Suchergebnisse

Les récits historiques célèbrent généralement les rôle des intermédiaires dans la circulation des idées par-delà les frontières ; cet article, en revanche, met l'accent sur les risques encourus par un intermédiaire entre son pays d'origine et son pays d'adoption. L'article s'articule autour d'un débat sur la dépopulation en France qui a retenu l'attention de l'Académie française de médecine entre l'hiver et le printemps 1935. Alexandre Nikolaïevitch Roubakine, sans doute l'intermédiaire le plus important dans le domaine médical entre la Russie soviétique et la France entre 1921 et 1941, est devenu la cible de ce débat, non pas tant pour ses opinions sur le dépeuplement que pour sa défense de la légalisation soviétique de l'avortement. Comment un intermédiaire russe est-il devenu la cible d'un débat parmi l'élite médicale française ? Comment la question de l'avortement légalisé par les Soviétiques s'est-elle invitée dans la discussion de l'Académie ? L'article suit la façon dont les lieux d'échanges interagissent dans différents pays, indépendamment des efforts de l'intermédiaire pour les garder hermétiquement scellés.

SUMMARY: In 1925, Dr. Grigorii Abramovich Batkis, the young social hygienist who was the leading figure in the kabinet of sexology ( seksologiia ) of the newly created State Institute of Social Hygiene in Moscow, published in Germany a twenty-four-page pamphlet on the sexual revolution in Russia. The inclusion of Batkis's pamphlet in the prestigious series, Beitrage zum Sexualproblem , edited by Felix Theilhaber, might suggest that Soviet social hygiene research on sexual issues had struck resonance in international sexo-logical circles and that the intense efforts of Soviet scientists in the 1920s to "reclaim place" in international public health and medicine were bearing fruit. But appearances can be deceiving. While part of Batkis's pamphlet was widely discussed in international circles, another part was studiously ignored. Moreover, Batkis's pamphlet never appeared in Russia, nor did Batkis include the pamphlet in his list of publications. This article uses the puzzles surrounding Batkis's pamphlet as a spring board to analyze Soviet seksologiia poised between the Russian and the international arenas for sexological research. What does the publication of this pamphlet in Germany tell us about Soviet social hygienists' "capture" of place in international sexology? What was the relationship between social hygienists' "capture" of place abroad and their "capture" of the sexological sciences at home? В 1925 году доктор Григорий Абрамович Баткис, молодой специ-алист в области социальной гигиены и ведущий сотрудник Кабинета сексологии недавно созданного московского Государственного инсти-тута социальной гигиены, опубликовал по-немецки 24-страничный памфлет о сексуальной революции в России. Этот памфлет вошел в престижную серию Beiträge zum Sexualproblem под редакцией Феликса Тайльхабера ( Felix Theilhaber ), что свидетельствует о наличии в между-народных сексологических кругах интереса к советским исследованиям в области социальной гигиены. Очевидно, активные попытки совет-ских ученых 1920-х годов утвердить за собой место в международном общественном здравоохранении и медицине приносили свои плоды. Но подобное впечатление может оказаться обманчивым. Иностранные ученые широко обсуждали лишь часть памфлета Баткиса, в то время как другая его часть тщательно игнорировалась. Более того, памфлет так и не увидел свет в России. Баткис никогда не включал его в свой список публикаций. В настоящей статье подобные неясности вокруг памфлета Баткиса служат начальной точной анализа советской сексо-логии, балансировавшей между российской и международной научной средой. Что говорит немецкая публикация памфлета Баткиса о месте, которое "захватили" советские социальные гигиенисты в международ-ной сексологии? И как соотносились между собой процесс "захвата" места за границей и освоение сексологической науки дома?

In December 1927, Alan Gregg set off for Moscow on behalf of the Rockefeller Foundation's Division of Medical Education to carry out a "survey of local conditions" in Soviet medical education. The visit, which had been five years in the making, was eagerly anticipated by foundation officials as the first opportunity to secure "reliable knowledge" about the new Russia. Once in the field, Gregg was confronted by important dilemmas of judgment. He had gone to Russia with a made-in-America model of medical education favored by Rockefeller Foundation officers. Was Soviet medical education a variant of the model or something radically new? In making judgments on this issue, Gregg spoke with a variety of actors involved at all levels of Soviet medical education. Which voices to credit, which to discount? Solomon examines Gregg's landmark voyage to Russia as an instance of the challenges that face expert travelers who seek to "know" a foreign locale.

The last quarter century has witnessed a rising tide of skepticism among scholars about the link between information-gathering and policymaking. Drawing on several decades of research and rethinking, students of organizational behavior concluded that organizations collect information for reasons that have more to do with organizational dynamics than with the making of choice. Students of public policy found high-stakes policy controversies deeply resistant to recourse to "the facts."

Reviews the scholarship on information-gathering & choice-making, with particular emphasis on what is expressly or tacitly assumed about the dynamics of fact-finding & the function of the fact-finder. Toward the aim of conceptual clarity & analytical immediacy, the fact-finding conducted by the Rockefeller Foundation's Division of Medical Education in Russia from 1925 to 1927 is scrutinized. From its inception the Foundation insisted upon the significance of information-gathering for policy making vis-a-vis philanthropic gift-giving. Diplomatic tensions between Russia & the US rendered information-gathering challenging, with a Foundation officer dispatched to Russia only after nearly five years of haggling. The "Russian matter" taxed the Foundation's demands for direct information & its commitment to weighing "the facts" in its decision-making. Similarly, the Foundation's entrenched assumptions about Russia before 1927 challenged the fact-finder's capacity to "see" anything other than what he had been trained to. K. Coddon

In April 1928 a team of eight Soviet and eight German medical researchers set out for the remote area of Kul'skoe in the Buriat—Mongolian Autonomous Republic of the USSR to examine endemic syphilis and the impact of the anti—syphilis drug, Salvarsan, on the course of the disease. This three—month expedition was negotiated by some of the leading political and scientific figures on both sides and was launched with considerable fanfare, although it was not—nor was it intended to be—a scientific milestone in the field of venereology.

The Soviet decision of November 1920 to legalize abortion on social as well as medical grounds set in motion heated discussions among physicians, not only in Russia, but also in Germany, where the fate of paragraph 218 of the German Criminal Code, which criminalized abortion, was being fiercely debated. This paper compares the attitudes of the champions and critics of Soviet legalization in the two countries. The comparison reveals multiple instances of selective perception of the Russian policy. The puzzle of the paper is the persistence of that selective perception in the face of intense and ongoing communication between Soviet and German physicians interested in the abortion issue. The paper speculates that the selective perception had a political utility for both communities of physicians.