Beyond the Laboratory: Scientists as Political Activists in 1930s America by Peter J. Kuznick

Abstract

TECHNOLOGY AND CULTURE Book Reviews 135 Beyond the Laboratory: Scientists as Political Activists in 1930s America. By Peter J. Kuznick. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987. Pp. x + 363; notes, index. $37.00. The apparent absence of scientists in accounts of political radical­ ism in the 1930s has been interpreted as evidence either that they were politically unaware or that they adhered to a professional credo of political noninvolvement. Some scientists were drawn to the Left, however, and in a variety of forums they debated how they should help bring about a better society. Beyond the Laboratory is intended to remedy the misconception “that postwar political organizations erupted ex nihilo, based only on issues surrounding control of atomic power” (p. 3). The book sets down a valuable record of scientists’ interest in social issues during the 1930s, and the author has done a service in tracking down and documenting this bit of cultural history. Peter Kuznick strings together a number of examples of scientific progressivism. He traces the role of Forest Ray Moulton and Edwin G. Conklin in moving the American Association for the Advancement of Science from political aloofness to sponsorship in 1937 of forums on “Science and Society.” He argues that many American scientists admired, perhaps even envied, the Soviet exaltation of science and technology and were attracted to the Left because of this. The Soviets were quick to take advantage of the favorable image and, as Kuznick makes clear, used scientific exchanges like the 1935 International Con­ gress of Physiology in Moscow to strengthen their appeal. One of Kuznick’s major points is the importance of Harvard phys­ iologist Walter B. Cannon and German-born anthropologist Franz Boas in mobilizing the scientific community. Boas gets the lion’s share of the book’s attention, and an entire chapter is devoted to his work with the American Committee for Democracy and Intellectual Free­ dom. A final chapter gives an abbreviated history of the American Association of Scientific Workers, stopping in 1940 with their con­ tested sponsorship of a Peace Resolution in the name of the scientific community. Although it is primarily about university researchers in the social and medical sciences, the book might interest historians of technology. The radicals among the scientists challenged a society that used re­ search for private profit rather than public benefit. What they had in mind was not “pure science” but its application to problems of hous­ ing, public transportation, nutrition, and health. What most of these activists wanted was to rationalize society. Not quite technocrats, none­ theless they thought that the scientific method and the scientists’ spe­ cial training could be applied to solve social problems. In this sense the book examines the relationship between technology and society, and might be categorized along with such works as Edwin Layton’s The Revolt of the Engineers. 136 Book Reviews TECHNOLOGY AND CULTURE Unfortunately, though in the same category, it is not in the same class. Its major weakness is that it attempts to remedy the historical record, but ignores any larger historical context. One misses, for ex­ ample, a sense of what was an inheritance from the Progressive Era in the scientific activism of the 1930s. There is little exploration of the extent to which American radical scientists borrowed ideas from European socialism, or of connections to labor, artistic, or other pro­ gressive groups. The scientists Kuznick describes may have moved beyond the laboratory, but they rarely moved beyond the university. Ignoring the political activism of scientists like Robert A. Millikan, Karl Compton, and Frank B. Jewett in their efforts to link science and government might be defended because this is a history of sci­ entists on the Left. Absent mention of these efforts, however, the affiliation of prominent scientists like the Compton brothers with the AAScW misleadingly appears as evidence of the importance of that organization (p. 267), rather than what it was, one of many minor involvements which seemed consonant with their more important ac­ tivities and aims. Such uncritical confounding of major and minor factors occurs too often in this book. Kuznick writes with sympathy and deserved admiration for the scientific activists of the 1930s. It is good to set...