What do you think?
Rate this book
Freedom's Laboratory: The Cold War Struggle for the Soul of Science
Scientists like to proclaim that science knows no borders. Scientific researchers follow the evidence where it leads, their conclusions free of prejudice or ideology. But is that really the case? In Freedom's Laboratory, Audra J. Wolfe shows how these ideas were tested to their limits in the high-stakes propaganda battles of the Cold War.
Wolfe examines the role that scientists, in concert with administrators and policymakers, played in American cultural diplomacy after World War II. During this period, the engines of US propaganda promoted a vision of science that highlighted empiricism, objectivity, a commitment to pure research, and internationalism. Working (both overtly and covertly, wittingly and unwittingly) with governmental and private organizations, scientists attempted to decide what, exactly, they meant when they referred to "scientific freedom" or the "US ideology." More frequently, however, they defined American science merely as the opposite of Communist science.
Uncovering many startling episodes of the close relationship between the US government and private scientific groups, Freedom's Laboratory is the first work to explore science's link to US propaganda and psychological warfare campaigns during the Cold War. Closing in the present day with a discussion of the 2017 March for Science and the prospects for science and science diplomacy in the Trump era, the book demonstrates the continued hold of Cold War thinking on ideas about science and politics in the United States.
Wolfe examines the role that scientists, in concert with administrators and policymakers, played in American cultural diplomacy after World War II. During this period, the engines of US propaganda promoted a vision of science that highlighted empiricism, objectivity, a commitment to pure research, and internationalism. Working (both overtly and covertly, wittingly and unwittingly) with governmental and private organizations, scientists attempted to decide what, exactly, they meant when they referred to "scientific freedom" or the "US ideology." More frequently, however, they defined American science merely as the opposite of Communist science.
Uncovering many startling episodes of the close relationship between the US government and private scientific groups, Freedom's Laboratory is the first work to explore science's link to US propaganda and psychological warfare campaigns during the Cold War. Closing in the present day with a discussion of the 2017 March for Science and the prospects for science and science diplomacy in the Trump era, the book demonstrates the continued hold of Cold War thinking on ideas about science and politics in the United States.
312 pages, Hardcover
First published November 15, 2018
12 people are currently reading
672 people want to read
About the author
Audra J. Wolfe
3 books20 followersam a writer, editor, and historian based in Philadelphia. With a background in both science (B.S., chemistry, Purdue University, 1997) and history (Ph.D., history and sociology of science, University of Pennsylvania, 2002), I’ve been thinking through the relationship between science and power for more than two decades. My work specifically focuses on the role of science during the Cold War, a period when science held a special place in maintaining and projecting state power.
My first book, Competing with the Soviets: Science, Technology, and the State in Cold War America (2013), explored the power of science and technology as “stuff”: weapons, rockets, labs, and so on. Since then, my research has moved into the fascinating and disturbing topic of propaganda and psychological warfare. My new book, Freedom’s Laboratory: The Cold War Struggle for the Soul of Science (November 2018), looks at the power of the idea of science. What does it mean to think of science as apolitical, as objective, as separate from state institutions during an era of total ideological warfare? How did Cold Warriors hope to use these ideas to sway potential allies to their side? How do these Cold War-era ideas about “apolitical science” continue to influence our thinking about the appropriate role for science in public life today?
In addition to my work as a writer and historian, I operate an editorial and publishing consulting company, The Outside Reader, that helps writers of serious nonfiction develop their craft. I offer both on-site and online publishing workshops. I’ve also worked in scholarly publishing, radio production, and university teaching.
My first book, Competing with the Soviets: Science, Technology, and the State in Cold War America (2013), explored the power of science and technology as “stuff”: weapons, rockets, labs, and so on. Since then, my research has moved into the fascinating and disturbing topic of propaganda and psychological warfare. My new book, Freedom’s Laboratory: The Cold War Struggle for the Soul of Science (November 2018), looks at the power of the idea of science. What does it mean to think of science as apolitical, as objective, as separate from state institutions during an era of total ideological warfare? How did Cold Warriors hope to use these ideas to sway potential allies to their side? How do these Cold War-era ideas about “apolitical science” continue to influence our thinking about the appropriate role for science in public life today?
In addition to my work as a writer and historian, I operate an editorial and publishing consulting company, The Outside Reader, that helps writers of serious nonfiction develop their craft. I offer both on-site and online publishing workshops. I’ve also worked in scholarly publishing, radio production, and university teaching.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews
July 12, 2019
Some parts of this were really interesting, like the first chapter, the epilogue, and the part with example multiple choice questions from "biology class." Other than that, however, the book was really hard to get through and because I wasn't that knowledgeable, it felt like a huge dump of information that went in one ear and out the other.
March 28, 2019
Traditionally, for anyone looking at "politically-driven science", the apotheosis and almost sole subject is Lysenkoism in the Soviet Union. However, as Wolfe shows, science was also state-directed in the west, but it was the west that used the ideas of "scientific freedom" as a tool of ideology and diplomacy to great effect. This novel focus makes the book very refreshing to read and provides a great alternative perspective on the relationship between science and politics.
Wolfe writes clearly and with pace, documenting the extensive collaboration between ostensibly neutral and objective scientists with the US State Department and CIA without lapsing into paranoia or moralism. Wolfe's no-nonsense approach saves the book a great deal of time for dissecting the actual details of history, and dispenses with the convenient fictions about the role of the west in this era.
The halting development of this ideological tool is well laid out, with a careful eye for easily missed turning points in organisations that relies on Wolfe's extensive research. Initially, American science was so hamstrung by anti-communism that any government role in aiding or directing science were either neglected or destroyed. But with Soviet science making notable progress (particularly the achievements in space), the push towards consolidating government scientific bodies was irresistible, though American science retained the ideology of scientific independence through a combination of arms-length funding through CIA and State Department fronts, and general ideological developments in scientific philosophy.
The chapter on the international development and distribution of biology textbooks provides a perfect snapshot of the whole dynamic of this ideology of scientific freedom: with covert funding from CIA fronts, scientific textbooks were developed for selected Asian allies by both aware and unaware experts in the field. The textbooks placed emphasis on the role of science to discover the truth without recourse to authority: the ideology of scientific freedom, perfectly congruent with the self-conception of America, and yet the authors took great pains to avoid charges of imperialism by carefully adjusting the textbooks' references for local audiences. The clear purpose of this was to develop in underdeveloped Asian countries to prevent them falling under the sway of the USSR or China, and tie scientific progress to the western values of individual enterprise rather than state-led efforts, and clearly it worked very well.
As the book goes on, the focus on the relationship between politics and science becomes more bogged down in the political side, charting the development of scientists as backchannels for diplomatic talks, and then the exposure of CIA front groups in the late 60s. These aren't irrelevant but their relationship to earlier chapters felt loose. I sensed a missed opportunity to look into alternative ways of conceiving of a politically-minded science, as represented by Science For The People, British Society for Social Responsibility in Science, and the developing radical philosophy of science that responded to the ideological role of science.
Wolfe's historical and empirical focus speaks for itself most of the time, such that a theoretical focus on scientific objectivity and the relationship between politics and science is somewhat obviated. Portraying science as non-political was a conscious political effort on the part of American state authorities that was highly successful by the end of the cold war, and so to an extent the need for a discussion on what the role of science should have is precluded by the role it has. However, for this heavily empirical focus, the conclusion ends up watery. It's especially odd how misty-eyed the final pages become for the Obama era of scientific diplomacy, given how cynical and disillusioned the earlier history is apt to make one for the role of science in official politics. I would have thought more radical conclusions to be the only ones capable of responding to such grim imperial jostling for power under the guise of objectivity, but perhaps these are questions for others to answer- though such answers should make good use of Wolfe's work.
Wolfe writes clearly and with pace, documenting the extensive collaboration between ostensibly neutral and objective scientists with the US State Department and CIA without lapsing into paranoia or moralism. Wolfe's no-nonsense approach saves the book a great deal of time for dissecting the actual details of history, and dispenses with the convenient fictions about the role of the west in this era.
The halting development of this ideological tool is well laid out, with a careful eye for easily missed turning points in organisations that relies on Wolfe's extensive research. Initially, American science was so hamstrung by anti-communism that any government role in aiding or directing science were either neglected or destroyed. But with Soviet science making notable progress (particularly the achievements in space), the push towards consolidating government scientific bodies was irresistible, though American science retained the ideology of scientific independence through a combination of arms-length funding through CIA and State Department fronts, and general ideological developments in scientific philosophy.
The chapter on the international development and distribution of biology textbooks provides a perfect snapshot of the whole dynamic of this ideology of scientific freedom: with covert funding from CIA fronts, scientific textbooks were developed for selected Asian allies by both aware and unaware experts in the field. The textbooks placed emphasis on the role of science to discover the truth without recourse to authority: the ideology of scientific freedom, perfectly congruent with the self-conception of America, and yet the authors took great pains to avoid charges of imperialism by carefully adjusting the textbooks' references for local audiences. The clear purpose of this was to develop in underdeveloped Asian countries to prevent them falling under the sway of the USSR or China, and tie scientific progress to the western values of individual enterprise rather than state-led efforts, and clearly it worked very well.
As the book goes on, the focus on the relationship between politics and science becomes more bogged down in the political side, charting the development of scientists as backchannels for diplomatic talks, and then the exposure of CIA front groups in the late 60s. These aren't irrelevant but their relationship to earlier chapters felt loose. I sensed a missed opportunity to look into alternative ways of conceiving of a politically-minded science, as represented by Science For The People, British Society for Social Responsibility in Science, and the developing radical philosophy of science that responded to the ideological role of science.
Wolfe's historical and empirical focus speaks for itself most of the time, such that a theoretical focus on scientific objectivity and the relationship between politics and science is somewhat obviated. Portraying science as non-political was a conscious political effort on the part of American state authorities that was highly successful by the end of the cold war, and so to an extent the need for a discussion on what the role of science should have is precluded by the role it has. However, for this heavily empirical focus, the conclusion ends up watery. It's especially odd how misty-eyed the final pages become for the Obama era of scientific diplomacy, given how cynical and disillusioned the earlier history is apt to make one for the role of science in official politics. I would have thought more radical conclusions to be the only ones capable of responding to such grim imperial jostling for power under the guise of objectivity, but perhaps these are questions for others to answer- though such answers should make good use of Wolfe's work.
October 3, 2024
Too much detail... like minute by minute it seemed at times. And somehow it was only 209 pages, but seemed to cover 1945 to 1960 about three or four times, then sort of glance over the 1960s and 1970s before a victory lap in the 1980s. And then an epilogue all about the inherent power structures of science keep minorities and women down. I get it - society is biased in favor of white men. I still don't see how SCIENCE is inherently biased. I think there is objective truth that can be established through experimentation and observation. At least in the physical sciences and huge swaths of biology, physiology, etc.
I try to support the young folks I work with and provide them opportunities to publish, present their work, and make a name for themselves. I do that regardless of race or gender, though my experience has been mostly white people. It's also been mostly women, throughout my career over almost 25 years now. I guess I'm not radical enough in simply support people coming up through the system to be successful within the system and I should somehow seek to destroy the system so it can be rebuilt in some other way.
I don't disagree that the system has historically had barriers to entry and certainly still does. It is my belief, based on my time operating within said biased system, that we're trying to eliminate barriers and make things more fair and more equitable. Of course we still have a distance to go, but we're trying. Sometimes we demonstrably push too hard, but someone has to lead if all of society is going to catch up in getting to a better place.
Maybe I'm just old and too tired of being brow-beaten about all the sins of the past that I cannot fix. I'm trying to do my part to help the people I can to establish themselves and be successful. It's hard to do it much faster than one day per day and one student at a time.
We don't have much in the way of laurels to rest on, but I guess it might be nice if sometimes we'd mention - at least in passing - that we have in fact made progress. This is also an issue with climate change. We're nowhere close to where we need to be, but we also have departed dramatically from the original "business as usual" trend. That's a whole separate discussion about how to keep updating the "business as usual" line in climate change since things are changing so quickly. Anyways... I think in a lot of these areas an occasional carrot or at least an acknowledgement of progress made can consolidate that progress and earn another surge of effort to push forward some more. Progress good, more progress more good. It's as simple as that.
I try to support the young folks I work with and provide them opportunities to publish, present their work, and make a name for themselves. I do that regardless of race or gender, though my experience has been mostly white people. It's also been mostly women, throughout my career over almost 25 years now. I guess I'm not radical enough in simply support people coming up through the system to be successful within the system and I should somehow seek to destroy the system so it can be rebuilt in some other way.
I don't disagree that the system has historically had barriers to entry and certainly still does. It is my belief, based on my time operating within said biased system, that we're trying to eliminate barriers and make things more fair and more equitable. Of course we still have a distance to go, but we're trying. Sometimes we demonstrably push too hard, but someone has to lead if all of society is going to catch up in getting to a better place.
Maybe I'm just old and too tired of being brow-beaten about all the sins of the past that I cannot fix. I'm trying to do my part to help the people I can to establish themselves and be successful. It's hard to do it much faster than one day per day and one student at a time.
We don't have much in the way of laurels to rest on, but I guess it might be nice if sometimes we'd mention - at least in passing - that we have in fact made progress. This is also an issue with climate change. We're nowhere close to where we need to be, but we also have departed dramatically from the original "business as usual" trend. That's a whole separate discussion about how to keep updating the "business as usual" line in climate change since things are changing so quickly. Anyways... I think in a lot of these areas an occasional carrot or at least an acknowledgement of progress made can consolidate that progress and earn another surge of effort to push forward some more. Progress good, more progress more good. It's as simple as that.
Read
September 24, 2022The Cold War ended long ago, but the language of science and freedom continues to shape public debates over the relationship between science and politics in the United States.Scientists like to proclaim that science knows no borders. Scientific researchers follow the evidence where it leads, their conclusions free of prejudice or ideology. But is that really the case? In Freedom's Laboratory, Audra J. Wolfe shows how these ideas were tested to their limits in the high-stakes propaganda battles of the Cold War.
Wolfe examines the role that scientists, in concert with administrators and policymakers, played in American cultural diplomacy after World War II. During this period, the engines of US propaganda promoted a vision of science that highlighted empiricism, objectivity, a commitment to pure research, and internationalism. Working (both overtly and covertly, wittingly and unwittingly) with governmental and private organizations, scientists attempted to decide what, exactly, they meant when they referred to "scientific freedom" or the "US ideology." More frequently, however, they defined American science merely as the opposite of Communist science. Uncovering many startling episodes of the close relationship between the US government and private scientific groups, Freedom's Laboratory is the first work to explore science's link to US propaganda and psychological warfare campaigns during the Cold War. Closing in the present day with a discussion of the 2017 March for Science and the prospects for science and science diplomacy in the Trump era, the book demonstrates the continued hold of Cold War thinking on ideas about science and politics in the United States.
Wolfe examines the role that scientists, in concert with administrators and policymakers, played in American cultural diplomacy after World War II. During this period, the engines of US propaganda promoted a vision of science that highlighted empiricism, objectivity, a commitment to pure research, and internationalism. Working (both overtly and covertly, wittingly and unwittingly) with governmental and private organizations, scientists attempted to decide what, exactly, they meant when they referred to "scientific freedom" or the "US ideology." More frequently, however, they defined American science merely as the opposite of Communist science. Uncovering many startling episodes of the close relationship between the US government and private scientific groups, Freedom's Laboratory is the first work to explore science's link to US propaganda and psychological warfare campaigns during the Cold War. Closing in the present day with a discussion of the 2017 March for Science and the prospects for science and science diplomacy in the Trump era, the book demonstrates the continued hold of Cold War thinking on ideas about science and politics in the United States.
February 1, 2020
I liked this book but also I just like Audra Wolfe and am still mad I didn't get to make the talk she gave at The Franklin over the summer. Either way, this was a fun read that got me thinking a lot about some particular topics. Overall, I think this book really caught my attention because Wolfe talks a lot about China during the 1950s-1960s.
March 5, 2025
I have managed to grind through the first 6 chapters only to find the idea of the book getting lost behind a ridiculous number of characters, committees and events beyond comprehension. If I hadn't read anything on the Manhattan project or other science-related literature, the book would give me zero idea of who all these people are and why they matter.
December 5, 2020
The concept and premise of this book are really interesting but the actual content did not draw me in like I hoped it would. I likes the introduction and the epilogue- rest was only interesting enough to hold my attention in parts.
February 16, 2022
A slog through all the acronyms, government, and nongovernmental organizations, but the epilogue tied it together succinctly and presented a strong case for science while acknowledging its shortcomings.
April 17, 2022
An awkward waltz of science, knowledge, ideology, propaganda, and intelligence.
Read
March 28, 2019Not done just noting Jenny Johnson Hart recommended
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews