vidual contributions, the second mainly throughpublic activity and administration. The interestsand standardsof the two au- BOOK REVIEWSthorities have often conflicted, and this makesRussian science an interesting,even ideal, subjectfor socialhistory. LorenGraham has writtena book on the Transformationsand Survivals socialhistory of Russianscience, the aim of which is to providean introductionto the subject for a newcomer to it. I think it body the head of the Russiangovemment, serves that stated purpose,discussing in a Science in and the . A whoeverit be at the moment. I am sorryto very simpleway severalkey issues, person- Short History. LOREN R. GRAHAM.Cambridge say that the most probableresponse would alities, and events. Instead of giving a University Press, New York, 1993. x, 321 pp. + be unanimousapproval. I wish that a pho- chronological narrative, it consists of a plates. $29.95 or ?30. Cambridge History of tographof such an enthusiasticproceeding, collection of essays on general featuresof Science. for instance of VyacheslavMolotov's elec- Russianscience, with impressiveand rich tion to honorarymembership in the Soviet factual details given in an appendix. The The book opens with a gallery of pictures of Academy of Sciences in 1946, had also book also reflectshow little of the subject famous Russian scientists, among them been includedso as to presentto the reader has been studiedand how many questions mythic founder Mikhail Lomonosov, ro- the other and equallyrepresentative face of and blank spots remain. mantic pioneer of non-Euclidean geometry Russianscience. The nation'sfirst important scientific in- Nikolai Lobachevsky, constructor of the What about independenceof thought, stitutions-the St. PetersburgAcademy of periodic table Dmitry Mendeleev, physiol- one might ask, and what are the reasons Sciences (1725), Moscow University ogist Ivan Pavlov, physicist Piotr Kapitza, behindthis doublestandard of thinkingand (1755), and a largernetwork of universities geneticist and his violent behavior?The shortestway to answeris to (around1805)-were oases of Westem sci- opponent Trofim Lysenko, mathematician call to mind the distinction between the ence in an alien, still quite traditionalsoci- Andrei Kolmogorov, and nuclear-weapons stateand civil societyand to understandthat ety. They dependedcompletely on the will creators Igor Kurchatov and Andrei Sa- the latter has played a very small role in of the centralgovernment to portrayitself as kharov. One might have added 18th-cen- science in Russiain any era, imperialor a modem Europeanpower. The Academy, tury genius Leonhard Euler and embryolo- soviet. This means that independentinsti- as a courtinstitution, remained in isolation gist Karl von Baer (who although not na- tutions of the scientificcommunity, indus- almostuntil the end of the imperialperiod. tive Russians cannot be excluded from the try, philanthropy,mass media, and public Universitiesestablished closer links with the history of Russian science), geologist opinionhave providedtoo little supportfor ever more emancipatedsociety in the first Vladimir Vemadsky, theoretical physicist science to securethat pluralityof sourcesof half of the 19th century.The demandfor Lev Landau, and space-program director authoritythat effectivelysubstitutes for free- universityeducation grew steadily; the aca- Sergei Korolev. In these figures we find dom. Only two authoritieshave been of demiccareer, however, was not attractiveto intelligent faces, independent minds, and a permanentcrucial importanceto Russian the elite. Graham'sbiographical essays on very impressive contribution to science. science-the world scientific community Lomonosov,Lobachevsky, and Mendeleev Now perform an experiment. Let these and native political power. A successful presenta pictureof the Russianscholar as mantled scholars get together to form, say, Russianscientist has had to meet the stan- typicallybeing of very modest and often the Areopagus of Russian science, and let dardsof both these "referencegroups," the provincialorigins, studying with statefinan- anybody suggest electing to this symbolic first mainly throughpublications and indi- cial supportin one of the "twocapitals" St. Petersburgor Moscowor abroad,and living a turbulent,if judgedby the standardsof democracies,public life. In the absenceof a well-developednative scientificcommunity with its discipline,persons like Lobachevsky and Mendeleevcould moreeasily introduce originaland radicalideas. The situationchanged in the secondhalf of the century,especially after the capitalist reformsof the 1860s. Massmedia created a cult of science and the public stronglyde- mandednew centersof leaming, while the govemmenttried to contain the spreadof the political opposition that quickly took hold in the universities.A new generationof professorsimported from Germany the idea that their task was not only teaching but doing research, and students and faculty struggledfor autonomy. Although public demand for education for women failed to change the rules of university admission, it led to the establishment of the first private The election of V. M. Molotov to membership honoris causa in the Soviet Academy of Sciences. and community institutions of higher learn- [ Vestnik Akademii Nauk SSSR, no. 1 1-1 2, 1946] ing. By 1914 these institutions matched the

1336 SCIENCE * VOL. 261 * 3 SEPTEMBER1993 state collegesin number,though not yet in forms of life and ways of expressingand Ol'denburgskii,and his readinessto com- size. The beginningof the presentcentury pursuingits particularinterests. Of course,the promisewith the Communistgovernment saw the emergenceof philanthropicinterest hidden life is much more difficultto study has to be explainedin anotherway. in science as such and the establishmentof than the open one, and therehas been very Writingon ideologyand science, Graham the first privateresearch institutions. Gra- little analysisof the scientificcommunity dur- providesa very good short summaryof the ham does not writemuch aboutthese insti- ing the Stalin period.Graham, in keeping principlesof dialecticalmaterialism relevant tutional developments,but he tells a story withthe currentstate of historiography,closes to science. He is also convincingwhen he that illustratesthe thesisfrom another side: his chapteron the scientificcommunity with arguesthat manygood scientiststook Marx- the triumphantreception of Darwinismin the early1930s. ism very seriouslyand usedit in their work. Russiawas shapedgreatly by public values The most apparentorganizational fea- His bestexamples are Lev Vygotsky's psycho- and the intelligentsia'soppositional and an- ture of Soviet science is the enormous logical theory of thought and language, tireligiousviews. Consciouslyand uncon- administrativerole of the Academyof Sci- AleksandrOparin's theory of the originof life, sciously,Russian interpreters deviated from ences. Having begun as the ImperialSt. VladimirFock's philosophy of quantumphys- Darwin,suppressing Malthusian and stress- PetersburgAcademy, it changed its name ics, and BorisHessen's social approach to the ing Lamarckianthemes in his doctrine. afterthe events of 1917 to "RussianAcad- historyof science. It is true that Marxist The Communistrevolution channeled the emy"and quicklyreached accord with the ideologyand philosophy were used as cultural processof modemizationin another resourcesand also as a strongweapon direction.The new governmentwas in scientists' conflicts. I suspect, willingto supportscience on a much however,that behindGraham's dis- broaderscale. For the sameideologi- tinctionbetween "authentic" Marx- cal and pragmaticreasons, it also ists and "dogmatists"who used the wanted to control science much ideologyfor primarilypolitical goals more tightly. Grahamexplains the hides nothing more than a simple complex attitudestoward so-called categorizationof scientistsas "good" "bourgeoisspecialists"-the core of and "bad.""Bad" scientist Lysenko, Sovietscience politics during the first althoughno less sincere a Marxist ten yearsafter 1917. The compro- thanhis opponents,suppressed them mise between scientistsand politi- politicallyin 1948 and is blamedfor cians was basedon mutualrecogni- dogmaticuse of ideology.In a com- tion of theirspheres of competence: parablesituation in 1950,"good" sci- scientistsretained a certainamount entists-comparativelinguists-sup- of professionalautonomy and were pressedwith the help of Stalin's allowedprivately to hold deviating heavy hand the school of Nikolai viewson generalpolitical issues. The Marr,who with his supposedlyanti- "A model of Lomonosov's chemical laboratory in St. Petersburg, the culturalrevolution of 1928-1931put first chemical laboratory in Russia, opened in 1748." [From Science bourgeois"new doctrine" of the de- an end to this compromiseand in Russia and the Soviet Union; courtesy of Institute of the History of velopmentof languageand near mo- markedthe transitionto a totalitari- Science and Technology, Moscow] nopolyon the field was the natural an regime.Communists took admin- candidatefor Lysenkoof Soviet lin- istrativecontrol of virtuallyall scien- guistics. The comparativelinguists tificinstitutions and demanded that scientists new Communist rulers. Ten years later, were as ready as Lysenko to use Marxismas a share their political values. They thought around 1929, it lost its relative autonomy political weapon, but their triumph over they had achievedeffective control of both and became a real Soviet Academy, re- Marr's followers did not become famous as the professionalactivities and the political maining a scientific institution on a par dogmatic use of ideology. The lesson is that views of scientists:the ascendancyof this with many others. Those events have been Soviet political methods of closing scientific "totalitarian"model likewiseserved well the studied well enough. Much less is known controversiescould lead to strangeand some- propagandainterests of theirpolitical enemies about the transformations that occurred times unpredictableresults. on the other side of the "ironcurtain" and after 1934, when, retaining some features of Graham witnessed and reviews attempts continuesto servepost-Communist ideology. a scientific society, the Academy began also at reforming Soviet science made during Only the judgmentsrendered conceming it to fulfill the function of the ministry of the Gorbachev era. The Academy proved werein opposition-one side claimedcredit science, managing in a centralized manner to be very conservative, confirming its role for virtuallyall achievementsof Soviet sci- the whole network of major research insti- as the state ministry, while rank-and-file ence andwas blamed by the otherfor purges, tutions in fundamental sciences. This dom- scientists were vigorously demanding re- ideologicalcensorship, and otherlosses. inance of the Academy is so striking forms, both in general politics and in sci- Grahamstrives to overcome this Cold throughout the postwar period that even ence. The collapse of the Soviet political Warmentality with a carefullybalanced pic- historical studies have not escaped the system did not lead to the collapse of the tureof achievementsand failures. I, too, want temptation of presenting the history of So- Academy, despite the harsh critique leveled to do awaywith the characterizationof Soviet viet science as the history of the Academy, at it. It changed its name, again becoming sciencein termsof the totalitarianmodel but tacitly conveying the impression that the the Russian Academy of Sciences, but re- wouldprefer another option-shifting atten- Academy was similarly important before mained intact as a bureaucratic organiza- tion furtherfrom political and more toward the late 1930s. Apart from this reservation tion, although deprived of its former finan- social topics and consideringthe relations I have to correct just one minor mistake in cial prosperity and public prestige. The betweenscientists and politiciansin termsof Graham's otherwise very good account of reader may be interested in whether Rus- interactionand dialoguerather than of con- the Academy and its relations with the sian science belongs only to history or trol and dependence.Obviously the control political authorities: The permanent secre- whether some hope can be held for its could not be reallytotal, and the scientific tary of the Russian Academy, S. F. Ol'den- future. Although the present crisis has pro- communitydeveloped its own "underground" burg, did not belong to the family of Prince duced a huge wave of pessimism, it is much

SCIENCE * VOL. 261 * 3 SEPTEMBER1993 1337 less seriousthan at least two other Russian ice from the mountains crisesof this century,when therewas much wrappedin dried grassso greaterreason to worryabout the fate of that the Romanemperors science. Historicalexperience can support could enjoy their wine only a few verygeneral predictions: that the chilled in the summerto more centralizedthe futureRussian politi- our daysof high-tempera- cal system is, the more it will tend to ture superconductivity, preservethe Academyas the leadingscien- its wonders have been tific institution,and that a moredecentral- publiclydisplayed and its ized and democraticRussia will probably mysteries privately pur- give more preferenceto the universities. sued. The history of the The state remainsalmost the only sourceof subject that the master supportfor science. Altemative sourcescan of experimenters,Robert emergeonly gradually,along with the de- Boyle, found "the most velopmentof the civil society. difficult"to work at has Alexei Kojevnikov been studied very little, Instituteof the Historyof Science and any such attempt is and Technology, very welcome. So are Moscow103012, Russia these two books, though they also representmissed opportunities. "Georges Claude (on left) and his first air liquefier," around 1902. Works in the history Withimprovements, the Frenchapparatus was able to achieve by The Physics of Cold of the physical sciences 1906 a specific productionof 0.52 literper kilowatt-hour,exceeding should, by definition, be those of Hampson in Great Britainand Lindein Germany.[From F. M. in and of worksof history.Simplified Dennery'schapter History Origins Cryogenics] History and Origins of Cryogenics. RALPH presentationsof abstruse G. SCURLOCK, Ed. Clarendon (Oxford Univer- subjectsor chronologicalnarratives of pub- cal reports circulated by the companies sity Press), New York, 1992. xxiv, 653 pp., illus. lished papers do not necessarilyqualify. themselves.No archivalmaterial from the $165 or ?95. Monographs on Cryogenics. These of coursemay be very usefulunder- companieshas been used in writing their takings, but truly historicalworks have a "histories,"there are no interviewswith the Superconductivity. Its Historical Roots and differentaim: to pose and traceout answers key persons,and, most important,there is Development from Mercury to the Ceramic Ox- to questionsabout how thingshappened in no presentationof the economic and social ides. PER FRIDTJOF DAHL.American Institute of Physics, New York, 1992. xiv, 406 pp., illus. an interpretativeframework that also poses issues relevant to the establishmentand $55. whys.This ratherpedantic and perhapsself- runningof such companies.The develop- indulgentobservation is set forth to under- ment of home refrigerators,for example, line my ambivalenceabout these two books. with its lasting effects on the everyday Cold has been a rather unappealing state of What there is in the books is interesting- habits of millions of people, is thoroughly affairs in our Westem culture. Neverthe- and in some partsthe account of develop- ignored. less, many people have been intrigued by it. ments is quite thorough. But both books In the prefaceScurlock characterizes the From the time some poor folk brought leave out so much significantmaterial relat- volumeas "a fairlycomprehensive coverage ed to the storythey purportto tell that they of all the developmentsin cryogenicssince are seriouslyincomplete as chronicles,nor 1877" apartfrom "a few gaps, notably the do they present any overall argumentto formerUSSR." I do not think it is unfairto supporttheir selectivity. say that this is like writing the history of The compilationedited by Scurlockis electromagnetismor quantum mechanics an attempt to presentthe developmentof without considering Clerk Maxwell or cryogenicsin universitiesand industryin Schrodinger.The workin the formerSovi- variouscountries of Europeand Asia and in et Union was of such importancein the the duringthe past hundred development of low-temperature tech- years-an awesome undertakingindeed. niques, the discoveryof new phenomena, The amount of informationpresented by and the formulationof theories that I do the 20 contributorsis staggering,but amid not think a properassessment of the history all this informationit is impossibleto dis- of cryogenicscan be made without discus- cern the storyline, and one wonderswhat sion of it. Almost all the contributionsof argumentthe informationsupports, what the Soviet scientists in low-temperature narrativeit helps to unfold. Dates, names, physics were made during the Second details of machines, experimentalresults WorldWar, andmany people not caughtin are all there and-remarkably for any the whirlpoolof the Lysenkocase came to book-with no apparentmistakes. Most of regardcryogenics as the paradigmaticcase the papersabout the developmentof cryo- of Soviet science. Scientists in the Soviet James Dewar and the vacuum flask he invent- genics in the variousuniversities and coun- Union were proud that they had become ed in 1892 Sir James Dewar/Is a better man tries, with the exceptionof the three about pioneersin a difficultarea with no external than you are/None of you asses/Can liquefy the United do not add new of gases. [Quotationfrom D. Shoenberg's chap- States, anything help duringthe mostperilous period their ter in Historyand Originsof Cryogenics;picture to what has alreadybeen written on their recent history. In this light it is important courtesy AIP EmilioSegre VisualArchives, W. subjects.Most of the papersabout particu- to understandthe team culture and the F. Meggars Collection] lar companiesresemble leaflets and techni- collaborativeefforts, especially in Moscow,

1338 SCIENCE * VOL. 261 * 3 SEPTEMBER1993