–1914’, Journal of Contemporary History , 20:4 (1985), 503–20.
36 D. L. Brick, J. Brick, and J. W. Richardson, ‘Fining the doctor’, BMJ , 2:4902, S.233 (1954), 241.
37 Though perhaps one explanation for the divergence between practice and responses lay in the connections between voluntary institutions and autonomy in the professional imagination: S. Hastings, ‘Scientificfreedom and social medicine’, BMJ , 1:4290 (1943), 392–3.
38 ‘Administration of special departments’, BMJ , 2:4784, S.2486 (1952
Scientists realised that they would need to fight in support of their cause. In
short, it became clear that ‘research has to be justified to the
satisfaction of the lay community and its parliamentary
representatives’. 55 The
scientists who were newly mobilised to fight for their cause regarded
themselves as fighters for scientificfreedom, integrity and rationality,
pitted against the ignorant, emotional and irrational public. They were
the arrest and execution of scientists opposed to Trofim Lysenko,
who fraudulently claimed to have perfected a way of increasing
crop yields and transmitting acquired characteristics to later generations.88 Supporters of scientificfreedom argued that the collapse of
Soviet genetics and agriculture proved just how harmful external
interference was for science.
Support for club regulation was strengthened further during the
1950s, thanks to advances in biological and medical research such
as the development of effective anti-tuberculosis drugs, open-heart