Selya Rena
, Los Angeles, CA, USA,
J Hist Biol. 2012 Fall;45(3):415-42. doi: 10.1007/s10739-011-9288-2.
In the late 1940s and early 1950s, the leaders of the Genetics Society of America (GSA) struggled to find an appropriate group response to Trofim Lysenko's scientific claims and the Soviet treatment of geneticists. Although some of the leaders of the GSA favored a swift, critical response, procedural and ideological obstacles prevented them from following this path. Concerned about establishing scientific orthodoxy on one hand and politicizing the content of their science on the other, these American geneticists drew on democratic language and concepts as they engaged in this political issue. The relatively weak statements that did emerge from the GSA attracted little attention in the scientific or popular press. The intensely politicized atmosphere of American science complicated the GSA's task, as domestic concerns about protecting democracy were beginning to constrain academic freedom. In the context of American Cold War culture, Lysenko became just one example of the dangers the Cold War world presented to scientific freedom.
在20世纪40年代末和50年代初，美国遗传学会（GSA）的领导人努力寻找一种合适的集体回应方式，以应对特罗菲姆·李森科的科学主张以及苏联对待遗传学家的方式。尽管GSA的一些领导人倾向于迅速做出批判性回应，但程序和意识形态上的障碍使他们无法走上这条路。一方面担心确立科学正统观念，另一方面又担心将科学内容政治化，这些美国遗传学家在参与这个政治问题时借鉴了民主的语言和概念。GSA发表的相对温和的声明在科学或大众媒体上几乎没有引起关注。美国科学界高度政治化的氛围使GSA的任务变得复杂，因为国内对保护民主的担忧开始限制学术自由。在美国冷战文化的背景下，李森科成为了冷战世界给科学自由带来危险的一个例证。
