詳細検索結果
以下の条件での結果を表示する: 検索条件を変更
クエリ検索: "イヴァン・ミチューリン"
3件中 1-3の結果を表示しています
  • 田中 常雄, 田中 彰
    日本食品科学工学会誌
    2001年 48 巻 8 号 606-610
    発行日: 2001/08/15
    公開日: 2010/01/20
    ジャーナル フリー
    アロニアの成分分析を行った.その特徴は以下のとおりである.
    (1) 他の果実類に比べて,食物繊維,β-カロテンを多く含んでいた.また,β-クリプトキサンチン,ポリフェノールの含量も高かった.
    (2) ロシア由来の果実は北米由来の果実に比べて,ビタミンC, β-カロテン,β-クリプトキサンチンおよび有機酸の含量が高く,ポリフェノール含量が低い傾向がみられた.北米由来の果実により強い渋味を感じたのは,酸味が少ない上に渋味成分のポリフェノールをより多く含んでいるためと思われる.
    (3) 無機成分で,鉄,亜鉛及びマンガンの含有量に大きな差が認められ,その原因として,栽培土壌の違いによることが示唆された.
  • ―ソヴィエト哲学者イワン・フロロフの言動を中心に―
    藤井 陽一
    ロシア・東欧研究
    2015年 2015 巻 44 号 70-86
    発行日: 2015年
    公開日: 2017/08/18
    ジャーナル フリー

    This article is devoted to examining the formation of Soviet bioethics since the 1970s by focusing on the activities and viewpoints of Ivan Frolov, who played a prominent role in laying the ground-work for this interdisciplinary study, and who would later become an adviser to the General Secretary of the CPSU in the Gorbachev era. In doing so, this paper aims to demonstrate the differences between the Soviet bioethics and that of the Western school of thought, as well as to identify the shortcomings of Frolov’s attempt to establish the field in the USSR.

    Soon after Trofim Lysenko’s group lost its power in the Soviet academic community in 1964, not only the field of genetics but also eugenics were resurrected with a new look supported by leading-edge molecular biological and genetic engineering; which had hitherto been developed mainly in the West. In 1970, the Soviet journal “Questions of Philosophy” held a round-table discussion chaired by Frolov with the title “Human Genetics, and its Philosophical, Social-Ethical Problems”. There an embryologist, a general geneticist, a demographer, as well as an ethicist and philosophers argued over the social-ethical aspects of science, especially in regard to gene manipulation and neo-eugenics. Today this round-table is regarded as the main origin of the Soviet, —and later— Russian bioethics. Since the 1970s, influenced by a global trend towards regulating recombinant DNA experiments, and opposition to human enhancement, Frolov published his works. These introduced the new world currents in genetic engineering and neo-eugenics; criticised human enhancement from the Marxist paradigm of the “new human”, whose personality must be developed all-roundly; supported the Western scholars, who were struggling against neo-eugenics; and appealed for the necessity of an international approach to controlling biology and genetics.

    At the same time, the Soviet bio-philosopher developed networks of contacts within UNESCO alongside US bioethics institutes, and gave presentations on the socio-ethical aspects of genome science for those foreign associates. Since the middle of the 1980s until the 1990s, Frolov made attempts to get Soviet bioethics recognised by his Western counterparts, by forming a panel of experts engaged in bioethics in various areas. As a result, Soviet bioethics, based on talks among biologists, doctors, philosophers, lawyers, in addition to an Orthodox priest, was established at the end of 1980s. In April of 1991, the Soviet national bioethics committee was established in the Soviet Academy of Sciences in the wake of Frolov’s appeal to the Presidium. In May, the International Meeting on Bioethics and the Social Consequences of Biomedical Research was held in Moscow under the auspices of UNESCO.

    Therefore, it is indeed clear that Frolov contributed to the foundation of bioethics in the Soviet academic community, but he failed in his moral obligation to develop an interest in bioethics amongst the general public, and to involve them in the debate, whereas in the West national debates centring on bioethics had been flourishing since the 1970s. The result of Frolov’s ignorance was evident in a 1993 survey, which demonstrated broad support for neo-eugenic treatments by the Russian populace. Now Boris Yudin, Frolov’s successor, highlights the importance of familiarising oneself with this theme and inspiring popular debate on the topic through mass media and education.

  • 森永 貴子
    社会経済史学
    2005年 71 巻 1 号 25-47
    発行日: 2005/05/25
    公開日: 2017/06/09
    ジャーナル オープンアクセス
    The last interruption of Kiakhta trade, from 1785 to 1792, had serious effects on the Russian fur trade. In this article, the author tries to identify the structural changes in the Russian fur trade during this period by analysing the 'Letter on the Kiakhta trade', by A.N. RADISHCHEF, the Russian thinker-bureaucrat of the 18th century. First, Kiakhta trade in the 18th century was the principal Russian overland trade and was as important as White Sea and Baltic Sea trade. Second, in the 18th century, Russian fur was exported mainly to China, not to Europe. Even during the interruption of Kiakhta trade, export of Russian fur to Europe did not increase to the level of export to China. Third, Siberian hunters did not quit hunting during the interruption of Kiakhta trade, but they were influenced by the change in fur prices. Fourth, trade between European Russia and Siberian cities including Irkutskincreased as a result of the interruption of Kiakhta trade. From these analyses, one can conclude that the last interruption of Kiakhta trade stimulated the integration of Russian fur enterprises and that this period prepared the way for the foundation of the Russian-American Company.
feedback
Top