{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02610759493670886, 'fraction_numerical': 0.00949367088607595, 'mean_word_length': 5.111111111111111, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Universities in the Age of Corporate Science: The UC Berkeley-Novartis Controversy (review)

This brief summary does not begin to encompass the theoretical range or complexity that Akera brings to bear on this topic. For each chapter, he makes clear how his work departs from the current scholarship and how it brings to bear constructivist or postconstructivist theory to gain new insight. So salient is the theoretical framing that the book, at times, seems to reverse ends and means. The argument often appears to be what Thomas Kuhn would call normal science, a series of experiments designed not so much to uncover new knowledge as to confirm the reigning paradigm, i.e., the constructivist worldview. Theory and empiricism can work reciprocally in the pursuit of historical explanation and understanding, but keeping them in balance poses a constant challenge for historians. Though Akera’s study does not achieve all that he aspired to, it nonetheless makes an important contribution. It bears comparison with Donald MacKenzie’s Inventing Accuracy (1990), Paul Edwards’s The Closed World (1996), and David Mindell’s Between Human and Machine (2002) in attempting to theorize and explain the emergence of Cold War science and technology in the United States.