English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

211 The recent perspective in the history of science has emphasized the need to write transnational narratives based on a reciprocal treatment of global and local contexts (Subrahmanyam, 1997). This transnational approach abandons the nation as a unit of analysis, Eurocentric narratives, cultural-diffusion interpretations, and the rigid opposition of the categories “center” and “periphery” in order to explain the dynamics of transnational circuits and the global and local circulation of knowledge, people, instruments, and scientific practices (Brown et al., 2006). This rich approach problematizes the notion of “international science” and addresses pending issues, such as the precise definition of notions like circulation, reception, adaptation, and creativity. However, most studies on transnational science have focused on the eighteenth century and on naturalists. Little attention has been paid to developments during the Cold War, when the life sciences, public health, and politics intertwined, and donors and new and renewed bilateral and multilateral organizations played an important role in the organization and output of scientific work. A remarkable expansion of state-funded medical science and military patronage of scientific work in the life sciences occurred during the Cold War in industrialized and developing countries. The papers in this dossier share the same study framework, seeing the Cold War as a global and plural phenomenon that shaped international, national, and local conditions and decisions for scientific work in light of the rivalry between the United States and the Soviet Union. The Cold War affected not only science and technology related to the military and space races, but also research in biomedicine and other fields. In the early 1950s, in the wake of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings, extensive research and experimentation occurred in physics and chemistry. Ana Romero’s paper is a reflection on instruments that circulated and travelled between Spain and Italy (radioactivity counters), and on the political power of these two nations in a world convulsed by the bipolarity that was established at the end of Second World War. According to the author, these instruments were used as mediators, establishing not only protocols on how to act inside and outside laboratories, but also networks of collaborations (Spain exchanged uranium for technical assistance), and participating in the making of nuclear energy and political power during the Franco regime. Instruments and techniques travelled along with agreements and contracts, changing laboratories, establishing research agendas, and making nuclear development more dynamic. They were used by nuclear policy authorities to demonstrate political power. Through the work of physicist María Aránzazu Vigón, daughter of General Vigón, a minister in the first cabinet of the Franco regime, Romero not only highlights how historicizing the instruments sheds light on circulation and Transnational knowledge during the Cold War: the case of the life and medical sciences

TRANSNATIONAL KNOWLEDGE DURING THE COLD WAR: THE CASE OF THE LIFE AND MEDICAL SCIENCES