scholarly journals Why an International Biological Program?

BioScience ◽  
1968 ◽  
Vol 18 (8) ◽  
pp. 761-761
Author(s):  
E. S. Deevey
Keyword(s):  
International Biological Program ◽  
Biological Program ◽  
International Biological

In the Name of Human Adaptation: Japanese American “Hybrid Children” and Racial Anthropology in Postwar Japan

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-49
Author(s):  
Jaehwan Hyun
Keyword(s):  
Japanese American ◽  
Human Adaptation ◽  
Postwar Japan ◽  
International Biological Program ◽  
Human Adaptability ◽  
International Activities ◽  
The 1950S ◽  
Biological Program ◽  
International Biological

Abstract By focusing on the emergence and integration of “hybrid children” (konketsuji) anthropology into the Human Adaptability section of the International Biological Program (HA-IBP) in Japan during the 1950s and 1970s, this paper presents how transnational dynamics and mechanisms played out in shaping and maintaining the racist aspects while simultaneously allowed them to be included in the HA-IBP framework. It argues that they operated a double play between their national and transnational spaces—that is, they attenuated racist aspects of their research in their international activities while authenticating race in their national work. This paper will conclude with reflections on the transnational nationalism of konketsuji anthropology.

Big Science and Big Data in Biology: From the International Geophysical Year through the International Biological Program to the Long Term Ecological Research (LTER) Network, 1957––Present

2010 ◽  
Vol 40 (2) ◽  
pp. 183-224 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elena Aronova ◽  
Karen S. Baker ◽  
Naomi Oreskes
Keyword(s):  
Big Data ◽  
Ecological Research ◽  
Big Science ◽  
International Geophysical Year ◽  
International Biological Program ◽  
Long Term Ecological Research ◽  
International Geophysical ◽  
Biological Program ◽  
International Biological

This paper discusses the historical connections between two large-scale undertakings that became exemplars for worldwide data-driven scientific initiatives after World War II: the International Geophysical Year (1957––1958) and the International Biological Program (1964––1974). The International Biological Program was seen by its planners as a means to promote Big Science in ecology. As the term Big Science gained currency in the 1960s, the Manhattan Project and the national space program became paradigmatic examples, but the International Geophysical Year provided scientists with an alternative model: a synoptic collection of observational data on a global scale. This new, potentially complementary model of Big Science encompassed the field practices of ecologists and suggested a model for the natural historical sciences to achieve the stature and reach of the experimental physical sciences. However, the program encountered difficulties when the institutional structures, research methodologies, and data management implied by the Big Science mode of research collided with the epistemic goals, practices, and assumptions of many ecologists. By 1974, when the program ended, many participants viewed it as a failure. However, this failed program transformed into the Long-Term Ecological Research program. Historical analysis suggests that many of the original incentives of the program (the emphasis on Big Data and the implementation of the organizational structure of Big Science in biological projects) were in fact realized by the program's visionaries and its immediate investigators. While the program failed to follow the exact model of the International Geophysical Year, it ultimately succeeded in providing a renewed legitimacy for synoptic data collection in biology. It also helped to create a new mode of contemporary science of the Long Term Ecological Research (LTER Network), used by ecologists today.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document