High yielding agriculture in less-industrialized countries, the green revolution, has been both honored and criticized over the past twenty years. Supporters point to the increased food supplies produced with the new practices, but detractors argue that the new technologies are environmentally destructive, unsustainable, and socially inequitable. This paper explores the origins of high yielding agriculture in order better to understand how the arguments over sustainability and equity originated. The Rockefeller Foundation was an important agency in promoting the development (...) of the new agricultural science. Its programs in Mexico and India, initiated in 1941 and 1956, were key building blocks in creating high yielding agricultural practices. The Foundation scientists saw rapid population growth as the main source of hunger and communist subversion. In order to alleviate hunger and instability, they created a strategy of agricultural development based on increased yields but paid no attention to the problem of distribution of harvested food. Sustainability was not recognized as a problem at the time Foundation scientists began their work. Indeed the technical successes of their programs prompted the development of concerns about sustainability. Equity of distribution was brought to the attention of the Foundation before it began its work, but the scientists paid no attention to the issue. (shrink)

Why did the Rockefeller Foundation think that it had to redeem its pledge of 1930 after the drastic political changes had occurred in Germany? It is my impression that the foundation was forced reluctantly to do so. There had, of course, been a resolution passed by the trustees in 1930 to vote the funds. This did constitute an obligation for the foundation which its trustees and officers were reluctant to disavow. It would probably have preferred that (...) Planck could not meet the conditions set forth by the foundation. If this had occurred, it could have avoided the onus of failure to meet an obligation undertaken in 1930 and could then have also avoided providing support, even if only indirectly, for National Socialist Germany. When faced with the alternatives of withdrawal or payment of the grant, most of the officers preferred to delay action. Max Mason, on the other hand, had promised Planck that the grant would be made, despite the delay.Increasingly, after 1933, the Rockefeller Foundation spent more time dealing with requests for refugee scientists than with the support of scientific work in Germany. The dismissal of foundation-supported assistants on “racial” grounds had angered some members of the foundation.When the Rockefeller Foundation was chartered in New York in 1913 it declared that its objective was “the well-being of mankind throughout the world”. That remained its aim, but a fanatical nationalism made it impossible for the foundation to pursue an internationalist policy in a country with a regime entirely antithetical to that ideal. (shrink)

This paper argues that the health-related work of the RockefellerFoundation in Central Europe following the First World War flowed not somuch from geopolitical concerns as from the Foundation's ambition tocreate a global network in scientific medicine. It examines theassumptions and values that underpinned this project, and indicates someof the questions that these pose for today's world.

This paper charts the history of the Rockefeller Foundation’s participation in the collection and long-term preservation of genetic diversity in crop plants from the 1940s through the 1970s. In the decades following the launch of its agricultural program in Mexico in 1943, the Rockefeller Foundation figured prominently in the creation of world collections of key economic crops. Through the efforts of its administrators and staff, the foundation subsequently parlayed this experience into a leadership role in (...) international efforts to conserve so-called plant genetic resources. Previous accounts of the Rockefeller Foundation’s interventions in international agricultural development have focused on the outcomes prioritized by foundation staff and administrators as they launched assistance programs and especially their characterization of the peoples and “problems” they encountered abroad. This paper highlights instead how foundation administrators and staff responded to a newly emergent international agricultural concern—the loss of crop genetic diversity. Charting the foundation’s responses to this concern, which developed only after agricultural modernization had begun and was understood to be produced by the successes of the foundation’s own agricultural assistance programs, allows for greater interrogation of how the foundation understood and projected its central position in international agricultural research activities by the 1970s. (shrink)

RESUMEN: Abir-Am ha criticado la visión estándar de que la Fundación Rockefeller (FR) jugó un papel central en el surgimiento de la biología molecular durante la década de 1960. En su opinión, la FR aceleró la molecularización de las ciencias de la vida, pero no intervino de manera directa en el surgimiento de la biología molecular como disciplina. Aquí sostengo que esta crítica tiene consecuencias mayores a las que sospechó su autora y muestro que la tesis de la centralidad (...) de la FR en el desarrollo de la biología molecular no se puede desmantelar sin alterar también la visión de la biologia molecular como una disciplina orientada a la resolución de problemas predefinidos.ABSTRACT: Abir-Am has critiqued the standard view that the Rockefeller Foundation (RF) played a central role in the development of molecular biology during the 1960s. In her view, the RF accelerated the molecularization of the life sciences, but it did not directly contribute to building molecular biology’s disciplinary identity. Here I argue that Abir-Am’s critique has more consequences than she envisioned, and I show that the thesis of the centrality of the RF cannot be dismantled without also altering the view of molecular biology as a field oriented towards the solution of predefined problems. (shrink)

In this fascinating study, the author analyzes the conceptual roots of molecular biology and the social matrix in which it was developed.

In the early 1920s, the Rockefeller Foundation's International Health Board was presenting itself as the watchtower of public health for the world at large. Yet Soviet Russia was never included in any of the International Health Board's programs, despite the efforts of the Russians to reach out to the Board. This paper examines the exclusion of Russia as a function of the conceptual and structural lenses through which the International Health Board 'saw' post-revolutionary Soviet public health. It also (...) speculates about the ways in which those who spoke on behalf of Soviet public health contributed to the perceptions of the Board. (shrink)

El objetivo de este trabajo es poner al descubierto los principales valores cognitivos y epistemológicos desde los que Warren Weaver puso en marcha el Programa de Biología Experimental, un programa que llevado a cabo desde la presidencia de la división de ciencias naturales de la Fundación Rockefeller, marcó y condicionó en buena medida el posterior desarrollo de la investigación biológica. Para tal fin se mostrará, en primer lugar, cómo fue la llegada de Weaver a la Fundación Rockefeller, así (...) como las razones bajo las cuáles el consejo de esa institución decidió entre 1932 y 1933 dar prioridad a las investigaciones biomédicas, y la manera por la cual lo hicieron. En un segundo momento, el más extenso e importante, veremos algunos de los elementos más significativos de la perspectiva epistemológica y cognoscitiva de de Weaver. Finalizaremos viendo cómo esa perspectiva, desarrollada en conexión con el Programa de Biología Experimental, inter-actuó con la visión reduccionista de la biología a la que el programa parecía apuntar. The aim of this article is to uncover the main cognitive and epistemological values that influenced Warren Weaver in starting the Experimental Biology Program, a program carried out from the time that he became president of the Natural Sciences Division of the Rockefeller Foundation, and which significantly marked and conditioned the subsequent development of biological research. To this end, we first describe the arrival of Warren Weaver at the Rockefeller Foundation, and the reasons for which the Board of this Foundation, between 1932 and 1933, decided to prioritize biomedical research, and the manner in which they did so. Then, secondly, in the largest and most important part of the article, we will present some of the most significant elements of Weaver's epistemological and cognitive perspective. Finally, we will show how this perspective, developed in connection with the Experimental Biology Program, interacted with the reductionist view of biology to which the program seemed to point. (shrink)

The Rockefeller Foundation played a key role inthe shift from `isolationism' to globalism inUS foreign policy between 1939 and 1945. TheFoundation utilised its considerable financialresources in a conscious and systematic attemptto assist official policymakers and academicsto build a new globalist consensus within thestate and public opinion. The article testsfour theoretical models that have been used todescribe Rockefeller initiatives. It concludesthat a Gramscian analysis provides the mosthelpful way of understanding the Foundation'srole in American foreign affairs.

John Marshall is best remembered asthe first resident director of the RockefellerFoundation's Study and Conference Center atBellagio. Yet, his influence on knowledge,thought, and practice rivalled that of any ofhis contemporaries at the Rockefeller. Thispaper describes how he `went about hisbusiness' as a Foundation officer, and examineshis contribution to the creation of atransatlantic community of like-mindedtheorists and practitioners of communications.

During the mid 1920s, the Spanish Government, prompted by the Rockefeller Foundation, began for the first time to support fundamental research in physics. The negotiations leading to this outcome are instructive, in reflecting key differences between the Foundation’s vision and the practices of scientists accustomed to a ‘culture of scarcity’. This paper shows how the Foundation and the Dictator of Spain, Miguel Primo de Rivera, tested the limits of ‘civil discourse’, and reached a resolution.

From 1919 to 1951, Alan Gregg and his mentor, Richard Pearce, directed the Medical Education and Medical SciencesDivisions of the Rockefeller Foundation. Although they oversaw the expenditure of millions of dollars, today they are forgotten. Yet, the system that Gregg administered became the model for the funding of biomedical research after the Second World War. This paper draws on the records of the Rockefeller Foundation to assess Gregg and his impact on biomedicine and philanthropy.

Until recently, the links between Rockefeller philanthropies and Russianscience and medicine during the 1920s have been virtually ignored, both inofficial Foundation histories and in Soviet accounts of foreign scientificrelations. Materials from the newly-opened Russian archives and the Rockefeller Archive Center reveal dense and tangled connections between multiple Rockefeller givers and multiple Russian takers. Examining the `Russian matter' from the perspective of both `givers' and `takers', this article highlights the impact of domestic and international politics on giving (...) and taking across borders, and reveals the range of meanings of`internationalism' in philanthropy. (shrink)

This work resulted from a conference held in 2003 that was jointly sponsored by the Rockefeller Archive Center and Quinnipiac University. Drawing upon perspectives from history, philosophy, and the social sciences, as well as public health and medicine, the authors in this volume examine and critique the role of Foundations, most prominently the Rockefeller Foundation, in promoting and expanding the development of Western medicine around the world during the 20th century. The first half of the book examines (...) the historical involvement of philanthropic foundations in public heath, basic medical research, and related social and political issues. These studies range from an examination of the Rockefeller's Foundation's anti-malaria campaigns to the involvement of Foundations in promoting eugenic ideology and population control. The second half of the book considers current situations in which philanthropic foundations are active in promoting public health and westernized medicine, including consideration of the fight against AIDS in Africa, the resurgence of tuberculosis as a major public health threat, and the ongoing war against malaria. Finally, the book concludes with thoughts on the future of health, disease, and public health by Peter C. Goldmark, Jr., a former president of the Rockefeller Foundation. By considering issues of public health and health policy from a wide range of perspectives, this book seeks to contribute both to our understanding of the past successes and failures of growing dominance of Westernized medicine over global health, and to consider present and future possibilities for improving the delivery of health services to the population of the world. (shrink)

The Rockefeller Foundation'spost-war social science programme in Europe wasdirected by Joseph Willits. In 1946, Willitsdecided to focus his Division's efforts onFrance, and to offer fellowships to a newgeneration of social scientists. TheFoundation's social science activity in Europetapered off after 1955. This paper examinesWillits' initiatives, and considers theirconsequences.

This paper is an application of Max Weber’s thesis about the “elective affinity” between Protestant religious impulses and the rise of capitalism, and rationalization of benevolence. Exploring the history of organized philanthropy in the United States, using the life and work of John D. Rockefeller, the paper presents the power of the religious motive in Rockefeller’s commitment to philanthropy, especially towards support for scientific university based research in medicine. Presenting historical evidence, the paper argues against those who see (...) U.S. philanthropists as giving out of guilt or for selfish motivation, and those who critique philanthropic foundations as producers and reproducers of cultural hegemony. (shrink)