Ecology, the subversive science?

Is ecological science subversive?  The question leads to interesting issues about the political roles of science during the Cold War, including the relations between ecologists and political and military authorities.

Thomas Wellock's excellent reviewyesterday on H-Environment of Martin Melosi's new book, Atomic Age America, also raises the question.  Although impressed with Melosi's book, Wellock took issue with his claim that the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) restricted scientists' ability to engage in open debate or set their own research goals.  Wellock notes that: "Nor has the federal government been good at controlling the scientific agenda, as Melosi claims. The work it sponsored often fed scientific trends beyond its control. The radioecology studies performed for the AEC by Eugene and Howard Odum are only the most obvious examples where government research fed the 'subversive science' of ecology."

Wellock is likely referring to the Odums' roles (especially Eugene) as leading figures in the history of ecosystem ecology (while receiving ample support from the AEC), their work as environmental activists as well as scientists, and the importance of the ecosystem concept itself as a rallying symbol for environmental writers and activists.  Many other scientists supported by the AEC (such as George Woodwell) also played significant roles in early environmental activism.  The mention of "subversive science" refers to Paul Sears' classic 1964 paper in BioScience.

And Wellock is right: ecological research is a good example of the AEC supporting science that went in directions beyond its control.  Ecologists supported by the AEC pursued a wide of topics in basic ecology that had little to do with AEC's nuclear ambitions.

But did that make AEC ecology subversive?  As a few historians have argued (most recently, Angela Creager) ecologists received ample support from the AEC because their research supported the Commission's own priorities, by demonstrating the scientific value of nuclear technology, and the possibility of safe management of nuclear wastes.  Similarly, while ecologists at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory were able to develop their own scientific goals, their work also supported the national laboratory's larger objectives.

The key historical point here is the need to make a careful distinction between the independence of scientists, and their subversive potential.  While ecologists in the atomic age were somewhat able to set their own research goals (so long as they used radioisotopes or other nuclear tools), it's much more difficult to argue that they were building a subversive science.