A New Publication on Serhii Winogradsky: Challenging Myths and Restoring Historical Accuracy

A new study dedicated to Serhii Winogradsky has just been published — and it’s already sparking thoughtful discussions in scientific and cultural circles.

The G-Museum Scientific Library has been enriched by the latest addition: the first 2024 issue of Svitohliad, a popular science journal published by the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine and the Main Astronomical Observatory of the NASU. This issue features a compelling article by Oleksandr Kotlinskyi, Petro Kryvyi, and Vasyl Shenderovskyi, entitled:"Microbiologist Serhii Winogradsky and Prince Oldenburg: Adversaries or Allies?"

The authors — all honorary members of the Winogradsky Club — explore the relationship between Prince Alexander of Oldenburg, the founder of the Institute of Experimental Medicine in St. Petersburg, and Serhii Winogradsky, who served first as department head and later as the institute's director.

This popular science article stands out for its national-patriotic spirit and factual strength. The authors confront a long-standing manipulation circulated by russian academia — the claim that “Winogradsky was a great russian microbiologist.” Unfortunately, Serhii Mykolaiovych is not the only Ukrainian figure clutched tightly by russian narrative-building. The intellectual legacy of hundreds of prominent individuals, not only from Ukraine, has been co-opted by russia. This tendency reflects a broader russian cultural phenomenon: a systematic appropriation of intellectual history, in addition to land and identity.

Building on their critique of a book by russian authors Yu. Holikov and M. Sapronov, the authors seek to demythologize the official narrative of russian science and the idealization of its elite — using Prince Alexander of Oldenburg as a central case study.

Within the framework of this popular-scientific inquiry, the research team offers an alternative account of the relationship between the Ukrainian microbiologist and the russian prince. This narrative dismantles the romanticized portrayal of the Institute of Experimental Medicine in St. Petersburg, exposing the pseudo-philanthropy of Prince Oldenburg. He emerges as a prototype of the modern-day “grant opportunist” — a figure who, leveraging his privileged status, skilfully absorbed substantial public funding. Significant state resources were allocated for combating epidemics, and it was the prince who effectively channeled and consumed these funds under the guise of institutional development.

One of the most fact-rich sections of the publication explores the conflict between Prince Oldenburg and russia’s Minister of Finance, Sergei Witte. Witte suspected the prince of financial misconduct and misuse of public funds. Oldenburg, however, skillfully deflected accusations by relying on the professional reputation and scientific authority of Serhii Winogradsky, effectively shielding himself while leaving the Ukrainian microbiologist to deal with the mounting institutional challenges alone.

The publication highlights numerous intriguing details from Winogradsky’s biography during his "St. Petersburg period."It reveals his editorial role in publishing the Archives of Biological Sciences, the official journal of the Institute, and sheds light on the obsequiousness of russian academics toward Prince Oldenburg. Particular attention is given to Winogradsky’s critical involvement in efforts to prevent the spread of plague within the russian empire, underscoring the immense scientific and societal value of his work. This significance becomes especially clear against the backdrop of Oldenburg’s conflict with Finance Minister Sergei Witte — a rivalry that further illustrates how Winogradsky was instrumentalized to protect the prince’s image. The article also challenges the myth that Winogradsky enjoyed warm relations with both Prince Oldenburg and the renowned russian physiologist Ivan Pavlov. In reality, his relationship with Pavlov was marked by distance and mutual reserve, lacking the camaraderie often romanticized in official narratives. A lesser-known fact is also revealed: in 1923, Winogradsky was elected an Honorary Academician of the russian academy of sciences — a symbolic recognition that came long after his most active period in russian institutional science.

The article also appropriately highlights the founding of the Bacteriological Institute in Kyiv — a particularly timely and revealing comparison. It becomes clear that the scientific institution in Kyiv surpassed its St. Petersburg counterpart by far, both in infrastructure and standards. While the capital’s institute struggled with makeshift dugouts and wooden outbuildings, the Kyiv-based establishment stood out as a significantly more advanced and better-equipped center of research.

In conclusion, it is fair to say that Winogradsky’s work in the northern capital of the russian empire ultimately fell short of the expectations he had in 1891, when he chose to dedicate himself to scientific research in St. Petersburg. His hopes for institutional support and academic integrity were gradually overshadowed by political maneuvering, resource struggles, and the instrumentalization of his expertise for purposes far removed from pure science.