“The Life Sciences after World War II: Institutional Change and International Connections”,
University of Pittsburgh - May 16-17, 2014
Cold War Science, UNESCO, and the Communist Bloc
Successes and Failures of the IGY, IBP, and Other International Large-scale Programmes During
the Cold War Era
Doubravka Olšáková (Institute of Contemporary History, Academy of Sciences of the Czech
Republic, Prague)
The International Biological Programme (IBP) was launched in 1964 following the
successful completion of the first large-scale international scientific project which included both
sides of the Cold War, that is, the International Geophysical Year (IGY). The IBP came in the
immediate aftermath of the official Soviet rejection of pseudo-scientific theories of Trofim D.
Lysenko. Actually, it started the same year when Lysenko’s theories were officially dismissed and
just a few months before Lysenko was removed from his post of director of the Institute of
Genetics.
It is rather striking how quickly the Communist scientific community adopted a new
approach to biological sciences. Soon, everyone behaved as if Lysenko had never existed. Thanks
to pseudo-scientific theories such as Lysenkoism and others, we can assume that scientific
continuity at the time of political and ideological upheavals was one of the main features of Cold
War science. In particular, it seems that despite all the ideological rhetoric of the Cold War,
international scientific networks communicated very well even across the Iron Curtain and
scientists were not as fundamentally influenced by official indoctrination as one could suppose.
Some Soviet and East-European post-war researchers successfully managed to maintain ties with
their colleagues behind the Iron Curtain. Nonetheless, this assumption raises a question of
fundamental importance for the research of history of science during the Cold War: Can we
assume that science was ‘global´ – give or take some ideological deviations such as Lysenkoism –
or should we think within the framework of the official Cold War rhetoric (in terms of official
historiography), which sees the sides of the Iron Curtain as two isolated and separated groups
that worked each on their own scientific agenda?
As a matter of fact, the international scientific agenda outlined by some international
organization was often a clever compromise between ideology, practical needs (of both blocs),
and priorities of scientific research. Defining the agenda of international science was, however, a
dynamic process which was shaped by the dynamics of the Cold War. For example, in the early
stages of outlining the international agenda of science, the Soviets suffered numerous setbacks:
the USSR refused to joint the UNESCO and after the Communist putsches in Eastern Europe, they
forced the countries within Soviet sphere of influence to follow their lead and withdraw from the
UNESCO as well. Under Soviet pressure, Poland, Hungary, and Czechoslovakia thus left UNESCO in
1952–1953. They were ‘allowed’ to re-enter it only in 1954, when the USSR, too, became its
official member. Withdrawal from the UNESCO (and consequently also a withdrawal from the
ICSU) led to isolation of all these countries and their full dependence on the USSR.
Why did they re-join in 1954? By that time, it was already clear that Soviet attempts to
influence the international scientific community had failed. The World Peace Council did not
attract sufficient following and it suffered a deep crisis. The World Federation of Scientific
Workers – which was heavily influenced if not directly managed by the Soviets – was not strong
enough to operate on the other side of the Iron Curtain and had various other problems. The
Soviets looked for other options and possibilities. Their engagement with and activities within the
Pugwash movement, whose structure in the Eastern Europe markedly differed from the structure
of this movement in Western Europe and America, are but one example of an active approach of
the Soviets to the international arena.
From the Soviet perspective, large scale programmes such as IGY, IBP, IQSY, and others
opened doors to Soviet efforts to influence the international science agenda. It is therefore
important to stress that at the beginning of 1960´s, the USSR assumed important positions at the
“The Life Sciences after World War II: Institutional Change and International Connections”,
University of Pittsburgh - May 16-17, 2014
UNESCO department of science and research and was thus able to exert influence on the
development of life sciences.
The paper first briefly recapitulates the achievements of the IGY, which defined future
international collaboration between Eastern European countries. This cooperation was neither
‘free’ nor ‘voluntary’ but strictly coordinated by Moscow. The study then focuses on the main
features of the IBP, especially on a comparison with the first project launched on the same level,
that is, the IGY. How much did Soviets and their East-European colleagues learn from the IGY? The
author, however, also tries to present a comparison between the IBP and Stalin’s Great Plan for
the Transformation of Nature, the first large-scale programme launched in 1948 not only in the
Soviet Union but in all countries of the Socialist bloc. The aim of this plan, whose scientific results
are often underestimated, was to coordinate ecological activities across the Socialist bloc in order
to modify the macroclimate (as discussed at the international conference of Socialist countries in
Prague in 1956). Aside from all the heavy Stalinist ideological propaganda, the actual research
carried out in non-ideological context resulted in a new approach to the protection of nature.
Should we look for a continuity of scientific agenda only locally or can we take into account the
global context of science? If the latter applies, one should ask whether the Soviets may have seen
the IBP as a new, updated version of the Stalin’s plan for the transformation of nature.
The paper is based on comparative research in the archives of East European academies
of sciences as well as in archives of the respective Communist parties. It is submitted by
Doubravka Olšáková, a senior researcher at the Institute of Contemporary History of the Academy
of Sciences of the Czech Republic. Her main research interests are the history of science during
the Cold War (especially from Eastern European perspective), environmental history (relations
between science and environment), and modern European history in general. She published
books on 19th century liberalism (Correspondence of Alexis de Tocqueville and Leo Thun), on
Czech–French relations and on Czech nationalism. The main focus of her research is, however, the
history of science. Her main publication, Science goes to people! (Prague, 2014), deals with the
role of dissemination of science in relation to Communist propaganda in the 20th century.
More information available at: https://cas-cz.academia.edu/DoubravkaOlsakova