Much of mid-twentieth-century US food science and technology had a prospective and promissory orientation — one that combined dire forecasts of a food-scarce future with robust claims by industry to provide solutions that could mitigate the effects of the coming catastrophe. Such was the case with many of the novel protein-based food sources under development during wartime and in the postwar years, including chlorella algae, powders made from fisheries bycatch, and plant-based protein products. But what happened when industry failed to commercialize on this research, or when consumers rejected these products in the marketplace? This paper will consider the case of General Mills’ Bontrae, a unique “spun” soy protein product developed over more than a decade and at the cost of millions of dollars in R&D investment, only to vanish from the US market within a few years of its launch in the 1970s. This paper will tell the story of Bontrae’s development and failure in the US marketplace in the 1960s and 1970s and its global afterlives. The story of Bontrae is not only about a consumer technology that flopped; it also has cultural implications for the technoscientific narrative of Malthusian crisis that justified, at least in part, its intensive development — and for our own era of promissory technologies. I will ask, what is the fate of the imagined futures embedded in failed technologies?

How can we envision our Star Trek future in space? Contributing to the conference theme of “Telling the Stories of Science,” this paper will discuss the intersection of audience, concepts of failure, and visions of the future as represented in the cultural history of the Space Age. Mythic visions of a future in outer space were central in Space Age imagination and deeply engaged public audiences, particularly through material culture and science fiction. Burgeoning 20th-century technologies allowed people to contemplate humanity’s place in the cosmos in a more imaginative and technological way than ever before. Part of that philosophical-cultural exercise involved pondering the distant future of humanity, one that was often imagined as unfolding beyond the confines of planet Earth. But what happens when public interest in lunar landings dwindles to the point of NASA canceling the Apollo program early? And how do we reconcile the excessive consumerism that delivered Space Age ideals with the environmental consequences of manufacturing and waste? Now, over ninety-years since the dawn of the Space Age, we can look back at the dreams of the era and reflect on how they have both served society, and failed us. Disenchanted by failure to quickly realize utopian dreams off-world, photos shot looking back from the Moon reveal our fragile “Spaceship Earth” floating in the void. Forced to reflect upon our planetary failures, particularly regarding ecological challenges, what can we learn from past mythic visions of the future to better tell stories of science that empower audiences today?

While historians most often write to an audience of fellow historians and academics, clear exceptions are made—for instance public history efforts or the development of textbooks and curricular materials. This paper will explore the use of historical analysis specifically as a tool for policymakers to help them better understand the perception of crisis and failure in past reform efforts in math and science education, with the goal of using this analysis to inform more effective future educational reforms. This paper will explore the importance of developing accessible history for a specific audience, with clear goals for impacting the future. Through the lens of the history of education in America, this paper will open a discussion about the goals of science and technology studies, the role of the historian in reaching particular audiences, and the utility of historical analysis in contemplating the future.