Dr Matthew Adamson (McDaniel College, Budapest) has given an interview for the Society for Social Studies of Science’s Backchannels blog. In it, Dr Adamson discusses many of the STAND commission’s activities relating to the history of science diplomacy, especially those related to science diplomacy in the global South.
2022 European Society for the History of Science Conference, Brussels, 7-9 September
The STAND Commission calls for paper proposals on science diplomacy issues aligned to the main 2022 ESHS conference theme on science policy and the politics of science.
Core literature on science diplomacy contends that utilizing science in the diplomacy arena enables rising above political differences and tensions (e.g. AAAS/Royal Society, New Frontiers of Science Diplomacy, 2010, p. 1). Hence science diplomacy initiatives appear policy-neutral, beneficial in their impacts on international relations, and orientated towards evidence-based solutions to global challenges. By contrast, new science diplomacy case studies have exposed hidden political ambitions present in past schemes and recognized the asymmetries in global distribution of techno-scientific resources underlying past and present initiatives. This recent work prompts an essential question for the emerging field of science diplomacy studies namely what kind of politics does science diplomacy help to perform?
We encourage submissions of papers addressing this question from different angles, centred on cases from any historical period or geographic orientation. Potential themes for papers include, but are not limited to:
- Collaboration and competition in science diplomacy initiatives.
- Science diplomacy and democracy: social engagement or elite gatekeeping?
- Difference, gender, and inclusion in science diplomacy initiatives.
- Health and medical diplomacy: historical opportunities and inequalities.
- The Global South and indigenous communities (or the absence thereof) in science diplomacy narratives.
- Geopolitics in the mediation of scientific networks and infrastructures.
We invite submission of proposals including title, abstract (300 words maximum), and brief CV (150 words maximum). We especially welcome submissions from early career scholars and under-represented groups. Please send submissions to the STAND Commission secretary, Matthew Adamson (mhadamson at mcdaniel dot hu)
by December 17, 2021.
Mini-Workshop 1 (22 January 2021)
Jaehwan Hyun, ‘“A National Park in the Demilitarized Zone”: Victory over Communism Diplomacy and Nature Conservation in Cold War South Korea, 1961-1973’
Yue Liang, ‘Technology Diplomacy in Early Communist China: Visiting the Jingjiang Flood Diversion Project in 1952’
Shawn Liu, ‘Diplomacy and Meteorology: China, Japan, and the Dispute over the Qingdao Observatory, 1918-1931’
Michitake Aso, Gordon Barrett, John DiMoia, Aya Homei, Kenji Ito, Reiko Kanazawa, Yi-Tang Lin, Doubravka Olšáková, Sam Robinson, Simone Turchetti, Zuoyue Wang
Mini-Workshop 2 (12 March 2021)
Aashique Ahmed Iqbal, ‘Staging Science as Spectacle: Aviation in an Indian State, 1931-1949’
Kenji Ito, ‘Transnational Scientific Advising: Occupied Japan, the United States National Academy of Sciences, and the Establishment of the Science Council of Japan’
Matthew Adamson, Michitake Aso, Gordon Barrett, John DiMoia, Arunabh Ghosh, Aya Homei, Jaehwan Hyun, Lif Lund Jacobsen, Reiko Kanazawa, Roberto Lalli, Yue Liang, Yi-Tang Lin, Doubravka Olšáková, Samuel Robinson, Waqar Zaidi
Mini-Workshop 3 (16 April 2021)
Michitake Aso, ‘Medical Diplomacy between the Second and the Third Worlds: North Vietnam, East Germany, and Tuberculosis’
John P. DiMoia, ‘Reshaping Energy Priorities and Pursuing International Construction Procurements: South Korea and Iran’
Reiko Kanazawa, ‘Addiction Consultants and Pharmacology Experts: WHO and International Drug-Health Diplomacy in Thailand and India, 1961–1980’
Gordon Barrett, Aya Homei, Jaehwan Hyun, Lif Lund Jacobsen, Yi-Tang Lin, Doubravka Olšáková, Samuel Robinson, Simone Turchetti
Mini-Workshop 4 (17 May 2021)
Closing Discussion Participants:
Gordon Barrett, John DiMoia, Claire Edington, Aya Homei, Aashique Ahmed Iqbal, Kenji Ito, Reiko Kanazawa, Shawn Liu, Kate Sullivan de Estrada, Zuoyue Wang
DHST Historical Commission on Science, Technology and Diplomacy-sponsored special issue of Centaurus
The Commission is excited to announce the publication of our third special issue, ’Global Perspectives on Science Diplomacy’, which has been edited by Matthew Adamson and Roberto Lalli.
‘Global Perspectives on Science Diplomacy: Exploring the Diplomacy-Knowledge Nexus in Contemporary Histories of Science’ (Open Access Article)
Matthew Adamson and Roberto Lalli
Contemporary scholarship concerning science diplomacy is increasingly taking a historical approach. In our introduction to this special issue, we argue that this approach promises insight into science diplomacy because of the tools historians of science bring to their work. In particular, we observe that not only are historians of science currently poised to chart the diplomatic aspects involved in the transnational circulation of technoscientific knowledge, materials, and expertise. They are ready to bring critical global analysis to an important phenomenon that has too often been treated as a benign diplomacy device deployed by the Global North without equal reference to the Global South. Through cases discussed in the articles of the special issue, however, we see that historically, in the Global South as well as the Global North, science diplomacy has often functioned to mediate the circulation of technoscientific knowledge and materials, and its historical study helps to better illuminate the resulting knowledge-power nexus.
Articles (Free to Read):
This paper explores the construction of scientists’ expertise on international affairs through a study of the rhetoric of U.S. atomic scientists during public and policy-making debates on the international control of atomic energy between 1945 and 1947. It explores the claims scientists made about the nature of their expertise on issues of diplomacy and international relations and how their expertise was produced and reproduced. The paper shows that scientists were able to successfully project themselves, in the public domain, as experts on political and diplomatic matters related to the atomic. In calling for the international control of atomic energy, scientists constructed their expert knowledge in contrast to, as they portrayed it, the failed expertise of diplomats and political thinkers. In boundary work through their speeches, articles, and government testimonies, scientists drew a line between the political and the scientific, but argued that, as scientist-citizens, they were able to take their rational thinking from one realm into the other.
After the outbreak of the Pacific War, the United States and the United Kingdom both set up cultural assistance programs to China in order to aid the fight against Japan in Asia and to shape the postwar world according to their interests. From 1942 to 1946, the United States sent 30 experts in science, technology, medicine, and public health to China. Among them was George Cressey, a geographer of international reputation deeply familiar with the cultural and physical geography of China, who travelled to China as a visiting professor of the Sino–U.S. Cultural Relations Program and a representative of the State Department. However, he was recalled earlier than expected, after only 7 months, because his remarks were thought to be damaging to Sino–U.S. relations. Examining his wartime visit to China within the context of Sino–U.S. relations, this paper uncovers Cressey’s diplomatic mission. We illustrate how geography simultaneously became the object of Cressey’s research, a tool for the promotion of Sino–U.S. cultural relations, and the theoretical basis for foreign policy proposals. Finally, through a comparison of Cressey’s and Joseph Needham’s experiences in wartime China, this paper illuminates their different understanding of Chinese culture (including China’s society and concept of science and culture), which led to their different approaches to Chinese affairs. It also shows the tension between technical assistance and cultural export in diplomatic relations during wartime. This case demonstrates the expanding role of science and technology in diplomatic agendas and international relations as a new, distinctive feature of science and technology in the 20th century.
‘Friends in Fission: US–Brazil Relations and the Global Stresses of Atomic Energy, 1945–1955‘
Matthew Adamson and Simone Turchetti
This article considers a relatively unknown episode in the early Cold War that involved the US and Brazil, as well as a number of other countries. From 1950, the leading figure in Brazil’s nuclear effort, Admiral Álvaro Alberto, established amicable connections with the representatives of other nations in order to make it possible for Brazil to develop an atomic energy complex. The U.S. reaction to the Brazilian initiative was sharp and restrictive, involving a combination of coercion and persuasion, and it reverberated in a larger matrix of hemispheric and global economic and security concerns. In this case, science diplomacy did not actually have the benign character often ascribed to it. We argue that it was instead an integral part of a set of diplomatic practices aimed at strengthening U.S. global hegemony rather than a means of addressing global concerns.
‘Inter-African Cooperation in the Social Sciences in the Era of Decolonization: A Case of Science Diplomacy’
Cláudia Castelo and Frederico Ágoas
This article addresses the inter-imperial collaboration in the social sciences promoted by the Commission for Technical Cooperation in Africa South of Sahara (CCTA) and its advisory board, the Scientific Council for Africa South of the Sahara (CSA), at the intersection of diplomatic history and the history of science during late colonialism. It is our purpose to re-evaluate how the common aim of reinvigorating and re-legitimating empire in the era of decolonization forged relations between social scientists, colonial officials, and diplomats, and to provide new insights into the ways social science influenced and was influenced by foreign policy in this specific context. Drawing on primary printed sources from the CCTA/CSA and the UNESCO, and on archival sources from the Portuguese Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Board of Overseas Research in the Ministry of Overseas, we argue that it is important to include other international institutions and initiatives—beyond UNESCO—in the account of the surge of social sciences in the post-war international system. Our case, focusing on the social sciences and the CCTA/CSA, also reveals the political and diplomatic uses of scientific knowledge in the era of decolonization, and the contentious nature of science diplomacy beyond previous straightforward definitions.
The first of the transfermium elements—those elements with an atomic number greater than 100—were discovered in the 1950s, largely by the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (LBL) in California and the Joint Institute for Nuclear Research (JINR) in Dubna, Russia. After each new element was claimed to have been discovered by one lab, the claim was contested by the other. The International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC) and the International Union of Pure and Applied Physics (IUPAP) formed a joint working group to end the controversies, the Joint Neutral Group (JNG). When that group failed to resolve the discovery disputes, another was formed, the Transfermium Working Group (TWG). Neutrality was a value important to both groups, giving them the credibility necessary to act as mediators. For the JNG in the 1970s, and the TWG in the late 1980s, neutrality had different meanings and was attempted in different ways. The extensive use of archival collections in this paper provides a more complex and nuanced look at the geopolitical and disciplinary tensions surrounding these discovery disputes and the attempts at neutrality, in its different forms, to resolve them.
The year 1968 is universally considered a watershed in history, as the world was experiencing an accelerated growth of anti-establishment protests that would have long-lasting impacts on the cultural, social, and political spheres of human life. On September 26, amid social and political unrest across the globe, 62 physicists gathered in Geneva to found the European Physical Society. Among these were the official representatives of the national physical societies of 18 countries in both Eastern and Western Europe, who signed the constitution in spite of the political divides of the Cold War. According to the main proponent of the society, Italian physicist Gilberto Bernardini, the success of the initiative was the realization of a dream: the institutional formation of a single community of European physicists, a representation of a culturally unified Europe that he described as a “single highly civilized nation.” The analysis of as yet unexplored archival materials of Bernardini and other protagonists in the establishment of the society has enabled an investigation of the historical development of science diplomacy in two interconnected ways: first, by elucidating how the actors involved, especially those in Western Europe, interpreted their role as diplomats amid particularly turbulent reconfigurations of international political relations; second, by interpreting the attempt to institutionalize transnational scientific networks with the establishment of a non-governmental organization as a tool to influence world political affairs. It will first be shown that the political ideal of a culturally unified Europe was deeply intertwined with the socio-professional interests of a specific community, mostly involved with CERN. I will argue that, in the process of establishing the society, the invasion of Czechoslovakia by Warsaw Pact armed forces led many of the Western physicists involved in this process to reframe the role of the European Physical Society as a tool to diffuse liberal-democratic values and to support political dissidents in Eastern Europe.
‘On the Road to Stockholm: A Case Study of the Failure of Cold War International Environmental Initiatives (Prague Symposium, 1971)’
Jiří Janáč and Doubravka Olšáková
In May 1971, the Czechoslovak capital hosted an international conference on the environment that brought together high-ranking government officials and scientists from both sides of the Iron Curtain. The idea to organize such an event reflected Czechoslovakia’s interest in environmental planning and was one of the main outcomes of the country’s science diplomacy in the field of global environmentalism in the late 1960s. Organized under the auspices of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE), the meeting aimed to be an important stepping-stone in the formation of a new international institutional landscape related to the environment. UNECE, with its history of facilitating international cooperation across the Iron Curtain, provided an optimal platform for such an undertaking. Nonetheless, the Symposium on Problems Relating to Environment was overshadowed by the 1972 United Nations Conference on the Human Environment in Stockholm, the outcomes of which were instrumentalized by the Soviets to promote their own international policy aims associated with the Brezhnev Doctrine. Soviet authorities considered the environment to be a purely domestic issue and did not show much interest in pursuing international environmental cooperation. The “German Question” at the UN served as a Soviet instrument to pursue Soviet interests and resulted in the downgrading of the Prague meeting and a subsequent boycott of the Stockholm Conference by the entire Eastern Bloc. Based on a detailed analysis of materials produced by the event organizers (archived in Prague and Geneva), this paper shows how Cold War geopolitics played a decisive role in shaping emerging global environmentalism.
‘Scientific Imaginaries and Science Diplomacy: The Case of Ocean Exploitation’ (Open Access Article)
As technologies of ocean exploitation emerged during the late 1960s, science policy and diplomacy were formed in response to anticipated capabilities that did not match the realities of extracting deep-sea minerals and of resource exploitation in the deep ocean at the time. Promoters of ocean exploitation in the late 1960s envisaged wonders such as rare mineral extraction and the stationing of divers in underwater habitats from which they would operate seabed machinery not connected to the turbulent surface waters. Their promises coincided with others’ fears that nuclear weaponry would be placed on the seabed. Those who lacked the technological capability to extract minerals from the seabed also had concerns that other nations would exploit their resources. Scientific imaginaries caused uncertainty in the international community—especially in the “Global South.” The UN called the “Law of the Sea” conferences to mediate emerging geopolitical tensions caused by these imaginaries of exploitation of ocean resources. These conferences became a site where lawmakers projected futures rather than merely responding to past or present dilemmas. Diplomats’ negotiations, with their basis in anticipation of the future uses of science and technology, reveal the role of scientific imaginaries within complex negotiations. Here, we see the impact of the distinction (or blurring) of the real and the imagined on the balance of relations between Global North and South increasing global imbalances of resources and power. This article’s analysis of such scientific diplomacy provides a valuable example of the power of scientific imaginaries to have a global impact.
DHST Historical Commission on Science, Technology and Diplomacy-sponsored special issue of Ber. Wissenschaftsgesch (History of Science and Humanities)
The Commission is excited to announce the publication of our second special issue, ‘Diplomats in Science Diplomacy: Promoting Scientific and Technological Collaboration in International Relations’, which has been edited by Lif Lund Jacobsen and Doubravka Olšáková.
Diplomats in Science Diplomacy: Promoting Scientific and Technological Collaboration in International Relations (Free Access Article)
Lif Lund Jacobsen and Doubravka Olšáková
Historical studies on the relationship between science and diplomacy tend to focus on events since World War II and on initiatives for the maintenance of peace or to achieve cooperation over contentious matters. This article presents the case of José Vicente Barbosa du Bocage (1823–1907), a Portuguese zoologist who had formal diplomatic responsibilities in a context of competition for the colonization of Africa in the nineteenth century. He used his knowledge in African geography to implement colonial and diplomatic strategies that aimed at outcompeting rival powers. The development of a network of actors with scientific, colonial, and diplomatic expertise was crucial for the negotiations that involved the partition of the Congo basin, which resulted in victories for Portugal that surpassed the country’s marginal political relevance at the international level and had long‐lasting consequences.
The Danish physicist Niels Bohr is best known for two major achievements: first, his model of the quantum atom, published in 1913, for which he received the Nobel Prize in 1922; and second, the “Copenhagen interpretation” of quantum mechanics developed together with colleagues at his institute in the latter half of the twenties. Having turned his institute toward nuclear physics, making it a pioneer institution in this emerging field, Bohr escaped from Nazi‐occupied Denmark in 1943. Learning in England about the advanced state of the secret project to develop an atomic bomb, which Bohr had so far considered impracticable in a foreseeable future, he agreed to join the project. Bohr decided instantly that the prospect of such a weapon of mass destruction would require what he came to call an “open world” among nations, and he worked conscientiously toward this end until he died in 1962. In the process, statesmen, including Winston Churchill and Franklin D. Roosevelt, as well as diplomats from several countries, came to encounter Bohr and his political mission. Although not as successful as his scientific achievements, his mission was considered by Bohr himself as equally important. Yet it constitutes a hitherto relatively neglected part of Bohr’s career.
The Unflinching Mr. Smith and the Nuclear Age (Open Access Article)
This article focuses on the U.S. diplomat and nuclear arms control negotiator Gerald (Gerry) Coat Smith in order to cast new light on the importance of diplomats in the context of the set of international activities currently labelled as “science diplomacy.” Smith, a lawyer by training, was a key negotiator in many international agreements on post‐WW2 atomic energy projects, from those on uranium prospecting and mining, to reactors technologies to later ones on non‐proliferation and disarmament. His career in science (nuclear) diplomacy also epitomized the shortcomings of efforts to align other countries’ posture on nuclear affairs to U.S. wishes. In particular, the unswerving diplomat increasingly understood that strong‐arm tactics to dissuade other countries from acquiring nuclear weapons would not limit proliferation. Not only did this inform later U.S. diplomacy approaches, but it lent itself to the ascendancy of the new notion of “soft power” as critical to the re‐definition of international affairs.
In 1969, a few short months after the Warsaw Pact invasion of Czechoslovakia, Sergei I. Prasolov, advisor to the Soviet Ambassador in Prague, informed František Šorm, President of the Czechoslovak Academy of Sciences, at a formal meeting that he welcomed Šorm’s suggestion to intensify scientific exchange between Czechoslovakia and the Soviet Union. Šorm politely declined this offer. Behind the veneer of diplomatic courtesy on the part of both actors, a real drama was taking place. Šorm and the Czechoslovak Academy of Sciences had actually never formulated such a request. To the contrary, since the late 1950s the academy had repeatedly pointed out that the Soviets were incapable of coordinating scientific activities in the Eastern Bloc. The Soviet system of academic cooperation within the Eastern Bloc had already begun to collapse after the Geneva Summit of 1955, where the Soviets opened the door to international collaboration across the Iron Curtain. Yet it was only in the late 1960s that the Soviets realized that while they dominated large‐scale international collaboration, they had lost control of internal developments within the Eastern Bloc.
The Indian Institute of Technology Madras (IIT) was set up with assistance of the Federal Republic of Germany between 1956 and 1974. It became the largest, and finally, a successful techno‐scientific education project undertaken by the Federal Republic outside of Germany. In this paper, I argue that the engagement of the Federal Republic at IIT Madras has to be understood primarily as a project of Cold‐War science and technology diplomacy, which on the German side was aimed at preventing an Indian recognition of the German Democratic Republic as a sovereign nation. In aiding the establishment of IIT Madras, the Federal Republic came into direct competition with the Soviet Union, which supported IIT Bombay but also with the United States of America, which supported IIT Kanpur. The assistance to establish IIT Madras and its governance followed mainly political guidelines, to which educational and scientific aspects were rendered subordinate. When the project was in a crisis after the first State Treaty to establish IIT Madras expired in 1963, the political flagship project of the Federal Republic was not allowed to fail. Instead, the cooperation was reorganized and support increased.
For the Benefit of All Men: Oceanography and Franco‐American Scientific Diplomacy in the Cold War, 1958–1970 (Open Access Article)
In the 1960s, the growing strategic importance of ocean exploration led the French government to develop greater capacity in marine scientific research, aiming to promote cooperative and diplomatic relations with the leading states in ocean exploration. Devised during Charles de Gaulle’s government (1958–1969), the restructuring of French oceanography culminated, in 1967, in the establishment of the state‐led Centre National pour l’Exploitation des Océans (CNEXO). Beyond being intended to control the orientation of marine research at a national level, the CNEXO’s mission was to use scientific diplomacy to balance a desire for enhancing international cooperative relations in oceanography with French ambitions to equal the USA’s leading capacity to explore the oceans. Its director, the naval officer Yves la Prairie, played a crucial role in articulating scientific, national, and diplomatic interests for France in the oceans.
Issue Sponsored by DHST Historical Commission on Science, Technology and Diplomacy
We are happy to announce the publication of the first of our special issues, Science Diplomacy, edited by Giulia Rispoli & Simone Turchetti. Published in Historical Studies in the Natural Sciences, the volume explores this concept from a historical perspective, questioning the hagiographic and simplistic accounts that have characterized recent attempts to contextualize this phenomenon in the Anglophone world.
Seeking to provide a more persuasive and compelling view of the ancestry of what we can define “science diplomacy”, authors in this issue collectively argue for a richer and more nuanced history than the one discussed in the promotional literature. While covering different periods and geographies without being, of course, exhaustive, all articles discusses case studies that shed light on science diplomacy’s role in international affairs, and show how the encounter between scientists and diplomats to promote scientific collaborations has shaped novel transnational power relations that affected knowledge production and circulation.
Introduction: Just Needham to Nixon? On Writing the History of “Science Diplomacy”
Simone Turchetti; Matthew Adamson; Giulia Rispoli; Doubravka Olšáková; Sam Robinson
This introduction examines the growing interest in science diplomacy and the parallel lack of in-depth historical studies on this new concept. In particular, we first show how the recent attention toward science diplomacy has led to a proliferation of hagiographic accounts reflecting the urgency to support its growth rather than truly investigate its ancestry. We then turn to consider how our historical understanding of science diplomacy could be improved, and how this knowledge could equally be of significance to science diplomacy practitioners today.
Unlike what is often presumed, scientific internationalism persisted through the First World War and its aftermath. Although many scientists aligned themselves with their belligerent nations after 1914, and although Germany and Austria were excluded from international meetings after 1919, the rhetoric celebrating the universally fraternizing nature of science continued as if no such ruptures existed. In this article I argue that this persistence was rooted in the war itself, and particularly in the massive mobilization of academics in wartime propaganda and diplomacy. In these activities they used internationalist arguments and their own supranational status as scientists to defend their countries’ war causes and defame those of the enemy. I illustrate this by following the diplomatic work of the French philosopher Henri Bergson. From the start of the war Bergson presented himself as a neutral scientific arbiter, developing a philosophy of the war (based on his work on life and evolution) as a battle of German barbarity versus universal (not just French) civilization. His government took note and sent Bergson on several diplomatic tasks, most notably a secret mission to the United States, early 1917, where he was to speak to President Wilson to persuade him to enter the war on the French side. Bergson’s universalism and his stature as a philosopher should appeal to Wilson’s dislike of partisanship and craving for the moral high ground. After the war, Bergson-style universalism continued and was institutionalized in the League of Nations and its International Committee on Intellectual Cooperation—with Bergson as its president.
This paper is a response to a 2018 call for greater understanding of how previous examples of marine science diplomacy could help shape present day efforts to draft a new law of the sea that protects marine biodiversity and conserves the marine environment. It tackles this through analysis of the various twists, turns, and challenges of early science diplomacy efforts in marine science during the early twentieth century. It looks in turn at questions of defining and agreeing on research objectives, how backchannel science diplomacy can become official government diplomacy, and finally, how careful science diplomacy brought Germany back to the international research arena so as to successfully put in place marine conservation measures during the 1920s. In doing this, it argues that the foundation of the International Council for the Exploration of the Seas in 1902 represented a revolutionary moment where supra-national scientific research, coordination, and conservation politics for the ocean first emerged; with International Council for the Exploration of the Sea becoming a key model for all subsequent marine science diplomacy.
The (Science Diplomacy) Origins of the Cold War
The US monopoly of information regarding nuclear weapons was one of the distinctive features of the early Cold War. It encouraged US officials to bolster their country’s hegemonic role in post-war affairs, something that scholars have previously referred to in terms of “atomic diplomacy.” This paper shows that Cold War atomic diplomacy originated in an ancestral form of what we call today “science diplomacy,” distinctive of wartime allied relations during WW2. It first explores how science became a distinctive feature of wartime diplomacy by looking at agreements regarding exchanges of information and collaboration that shaped the relations between wartime allies (US, UK, and the Soviet Union). It then shows that their signing (and, at times, their rejection) eventually paved the way to conflicting views within allied administrations on what to share, making their officials less inclined to pool more knowledge toward the end of WW2. In conclusion, US monopolistic stances and atomic diplomacy originated in these disagreements, also marking the demise of wartime science diplomacy.
The Spanish Doñana Biological Station, inaugurated in 1964, poses two historiographical puzzles. First, it was the first large project of the World Wildlife Fund, which is usually seen as a response to the very specific post-imperial challenges of African parks. Second, it was the first non-alpine park in Spain, and although it was designed and inaugurated in the midst of Francisco Franco’s nationalist dictatorship, it was an explicitly transnational project. This paper approaches Doñana’s unique story through the concept of ecological diplomacy. It points to the diplomatic strategies mobilized by a small group of ecologists with managerial and financial skills. Promoting Doñana, British ornithologists presented it as an African wilderness, which created tensions with Spanish ecologists, themselves colonial scientists. Ecological diplomacy, moreover, refers to a characteristic period between conservation diplomacy and environmental diplomacy. In it, conservation was understood as the top-down management of foreign territories for research purposes. While this can be partly understood as the globalization of the Swiss model for conservation, it arrived in Spain through the mediation of the French Tour du Valat station and of English ecology. Finally, stressing the ecological dimension of this type of conservation diplomacy helps in studying the role of the science of ecology and its transformations. As Doñana became a national park, the WWF’s early emphasis on research was replaced by a new attention to recreation. Max Nicholson’s participation in the International Biology Program granted him an opportunity to favor this model when Doñana became a national park.
Science and Diplomacy around the Earth: From the Man and Biosphere Programme to the International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme
Giulia Rispoli; Doubravka Olšáková
In this article we discuss two phases in the evolution of global environmental programs, namely the Man and Biosphere Programme and the International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme, with the aim of showing their hidden diplomatic ambitions from both US and Soviet perspectives. In the 1960s and 1970s, Soviet views on the biosphere prevailed thanks to the influence of Soviet scientists in the International Council of Scientific Unions and the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. In the 1980s, the domination of this field by US scientists ushered in the establishment of Earth system science as a new research trend based on Earth observation technologies. We argue that despite the influence of Soviet ecologists in directing international coordination of research on the biosphere, Earth system science did not set in a trajectory of environmental cooperation. This outcome can be explained if we take the environmental and ecological turn that arose during the Cold War as being intertwined with political concerns and national interests in both the US and the USSR. Security, scientific diplomacy, and geopolitical issues limited East-West collaboration on the interdisciplinary study of the earth, which instead turned into a sort of cooperative antagonism. The transition from biosphere studies to Earth system science reveals a changing strategy toward environmental problems, which in turn reflects changes in Cold War policy.
9th European Society for the History of Science Conference:
‘Visual, Material, and Sensory Cultures of Science’
2nd September 2020
Panel 1: Scientific Images and International Rivalry
Gordon Barrett, ‘Competing Images of Chinese Science: Photography in the Communist-Nationalist Battle for International Legitimacy during the Second World War’
Lif Lund Jacobsen, ‘Seismograph Diplomacy’
Daniele Cozzoli, ‘American media and the Scientific and Technological Collaboration between the USA and USSR from Sputnik to Détente‘
Pascal Griset & Anne de Floris, ‘Show, Not Tell? The Astronaut as Political Mascot or as an Ambassador?’
Panel 2: Visualizing Environmental Crisis
Doubravka Olšáková, ‘Think Globally, Act Locally: How Brontosaurus, a Prehistoric Animal, Became a Symbol of Limits to Growth and Mass Environmental Movement in Communist Czechoslovakia’
Agustí Nieto-Galan, ‘“The bicycles of Stockholm”: Environmental Diplomacy, Scientific Expertise and Dissent at the 1972 UN Conference’
Régis Briday & Sebastian Grevsmühl, ‘Ignoring What Cannot Be Ignored: Visual Diplomacy and the Ozone Hole’
Panel 3: The Symbolic Power of Scientific Images in International Spaces
Simone Turchetti, ‘Unknown Pleasures in Music, Science, and Diplomacy’
Grigoris Panoutsopoulos, ‘Investigating the Materiality of CERN’s Science Diplomacy’
Beatriz Medori, ‘Radioactivity on Tour: The Picture of Eve Curie at the Portuguese Oncology Institute’
Matthew Adamson, ‘Dead Water: Tritium Sampling, the IAEA, and Global Hydrological Surveys’
Panel 4: Images and the Science of Empire
Carlos Godinho, ‘Nationalizing Scientific Diplomacy: the Celestial Sphere in the 1500s and 1900s Portuguese Politics and Diplomacy’
Ronald E. Doel, ‘Alternative Narratives: Learning from Examining Historical Photographs of the Empire of American Science’
Maria Paula Diogo, Ana Simões & Paula Urze, ‘Techno-Diplomacy in the Age of New Imperialism: The Pink Map Episode in Images’
Organized by the DHST Commission on Science, Technology and Diplomacy
23 July 2020 (NB: The schedule is based on the British Summer Time [BST], not GMT)
9:00-9:45am – Science Diplomacy Commission AGM: Morning Session
Topics for Discussion: introduction, updates, scholarly outputs, globalising and diversifying the commission
10:00-11:00am – Panel 1: Cooperation or Competition? Nationhood and Scientific Diplomacy
Katrin Heilmann (PhD Candidate, King’s College London) – ‘Soviet Science Diplomacy?: Warsaw Pact Civil Defence Cooperation’
Jaehwan Hyun (Postdoctoral Fellow, Max Planck Institute Berlin) – ‘“Establishing a National Park in the Demilitarized Zone”: Nature Conservation and Science Diplomacy in Cold War South Korea’
Yue Liang (PhD candidate, SUNY Binghamton) – ‘Science Diplomacy and Hydraulic Infrastructure in Early Communist China’
Liu Xiao (PhD candidate, Bristol University) – ‘Diplomacy and Meteorology: Negotiation between China and Japan on the Recovery of Qingdao Observatory, 1918-1931’
11:00-12:00pm – Panel 2: Science Diplomacy Between and Beyond Nations
Richard Brown (Research Associate, York University) – ‘DDT and the Atomic Bomb: Two Cases of Scientific Collaboration in War’
Francis Newman (MPhil candidate, University of Cambridge) – ‘“Science as a diplomatic weapon”: The Royal Society and scientific freedoms in Sino-British exchanges, 1961-1966’
Gabriela Radulescu (PhD candidate, Technische Universität Berlin/ Max Planck Institute) – ‘Communication with (Extra)Terrestrial Intelligence: Science Diplomacy during the Cold War (1960-1976)’
Kichun Kang (PhD candidate, Seoul National University) – ‘Building Nation with Science: Science cooperation and aid between USA and Republic of Korea in the late 1960s and the 1970s’
Joyce Koranteng-Acquah (MPhil candidate, University of Manchester) – ‘Achieving Food Security Through Agriculture Policy Development’
– Break –
2:00-3:00pm – Panel 3: Science and Public Diplomacy
Irina Nastasă-Matei (Junior Lecturer, University of Bucharest) – ‘Cultural diplomacy in Europe during the Cold War’
Maria Pavlova (Senior researcher, Primakov Institute of World Economy and International Relations (IMEMO)) – ‘Science diplomacy in Russian-Polish historical debate’
Andrew Thomas (British Interplanetary Society) – Formal and Informal Diplomacy in the Chinese Space Programme’
Molly Silk (PhD candidate, University of Manchester) – ‘Cultural Products of the Chinese Space Endeavour’
Ian Varga (PhD candidate, Florida State University) – ‘From on the Moon to around the World: Apollo Astronauts as Public Diplomats’
3:00-4:00pm – Panel 4: Location, Adaptation and Transfer
Vedran Duančić (Postdoctoral Researcher, the Institute for the History and Philosophy of Science of the Croatian Academy of Sciences and Arts) – ‘Behind and Across the Curtains: How and What Yugoslavia Learned About American Big Science in the Early Cold War’
Robert-Jan Wille (Postdoc Researcher and Lecturer at the Freudenthal Institute of Utrecht University) – ‘Managing Germany’s position as central power in global meteorology: Hugo Hergesell’s meteorological Realpolitik before and after the First World War’
Geoffrey Durham (PhD candidate, University of Pennsylvania) – ‘Russia and the Internationalization of the Metric System, 1850s-1890s’
Bárbara K. Silva (Professor at Universidad Alberto Hurtado, FONDECYT Researcher (National Commission on Scientific and Technological Research)) – ‘Cold Stars in Chile. Astronomy and Politics in the Global Cold War’
– Break –
4:30-5:15pm – Science Diplomacy Commission AGM: Afternoon Session
Topics for Discussion: resumé of the morning session, early career scholar involvement and support, future officers and activities of the Commission, meeting opportunities in the coming year
|[00:07:16]||Carringtone Kinyanjui (University of Manchester)||‘Science in 1970: A Global Picture‘|
|[00:14:56]||Aya Homei (University of Manchester)||‘“How Should We Deal with Asia’s Exploding Population?”: Family planning and Cold-War diplomacy in Asia’|
|[00:21:43]||Jaehwan Hyun (Max Planck Institute for the History of Science)||‘The Continental-Shelf in Dispute: Joint Marin Oil Exploration and the Collapse of the Anticommunist Alliance in East Asia’|
|[00:27:40]||Gordon Barrett (University of Oxford)||‘“The East Is Red, the Sun Is Rising”: Chinese Science Diplomacy, the Cultural Revolution, and the Dongfanghong I Satellite Launch’|
|[00:33:27]||Giulia Rispoli (Max Planck Institute for the History of Science)||‘Luna 17: Interplanetary politics in the Cold War’|
|[00:41:14]||Doubravka Olsakova (Czech Academy of Sciences)||‘The Brezhnev Doctrine in Outer Space’|
|[00:51:01]||Matthew Adamson (McDaniel College)||‘IAEA and Science Diplomacy ca. 1970’|
|[00:56:58]||Gerardo Ienna (University of Venice)||‘Transnational radical physicists and the Varenna Manifesto’|
|[01:01:35]||Péter Marton (McDaniel College/Corvinus University)||‘The Emerging Occupation of Occupational Health’|
|[01:07:57]||Johan Gardebo (KTH, Stockholm)||‘Remote Sensing as Environmental Diplomacy’|
|[01:13:28]||Beatriz Martínez-Rius (Sorbonne University)||‘1970 and the Exploration of “The Last Geographic Frontier”: Oil and International Cooperation in the Mediterranean’s Seafloor’|
|[01:20:42]||Iqra Choudry (University of Manchester)||‘When Global Science Met Polar Diplomacy’|
|[01:28:29]||Júlia Mascarello (Federal University of Santa Catarina)||‘Science Diplomacy in Brazil in 1970: Science and Technology as a Source for Economic Development’|
|[01:33:39]||Waqar Zaidi (Lahore University)||‘The Reactor and the Election: Pakistan’s Path to Nuclear Weapons’|
|[01:40:08]||Sam Robinson (University of Cambridge)||‘1970: The Peak of Ocean Technology Speculation – Sylvia Earle, The Aquanauts, and Tektite II’|
|[01:48:37]||Leah Aronowsky (Columbia University)||‘“Man’s Impact on the Global Environment”‘|
|[01:53:48]||Simone Turchetti (University of Manchester)||‘Did the Study of Science Diplomacy Begin in 1970?’|
|[02:02:24]||Lif Lund Jacobsen (National Archive, Copenhagen)||Concluding Remarks|
BSHS Global Digital History of Science Festival
7 July, 2020, 10am-12pm (UTC+1)
Click here to register to attend this session (to be held on Zoom).
How should we remember science in the year 1970? Fifty years ago Earth Day was first celebrated; the WMO Global Program of Atmospheric Research started; the Ancash earthquake happened in Peru; a Symposium on Antarctic Ice and Water Masses took place in Tokyo (Japan); the Apollo 13 failed to land on the moon; Costa Rica established a national park system; China’s estimated aid to North Vietnam amounted to 200 million dollars; and the Non-Proliferation Treaty entered into force. These and many other science-related events reconfigured relations between nations, bilaterally and multilaterally (and between Global North and South), also connecting to projects for political hegemony and economic development. Their narration thus presents key challenges, especially in terms of reconstructing transnational interactions in science often overlooked in historical work focussing on one country (or one world region).
This innovative session aims to meet these challenges through an unconventional format. Speakers from across the world will offer 5-minute presentations in a virtual two-hour global tour that will connect scholars and historical events in distant places. Their presentations will corral a new transnational narrative about science in 1970 (also informing the writing of a co-authored paper to submit to a history of science journal).
Schedule Session 1, 10:00-11:00 UTC+1 (Chair: Simone Turchetti)
Welcome and Event Presentation
Carringtone Kinyanjui (University of Manchester), ‘Science in 1970: A Global Picture‘
Using scientometric methods, I will assess the state of science globally in 1970. In particular, using modules and libraries in Python programming language, I’ll scrape bibliometric data of over 60,000 publications in biology, physics and chemistry. The data is then deployed in a visualisation and analysis tool developed in Python showing the state of scientific collaboration networks and global imbalances reflected in the state of science in 1970.
Time: 10:05 UTC+1 (13:05 at Virtual Venue: Nairobi, Kenya)
Waqar Zaidi (Lahore University), ‘The Reactor and the Election: Pakistan’s Path to Nuclear Weapons’
This paper explores 1970 as a milestone on Pakistan’s path to developing nuclear weapons. By the end of the year the country’s first nuclear reactor, KANUPP1, was complete. On the political front, the general election that year set the country on a path to civil war and eventual dismemberment, cementing the establishment’s resolve to become a nuclear power.
Time: 10:10 UTC+1 (15:10 at Virtual Venue: Lahore, Pakistan)
Aya Homei (University of Manchester), ‘”How Should We Deal with Asia’s Exploding Population?”: Family planning and Cold-War diplomacy in Asia’
In 1970, the Japanese government and Japanese Organization for International Cooperation in Family Planning hosted a seminar on family planning, attended by the representatives of transnational organizations and 12 East and Southeast Asian countries. The seminar illustrates how the idea of ‘Asia’s population explosion’ produced certain knowledge about economy, development, health and well-being arguably realized through family planning. This knowledge was directly shaped by the Cold War diplomacy in the Asia-Pacific region.
Time: 10:15 UTC+1 (19:15 at Virtual Venue: Tokyo, Japan)
Jaehwan Hyun (Max Planck Institute for the History of Science), ‘The Continental-Shelf in Dispute: Joint Marin Oil Exploration and the Collapse of the Anticommunist Alliance in East Asia’
A joint oil exploration project in a continental shelf in the East China Sea was conceived based on the anti-communist alliance between Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan in 1970. This paper examines how Japan’s détente with the PRC reshaped the initiative into a site of territorial disputes in the 1970s.
Time: 10:20 UTC+1 (19:20 at Virtual Venue: Seoul, South Korea)
Gordon Barrett (University of Oxford), ‘”The East Is Red, the Sun Is Rising”: Chinese Science Diplomacy, the Cultural Revolution, and the Dongfanghong I Satellite Launch’
In the spring of 1970, China’s first satellite spent twenty days broadcasting ‘The East Is Red’ as it orbited the Earth. Dongfanghong I’s broadcasting of this eponymous revolutionary song reflected the domestic context of China’s Cultural Revolution while simultaneously signalling the People’s Republic’s having established a place among a small group of states to have successfully launched a satellite. The launch came on the cusp of pivot point in China’s foreign and scientific relations as it entered the new decade, providing an opportunity to elucidate this liminal phase in China’s science diplomacy.
Time: 10:25 UTC+1 (18:25 at Virtual Venue: Beijing, China)
Giulia Rispoli (Max Planck Institute for the History of Science), ‘Luna 17: Interplanetary politics in the Cold War’
On 10 November 1970, few months after the Apollo aborted mission, the Soviet Union launched Luna 17 on the moon, a robotic probe carrying the unmanned rover Lunokhod 1, the first remotely controlled robot to land on another celestial planet. Remote observations fostered the study of interplanetary habitability on other worlds and revealed national ideologies and symbolic visions. At the same time, cooperation and rivalry in space shaped international geopolitics on the ground, along with security studies and the discussion on the planetary environment in the Cold War.
Time: 10:30 UTC+1 (12:30 at Virtual Venue: Moscow, Russia)
Doubravka Olsakova (Czech Academy of Sciences), ‘The Brezhnev Doctrine in Outer Space’
50 years ago, the official title Interkosmos was adopted. Soviet space programme turned very soon into a very influential diplomatic tool. After the USSR and USA, the third man in the space was a representative of Czechoslovakia: Vladimír Remek. His choice in March 1978 was a political decision in order to silence all critics of the Soviet occupation of Czechoslovakia before its 10th anniversary in August 1978.
Time: 10:35 UTC+1 (11:35 at Virtual Venue: Prague, Czech Republic)
Matthew Adamson (McDaniel College), ‘IAEA and Science Diplomacy ca. 1970’
The entry into force of the NPT in March 1970 thrust the IAEA from the periphery to the center of the international system. Given the discriminatory nature of the NPT, this shift amplified the IAEA’s ambiguous status as an agency reinforcing an unequal global order rather than serving the interests of the majority of its (Global South) member states, a source of increasing tension as the 1970s unfolded and the Group of 77 asserted itself. Science diplomacy, however useful, proved incapable of relieving this pressure.
Time: 10:40 UTC+1 (11:40 at Virtual Venue: Vienna, Austria)
Break, 10:45-11:00 (UTC+1)
Schedule Session 2, 11:00-12:00 UTC+1 (Chair: Matthew Adamson)
Gerardo Ienna (University of Venice), ‘Transnational radical physicists and the Varenna Manifesto’
International physics schools had taken place every year in Varenna since 1953, but the 1970 meeting was path-breaking. Dedicated to foundations of quantum mechanics, the proceedings were shook up by a group of physicists who presented a “non-neutrality” manifesto. Also thanks to the school their ideas travelled, informing scientific debates in other countries for the rest of the decade and beyond.
Time 11:00 UTC+1 (12:00 at Virtual Venue: Lake Como, Italy)
Péter Marton (McDaniel College/Corvinus University), ‘The Emerging Occupation of Occupational Health’
By the time of the passage of the Occupational Safety and Health Act in the United States Congress and its signature into law in December 1970, the International Labour Organization and the World Health Organization had long been promoting occupational health, calling for the training of specialized health personnel worldwide and working to widen the agenda from a narrow focus on industrial workers’ health to a diverse set of issues and the health of all segments of the working population. One finds that during 1970, the WHO supported research projects and academic symposia to this end, in collaboration with governments from the opposing Cold War blocs, in the context of the broader politics of economic, social and cultural rights, permissive economic conditions preceding the oil crises of the 1970s, and agreement across the transnational epistemic community of public health experts about the importance of an extensive interpretation of occupational health.
Time: 11:05 UTC+1 (12:05 at Virtual Venue: Geneva, Switzerland)
Johan Gardebo (KTH, Stockholm), ‘Remote Sensing as Environmental Diplomacy’
In 1970, after a decade of faltering attempts, the Swedish Government mobilised to join the space race. Its use of remote sensing, in particular, illustrates how Sweden used space technology to promote itself as a non-aligned country in pursuit of environmental diplomacy.
Time: 11:10 UTC+1 (12:10 at Virtual Venue: Stockholm, Sweden)
Beatriz Martínez-Rius (Sorbonne University), ‘1970 and the Exploration of “The Last Geographic Frontier”: Oil and International Cooperation in the Mediterranean’s Seafloor’
1970 marked the beginning of the quest for the Mediterranean’s deepest riches, both scientific and economic. As the international Deep Sea Drilling Project recovered seafloor samples for the first time, a number of oil companies began to drill oil-producing wells in the Mediterranean’s continental shelf. As I will argue, both milestones converged – in their origins and motivations – giving rise to a new understanding of marine geosciences.
Time: 11:15 UTC+1 (12:15 at Virtual Venue: Principality of Monaco)
Iqra Choudry (University of Manchester), ‘When Global Science Met Polar Diplomacy’
1970 was the year the Antarctic Treaty formally recognised the importance of meteorological observations from Antarctica feeding into the World Weather Watch programme at the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO), which I argue is a culmination of the work done by SCAR during the IGY and the years following it, to coordinate meteorological observations across the remoter parts of the Southern Ocean.
Time: 11:20 UTC+1 (11:20 at Halley Research Station, Antarctica)
Júlia Mascarello (Federal University of Santa Catarina), ‘Science Diplomacy in Brazil in 1970: Science and Technology as a Source for Economic Development’
The year of 1970 marks the development of the first policies in Brazil that include explicit science and technology strategies. Followed by the interest of maintaining its high economic growth and by the need of developing its nuclear and agriculture sectors, Brazil established bilateral agreements specially with Germany and Japan, respectively. At the same time, as a result of the the Non-Proliferation Treaty, the activism of Brazilian Ambassador to the UN Araújo Castro represented a piéce de résistance for autonomy and opposition to the concentration of nuclear capabilities by Security Council members.
Time: 11:25 UTC+1 (08:25 at Virtual Venue: Rio De Janeiro, Brazil)
Sam Robinson (University of Kent), ‘1970: The Peak of Ocean Technology Speculation – Sylvia Earle, The Aquanauts, and Tektite II’
In 1970 anything seemed possible for humankind in the ocean. One project launched that year epitomized this in the placing of a group of female scientists in an underwater habitat in the West Indies, these women changed perceptions, broke records, and succeed where the earlier Sealab had failed. I will argue that they also marked the environmental push back against big industry’s and the military’s impact on global ocean ecosystems.
Time: 11:30 UTC+1 (08:30 at Virtual Venue: U.S. Virgin Islands)
Leah Aronowsky (Columbia University), ‘”Man’s Impact on the Global Environment”‘
For nearly the entire month of July 1970, a group of 68 preeminent scientists met at MIT to address “man’s impact on the global environment.” Known as the Study of Critical Environmental Problems (SCEP), the group’s immediate goal was to develop recommendations for new, global-scale pollution research programs in advance of the 1972 UN Conference on the Human Environment. More ambitiously, however, SCEP aspired to serve as a model for international scientific consensus-making about the nature and extent of humanity’s impact on the global environment.
Time: 11:35 UTC+1 (06:35 at Virtual Venue: Boston, USA)
Simone Turchetti (University of Manchester), ‘Did the Study of Science Diplomacy Begin in 1970?’
From 1970 a Science Policy Research unit at the Library of Congress developed the ‘Science, Technology and American Diplomacy’ project – the first comprehensive survey commissioned within congressional activities to assess past, present and future impacts of scientific collaborations for the world power’s relations. Was this the first attempt to map changes in world science which had effectively projected it in the international relations arena? Was it a way for US Congress to ‘monitor’ the growing reliance of US affairs on science and scientific collaborations?
Time: 11:40 UTC+1 (06:40 at Virtual Venue: Washington DC, USA)
Concluding Remarks by Lif Lund Jacobsen (National Archive, Copenhagen)
Time: 11:45 UTC+1 (09:45 at Virtual Venue: Nuuk, Greenland)