Humanistic thinking played a significant role in the thought of one of modern physics’ greatest figures, Austrian physicist Erwin Schrödinger, whose work extended far beyond his contributions to quantum mechanics. Nonconformist that he was, Schrödinger was also a prolific cultural writer, whose work drew on modernist cultural themes well beyond his own professional field, particularly the critique of Western scientific and objectivist thought as refracted through his fascination with Eastern Vedic philosophy. Though this fascination was amateur, it had far-reaching implications for Schrödinger’s views on science, not only in his native field of physics, but also in the field of biology. I argue that Schrödinger can be claimed as a modernist figure moving between the two “cultures" of science and the humanities. Schrödinger’s interest in Vedic philosophy informed not only his position within the metaphysical crisis surrounding quantum mechanics in the first half of the 20th century, but also his forays across scientific disciplinary boundaries and into the field of biology, where his musings (inspirational to Watson, Crick and Wilkins), borrowed from the wider modernist Germanic cultural tradition of Lebensphilosphie, as Vitalism was then known in the German-speaking world. This paper argues that, problematic though his dedication to Vedic philosophy may have been, it cannot be disentangled from his scientific thinking.

 

Presented in 1869, the Periodic System is still an icon in contemporary science, even though the understanding of elements and chemical reactions has evolved tremendously over the last 150 years. The resilience of the Periodic System to conceptual changes is remarkable, and the fine structure of how this frame of reference was perpetually renegotiated and stabilized by the scientific community is often explained as a result of the underlying atomic structure. The physicist Lise Meitner and the chemist Ida Noddack-Tacke were, in different ways, involved in discoveries and interpretations of the Periodic System. In 1934, both of them published an article on the system; Meitner in Die Naturwissenschaften – Noddack-Tacke in Angewandte Chemie.

How did early 20th century scientists navigate these times of reinterpretation? And what hidden meanings and values of the Periodic System were displayed through this process? In this paper, we will use the articles by Meitner and Noddack, written from the perspectives of a nuclear physicist and a chemist experienced in searching for undiscovered elements, respectively, to shed light on what the new discoveries and insights meant for the meaning and value of the Periodic System at the very beginning of the nuclear age in science – seen from the perspective of the nucleus and mass-energy relations and of the existence and identification of possibly numerous chemical elements.

 
In the first decade of the Cold War, scientific dialogue between the United States and the Soviet Union was reduced to occasional contacts at conferences. As scientific practices became more collaborative and global, two of the leading academic communities barely enjoyed any communication.
The situation called for changes for several reasons. International scientific societies were gaining weight in the global community, and the US and the USSR sought representation in them. Competition between Western and Eastern Bloc scientists and recognition of recent accomplishments were a matter of national pride as well as a facet of the Cold War rivalry. Establishing a bilateral diplomatic relationship implied opening a channel of scientific communication in the name of peaceful coexistence. Competing, concealing, and sharing information went hand in hand. 
As the program continued, it was less and less controlled by political forces or guided by diplomatic motivations. It was increasingly shaped by research initiatives from within the academic community, focusing on doing science together. US-USSR exchanges were fueled by subversive scientific grassroots action, defusing the Cold War tension in a manner specific to science as a social institution.
This talk will explore the dynamics of US-USSR scientific exchanges in the 1950s – 1980s, as they were shaped by Cold War politics, international science, bureaucratic challenges, security issues, and cultural differences. It will also demonstrate the informal and individual side of scientific exchanges, from professional interests to opportunities for personal contacts.

This paper focuses on the construction of a transnational community of scientific critics of biological weapons research in the late 1950s and 1960s. First initiated in 1957, the Pugwash Conferences were a transnational venue for scientists to discuss and criticize the Cold War arms race, which emerged as an increasingly important element of informal Cold War diplomacy as the 1960s progressed. Though the organization which coordinated the conferences was dominated by Anglo-American and Soviet physicists principally concerned with the nuclear arms race, these leaders actively sought to construct transnational networks of critical experts on other weapons of mass destruction, especially biological weapons. Beginning in the late 1950s, Pugwash leaders successful enlisted biologists, epidemiologists, and physicians like Martin Kaplan and Matthew Meselson to construct this community of expertise, which in turn served as an influential liminal space for critics of biological weapons research and contributed to the unilateral American renunciation of the biological weapons in 1969, and the negotiation of the Biological Weapons Convention in 1972. The significance of Pugwash in Cold War diplomacy has been documented by Matthew Evangelista, but his focus on a few case studies of activism leaves a scholarly lacuna in Pugwash’s influential opposition to biological weapons. Drawing on the papers of Pugwash leaders and activists, my paper fills this lacuna, focusing on the twin questions of how a physicists’ organization so effectively constructed a community of biologists, and how this community constructed an authoritative body of critical knowledge in the face of pervasive military secrecy.