Search

This paper examines new evidence from Russian archives to argue that Soviet geneticist and plant breeder, Nikolai I. Vavilov's fate was sealed during the ' Cultural Revolution' (' Revolution from Above') (1929-1932). This was several years before Trofim D. Lysenko, the Soviet agronomist and widely portrayed archenemy and destroyer of Vavilov, became a major force in Soviet science. During the ' Cultural Revolution' the Soviet leadership wanted to subordinate science and research to the task of socialist reconstruction. Vavilov, who was head of the Institute of Plant Breeding ( VIR) and the All- Union Academy of Agricultural Sciences ( VASKhNIL), came under attack from the younger generation of researchers who were keen to transform biology into a proletarian science. The new evidence shows that it was during this period that Vavilov lost his independence to determine research strategies and manage personnel within his own institute. These changes meant that Lysenko, who had won Stalin's support, was able to gain influence and eventually exert authority over Vavilov. Based on the new evidence, Vavilov's arrest in 1940 after he criticized Lysenko's conception of Non-Mendelian genetics was just the final challenge to his authority. He had already experienced years of harassment that began before Lysenko gained a position of influence. Vavilov died in prison in 1943. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Institute for the History of Science and Technology (in transliterated Russian Institut Istorii Estestavoznaniya I Tekhniki, or IIET in abbreviation) in Moscow, along with its branch in St. Petersburg, is the largest research centre for history of science and technology in Russia. Its story encompasses a period of great change for Russia and as such includes tales of infighting and intrigue as well as many instances of academic achievement. This paper will focus on two peculiar characteristics of the institute's story in order to clarify the typical political contexts in which it had to operate and the way it succeeded to adapt itself to the varying situations. The first is the 2012 celebration of its 80th anniversary, which took place only 4 years after the institute had celebrated its 55th anniversary. Why did the different celebrators apparently have a different history in mind? Secondly, on several occasions the institute employed people for political rather than academic reasons: for these people the institute was a good, interesting or inconspicuous place to work during that time. This policy served the institute well on the whole. Even though in different political constellations the institute had to produce scholarship with different aims - sometimes the output had to contribute to the glory of the nation, in other times to analyse the role of science in a socialist society - the IIET produced excellent research. Today, once again, the institute stands on the threshold of change as it faces new threats to its existence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]