Nikolai Krementsov’s research while affiliated with University of Toronto and other places

In September 1978, the WHO convened a momentous International Conference on Primary Health Care in Alma-Ata, capital of the Soviet republic of Kazakhstan. This unprecedented gathering signalled a break with WHO’s long-standing technically oriented disease eradication campaigns. Instead, Alma-Ata emphasised a community-based, social justice-oriented approach to health. Existing historical accounts of the conference, largely based on WHO sources, have characterised it as a Soviet triumph. Such reasoning, embedded in Cold War logic, contradicts both the decision-making processes in Geneva and Moscow that led the conference to be held in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) and the reality that the highest Soviet authorities did not consider it a significant ideological or political opportunity. To redress the omissions and assumptions of prior accounts, this article examines the Alma-Ata conference in the context of Soviet political and health developments, drawing from Soviet archival and published sources as well as WHO materials and interviews with several key Soviet protagonists. We begin by outlining the USSR’s complicated relationship to WHO and the international health sphere. Next, we trace the genesis of the proposal for—and realisation and repercussions of—the primary healthcare (PHC) meeting, framed by Soviet, Kazakh, WHO and Cold War politics. Finally, we explore misjudgements and competing meanings of PHC from both Soviet and WHO perspectives, in particular focusing on the role of physicians, community participation and socialist approaches to PHC.

This chapter provides an overview of both the history and the historiography of Lysenkoism.

This volume covers the global history of the Lysenko controversy, while exploring in greater depth the background of D. Lysenko’s career and influence in the USSR. By presenting the rise and fall of T.D. Lysenko in a variety of aspects—his influence upon art, unrecognized predecessors, and the extent to which genetics continued in the USSR even while he was in power, and the revival of his reputation today—the authors provide a fresh perspective on one of the most notorious episodes in the history of science.

This volume examines the international impact of Lysenkoism in its namesake’s heyday and the reasons behind Lysenko’s rehabilitation in Russia today. By presenting the rise and fall of T.D. Lysenko in its various aspects, the authors provide a fresh perspective on one of the most notorious episodes in the history of science.

Through the lens of a 1957 documentary film, "Neural and humoral factors in the regulation of bodily functions (research on conjoined twins)," produced by the USSR Academy of Medical Sciences, this essay traces the entwined histories of Soviet physiology, studies of conjoined twins and scientific cinema. It examines the role of Ivan Pavlov and his students, including Leonid Voskresenkii, Dmitrii Fursikov and Petr Anokhin, in the development of "scientific film" as a particular cinematographic genre in Soviet Russia and explores numerous puzzles hidden behind the film's striking visuals.

This essay examines the 'infiltration' of eugenics into Russian medical discourse during the formation of the eugenics movement in western Europe and North America in 1900-17. It describes the efforts of two Russian physicians, the bacteriologist and hygienist Nikolai Gamaleia (1859-1949) and the psychiatrist Tikhon Iudin (1879-1949), to introduce eugenics to the Russian medical community, analysing in detail what attracted these representatives of two different medical specialties to eugenic ideas, ideals, and policies advocated by their western colleagues. On the basis of a close examination of the similarities and differences in Gamaleia's and Iudin's attitudes to eugenics, the essay argues that lack of cohesiveness gave the early eugenics movement a unique strength. The loose mix of widely varying ideas, ideals, methods, policies, activities and proposals covered by the umbrella of eugenics offered to a variety of educated professionals in Russia and elsewhere the possibility of choosing, adopting and adapting particular elements to their own national, professional, institutional and disciplinary contexts, interests and agendas.

BeerDaniel, Renovating Russia: the human sciences and the fate of liberal modernity, 1880–1930, Ithaca and London, Cornell University Press, 2008, pp. ix, 229, £22.95, $45.00 (hardback 978-0-8014-4627-6). - Volume 54 Issue 1 - Nikolai Krementsov

The early years of the Cold War were marked by vicious propaganda and counter-propaganda campaigns that thundered on both sides of the Iron Curtain, further dividing the newly formed ‘‘Western’’ and ‘‘Eastern’’ blocs. These campaigns aimed at the consolidation and mobilization of each camp’s politics, economy, ideology, and culture, and at the vilification and demonization of the opposite camp. One of the most notorious among these campaigns – ‘‘For Michurinist biology’’ and ‘‘Against Lysenkoism,’’ as it became known in Eastern and Western blocs respectively – clearly demonstrated that the Cold War drew the dividing line not only on political maps, but also on science. The centerpiece of the campaign was a session on ‘‘the situation in biological science’’ held in the summer of 1948 by the Lenin All-Union Academy of Agricultural Sciences (VASKhNIL) in Moscow. In his opening address on July 31, the academy’s president Trofim D. Lysenko stated that modern biology had diverged into two opposing trends. Lysenko and his disciples represented one trend, which he named ‘‘agrobiology’’ or ‘‘Michurinist biology,’’ after Ivan Michurin, an amateur plant breeder, who had gained notoriety in the Soviet Union