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