The present study analyzes specific traits of Lysenkoism dogmas as they were reflected in Soviet hydrobiology. As a case study, I use the now-forgotten productivity theory of bodies of water developed in 1940 by the Soviet hydrobiologist Vladimir I. Zhadin. Zhadin’s views on production relied on his observations of changes in the communities of riverine faunas caused by the construction of water reservoirs. The theory is of particular interest because it attempts to address the unresolved problems of that period. Some (...) of these unsettled problems provided the foundation for the ideological debates during the dialectization period in Soviet biology of the early 1920s to mid-1930s and were influenced by Lysenkoism. Zhadin’s theory thus serves as a suitable model for identifying cognitive and ideological components in science and for the analysis of the influence of ideology on science. The analysis of Zhadin’s works shows that an attempt to separate ideologically imposed perceptions and the author’s own scientific views presents a challenging task. This can be explained by a highly efficient behavioral pattern of “protective coloration” employed by the scientist and by Zhadin’s sincere acceptance of some Lysenkoist ideas. Furthermore, I argue that the system of Lysenkoist dogmas concerning the association between an organism and its environment are in fact entirely sensible scientific principles which were taken to an extreme. The results of the study suggest a need for more careful and deeper evaluation of scientific works published during the period of the personality cult in the USSR. The “Lysenko affair” in branches of biology other than genetics is more complicated and needs further examination. (shrink)

Based on field research in villages and towns in the Komi Republic, this article compares the perception of the environment with environmental knowledge, and examines their interrelations in local contexts. An individual's perception of the environment is embedded in his/her everyday engagement with the surroundings. Environmental knowledge is of more cognitive character: it originates mainly from outside the context of everyday life and is imparted via various forms of communication. From the interplay of these two levels arises what we call (...) local environmental knowledge, a kind of knowledge which has its own moral and symbolic dimension within the social, cultural and political setting. Similarly, the concept of environmentalism is increasingly recognised as a wide diversity of 'green' views and actions rather than as a single project of a globally consistent normative character; thus there is a need to examine the contextuality of environmental concern. Our findings explain the failure of the ' information deficit' model, according to which the dissemination of scientific knowledge about environmental problems should result in local inhabitants changing their attitudes towards 'The Environment '. Instead, our findings support the insight that, rather than accepting environmental knowledge from external sources as a factual given, individuals restate it in terms of their everyday life contexts and local discourses about socio-political issues. (shrink)

Naukovedenie (literarily meaning ‘science studies’), was first institutionalized in the Soviet Union in the twenties, then resurfaced and was widely publicized in the sixties, as a new mode of reflection on science, its history, its intellectual foundations, and its management, after which it dominated Soviet historiography of science until perestroika . Tracing the history of meta-studies of science in the USSR from its early institutionalization in the twenties when various political, theoretical and institutional struggles set the stage for the development (...) of the field, to the sixties when the field resurfaced within the particular political context of the Cold War, and using the history of Moscow Institute for the History of Science and Technology as a case-study, I situate Soviet naukovedenie project within the culture of late-socialism in the Soviet Union during the Cold War, asking what this discourse meant for its creators and practitioners, as well as for the high-ranked Soviet officials who provided the authoritative support for this field. (shrink)

This essay takes a historical view on “citizen science” by exploring its socialist version via the case of a Soviet amateur seismologist Vladimir Mannar. In the wake of the 1948 Ashgabat earthquake, which coincided with Lysenko’s victory in his campaign against genetics, Mannar launched an aborted campaign for a participatory “socialist seismology.” Mannar co-opted Lysenkoist language of science for the people and gained professional status within professional seismology but was shut out by the experts capitalizing on a “big science” imperative (...) of cold war. Mannar’s personal experiences of navigating competing pulls of cold war seismology and his vision of “people’s seismology,” marginalized within increasingly technical and instrumental cold war science, shed light on oxymoronic nature of citizen science, and the clash between participatory vision of science and an increasing reliance on high-level technical expertise. This case provides a vantage point from which to examine the dual nature of citizen science with its dual loyalties, ambiguities, and the constantly renegotiated status of data—the raison d’être and the most tangible outcome of the initiatives unfolded on the outer fringes of academic science. (shrink)

In 1890, Sergei Nikolaevich Vinogradskii (Winogradsky) proposed a novel life process called chemosynthesis. His discovery that some microbes could live solely on inorganic matter emerged during his physiological research in 1880s in Strassburg and Zurich on sulfur, iron, and nitrogen bacteria. In his nitrification research, Vinogradskii first embraced the idea that microbiology could have great bearing on agricultural problems. His critique of agricultural chemists and Kochian-style bacteriologists brought this message to the broader agricultural community, resulting in an heightened interest in (...) biological, rather than chemical methods to investigate soil processes. From 1891 to 1910, he directed the microbiological laboratory at the Imperial Institute of Experimental Medicine in St. Petersburg, Russia, where he expanded his chemosynthesis research to a broad investigation of the manifold significance of autotrophic organisms in soil processes. This work and that of his students attracted the serious attention of agricultural chemists and soil scientists in Russia and abroad, changing essentially the way they understood and investigated the role of microbes in the soil. His student, Vasilii Omelianskii, effectively integrated Vinogradskii’s approach into Russian and Soviet, and international agricultural microbiology. Vinogradskii’s activities in the late 19th century reflect the changes occurring more broadly in science. At that time, microbiologists such as Louis Pasteur, Eugenius Warming, and Martianus Beijerinck were contributing new laboratory methods and theoretical perspectives to incipient disciplines closely related to agriculture: ecology, soil science, and soil microbiology. (shrink)