to student recommendations, and with such a fresh course you have a chance to
make a big difference. Finally, have a great year!

Knowing the classics of HPS

The MPhils have been handing down the following list of recommended readings from year to
year, accumulating more and more titles as time went by. These have been added to by
recommendations from the departmental staff. The list that follows should by no means be taken
as complete or authoritative – it is simply based on a canvass of students and staff in the recent
past.

The list is split between ‘History of Science & Sociology of Scientific Knowledge’ and
‘Philosophy of Science’, though in many cases the distinction is an arbitrary one. The order is by
alphabet, not importance. We hope this will be helpful. We will continue to refine it in the
future, so suggestions are welcome.

Not quite non-fictional books about the sciences

George Eliot, Middlemarch (1874)
Aldous Huxley, Brave New World (1932)
A.A. Milne, Winnie the Pooh (1926)
W.C. Sellar and R.J. Yeatman, 1066 And All That (1930)
Mary Shelley, Frankenstein (1818)
H.G. Wells, The Time Machine (1895)

History of Science & Sociology of Scientific Knowledge

Svetlana Alpers, The Art of Describing: Dutch Art in the Seventeenth Century (London, 1983)
Lisa Appignanesi and John Forrester, Freud’s Women [1992], London: Orion, 2005
Walter Benjamin, The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction [1936], transl. J.A.
Underwood (Penguin, 2008)
Claude Bernard, An Introduction to the Study of Experimental Medicine [1865], transl. Henry Copley
Greene (New York: Dover, 1957).
Mario Biagioli, Galileo, Courtier (Chicago, 1993)
Mario Biagioli (ed.), The Science Studies Reader (Routledge, 1999)
Stuart Clark, Thinking with Demons: The Idea of Witchcraft in Early Modern Europe (Oxford, 1997)
Harry Collins, Changing Order (Chicago, 1992)
H. M. Collins, ‘The Seven Sexes: A Study in the Sociology of a Phenomenon, or The Replication of
Experiments in Physics’, Sociology 9 (1975), 205-224
Harry Collins and Trevor Pinch, The Golem: What Everyone Should Know About Science (Cambridge,
1993)
Cunningham, ‘Getting the Game Right: Some Plain Words on the Identity and Invention of Science’
Studies in the Hist & Phil Science, 1988, 365-89
Lorraine Daston and Peter Galison, ‘The Image of Objectivity’ Representations, 40, 1992, 81-128 [See
also the book of the classic article, Objectivity, Brooklyn: Zone, 2007]
Jacques Derrida, ‘Freud and the scene of writing’ Yale French Studies 48 (1972) pp. 74-117

12
Mary Douglas, Purity and Danger [1966], (Routledge, 2002)
Richard Drayton, Nature’s Government (Yale, 2000)
Barbara Duden, The Woman Beneath the Skin: A Doctor’s Patients in Eighteenth-Century Germany,
trans. Thomas Dunlap (Harvard, 1991)
David Edgerton, The Shock of the Old: Technology and Global History since 1900 (Profile, 2006)
Elizabeth Eisenstein, The Printing Press as an Agent of Change (Cambridge, 1979)
Steven Epstein, Impure Science: AIDS, Activism, and the Politics of Knowledge (Berkeley: Univ. of
California Press, 1998).
E. E. Evans-Pritchard, Witchcraft, Oracles, and Magic among the Azande (Oxford, 1937)
Patricia Fara, Newton: The Making of Genius (Picador, 2003)
Ludwik Fleck, Genesis and Development of a Scientific Fact, ed. Thaddeus J. Trenn & Robert K. Merton,
transl. Fred Bradley and Thaddeus J. Trenn (Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press, 1979).
Paul Forman, ‘Weimar culture, causality, and quantum theory: adaptation by German physicists and
mathematicians to a hostile environment.’ Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences, 3 (1971), 1-
115 (a briefer version is ‘The Reception of an Acausal Quantum Mechanics in Germany and Britain’,
in Seymour Mauskopf (ed.), The Reception of Unconventional Science (1978))
John Forrester, ‘If p then what? Thinking in Cases’, History of the Human Sciences, 9, No. 3, 1-25 (1996)
Michel Foucault, The Birth of the Clinic: An Archaeology of Medical Perception (London: Tavistock,
1973).
Michel Foucault, The Order of Things [1966], (Routledge, 2002)
Michel Foucault, Discipline and Punish [1975], (London: Allen Lane, 1977)
Michel Foucault, The History of Sexuality, Vol. I: An Introduction (New York: Pantheon, 1978)
Paul Rabinow, The Foucault Reader (Penguin, 1991)
Geertz, C. ‘Thick Description: Toward an Interpretative Theory of Culture’ In The Interpretation of
Culture, 1975, 3-31
Geertz, C. ‘Deep play. Notes on the Balinese cock-fight’ In The Interpretation of cultures. London:
Hutchinson, 1975
Geertz, Clifford, ‘I-Witnessing: Malinowski’s Children’ in: Geertz, Works and Lives. The Anthropologist
as Author, Cambridge: Polity, 1988, pp. 73-101
Ginzburg, Carlo ‘Morelli, Freud and Sherlock Holmes: Clues and Scientific Method? in: Umberto Eco
and Thomas A. Sebeok, (eds.) The Sign of Three. Dupin, Holmes, Pierce, Indiana U.P., 1983, pp. 81-
118. An original version (‘Morelli, Freud and Sherlock Holmes: Clues and Scientific Method’ Hist
Workshop J 9 (1980): 5-36) is available electronically on Oxford Journal Archive
(http://hwj.oxfordjournals.org/archive/1980.dtl)
Jan Golinski, Making Natural Knowledge (Cambridge, 1998)
Anthony Grafton and Lisa Jardine, ‘“Studied for Action”: How Gabriel Harvey Read his Livy’, Past and
Present, 129 (1990), 3-51
Ian Hacking, The Social Construction of What? (Harvard, 1999)
Ian Hacking, The Emergence of Probability (Cambridge, 1975)
Ian Hacking, ‘Making and molding of child abuse’ Critical Inquiry 17(2), 1991, pp. 253-288
O. Hannaway, ‘Laboratory Design and the Aim of Science: Andreas Libavius versus Tycho Brahe’, Isis,
77, (1986), 585-610
Donna Haraway, ‘Teddy bear patriarchy: taxidermy in the Garden of Eden, New York City, 1908-1936’,
Social Text 11 (1984), 20-64

13
Donna Haraway, Primate Visions (Routledge, 1989)
Steven J. Harris, ‘Long Distance Corporations, Big Sciences, and the Geography of Knowledge’
Configurations 6 (1998): 269
Boris Hessen, ‘The social and economic roots of Newton’s Principia’, in Science at the crossroads (1931)
Ken Hollings, Welcome to Mars: Fantasies of Science in the American Century, 1947–1959 (Strange
Attractor, 2008)
Nicholas Jardine, Scenes of Inquiry (Oxford, 2000)
Nicholas Jardine, Jim Secord and Emma Spary, Cultures of Natural History (Cambridge, 1996)
N.D. Jewson, ‘Medical Knowledge and the Patronage System in Eighteenth-Century England’, Sociology
8 (1974), 369-85
Adrian Johns. ‘Science and the Book’, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 29, 1998, 167-194
Adrian Johns, The Nature of the Book (Chicago, 1998)
Evelyn Fox Keller and Helen Longino, Feminism and Science (Oxford, 1996)
Alexandre Koyré, From the Closed World to the Infinite Universe (Johns Hopkins, 1957)
Alexandre Koyré, ‘Galileo and Plato’, Journal of the History of Ideas 4 (1943), 400-28
T.S. Kuhn, ‘The function of measurement in modern physical science’, Isis 52 (1961), 161-93
T.S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions [1962], 2nd ed. Chicago, 1970 with ‘Postscript’
T.S. Kuhn, The Essential Tension: Selected Studies in Scientific Tradition and Change (Chicago, 1977)
Bruno Latour, ‘Give me a laboratory and I will raise the world’, in Karin Knorr-Cetina and Michael
Mulkay (eds.), Science Observed (1983), 141-70
Bruno Latour & Steve Woolgar, Laboratory Life: The social construction of scientific facts [1979]
(Princeton, 1986)
Bruno Latour, Science In Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers Through Society (Open
University, 1987)
Bruno Latour, ‘Drawing Things Together’, in Michael Lynch and Steve Woolgar (eds), Representation in
Scientific Practice (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1990), pp. 19-68.
Bernard Lightman, Victorian Science in Context (Chicago, 1997)
Geoffrey Lloyd, Magic, Reason and Experience: Studies in the Origin and Development of Greek Science
(Cambridge, 1979)
Geoffrey Lloyd, The Ambitions of Curiosity (Cambridge, 2002)
Michael Macdonald, Mystical Bedlam: Madness, Anxiety and Healing in Seventeenth-century England
(Cambridge, 1981)
Donald MacKenzie, ‘From Kwajalein to armageddon? Testing and the social construction of missile
accuracy’ in: Trevor Pinch, David Gooding and Simon Schaffer (eds), The Uses of Experiment:
Studies in the Natural Sciences (Cambridge, 1989)
Donald MacKenzie and Judy Wajcman (eds), The Social Shaping of Technology, 2nd edn (Buckingham:
Open University Press, 1999). Includes Nelly Oudshoorn ‘The decline of the one-size-fits-all
paradigm’, pp. 325-40.
Herbert Mehrtens, ‘Irresponsible Purity: The Political and Moral Structure of Mathematical Sciences in
the National Socialist State’, in Monika Renneberg and Mark Walker (eds), Science, Technology and
National Socialism (Cambridge: CUP, 1994), 324-38.
Carolyn Merchant, The Death of Nature (Harper & Row, 1980)
Joseph Needham, ‘Mathematics and Science in China and the West’, Science and Society 20 (1956), 320-
343

14
Joseph Needham, ‘Science and society in East and West’ (1964) in: The grand titration. Science and
society in East and West, London: Allen & Unwin, 1969
Nelly Oudshoorn, Beyond the Natural Body: An Archaeology of Sex Hormones (London: Routledge,
1994)
Katharine Park and Lorraine Daston, ‘‘Unnatural Conceptions: The Study of Monsters in Sixteenth can
Seventeenth-Century France and England’, Past and Present, 92 (1981), 20-54 [See also the book of
the classic article, Wonders and the Order of Nature, 1150-1750, Brooklyn: Zone 1998]
John V. Pickstone, ‘Ways of Knowing: Towards a Historical Sociology of Science, Technology and
Medicine’, BJHS 26 (1993), 433-58.
Mary Poovey, A History of the Modern Fact (Chicago, 1998)
Roy Porter, Madness: A Brief History (Oxford, 2002)
Roy Porter, Flesh in the Age of Reason (Allen Lane, 2003)
Derek de Solla Price, Little Science, Big Science, (Columbia, 1963)
Ruth Richardson, Death, Dissection and the Destitute (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1988).
Philip Rieff, Freud. The mind of the moralist [1959], Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979
Richard Rhodes, The Making of the Atomic Bomb (Simon & Schuster, 1986)
Lyndal Roper, Oedipus and the Devil: Witchcraft, Sexuality, and Religion in Early Modern Europe
(Routledge, 1994)
George Sarton, A Guide to the History of Science (Ronald Press, 1952)
Simon Schaffer, ‘Astronomers Mark Time’, Science in Context 2, (1988), 115-145
Londa Schiebinger, The Mind Has No Sex? (Harvard, 1989)
James A. Secord (special ed.) British Journal for the History of Science 26(4) (1993) Special Issue: ‘The
Big Picture’
James A. Secord, Victorian Sensation: The Extraordinary Publication, Reception and Secret Authorship
of Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation (Chicago, 2000)
Steven Shapin and Simon Schaffer, Leviathan and the Air Pump (Princeton, 1985)
Steven Shapin, ‘The Politics of Observation: Cerebral Anatomy and Social Interests in the Edinburgh
Phrenology Disputes’, in Roy Wallis (ed.), On the Margins of Science (Keele, 1979), 139-178
Steven Shapin, The Scientific Revolution (Chicago, 1996)
Steven Shapin, ‘Pump and circumstance: Robert Boyle’s literary technology’, Social Studies of Science
14 (1984), 481–520
Steven Shapin, A Social History of Truth (Chicago, 1994)
Barbara Shapiro, A Culture of Fact (Cornell, 2000)
Quentin Skinner, ‘Meaning and Understanding in the History of Ideas’, History and Theory 8 (1969), 3-
53
Pamela Smith, The Business of Alchemy (Princeton, 1994)
C.P. Snow, The Two Cultures [1959] (Cambridge, 1993)
S.L. Star and J.R. Griesemer, ‘Institutional Ecology, ‘Translations’ and Boundary Objects: Amateurs and
Professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39’, Social Studies of Science 19
(1989), 387-420
Max Weber, ‘Science as a vocation’ in From Max Weber. Essays in sociology, ed. H.H. Gerth and
C.Wright Mills, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1948, pp. 128-56
R.S. Westman, ‘The Astronomer’s Role in the Sixteenth Century: A Preliminary Study’, History of
Science 18 (1980), 105-147

15
Max Weber, ‘Science as a Vocation’ [1918], transl. Michael John, in Peter Lassman and Irving Velody
(eds), Max Weber’s ‘Science as a Vocation’ (London, 1989), pp. 3-31.

Philosophy of Science
Paul Benacerraf, ‘Mathematical Truth’, The Journal of Philosophy 70 (1973), 661-679
David Bloor, Knowledge and Social Imagery (Routledge, 1976)
Richard Boyd, Philip Gasper and J.D. Trout (eds.), The Philosophy of Science (MIT, 1991), esp. Richard
Boyd, ‘On the current status of scientific realism’ (ch. 11)
Alan Chalmers, What is This Thing Called Science? (University of Queensland, 1976)
Tim Crane and D.H. Mellor, ‘There is no question of physicalism’, Mind 99:394 (1990), 185–206
Martin Curd and J.A Cover (eds.), Philosophy of Science: The Central Issues (Norton, 1998)
Donald Davidson, ‘On the Very Idea of a Conceptual Scheme’, Proceedings and addresses of the
American Philosophical Association 47 (1973-74): 5-20
Duhem, Pierre (1906). The Aim and Structure of Physical Theory (Translated in Princeton Science Series,
1991; esp. chapter VI, ‘Physical theory and experiment’)
John Dupré, ‘Are Whales Fish?’ in D.L. Medin and S.Atran (eds), Folkbiology (MIT, 1999), pp. 461-476
John Dupré ‘Natural Kinds and Biological Taxa’, Philosophical Review 90 (1981), 66–91
Paul Feyerabend, Against Method (Verso, 1975)
Arthur Fine, ‘The Natural Ontological Attitude’ (1984) in D. Papineau (ed.), Philosophy of Science
(Oxford, 1996)
Bas van Fraassen, The Scientific Image (Oxford, 1980)
Mary Hesse, Models and Analogies in Science (Sheed & Ward, 1963)
Ian Hacking, ‘Language, Truth and Reason’, in M. Hollis and S. Lukes (eds.), Rationality and Relativism
(Oxford, 1982)
Ian Hacking, Representing and Intervening (Cambridge, 1983)
H.L.A. Hart and Tony Honoré, Causation in the Law (2nd edition, Oxford, 1985)
David Hume, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding
David Hume, ‘Of personal identity’ A Treatise of Human Nature (1739) Book I: Of the understanding,
Part IV: Of the sceptical and other systems of philosophy, Section VI.
Saul Kripke, Wittgenstein on Rules and Private Language (Blackwell, 1982)
Thomas Kuhn, Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Chicago, 1962)
Martin Kusch, Knowledge by Agreement (Oxford, 2002)
Imre Lakatos, Proofs and Refutations. The Logic of Mathematical Discovery (Cambridge, 1977)
Imre Lakatos and Alan Musgrave (eds.), Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge (Cambridge, 1970)
David Lewis, ‘Causation’ and ‘Counterfactual dependence and time’s arrow’, in Philosophical Papers
Volume II (Oxford, 1987)
Peter Lipton, Inference to the Best Explanation [1992] (Routledge, 2004)
Peter Lipton, ‘The Epistemology of Testimony’, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 29 (1998),
1-31
W.H. Newton-Smith, The Rationality of Science (Routledge, 1981)
Robert Nozick, Philosophical Explanations (Harvard, 1981), Part 3 ‘Epistemology’
Karl Popper, The Logic of Scientific Discovery (Hutchinson, 1959)
Karl Popper, Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge (Routledge, 1963)

16
Karl Popper, ‘Science: Conjectures and Refutations’ [1957], re-printed in Timothy McGrew, Marc
Alspector-Kelly, Fritz Allhoff (eds.), Philosophy of Science: An Historical Anthology (Wiley, 2009)
Stathis Psillos, Scientific Realism: How Science Tracks Truth (Routledge, 1999)
Hilary Putnam, ‘Realism and Reason’, Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical
Association 50 (1977), 483-498
W.V. Quine, ‘Main trends in recent philosophy: two dogmas of empiricism’, Philosophical Review 60
(1951), 20–43
Hans Reichenbach, ‘The philosophical significance of the theory of relativity’ and ‘The logical
foundations of quantum mechanics’ in S. Sarkar (ed.) Logical Empiricism and the Special Sciences
(Basic Works of Logical Empiricism) (Routledge, 1996)
Bertrand Russell, The Problems of Philosophy [1912], (Oxford, 1997)
Jonathan Schaffer, ‘Contrastive causation’, Philosophical Review 114 (2005), 327–358
John Searle, ‘Minds, Brains and Programs’, Behavioral and Brain Sciences 3(3) (1980), 417–457
Timothy Williamson, The Philosophy of Philosophy (Blackwell, 2007), especially Chapter 5 ‘Knowledge
of Metaphysical Modality’
Ludwig Wittgenstein, Philosophical Investigations [1953] (Macmillan, 1968)

17
Programme specification
The NST Part III in History and Philosophy of Science gives students with relevant experience at
Part II the opportunity to carry out focussed research in History and Philosophy of Science. It
provides students with the opportunity to acquire or develop skills and expertise relevant to their
research interests, and enables them to develop a critical and well informed understanding of the
roles of the sciences in society. The course is intended for students planning a career in the
subject and provides the requisite research skills to enable them to prepare a well planned and
focussed PhD proposal.

HPS Part III has a core in the form of a Part III-MPhil seminar which is examinable by means of
two Set Essays set in the first two weeks of Lent Term. In the second part of Lent term students
contribute to the weekly seminar by presenting their own work and discussing the issues that
arise from it and at the end of Lent they submit a Research Paper. In Michaelmas term students
work on a Critical Literature Review, which may form the basis of the Dissertation which
they submit at the end of the Easter term.

Entry to Part III depends on a class II.i standard in NST Part II History and Philosophy of
Science. Students who have not take NST Part II HPS will be treated on a case-by-case basis and
should contact the Department for further information.

The educational aims of the programme are:

 to give students with relevant experience at Part II the opportunity to carry out focussed
research in History and Philosophy of Science under close supervision;
 to give students the opportunity to acquire or develop skills and expertise relevant to their
research interests;
 to enable students to acquire a critical and well informed understanding of the roles of the
sciences in society; and
 to help students intending to go on to doctoral work to acquire the requisite research
skills and to enable them to prepare a well planned and focussed PhD proposal
by
 giving students the experience and guidance necessary for them to be able to formulate a
realistic research proposal, and to prepare written work based on such a proposal to a
strict timetable;
 introducing students to relevant research resources, including the department’s Research
Methods handbook which is available on the HPS website;
 giving students the experience of attending and contributing to a weekly seminar, and in
particular of presenting their own work and discussing the issues that arise from it with
an audience of their peers and senior members of the department;
 providing lectures, supervisions and research seminars in a range of technical/specialist
subjects central to research in the different areas of History and Philosophy of Science
and Medicine, and to give students the opportunity to base some of their essays or
dissertation on such teaching.

18
The primary focus of each element of submitted work must be on one of the subject areas,
around which teaching in the Department of History and Philosophy of Science is organised:

1. Classical traditions in the sciences

2. Natural philosophies: Renaissance to Enlightenment
3. Science, industry and empire
4. Metaphysics, epistemology, and the sciences
5. Science in society
6. History and philosophy of mind
7. Medicine from antiquity to the Enlightenment
8. Modern medicine and biomedical sciences
9. Images of the sciences
10. Science and technology since the First World War

Part III teaching

The Part III is administered by a senior member of staff, the Part III manager, who meets all new
Part III students as a group in early October, then sees each of the students individually to
discuss their proposed coursework and dissertation topics. The manager is responsible for
helping you find appropriate supervisors for each of these topics; the supervisors are then
responsible for helping you to do the research and writing needed for the coursework and the
dissertation. The Part III manager will see you at regular intervals during the year to discuss
progress and offer help and advice.

Your supervisors will see you on a very regular basis, but it is up to you to schedule those
meetings according to your needs. As a rule of thumb, you can expect the following
supervisions:
 2 for the Critical Literature Review;
 4 for the topics in the Part III seminar, in groups of 2–3, but none for the two Set Essays
themselves;
 3 for the Research Paper and
 4 for the Dissertation.

Supervisions are designed to provide you with the opportunity to set your own agenda for your
studies. The supervisor’s job is to support your research, not to grade your work; your submitted
work and dissertation will be examined by others. Your supervisor for any one piece of work is
never allowed to examine it too.

If problems arise with research or supervision, you should talk to your supervisors, the Part III
Manager or the Head of Department. The Director of Graduate Studies will be happy to advise
Part III students wishing to go on to PhD research, and there is a Graduate Training Workshop
about this too at the end of Michaelmas Term (see page 33).

You are expected to be resident in Cambridge throughout the duration of the nine-month Part III
course. The word ‘vacation’ has a technical meaning in Cambridge. It does not mean ‘holiday’

19
but ‘research time’ and you will be expected to work for most of those periods (though of course
you should take a break for a week or so over Christmas and Easter).

Subject areas
Your Critical Literature Review, Research Paper, and Dissertation must each be on a subject
approved by the HPS Board. They should each fall within the following specified subject areas,
but with permission from the HPS Board, one piece of coursework may be offered in an area not
listed below but related to History and Philosophy of Science. You are encouraged to explore a
range of different topics, balancing them so that they are both relevant to your interests and also
span the subject of History and Philosophy of Science.

1. Classical Traditions in the Sciences

Ancient, medieval, and early modern history of natural philosophy, natural history, mathematics, and
technology. Scientific instrumentation and technical change. Disciplines, institutions, cultural roles,
philosophies, and methods of inquiry in the ancient, medieval, and early modern periods.

2. Natural Philosophies: Renaissance to Enlightenment

Development of natural philosophy, chemistry, natural history and the mathematical sciences in the
period from the Renaissance to the Enlightenment. Histories of the Earth, geography and exploration,
enquiries into the animal and vegetable kingdoms. Instrumentation, methods of inquiry and technical
change. Disciplines, institutions and cultural roles.

3. Science, Industry and Empire

Disciplinary, institutional and cultural developments of the sciences between the French Revolution and
the aftermath of the First World War. Mathematics, physical sciences, life sciences, earth sciences and
human sciences. technology, scientific instrumentation and methods of inquiry.

4. Metaphysics, Epistemology and the Sciences

The ways in which scientific inquiry proceeds and what it can be taken to achieve; causation, laws, truth,
explanation, understanding, observation, experiment, inference, and conceptual change; conceptual
problems in the physical and biological sciences; general issues in epistemology and metaphysics.

5. Science in Society
Social variables of scientific knowledge, mathematics, medicine and technology (including social
variables of their production and dissemination). The co-production of science, technology, medicine and
society. Gender and race in relation to science, technology and medicine. Science, technology, medicine
and development. Science, technology, medicine and the media. History and philosophy of science and
technology studies.

6. History and Philosophy of Mind

Philosophy and history of psychology and the cognitive sciences. Historical and philosophical aspects of
psychoanalytic and psychiatric theory and practice. Philosophical psychology and its history. The history
and philosophy of the neurosciences and artificial intelligence.

7. Medicine from Antiquity to the Enlightenment

Medical knowledge and practices in the ancient, medieval and early modern periods. Understandings of
the body and of disease; the status of medical knowledge; patient-practitioner relationships; the medical
marketplace; surgery and herbals; medicine and religion; medicine and law. Medical places, including
households, universities, courts and hospitals. Medical books, pictures and other objects.

8. Modern Medicine and Biomedical Sciences

Medicine and biomedical sciences between the late eighteenth century and the present day, especially the
emergence of the medical institutions, professionals and practices of industrial societies. Sciences of the

20
body and the mind, and of health and disease; medical technologies; doctor-patient relationships; history
of medical ethics and bioethics; relationships of Western medicine to other medical systems.

9. Images of the Sciences

Philosophies and methodologies of the sciences; rationalism and empiricism; Kant, Kantianism and the
sciences; positivism and neo-positivism; naturalism and pragmatism. Histories of the sciences and their
uses; continuity and discontinuity in the sciences; theories of creativity; conceptions of objectivity.
Definitions of science; the Two Cultures; the Science Wars. Scientific utopias and dystopias; the sciences
and their practitioners in art and literature; rhetoric and aesthetics in the sciences.

10. Science and Technology from the First World War

Disciplinary, institutional, cultural and political changes in the sciences from the First World War to the
present. Physical sciences, life sciences, information sciences, technology and engineering. Science and
politics, science policy, the organization of science and its funding, the publics for science. Bioethics.
Risk. Critical attitudes to science and technology.

Seminars and lectures

Part III students are expected to attend the Part III-MPhil seminar, which meets on Wednesdays
during term at 3pm. During the first term, and for the first two weeks of the second term, these
seminars are led by different senior members of the Department, and focus on selected readings
in history and philosophy of science and medicine. During the second half of the second term,
and during the third term, the seminars provide opportunities for Part III and MPhil students to
present their own work.

In addition, Part III students should attend the Research Topics & Resources seminars held at
4pm on the first two Thursdays of Michaelmas Term. They should also go to the Departmental
Seminar and regularly attend at least one of the other seminars and reading groups arranged by
the Department.

A wide range of Graduate Training Workshops is offered throughout the year (see page 33). You
are strongly advised to attend all of those particularly targeted at MPhil students, but you are
very welcome to come to others that are of interest to you too.

The Department offers a full programme of undergraduate lectures for Part II in the Natural
Sciences Tripos. Many of these lecture courses are relevant to, and appropriate for, Part III
students. Indeed the nine Part II papers map on to the first nine Part III subject areas very
closely. You are strongly advised to attend relevant Part II lectures. The Part III Manager
and the supervisors will help indicate the lectures and seminars close to your interests. For more
details of these lectures, see the Department’s teaching timetable, available from the
departmental office and on the website.

21
Key dates and deadlines
Michaelmas Term
6 October 2010 Meeting for all new Part III students at 2pm
1 November 2010 Submit title of Critical Literature Review before 12noon
12 November 2010 Last date for requesting changes to CLR
22 November 2010 Submit Critical Literature Review before 12noon
6 December 2010 Submit title of Research Paper before 12noon;
Examiners’ meeting to recommend marks for CLR

Lent Term
7 February 2011 Set Essay titles released at 12noon
14 February 2011 Set Essays due before 12 noon
15 February 2011 Deadline for applications to continue as a PhD student
25 February 2011 Submit title of Dissertation before 12 noon:
Last date for requesting changes to Research Paper
14 March 2011 Submit Research Paper before 12noon

Easter Term
21 April 2011 Examiners’ meeting to recommend marks for Set Essays and Research
Paper
13 May 2011 Last date for requesting changes to Dissertation
6 June 2011 Submit Dissertation before 12noon
20 June 2011 Final Examiners’ Meeting; Part III results released
4 July 2011 HPS Degree Committee makes recommendations for admission to PhD

Please note that these are provisional dates intended as a guide. Deadlines for submitting essays
and the dissertation will be distributed to all Part III students and appear on the Department’s
calendar on the website. If you are uncertain as to the correct dates for submitting work, contact
the Part III manager.

22
Part III-MPhil seminars 2010–11
Michaelmas Term
Week 1: Theory Choice (Tim Lewens, Director of Graduate Studies)

 Duhem, Pierre, The aim and structure of physical theory (1914; 2nd ed., Princeton, 1991), Pt
II, Chapter VI: ‘Physical theory and experiment’ (pp. 180–218).
 Lipton, Peter, Inference to the best explanation (2nd ed., Routledge, 2004), Chapter 4:
‘Inference to the best explanation’ (pp. 55–70) and Chapter 9: ‘Loveliness and truth’ (pp.
142–163).
Week 2: Scientific Cultures (Eleanor Robson, MPhil and Part III Manager)

 Geertz, Clifford, ‘Thick description: toward an interpretive theory of culture’, in The

Interpretation of Cultures: Selected Essays (New York, 1973), 3–30.
 Traweek, Sharon, Beamtimes and Lifetimes: the World of High Energy Physicists (Harvard,
1988), chapter 4: ‘Pilgrim’s progress: male tales told during a life of physics’, pp. 75–105.
Week 3: Foucault (John Forrester, Head of Department)

 Foucault, Michel, The Birth of the Clinic: An Archaeology of Medical Perception (London:
Tavistock, 1973), Chapter 8, pp. 124–148.
 Foucault, Michel, Discipline and Punish (London: Allen Lane, 1977), pp. 195–228, Section
on ‘Panopticism’.
 Foucault, Michel, ‘Nietzsche, genealogy, history’, in Paul Rabinow (ed.), The Foucault
Reader. An Introduction to Foucault’s Thought (Penguin, 1986), pp. 76–100.
 Foucault, Michel, ‘About the concept of the “dangerous individual” in nineteenth-century
legal osychiatry’ [1978] in Faubion, James D. (ed.), Michel Foucault. Essential Works 1954–
1984. Vol. 3: Power (London: Penguin, 2001), pp. 176–200.
Week 4: Ethics and Evolution (Kevin Brosnan)

 Kitcher, Philip, ‘Four ways of “biologizing” ethics’, in E. Sober (ed.), Conceptual Issues in
Evolutionary Biology (MIT Press, 2nd ed., 1995), pp. 439–450.
 Ruse, M. and Wilson, E.O. ‘Moral philosophy as applied science’, in E. Sober (ed.),
Conceptual Issues in Evolutionary Biology (MIT Press, 2nd ed., 1995), pp. 421–438.
 Sober, E., From a Biological Point of View, Chapter 5 (Cambridge University Press, 1994).
 Street, S. ‘A Darwinian dilemma for realist theories of value’, Philosophical Studies 127
(2006), pp. 109–166.
Week 5: Race, Sex and Evolution (Jim Secord)

 Charles Darwin, Evolutionary Writings (Oxford, 2008), 231–347; this includes chapters 2, 3,
5, 7, 8, 19–22 of The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex (1st ed, 1871), as well
as reviews. The entire first edition is at http://darwin-
online.org.uk/EditorialIntroductions/Freeman_TheDescentofMan.html
 Richards, E., ‘Will the real Charles Darwin please stand up?’ New Scientist 100 (1983), 884–
7 (photocopies in Whipple).
 Adrian Desmond, ‘Darwin the Abolitionist’, Prospect (Feb. 2009), http://www.prospect-
magazine.co.uk/article_details.php?id=10581

23
 R. Richards, Review of C. Darwin, The Descent of Man, ed. by J. Moore and A. Desmond,
British Journal for the History of Science 39 (2006), 615–617.
Week 6: Scientific Progress (Hasok Chang)

 Popper, K.R. Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge (Harper &
Row, 1965, 2nd ed.), chapter 10: ‘Truth, rationality and the growth of scientific knowledge’,
pp. 215–248.
 Kuhn, T.S. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (University of Chicago Press, 1996, 3rd
ed.) Chapter XIII: ‘Progress through revolutions’, pp. 160–174 (mandatory). Optional, but
strongly recommended: chapter X: ‘Revolutions as changes of world view’, pp. 111–136.
Week 7: Patients and Practitioners (Lauren Kassell)

 Duden, Barbara, The Woman Beneath the Skin: A Doctor’s Patients in Eighteenth-Century
Germany, trans. Thomas Dunlap (Harvard, 1991), ch. 1 (pp. 1–49).
 Macdonald, Michael, Mystical Bedlam: Madness, Anxiety, and Healing in Seventeenth-
Century England (Cambridge, 1981), pp. 13–40.
Week 8: Material Culture and Museums (Liba Taub, Director of the Whipple Museum)

 Warner, D.J. ‘What is a scientific instrument, when did it become one, and why?’, British
Journal for the History of Science 23 (1990), 83–93.
 Söderqvist, Thomas, Adam Bencard and Camilla Mordhorst. ‘Between meaning culture and
presence effects: contemporary biomedical objects as a challenge to museums’, Studies in
History and Philosophy of Science 40 (2009), 431–438.
 Alberti, S.J.M.M., ‘Objects and the museum’, Isis 96 (2005), 559–571

Lent Term
Week 1: Biomedicine (Nick Hopwood)

 Oudshoorn, Nelly, Beyond the Natural Body: An Archeology of Sex Hormones (London:
Routledge, 1994), pp. 42–81 (notes pp. 158–61).
 Epstein, Steven, Impure Science: AIDS, Activism, and the Politics of Knowledge (Berkeley:
University of California Press, 1996), pp. 181–234 (notes pp. 407–17).
Week 2: Scientific Imaging (Simon Schaffer)

 Shapin, Steven, ‘The politics of observation’, in Roy Wallis (ed.), On the margins of science
(KB.WAL 1), 139-78 or in H.M. Collins (ed.), Sociology of scientific knowledge (KB.COL 2)
 Lynch, Michael, ‘Discipline and the material form of images’, Social Studies of Science 15
(1985), 37-66 (online via JSTOR)
 Beaulieu, Anne, ‘Images are not the (only) truth’, Science, Technology and Human Values 27
(2002), 53–86 (online via UK Access Federation)
 Latour, Bruno, ‘Drawing things together’, in M. Lynch and S. Woolgar (eds.), Representation
in Scientific Practice (KB.LYN 2), 19-68 (pdf online)

24
How the Part III is examined
The scheme of examination for the Part III course of study in History and Philosophy of Science
(HPS) consists of four essays and a Dissertation, as follows:

(i) A Critical Literature Review of between 3,000 and 5,000 words, on a topic chosen in
discussion with the supervisor in the first weeks of Michaelmas Term and approved by the HPS
Board. This essay will be a critical exposition and analysis of one or more central works in a
field of HPS (as defined by the ten areas at the end of this document). The topic may be in the
same area in which the dissertation is to be located. The Critical Literature Review will be
submitted on the penultimate Monday of Michaelmas Full Term.

(ii) Two Set Essays, each of not more than 2,500 words, including footnotes but excluding
bibliography, from a list of topics drawn from those covered by the Part III-MPhil seminar. The
list of topics will be issued on the first Monday of February and the Essays will be submitted the
following Monday. Students will be able to choose two titles from a list of eight essay titles.

(iii) A Research Paper of not more than 5,000 words, including footnotes but excluding
bibliography. The title of the Research Paper will be approved by the HPS Board at its meeting
in the second half of Lent Term. In exceptional circumstances, and with permission of the Board,
it may be possible for the Research Paper to be offered in an area which is not amongst the 10
listed at the end of this document but is related to the HPS. The Research Paper will be
submitted on the Monday after the end of Lent Full Term.

(iv) A Dissertation, of not more than 15,000 words, including footnotes but excluding
appendices and bibliography, on a topic approved by the HPS Board. The Dissertation will be
submitted on the Monday of the final week of Easter Full Term.

Senior members and associates of the department normally supervise the work for the Critical
Literature Review, the Research Paper, and the Dissertation. Supervisions are not available for
the Set Essays but are offered for the reading seminar on which the Set Essays are based. Essays
and Dissertation must be submitted in duplicate with numbered pages, securely stapled or bound,
with footnotes and a bibliography. Students are also required to upload their examined work as a
.doc or .rtf file to the HPS MPhil/Part III site on CamTools. Examiners may use this to check
word count or derivative passages.

When candidates submit the Dissertation, they are required to submit a formal declaration to the
effect that it does not exceed 15,000 words including footnotes but excluding bibliography and
any previously approved appendices; they are also asked to declare the exact word length, the
approved title and the name of the supervisor, and that they have read and adhered to the
Department’s Plagiarism Guidelines.

Normally students are not permitted to write their Dissertation in the same general area as the
Research Paper. Yet they might ask the Part III Manager for approval to do this; should this
approval be granted, the Dissertation and Research Paper have to address different questions,

25
and the Dissertation must give evidence of a substantial new research effort. Any use of the
Research Paper, the two Set Essays or the Critical Literature Review in the Dissertation has to be
appropriately referenced, just like any other primary or secondary source, as if the work was
written by a different person. There is no provision for submitting a revised Dissertation.

Changing the title of an essay or the dissertation

While permission to change titles is not automatically granted, it does often happen that students
need to refine their titles from those initially submitted. The following procedure for changing
title must be followed: the title form which was originally submitted should be retrieved from the
Departmental Office and a new title written beneath it, with the supervisor signing to indicate
their approval of the change, and drawing attention to any need for change in examiners. No
changes will be allowed less than a week before submission of the essay or dissertation.

Extension of submission dates for assessed work

All requests for an extension to the submission date for coursework must have a good reason and
must be supported by a College Tutor or Director of Studies, otherwise a zero mark will be
awarded.

The University Council is the only body empowered to give permission for an extension. In
cases where there is a need to make such a request, the approved route is for the College
Tutor/DoS to make a case to the Applications Committee.

Policy on editions, translations, bibliographies, etc.

An essay or dissertation should be self-contained, including or citing all information needed for
an examiner to follow its argument.

The word limit normally includes text and footnotes but not the bibliography. However, in
certain cases permission may be obtained for materials strictly relevant to the argument of the
essay or dissertation to be footnoted or appended for the information of the examiners, with such
materials not contributing to the word count. Materials falling into this category may include not
readily accessible primary source materials, translations, questionnaire responses, statistical
tables, descriptions of objects, analytical bibliographies, etc.

Normally material included in the word count should mainly consist of the candidate’s own
discussion and analysis. Exceptionally, when a critical edition or translation, an analytical
bibliography, or a technical description of objects and their provenances is based on substantial
original scholarship and is central to the argument of an essay or dissertation, permission may be
obtained for its inclusion within the body of the essay or dissertation, hence contributing to the
word count. Normally no more than one third of an essay or dissertation should consist of such
material.

26
Applications for such permissions should be sought, in consultation with the supervisor, from the
Degree Committee at the time at which the title of the essay or dissertation in question is
submitted for approval.

Criteria for marking Part III coursework

Each piece of coursework is read by two senior members or associates of the Department,
neither of whom will have supervised the work being marked. Both will submit independent
reports. The coursework must cover a range of topics and, taken together, must show evidence
of a broad knowledge of history and philosophy of science and medicine. They are not required
to present original research.

The weighting of the different components of the Part III is as follows:

Critical Literature Review 17%

Two Set Essays 16% (8% each)
Research Paper 17%
Dissertation 50%

The following mark scheme is used:

70+ First Class
67-69 High II.i
60-69 II.i
50-59 II.ii
40-49 III
0-39 Fail

At the end of the course, examiners may decide to hold an oral examination. Such an
examination will in any case be necessary if the dissertation is judged to be a marginal failure or
if there is a very marked discrepancy between the two examiners’ independent reports on the
dissertation.

A First Class performance at Part III is normally necessary and often sufficient for continuation
as a PhD student in the Department. Potential supervisors who wish the Department to admit someone
who does not meet this condition will need to make a special case to the HPS Board, along with a
statement from the student.

Prizes
The Peter Lipton Prize, which was endowed in memory of former Head of the Department Peter
Lipton, is awarded each year to the Part III student who has the best overall performance.

Results
Results are posted as soon as possible after the Final Examiners’ Meeting on 20 June 2011.

27
The marking scheme in more detail
Mark 70+ The submitted work may display evidence of extensive research imaginatively and
(First convincingly deployed. A first-class mark may be awarded on more than one set of criteria.
Class) The argument may be sophisticated, incisive or demonstrate flair; there may be a wealth of
relevant information, showing exceptional knowledge and understanding of the issues
involved; the approach may be unorthodox in the best sense, suggesting new and
worthwhile ways of considering material. Many first-class performances will combine
elements of all three.
Critical The work is excellent both in the command of the material and in the
Literature argument and analysis that it brings to bear.
Review:
Two Set An essay judged first-class will always be felt to have engaged closely with
Essays: the question set, and may approach it from an unexpected angle. The work
shows the ability to express complex ideas clearly and concisely.
Research The examiner would regard independence of thought as a clear sign of First
Paper, Class potential.
Dissertation: Work well researched and original: the thesis defended may be original, or
a known thesis may be presented and defended in an original way.
However, originality alone is not enough to guarantee a mark in this class.
Potential for PhD work.
Mark Proficient, with a good coverage of relevant material.
67–69 Work in this class will generally meet the following criteria: the argument may be complex,
(High II.i) a range of relevant information is provided, shows good understanding of the issues
involved; the approach may suggest new and interesting ways of dealing with the material.
Critical Work in this class shows good command of the material and capacity for
Literature analysis and / or synthesis.
Review:
Two Set Discusses material beyond that mentioned in the Part III-MPhil seminars,
Essays: connecting it plausibly to the question set. An essay in this class will
always be judged to have engaged closely with the set question. This may
involve close analysis of specific passages, and/or extended discussion of
the principal arguments, or theses.
Research Work in this class is a good performance in which some of the criteria for
Paper, first class work will clearly be present but not necessarily all. A well-
Dissertation: informed and intelligent performance with some first-class quality may fall
into this category if the focus is blurry. Elements clearly indicating
independence of thought, while work in the lower end of this class does not
display them consistently.

28
Mark Work that shows evidence of a good and broad-based engagement with, and understanding
60–69 of, the relevant material and organised in a clearly-argued, well-illustrated and relevant
(II.i) fashion. Work in this class is solid but on occasion unimaginative. Ambition of work is
clearly visible but not always carried through. The analysis and argument are generally
good.
Critical There are no major deficiencies in the overall structure but some
Literature weaknesses of analysis and argument are present.
Review:
Two Set Work lacking ambition. Competent and accurate in the reproduction of
Essays: received ideas.
Research Work which is reasonably independent. Interesting and provocative ideas
Paper, may not be carried through fully convincingly. The main thesis may be
Dissertation: vague, too general, too unambitious or else over-ambitious. The
Dissertation will usually contain material which displays evidence of good
judgment, and which is regularly, but not consistently, sophisticated in
analysis, displays relevant knowledge, and occasionally demonstrates flair.
A piece of work which is not always clearly written or may be poorly
finished.
Mark Broadly relevant work. Lacking organisation or breadth of reference, often displays lack of
50–59 clarity in writing and / or poor argumentative skills.
(II.ii)
Critical There may be deficiencies in the overall structure, relevant weaknesses of
Literature analysis and argument, obvious gaps in the bibliography.
Review:
Two Set Work reading more like 'prepared material' than an answer to the question.
Essays: A good answer to the wrong question should not be marked higher than
II.ii. An answer which would normally fall into the II.i category may fall
into this class if it is too short, rushed, unfinished, badly organised, or does
not answer the question, even though it may make some good points in
other ways.
Research May show evidence of poor judgement or contain sections which are
Paper, poorly argued.
Dissertation: Although broadly relevant and in parts competent, it often seems to be
derivative rather than independent.
Mark Work that, while showing some knowledge of the material, is yet seriously deficient in
40–49 understanding and breadth of reference. Candidates whose work falls into this class may be
(III) unduly brief, or fail to formulate and / or answer the research question(s). Sloppy and badly
organized argument and presentation, clear evidence of haste and carelessness will be taken
to be evidence of a third class performance.
Mark Work that, while it may show reasonable knowledge of the material, and serious effort,
0–39 reveals deficiencies in understanding, organisation or breadth of reference. Work that is
(Fail) derivative or irrelevant, ignorant or extremely superficial. Work showing minimal
understanding of material or serious deficiencies in argument. Irrelevant, ignorant or
extremely superficial work. Minimal understanding of material.

29
Applying for the PhD
Part III students wishing to apply for the PhD must complete the GRADSAF form (available to
download from the Board of Graduate Studies website) and attach a research proposal of at least
600 words. The recommended deadline for the application form and research proposal is 15
February of the Part III year. It is essential to meet this deadline if you wish to be considered for
PhD funding.

Continuing students will be interviewed in early July. The interviewers will usually be the
prospective supervisor and an examiner of the student’s Part III dissertation. The student’s
research proposal will be discussed at the interview.

The normal preconditions for continuing to the PhD are an overall First Class mark at Part III
and a satisfactory performance in the interview. However, the Degree Committee reserves the
right to admit students who fail to receive an overall distinction mark, or who fail to perform
satisfactorily in the interview. The Department also reserves the right not to interview a
candidate and make its decision solely on the basis of the performance on the Part III.

Students can defer their application by up to two terms, but not across an academic year. If
students wish to continue in another academic year, they will need either to make a new
application or to ask for their original continuation papers to be resubmitted as a new application.

A Graduate Training Workshop for Part III students interested in applying for the PhD will be
held in late November (see page 33).

30
A note about plagiarism
In general, plagiarism can be defined as
the unacknowledged use of the work of others as if this were your own original work.

In the context of an examination, this amounts to

passing off the work of others as your own to gain unfair advantage.

Such use of unfair means will not be tolerated by the University; if detected, the penalty may be
severe and may lead to failure to obtain your degree.

The scope of plagiarism

a) Plagiarism may be due to:

 Copying (using another person’s language and/or ideas as if they are your own);
 Collusion (unauthorized collaboration)

b) Methods include:

 quoting directly another person’s language, data or illustrations without clear indication that
the authorship is not your own and due acknowledgement of the source;
 paraphrasing the critical work of others without due acknowledgement – even if you change
some words or the order of the words, this is still plagiarism if you are using someone else’s
original ideas and are not properly acknowledging it;
 using ideas taken from someone else without reference to the originator;
 cutting and pasting from the Internet to make a ‘pastiche’ of online sources;
 colluding with another person, including another candidate (other than as might be permitted
for joint project work);
 submitting as part of your own report or dissertation someone else’s work without identifying
clearly who did the work (for example, where research has been contributed by others to a
joint project).

c) Plagiarism can occur in respect to all types of sources and all media:

 not just text, but also illustrations, musical quotations, computer code etc;
 not just text published in books and journals, but also downloaded from websites or drawn
from other media;
 not just published material but also unpublished works, including lecture handouts and the
work of other students.

31
How to avoid plagiarism
The stylistic conventions for different subjects vary and you should consult your supervisor
about the conventions pertaining in a particular subject area. However, the main points are:

 When presenting the views and work of others, include in the text an indication of the source
of the material
e.g. ...as Sharpe (1993) has shown,....
and give the full details of the work quoted in your bibliography.
 If you quote text verbatim, place the sentence in inverted commas and give the appropriate
reference
e.g. ‘The elk is of necessity less graceful than the gazelle’ (Thompson, 1942, p 46)
and give the full details in your bibliography as above.
 If you wish to set out the work of another at length so that you can produce a counter-
argument, set the quoted text apart from your own text (e.g. by indenting a paragraph) and
identify it by using inverted commas and adding a reference as above.
 If you are copying text, keep a note of the author and the reference as you go along, with the
copied text, so that you will not mistakenly think the material to be your own work when you
come back to it in a few weeks’ time.
 If you reproduce an illustration or include someone else’s data in a graph include the
reference to the original work in the legend:
e.g. (figure redrawn from Webb, 1976)
or (triangles = data from Webb, 1976)
 If you wish to collaborate with another person on your project, you should check with your
supervisor whether this might be allowed and then seek permission (for research degrees, the
permission of the Board of Graduate Studies must be sought).
 If you have been authorised to work together with another candidate or other researchers,
you must acknowledge their contribution fully in your introductory section. If there is likely
to be any doubt as to who contributed which parts of the work, you should make this clear in
the text wherever necessary.
e.g. I am grateful to A. Smith for analysing the sodium content of these samples
 Be especially careful if cutting and pasting work from electronic media; do not fail to
attribute the work to its source. If authorship of the electronic source is not given, ask yourself
whether it is worth copying.

The golden rule

The examiners must be in no doubt as to which parts of your work are your own original work
and which are the rightful property of someone else.

32
Graduate training
The Department offers a wide variety of training for all graduate students and postdoctoral researchers, to
support your research work, help you develop a range of academic skills, and increase your
employability. They are given by all the Department’s core teaching officers and are supported by a range
of resources on the HPS website (www.hps.cam.ac.uk/students/training). The Director of Graduate
Studies and MPhil/Part III Manager welcome suggestions for additions and improvements.

Overview
Term For everyone For Part IIIs & MPhils
Michaelmas 7, 14 Oct: Research Topics and Resources I & II 22 Oct: How to research and write a Part
III/MPhil essay
29 Oct: How to research HPS online
26 Nov: How to apply for a PhD
5 Nov: How to use rare books and special
collections
Lent 21 Jan; 4, 25 Feb; 4 Mar: How to use printed 18 Feb: How to prepare a Part III/MPhil
books as original sources (series) dissertation
11 Feb: How to give a research talk
Easter 26 Apr: How to get a job in academia
10 Jun: How to publish an article
All three Every Weds: HPS History workshop and
terms Philosophy workshop
Seminar talk buddy scheme
Language training

Most workshops are held on Friday lunchtimes. Feel free to bring food and eat as you work.

Training seminars, schemes and workshops for all graduate

students and postdocs
4pm, Thursday 7 and 14 October: Research Topics and Resources I & II (Tim Lewens,
Eleanor Robson)
HPS encompasses a bewildering range of topics. These seminars cannot hope to give you a complete
overview of the field and how to research it, but they will introduce you to some basic topics and
methodologies, stimulate you with lively examples of work by fellow graduate students and postdocs, and
inspire you to carry out original and insightful work of your own. These seminars are complemented by
an online guide (www.hps.cam.ac.uk/research).

1pm, Friday 29 October: How to research HPS online (Tim Eggington)

Today’s electronic resources expand research possibilities to an almost unimaginable degree. These
resources are however only useful if you know how to use them and if you know they are there! This
session will introduce you to a range of crucial HPS-relevant electronic resources, helping you to exploit
them in both conception and execution of your research projects.

33
1pm, Friday 5 November: How to use HPS-related rare book and manuscript collections in
Cambridge (Tim Eggington and others)
Cambridge University’s libraries contain a staggering wealth of rare book and manuscript collections,
many of them little known. This workshop will provide an introduction to Cambridge’s HPS-relevant
collections and show some of the ways in which collections-based study can present an enriching and
stimulating avenue for research. Part of the session will be devoted to the Charles Darwin and other
manuscript collections at Cambridge University Library.

1pm, Friday 21 January, 4 and 25 February, 4 March: How to use printed books as
original sources (Roger Gaskell and Tim Eggington)
You think you know how to use books because they are so familiar. In fact we all subconsciously mediate
texts, interpreting a text message in a different way to a newspaper article or academic textbook, for
example. For printed books from earlier periods, we do not automatically possess the required knowledge
for a full interpretation and must make a conscious effort to understand the context in which they were
manufactured and used. This series of four workshops uses books from the sixteenth to the twentieth
centuries in the Whipple Library to show how physical evidence in printed books can be used for an
historically informed reading of the text. Topics will include format, typography, illustration, binding,
provenance, annotation and other marks made by former owners.

1pm, Friday 11 February: How to give a research talk (Nick Hopwood)

Most of us in HPS are much more skilled at research and writing than we are at talking about our work in
public. So we spend a lot of time giving and listening to research seminars that could easily be much
better. Here is a chance to share ideas about how to give a good talk. This workshop will help you reflect
on the ingredients of a good presentation, from planning the content and preparing visual aids to
delivering a clear, engaging performance and handling awkward questions with aplomb.

1pm, Friday 26 April: How to get a job in academia (Eleanor Robson)

Student life can't last forever... This workshop will give you lots of practical advice on how to make
yourself employable; where to look for suitable jobs and fellowships; how to prepare job applications and
cover letters; how to find referees; and how to plan interview and job-talk tactics.

1pm, Friday 10 June: How to publish an article (Nick Jardine, Marina Frasca-Spada)
Your supervisor or examiners may have suggested that an essay of yours might be a good basis for a
published article. What better way to spend your summer? This workshop, led by two journal editors, will
talk you through the reasons for publishing; where and when to publish; how to transform a good MPhil
essay or PhD chapter into a publishable article; how to respond to editors’ queries and referees’ reports;
and how to submit the final version and deal with page proofs.

Graduate training workshops particularly for Part III and

MPhil students
1pm, Friday 22 October: How to research and write a Part III/MPhil essay (Lauren
Kassell)
As you embark on your first piece of coursework, you probably will have a plethora of questions to ask;
most people do. What's my supervisor for, and how do I make the most of her? Where I do find the
resources I need? How much can I say in 5000 words? What are the parameters of good academic style?

34
How do I manage my time so that I’m not still writing a draft 24 hours before submission? How do I cite
my sources? An experienced Part III/MPhil supervisor will reveal the secrets of how to get an excellent
essay in on time without too much loss of sleep or fingernails.

1pm, Friday 26 November: How to apply for a PhD (Tim Lewens)

Whether you are considering applying for a PhD place in Cambridge or elsewhere, deadlines will soon be
looming. Prepare yourself by coming to this workshop, run by the Director of Graduate Studies. It will
cover topics such as choosing a workable topic; writing a convincing proposal; looking for sources of
funding; and the Department’s PhD admissions requirements and process.

1pm, Friday 25 February: How to prepare a Part III/MPhil dissertation (Eleanor Robson)
Although your final submission date is still months away, now is a good time to start planning what your
finished dissertation will look like. In this session the MPhil/Part III Manager will take you through the
qualities that examiners typically look for in a high-quality piece of work and – equally importantly – the
sure fire ways to lose marks too. It will also cover formalities such as word counts, appendices, and
bibliographical style.

Events and resources for everyone, every term

HPS History Workshop and Philosophy Workshop (alternating Wednesdays, 1pm)
The HPS History Workshop (www.hps.cam.ac.uk/seminars/hsw.html) is a seminar group, run by and
for graduate students and postdocs, devoted to peer discussion of work in progress on the history and
historiography of science, for example PhD chapters, dissertations, articles intended for publication or
conference papers. The seminar aims to provide an informal arena for the exchange of ideas among
students of the history of science in HPS and elsewhere.

The Philosophy Workshop (http://www.hps.cam.ac.uk/seminars/pw.html) is a fortnightly peer group

seminar devoted to the discussion of on-going work by graduate students and postdoctoral researchers in
philosophy. Short papers will normally be circulated by email one week in advance of each meeting,
where the author will give a brief synopsis. The aim of the seminar is to provide a forum for informal,
constructive interaction amongst those currently engaged in philosophical research.

Seminar talk buddy scheme

The Department offers a voluntary buddy system for graduate students and postdocs who are giving
presentations in Department seminars and reading groups, and one for those who are supervising
undergraduates. A similar but obligatory scheme operates for those who give undergraduate lectures in
the Department.

The MPhil/Part III Manager facilitates the pairing up of participants, each of whom attends the other's
presentation with the express purpose of observing and commenting on the delivery and performance,
with the aid of a check-list of things to look for. Once both participants have presented, they meet
privately to swap feedback, which should include at least three good points and three which could be
improved on. They notify the MPhil/Part III Manager that they have done so.

Language training
The Latin Therapy and Greek Therapy groups each offer informal weekly sessions, led by an expert tutor,
to help you improve your reading skills in these languages. For more details see
www.hps.cam.ac.uk/seminars/.

35
English language support
If English is not your first language and you find yourself struggling to read, write and communicate
effectively in an academic environment, come and talk in confidence to the MPhil Manager or Director of
Graduate Studies. The Department can offer a range of 1-1 support for you, tailored to your needs.

Externally provided courses

All graduate students and postdoctoral researchers are encouraged to attend relevant training courses
offered by other bodies, most of which are free to members of the university:
 School of Humanities and Social Sciences
<http://www.cshss.cam.ac.uk/students/skills/postgrads/courses.html>
 Joint Schools Research Methods in Social Sciences <http://www.jsss.group.cam.ac.uk/>
 Careers Service resources for arts, humanities and social sciences postdocs
<http://www.careers.cam.ac.uk/pdocAHSS/welcome.asp>
 Computing Service <http://training.csx.cam.ac.uk/>
 Language Centre <http://www.langcen.cam.ac.uk/>
 Centre for Personal and Professional Development
<http://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/offices/hr/cppd/graduates/>
 Disability Resource Centre <http://www.cam.ac.uk/disability/university/training.html>

The University’s website on transferable skills for graduates also lists a lot of useful courses and
resources: http://www.skills.cam.ac.uk/postgrads/.

Cambridge University Skills Directory <http://webservices.admin.cam.ac.uk/rskills/>

The Skills Directory is a searchable online resource that holds information on opportunities for
postgraduate and research staff to develop a broad skill set that will serve them in both their current
vocation and their future endeavours. It lists events from a large array of sources within the University.

Tiny travel grants

A small number of grants for travel to conferences is available for graduate students giving papers at
conferences (not for attendance only). Ask the Department Administrator for details.

Tiny training grants

If you have a particular training need that is not catered for here, the Department may be able give you
financial assistance towards it. Ask the Department Administrator for details.

36