After Joseph Needham: The legacy reviewed, the agenda revised – some personal reflections

We all owe Joseph Needham an immense debt for discovering Chinese science and technology for Western scholars. But his famous question (Why did the Chinese, who had been so far in advance of Europe until the 17th century, fail to produce modern science independently?) is simplistic. Needham’s discussion relied on categories (‘physics’, ‘engineering’, even ‘mathematics’) that are largely anachronistic. He was preoccupied by questions of priorities (who did what first). We should recognise that the historical record brings to light many breakthroughs in the development of science, in Egypt, Mesopotamia, India, ancient Greece and ancient China, as well as in Europe in the 17th century and beyond; they all call for detailed analysis of the different social, political, economic, institutional and intellectual factors at work. One topic of particular importance and current interest concerns the factors that enable innovation to flourish, where the differing experience of ancient societies can provide lessons that may still be relevant today. The new agenda for the history of science should have a global remit.