Past Conferences

Vol. 41, No. 4, October 2012
Printer friendly version of Newsletter

Conference Report: The Second International Workshop on Lysenkoism

21–25 July 2012, University of Vienna

Attendees at the Lysenkoism Conference

The Second International Workshop on Lysenkoism was held 21-25 June 2012 at the University of Vienna. The workshop was a follow-up to the first International Workshop on Lysenkoism which took place 4-5 December 2009 at the Graduate Center of the City University of New York and the Harriman Institute at Columbia University. Among the important goals of the Vienna meeting was to continue widening the geographic diversity of case studies and address some of the central questions that have emerged in current research. These include situating the "Lysenko affair" within the broader history of "pseudoscience," describing individual motivations for involvement in the controversy, showing how it was instrumentalized in pursuit of various goals and objectives, current attempts to rehabilitate Lysenko's reputation in Russia, as well as developing a definition for the term "Lysenkoism."

The first panel featured two papers on France—a region not covered in the first workshop—as well as presentations on Italy and Mexico. In their papers, Dr. Laurent Loison of the Centre François-Viète, Université de Nantes and Dr. Stéphane Tirard, Centre François Viète d'épistémologie et d'histoire des sciences et des techniques, Université de Nantes, discussed Lysenkoism in context with French neoLamarckism, while exploring the role of key figures such as Louis Aragon, Pierre-Paul Grassé, Jacques Monod, Jean Rostand and Marcel Prenant. Their research showed how the controversy influenced the development of genetics in France after World War II. Along similar lines Dr. Francesco Cassata of the University of Genoa showed the role of Lysenkoism in the institutionalization and professionalization of genetics in Italy after World War II. Cassata showed how it served as a cultural resource in context with the politicization of Italian genetics and the conflict between Mendelian genetics vs. "Lamarckian" eugenics and plant breeding during the interwar period. The last paper on the panel was given by Dr. Victoriano Garza-Almanza, Universidad Autónoma de Ciudad Juárez, Mexico, who described the promotion of Lysenko's theories in Mexico by Isaac Ochoterena.

The second panel featured current research on Lysenko's career and current attempts to restore his reputation in Russia and the Soviet Union. In the first presentation Dr. Michael Gordin, Princeton University, workshopped his preliminary findings on what happened to Lysenko—how he was treated by the re-emergent community of geneticists, how he personally interpreted his fall from grace—from 1965 until his death in 1976. Gordin was followed by Dr. Kirill Rossiianov, Institute of the History of Natural Sciences and Technology, Russian Academy of Sciences, who presented the Lysenko affair in terms of theory, practice and ideology in late Stalinist scientific discourse. The third panelist, Dr. Eduard Israelovich Kolchinsky, Director of St. Petersburg Branch of the S.I. Vavilov Institute for the History of Science and Technology, the Russian Academy of Sciences, interpreted current attempts to restore Lysenko's legacy as rooted in the privileging of practice over research in Russian scientific culture.

The third panel began with a presentation by Dr. Mark Tauger, West Virginia University, who showed how genetics survived in the Soviet Union during the years of Lysenko's dominance by focusing on the work of Pavel Lukianenko, who laid the foundations for the Green Revolution in Soviet and Post-Soviet Russia. Next, Gabor Pallo of the Budapest University of Technology and Economics, Visual Learning Lab, gave a survey of Lysenko's impact upon Hungarian biology. Pallo's presentation was followed by an invited talk by Dr. Daniel Kevles, Yale University, who presented his thoughts on the relationship between Lysenkoism and eugenics, an emerging topic of research which demands further study.

The fourth and final panel of the day featured papers on Romania and Poland, as a presentation on how the rhetoric of Lysenko and his followers can be considered as Orwellian "newspeak." The first presenter, Dr. Cristiana Oghina-Pavie, Université d'Angers, began with a bas relief of Michurin, sculpted in 1963 by her great uncle, Gheorghe Munteanu, which hung in her house when she was a young girl. Her talk covered the influence of Michurinism—as distinguished from Lysenkoism—upon fruit tree breeding and vine selection in Romania. Next, Dr. Piotr Köhler, Institute of Botany, the Jagiellonian University, presented his work on role of Trybuna ludu, the mouthpiece of the Polish United Workers Party, in promoting Lysenko's theories. The final panelist, Dr. Agata Strządała, University of Opole, analyzed binary oppositions such as "Michurinism" vs. "Morganism," "Creative Darwinism" vs. "Darwinism," as well as the ritualization of language, use of military metaphors, neologisms etc. as classic examples of totalitarian language.

The opening panel on the second day featured three presentations on Japan, an area of particular interest considering the United States' role in the postwar reconstruction of Japan, as well as the prior isolation of Japanese geneticists. In the first presentation Dr. Kaori Iida, Graduate University for Advanced Studies, SOKENDAI, explained the reasons why some Japanese geneticists were interested in Lysenko's ideas, and how these sympathies affected funding for the establishment of a new institute of genetics. Next, Dr. Hirofumi Saito, Tokyo Institute of Technology, discussed how the estrangement of Japanese geneticists from the global genetics community prior to World War II influenced the reception to Lysenko. The third panelist, Dr. Tsuyoshi Fujioka, Doshisha University, described now the number of Lysenko's supporters—which initially included left-wing scientists—was reduced to a core group of committed Marxists following the VASKhNIL session.

The next panel began with a presentation by William deJong-Lambert, Bronx Community College CUNY and Affiliate Faculty at the Harriman Institute, Columbia University, describing the reasons why (i.e., his relationship with H.J. Muller) Haldane became among Lysenko's most high-profile supporters after 1948. The next panelist, Luis Campos, Drew University, also discussed Muller, focusing on how his stance at a key point in the controversy (the 19-26 December 1936 VASKhNIL debate) helped extinguish research on the effects of chromosomal variation on speciation in plants. The final panelist, Dr. Mikhail B. Konashev, S.I. Vavilov Institute for the History of Science and Technology, the Russian Academy of Sciences, covered similar ground in his presentation by describing how relationships between U.S. and Soviet geneticists determined the cancellation of VII International Congress of Genetics in Moscow.

The next panel returned the focus to social and cultural aspects of the controversy by discussing Lysenko's influence upon Soviet biology textbooks, natural history museums and his treatment in the Soviet press. Dr. Margaret Peacock, University of Alabama, presented samples from textbooks that challenged the conventional narrative that Lysenko's theories dominated middle school biology education during the years he was in power. Next, Dr. Patricia Simpson, University of Hertfordshire, used the Darwin Museum in Moscow to show how Lysenkoism influenced the presentation of bioscience and evolutionary theory. The third panelist, Lukas Joos, Master of Arts, University of Zurich, traced coverage of Lysenko and his work in Pravda to show that intial accounts were absent any of the ideological dogma that appeared in later articles. The latter were, according to Joos, more the product of the political training and scientific ignorance of Soviet reporters, than anything having to do with Lysenko himself.

The final panel of the day returned us to the topic of eugenics and featured two papers on Bulgaria. It is notable that the presentation on eugenics by Dr. Björn Felder, The University of Göttingen, was followed by, ironically, the longest period of debate and discussion of the entire workshop. The discussion centered on what constitutes "eugenics" in a given context, a definitional problem not unfamiliar to Lysenko scholars. The following two presentations by Dr. Aglica Edreva, Institute of Genetics, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, and Dr. Dinko Mintchev, Institute for Science Studies, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, shed some much needed light on a relatively understudied region in the historiography of Lysenkoism.

The final halfday of the workshop began a bit late and was regularly interupted by the sabbath bells of the Votivkirche just across Sigmund-Freud Park from the university. Irony was noted. A three-paper panel on Czechoslovakia featuring Dr. Petr Hampl and Marco Stella, Department of Philosophy and History of Science, Faculty of Science, Charles University, along with Dr. Tomáš Hermann, Institute for Contemporary History of the Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, woke participants from their post-Saturday night slumber. The presenters demonstrated the extent to which Lysenko-Michurinism was indigenized in Czech culture to an extent which was (at least as far as Central Europe is concerned) unique. Highlights included intriguing details on the roles of Vladimír Jan Amos Novák, Ivan Málek, Ferdinand Herčík, Antonin Klečka and Milan Hašek, as well as Lysenkoism's impact upon the practice of allotment gardening.

The workshop concluded with a discussion panel featuring Dr. Alexei Kojevnikov, University of British Columbia, Dr. Nils Roll-Hansen, University of Oslo and Dr. Nikolai Krementsov, University of Toronto. While there is clearly much work left to be done in terms of developing a cohesive understanding of the Lysenko phenomenon, a number of themes which date back to the first workshop remain clear. These include the problem of defining terms like "pseudoscience" and "Lysenkoism" (which are often treated as synonyms) and the question of how and why the controversy resonated so widely. The most obvious answer to the latter point seems to be that the "Lysenko affair" operated as a cultural resource which was useful to a variety of actors in support of, or opposition to, diverse agendas. A final point of agreement was the desirability of scheduling a Third International Workshop on Lysenkoism at a future date.

Special thanks to Dr. Mitchell Ash, Dr. Carola Sachse, Dr. Jérôme Segal and Liane Tiefenbach at the University of Vienna for their support and assistance with organization. Additional funding for the workshop was provided by the Faculty of Historical and Cultural Studies, as well as a private donation from Dr. Miklos Muller, emeritus, Rockefeller University, USA. The workshop began with a reception Thursday evening at the Arkadenhof, and welcoming remarks on Friday morning were provided by Vice Dean of the Faculty of Historical and Cultural Studies, Prof. Marianne Klemun and Dr. Mitchell Ash.

Fascinating Rhythms: A Conference on the History and Philosophy of Biological Rhythms Research

11–12 May 2012

Participants in the Fascinating Rhythms Conference

Participants in the Fascinating Rhythms Conference, 11 May 2012

This conference was held 11–12 May 2012 on the University of Minnesota Minneapolis Campus under the sponsorship of the Program in the History of Science, Technology, and Medicine. With twenty-four presentations and a lively panel discussion about the historical significance of a week-long meeting at Cold Spring Harbor in 1960, the sixty-five participants learned much about the importance of rhythm and timing, whether in the solar system or microorganisms. Conceived as an experiment in the historiography of recent science based on conversations between historians and participants, the program served as a stimulus to further study of the history of chronobiology. Attendees included historians and philosophers as well as scientists who created the early research agendas involving biological rhythms and chronobiology and younger medical and biological researchers keen to understand the history and its current implications. The conference was the culmination of a two-year NSF grant (SES-0958974) to explore the history of chronobiology and also partially supported by a grant from the Earl and Doris Bakken Foundation. The organizing committee comprised Jole Shackelford and Tulley Long (co-chairs), Sally Gregory Kohlstedt, Jennifer Gunn, Margaret Hofius, and Frank Barnwell. The conference program and further information about the initiative to construct the history of chronobiology can be found at www.historyofchronobiology.com.

Digital History and Philosophy of Science Consortium Meets at Cambridge

6–8 September 2012

On September 6-8, 2012, an international group of scholars, research librarians, and computer scientists convened for the 9th meeting of the Digital History and Philosophy of Science Consortium at the University of Cambridge. The conversation started nearly a decade ago, spurred by the rapid proliferation of digital and computational approaches within the History and Philosophy of Science (HPS) community. This year's meeting addressed the latest innovations within digital HPS, from open-access publishing, to global crowd-sourcing and computational approaches to textual analysis. Over the course of two and a half days, participants converged upon a set of intellectual and architectural goals for the digital HPS community, including a resolution toward open-access tool-sharing and strengthening of inter-institutional and interdisciplinary collaborations.

The meeting opened with a discussion of digital editions as research and dissemination tools, featuring case studies from the Darwin Correspondence Project, the Henslow Correspondence Project, and the Wallace Correspondence Project, all at the University of Cambridge, as well as the Edition Open Access project at the Max Planck Institute for the History of Science in Berlin, the Chymistry of Issac Newton project at Indiana University, and the Poincaré Project at the Institut Henri Poincaré in Paris. The success of online publication models developed by these projects highlights the potential for open-access digital editions to disseminate research results to larger and more diverse audiences than traditional print-publishing models. A common theme throughout this discussion was the way in which digital publishing redefines the relationship between the researcher and her product, as digital editions can be easily revised and updated to reflect advances in scholarship, allowing researchers to assume a curatorial role that has traditionally been the domain of the research librarian.

While digital publication presents many benefits for disseminating scholarly works, the lack of a clear system for peer review is an obstacle to its development. Without an accepted peer-review system, young scholars may have trouble meeting the professional requirements of their institutions and disciplines. Representatives of the Edition Open Access project at the Max Planck Institute for the History of Science highlighted their robust quality-control board for digital publishing, which could serve as a model for a community-wide review mechanism. A working group was appointed to develop recommendations for a digital HPS peer-review system to meet the unique demands of the digital publishing model, and ensure that digitally-published academic works are afforded due standing and credit.

The process of digitization, annotation, and analysis of archival materials provides an enormous service to the HPS community by making international archival collections easily accessible to scholars, while also providing a platform for discovery and computational analysis. For smaller projects with limited funding, however, the institutional resources and infrastructure required for those activities can be a significant challenge. Increased cooperation with "hub" institutions that can provide repositories, software, and guidance will not only lower the barriers to adopting the digital edition model, but also strengthen the HPS community by promoting dialogue between scholarly projects. A working group was established to address the challenges of educating and training scholars across collaborative institutions.

Crowd-sourcing is an option for digital HPS projects that require a large volume of repetitive work that cannot be automated. A session on crowd-sourcing featured presentations from the Old Weather project at the University of Oxford, the Biodiversity Heritage Library at the Marine Biological Laboratory, the Open Richly Annotated Cuneiform Corpus (ORACC) and the Cairo Genizah Research Unit at the University of Cambridge, and the Board of Longitude Project at the Cambridge University Library. Crowd-sourcing can speed up processing time for large projects and create new opportunities for public education and community-building. Several of these projects have found that maintaining a dialogue with participants can generate an enthusiastic public response.

As the volume of digitized historical data and support infrastructures rapidly expand, new opportunities for computational analysis are becoming increasingly apparent. Scholars are using statistical approaches to both published and archival texts to address standing research problems in new ways, and opening up new areas of scholarly research. For example, the Chymistry of Isaac Newton project at Indiana University uses Latent Semantic Analysis (LaTeX) to explore relationships among Newton's alchemical texts, while the Assyrian-Babylonian Scholarly Literacies project uses the computational tool Agnostic to catalog redundancy in texts to situate the works throughout antiquity.

New combinations of statistical analyses, functional annotation, and network visualizations also make it possible to explore relationships within and between textual corpora on an unprecedented scale. Tools now available within the digital HPS community, like Vogon and SemanticHPST, facilitate the analysis of texts and help to explore relationships between both textual and non-textual objects. Semantic analysis allows relationships among historical actors, technologies, institutions, and events to be extracted from an enormous body of archival, primary, and secondary sources. These approaches not only enable scholars to formulate better questions and hypotheses they also help scholars quickly discover historical connections that might otherwise be opaque.

Because many of the computational tools within the digital HPS community have been built for idiosyncratic scholarly purposes, there has been an insufficient emphasis on user-friendly documentation and unified (but flexible) standards for metadata and ontologies. This hampers deployment in new contexts, and cooperations between projects. Newly-established working-groups for both tool development and interoperable metadata within the Consortium will promote the design and documentation of tools in ways that maximize portability and integration. Those working-groups will ensure that information about metadata and software standards are widely disseminated among the broader scholarly community, and that any project that wants to join is able to easily adopt existing tools.

It is clear that the conversation about digital methods in HPS has moved into the realm of active collaborations that are generating measurable advances in technology and infrastructure. These developments call for broader dialogue with scholarly and public communities, and the Consortium is eager and excited to welcome new participants to broaden and strengthen the field. We look forward with great anticipation to the 10th meeting of the Consortium, which will be held at the University of Indiana in Bloomington in 2013. More information about the Digital HPS Consortium, including ways to get involved, can be found online at www.digitalhps.org.

Looking for a home for your run of Isis?

If you are looking to open up shelf space or you now read Isis solely online, you may wish to consider donating your run of Isis to a library. The mission of the Journal Donation Project (JDP) at the New School for Social Research in New York is to assist in rebuilding major research and teaching libraries in countries that have fallen victim to political or economic deprivation. The JDP does this through the provision of current subscriptions and back volume sets of English language scholarly, professional and current events journals. Further information may be found at http://www.newschool.edu/cps/jdp/.

History of Science Society