It should be noted that the relative lack of interest by HET economists
in the recent history of economics is not confined to mainstream
economics--it also exists in heterodox economics.  In any case, like
other economists, HET economists do research in areas they find of
interest; thus they find research in areas other than mainstream
economics more interesting.  There is no necessary reason why HET
economists must do research on the recent history of mainstream
economics.  We know that mainstream economists do not find HET relevant
and thus it would seem that they do not think that the recent history of
mainstream economics is important/relevant.  So if the mainstream does
not consider their own history relevant to study, why should HET
economists (whom the mainstream economists look down on) pick up the
slack?  Just a suggestion (but don't it too seriously), if HET
economists engage in research on topics which they think are important
for whatever reason, perhaps the reason HET economists do not do
research on the recent history of mainstream economics is because that
history and perhaps mainstream economics itself is unimportant and hence
deserves to be ignored.

Fred Lee