Michurinist biology was introduced to China in 1948; granted a state supported monopoly in 1952; and reduced to parity with western genetics from 1956. The Soviets exported it through the propaganda agencies Sino Soviet Friendship Association and VOKS. China’s Ministry of Agriculture achieved broad public awareness and acceptance of Michurinist biology through a translation, publication, and Soviet guest speakers campaign – all managed by a team of agriculturalists led by Luo Tianyu, a veteran CCP cadre. The campaign grew exponentially, but (...) did not affect university or Chinese Academy of Sciences biology. Luo Tianyu’s failed attempt to force Michurinist biology on a Beijing university triggered its second stage: monopoly status and a ban on “Mendelist-Morganist” biology in teaching, research, and publication. The CCP Central Committee supported this policy believing that Michurinst biology would increase agricultural production for the forthcoming first Five Year Plan; whereas, western genetics had no practical value. Michurinist biology flourished at all levels of education, research, and science literature; Western genetics was completely shut down. This only began to change when the CCP Central Committee became wary of China’s dependency on Soviet technical expertise and failure to fully utilize that of China. Change was further promoted by significant attacks on Michurinist biology by Soviet and East German biologists. Soon, these developments informed China’s “genetics question,” which became a test case for larger questions about the definition of science and the relationship between scientists and the state. Under the guidance of Lu Dingyi’s Central Committee Propaganda Department, the CCP eventually decided that, henceforth, science controversies would only be resolved by the science community; and that monopolies or ideological orthodoxies would not be imposed on science. At the same time, the CCP rescinded Michurinist biology’s monopoly and the ban on western genetics. By the mid-1960s western genetics had successfully restored itself, largely due to the leadership of C. C. Tan, a former student of Dobzhansky. Michurinist biology’s presence shrank and it became marginalized. (shrink)

In 1975, a delegation of U.S. entomologists traveled to socialist China to observe Chinese insect control science. Their overwhelmingly positive reports highlighted in relief the pernicious effects of pesticide corporations on U.S. agriculture; some entomologists hoped this would goad the United States to catch up to China in environmentally sensible insect control practices. Of course, insect control in socialist China carried its own political baggage, some of which—for example, mass mobilization and self-reliance—the state made highly visible to visitors, and some (...) of which—for example, harsh treatment of scientists—it sought to obscure. For both the U.S. and the Chinese participants, the act of comparison itself was of primary significance in the exchange, allowing them to construct socialist Chinese science as refreshingly different from U.S. science. At the same time, however, this construction of difference meant forgetting the much longer transnational history in which U.S. and Chinese entomology had been intertwined. (shrink)

In a little remembered event in December 1961, Sartre entered into a debate with Roger Garaudy, as well as other representatives of the Parti Communiste Française (PCF), on the topic of the existence of a universal dialectical law applicable to nature as well as to human thought. In the debate, Sartre seeks to rebut the notion that humankind is merely an “alien addition“ to nature, as Engels maintained, and instead argues that individual subjectivity cannot be reduced to an object of (...) knowledge. This paper highlights the importance of the debate for both sides, but particularly for Sartre and his Critique of Dialectical Reason. (shrink)

The technique of nuclear transplantation – popularly known as cloning – has been integrated into several different histories of twentieth century biology. Historians and science scholars have situated nuclear transplantation within narratives of scientific practice, biotechnology, bioethics, biomedicine, and changing views of life. However, nuclear transplantation has never been the focus of analysis. In this article, I examine the development of nuclear transplantation techniques, focusing on the people, motivations, and institutions associated with the first successful nuclear transfer in metazoans in (...) 1952. The conflict between embryologists and geneticists over the mechanisms of differentiation motivated Robert Briggs to pursue nuclear transplantation experiments as a way to resolve the debate. Briggs worked at the Lankenau Hospital Research Institute, a research facility devoted to the study of cancer. The goal of understanding cancer would play a role in the development of the technique, and the story of nuclear transplantation sheds light on the role that biomedical contexts play in biological research in the second half of the twentieth century. (shrink)

Jean Brachet's research on microsomes and the role of RNA in protein synthesis during the 1940s and 50s is placed in the context of embryological views about the role of the cytoplasm in development, and plasmagene theory based on studies of non-Mendelian inheritance in microorganisms. I show how Brachet's subsequent conception of messenger RNA evolved in the context of his conceptions of the relations between plasmagenes and nuclear genes. His theorizing on cytoplasmic organelles and viruses is further situated in the (...) bio-political controversy over the inheritance of acquired characteristics during the Lysenko controversy. (shrink)