We are accustomed to consider ourselves reasonable, independent people who are not disposed to inexplicable manifestations of cruelty or indifference. In fact, this is not at all true - in certain circumstances, homo sapiens surprisingly easily part with their “humanity”.
Asch experiment, 1951
The study was aimed at studying conformity in groups. Student volunteers were invited ostensibly for an eye test. The subject was in a group with seven actors, whose results were not taken into account when summing up the results. The young people were shown a card with a vertical line on it. Then they were shown another card, where three lines were already depicted - the participants were asked to determine which of them corresponded in size to the line from the first card. The subject's opinions were asked last.
A similar procedure was carried out 18 times. In the first two rounds, the participants were persuaded to name the correct answers, which was not difficult, since the coincidence of the lines on all the cards was obvious. But then they began to unanimously adhere to the obviously incorrect option. Sometimes one or two actors in the group were instructed to choose the correct options 12 times. But, despite this, the subjects experienced extreme discomfort from the fact that their opinion did not coincide with the opinion of the majority.
As a result, 75% of students were not ready to oppose the majority opinion at least once - they pointed to the false option, despite the obvious visual inconsistency of the lines. 37% of all answers turned out to be false, and only one subject from the control group of thirty-five people made one mistake. Moreover, if group members disagreed or when there were two independent subjects in the group, the likelihood of making an error decreased fourfold.
What does this say about us?
People are highly dependent on the opinions of the group they are in. Even if it contradicts common sense or our beliefs, this does not mean that we can resist it. As long as there is at least a ghostly threat of condemnation from others, it can be much easier for us to drown out our inner voice than to defend our position.
The Good Samaritan Experiment, 1973
The parable of the Good Samaritan tells how a traveler freely helped a wounded and robbed man on the road, whom everyone else was passing by. Psychologists Daniel Baston and John Darley decided to test how strongly such moral imperatives influence human behavior in a stressful situation.
One group of seminary students was told the parable of the Good Samaritan and then asked to preach a sermon about something they had heard in another building on campus. The second group was tasked with preparing a speech about various job opportunities. At the same time, some of the subjects were asked to especially hurry on the way to the audience. On their way from one building to another, students passed a man lying on the ground in an empty alley who looked like he needed help.
It turned out that the students who were preparing a speech about the Good Samaritan on the way reacted to such an emergency situation in the same way as the second group of subjects - their decision was influenced solely by the time limit. Only 10% of seminarians who were asked to come to the classroom as soon as possible helped a stranger - even if shortly before they heard a lecture about the importance of helping a neighbor in a difficult situation.
What does this say about us?
We can with surprising ease abandon religion or any other ethical imperatives when it suits us. People tend to justify their indifference with the words “this doesn’t concern me,” “I still can’t help,” or “they’ll manage here without me.” Most often this happens not during disasters or crisis situations, but in the course of everyday life.
The Indifferent Witness Experiment, 1968
In 1964, a criminal attack on a woman, repeated twice within half an hour, ended with her death on the way to the hospital. More than a dozen people became witnesses to the crime (in his sensational publication Time magazine mistakenly pointed to 38 people), and yet no one bothered to treat the incident with due attention. Based on these events, John Darley and Bib Latein decided to conduct their own psychological experiment.
They invited volunteers to participate in the discussion. Hoping that extremely sensitive issues would be discussed, the consenting participants were asked to communicate remotely - using intercoms. During the conversation, one of the interlocutors simulated an epileptic seizure, which could be clearly recognized by the sounds from the speakers. When the conversation took place one-on-one, 85% of the subjects reacted vividly to what happened and tried to help the victim. But in a situation where the participant in the experiment believed that there were 4 other people in the conversation besides him, only 31% had the strength to make an attempt to somehow influence the situation. Everyone else thought that someone else should do it.
What does this say about us?
If you think that big number people around ensures your safety - this is not at all true. The crowd may be indifferent to someone else's misfortune, especially when difficult situation include people from marginalized groups. As long as there is someone else nearby, we happily shift responsibility for what is happening to him.
Stanford Prison Experiment, 1971
The US Navy wanted to better understand the nature of conflict in its correctional facilities, so the department agreed to pay for an experiment by behavioral psychologist Philip Zimbardo. The scientist set up the basement of Stanford University as a prison and invited male volunteers to take on the roles of guards and prisoners - all of them were college students.
Participants had to pass a test of health and mental stability, after which they were divided by lot into two groups of 12 people - guards and prisoners. The guards wore uniforms from a military store that replicated the actual uniforms of prison guards. They were also given wooden batons and mirrored sunglasses, behind which their eyes were not visible. The prisoners were given uncomfortable clothes without underwear and rubber slippers. They were called only by numbers that were sewn onto the uniform. They also could not remove the small chains from their ankles, which were supposed to constantly remind them of their imprisonment. At the beginning of the experiment, the prisoners were sent home. From there they were allegedly arrested by state police, who facilitated the experiment. They were fingerprinted, photographed and had their license read out. After which they were stripped naked, examined and assigned numbers.
Unlike the prisoners, the guards worked in shifts, but many of them were happy to work overtime during the experiment. All subjects received $15 per day ($85 adjusted for inflation when converted to 2012). Zimbardo himself acted as the general manager of the prison. The experiment was supposed to last 4 weeks. The guards were given one single task - to walk around the prison, which they could carry out as they themselves wanted, but without using force against the prisoners.
Already on the second day, the prisoners staged a riot, during which they barricaded the entrance to the cell with beds and teased the guards. They responded by using fire extinguishers to calm the unrest. Soon they were forcing their charges to sleep naked on bare concrete, and the opportunity to use the shower became a privilege for the prisoners. Terrible unsanitary conditions began to spread in the prison - prisoners were denied access to the toilet outside their cells, and the buckets they used to relieve themselves were prohibited from cleaning as punishment.
Every third guard showed sadistic tendencies - the prisoners were mocked, some were forced to wash drain barrels with their bare hands. Two of them were so mentally damaged that they had to be excluded from the experiment. One of the new participants, who replaced those who dropped out, was so shocked by what he saw that he soon went on a hunger strike. In retaliation, he was placed in a cramped closet - solitary confinement. Other prisoners were given a choice: refuse blankets or leave the troublemaker in solitary confinement all night. Only one person agreed to sacrifice his comfort. About 50 observers monitored the work of the prison, but only Zimbardo’s girlfriend, who came to conduct several interviews with the participants in the experiment, was outraged by what was happening. The Stamford prison was closed six days after people were admitted there. Many guards expressed regret that the experiment ended prematurely.
What does this say about us?
People very quickly accept the social roles imposed on them and are so carried away by their own power that the line of what is permissible in relation to others is rapidly erased for them. The participants in the Stanford experiment were not sadists, they were very ordinary people. Like, perhaps, many Nazi soldiers or torturers at Abu Ghraib prison. Higher education and strong mental health did not prevent the subjects from using violence against those people over whom they had power.
Milgram experiment, 1961
During the Nuremberg trials, many convicted Nazis justified their actions by saying that they were simply following someone else's orders. Military discipline did not allow them to disobey, even if they did not like the instructions themselves. Interested in these circumstances, Yale psychologist Stanley Milgram decided to test how far people can go to harm others if this is part of their job responsibilities.
Participants in the experiment were recruited for a small fee from volunteers, none of whom were of concern to the experimenters. At the very beginning, the roles of “student” and “teacher” were supposedly played between the subject and a specially trained actor, and the subject always got the second role. After this, the “student” actor was demonstratively tied to a chair with electrodes, and the “teacher” was given an introductory shock of 45 V and taken to another room. There he was seated at a generator, where 30 switches from 15 to 450 V were located in steps of 15 V. Under the control of an experimenter - a man in a white coat who was in the room all the time - the “teacher” had to check the “student’s” memorization of the set pairs of associations that were read to him in advance. For every mistake he received a punishment in the form of an electric shock. With each new error the discharge increased. The switch groups have been signed. The final caption stated the following: “Danger: hard-to-bear shock.” The last two switches were outside the groups, were graphically isolated and marked with the marker “X X X”. The “student” answered using four buttons, his answer was indicated on a light board in front of the teacher. The “teacher” and his student were separated by a blank wall.
If the “teacher” hesitated in assigning punishment, the experimenter, whose persistence increased as doubts increased, used specially prepared phrases to convince him to continue. At the same time, he could under no circumstances threaten the “teacher.” Upon reaching 300 volts, clear blows to the wall were heard from the “student’s” room, after which the “student” stopped answering questions. Silence for 10 seconds was interpreted by the experimenter as an incorrect answer, and he asked to increase the power of the blow. At the next discharge of 315 volts, even more persistent blows were repeated, after which the “student” stopped responding to questions. A little later, in another version of the experiment, the rooms were not as soundproofed, and the “student” warned in advance that he had heart problems and twice, at discharges of 150 and 300 volts, complained of feeling unwell. In the latter case, he refused to continue his participation in the experiment and began to scream loudly from behind the wall when new blows were administered to him. After 350 V, he stopped showing signs of life, continuing to receive current discharges. The experiment was considered complete when the “teacher” administered the maximum possible punishment three times.
65% of all subjects reached the last switch and did not stop until the experimenter asked them to do so. Only 12.5% refused to continue immediately after the victim knocked on the wall for the first time - all the rest continued to press the button even after the answers stopped coming from behind the wall. Later, this experiment was carried out many more times - in other countries and circumstances, with or without reward, with male and female groups - if the basic basic conditions remained unchanged, at least 60% of the subjects reached the end of the scale - despite their own stress and discomfort.
What does this say about us?
Even being severely depressed, contrary to all expert predictions, the vast majority of subjects were ready to carry through stranger fatal electric shocks only because there was a man in a white coat nearby who told them to do it. Most people follow authority surprisingly easily, even when doing so has devastating or tragic consequences.
- Is it important for you that your child spends time in an interesting and educational way?
- Do you want to give your child bright emotions and joy? interesting discoveries about the world around us?
- Are you tired of rolling cars and playing with dolls, and want to play something interesting not only for your child, but also for yourself?
We invite you to receive materials "Cognitive Laboratory of Young Researchers"!
in which guests are greeted by people we already love learned friends....
Using the Laboratory materials, you will be able to:
- Engage young fidgets with fun and science
- Distract your child from the tablet and smartphone
- Help your child explore a fascinating world in a simple, interesting, playful way
- Get closer to your child and give yourself and him unforgettable emotions!
| Mysterious Tricks |
For a few days, the children will turn into real magicians and artists and learn how to do the most interesting tricks that they will be happy to demonstrate to their dads, grandmothers, friends and girlfriends at their performances... 
The guys will spend most interesting experiments, among which:
· How to make paper fireproof
· How to write top secret messages with invisible ink
· How to pierce a balloon so it doesn't burst
· How to make a homemade hovercraft
· How to grow a forest of crystals
· How to make a rainbow without leaving home
· How to make a paper bridge that can withstand heavy loads
· How to make a tornado in a glass
· Inverted drawings
· Erupting volcanoes
· Disappearing toothpick
And much more..
We are sure that your children will get a lot of positive emotions!)
What topics do we work with in the Laboratory?
Cognitive Laboratory. Module 1
Day 1 - Experiments with air
Day 2 - Experiments with paper
Day 3 - Experiments with water
Day 4 - Experiments with food products
Day 5 - Experiments with magnets
Day 6 - Experiments with salt
Cognitive Laboratory. Module 2
Day 1 - Experiments with light
Day 2 - Experiments with sound
Day 3 - Experiments with gravity
Day 4 - Experiments with ice
Day 5 - Experiments with soap bubbles
Day 6 - Optical illusions
And our young scientific friends - the Fixies - help children get simple and understandable explanations of complex phenomena... We are sure that even adults will learn a lot of interesting things for themselves!... ;)
ScoHow much does it cost to participate in the laboratory?
Cost of the set " Cognitive Laboratory" Module 1 (ready-made materials) + Module 2 (ready-made materials) totals:
3000 rub. Holiday price of everything: 997 rub.
You can also get each of the Modules separately:
"Cognitive Laboratory. Module 1"
1500 rub.
Holiday price of everything: 547 rub.
"Cognitive Laboratory. Module 2"
1500 rub.
Holiday price of everything: 547 rub.
Laboratory Director - Svetlana Petrova
Author and director of the project “Business Mom Online”
trainer-consultant and certified coach on combination issues happy family and favorite activity, organizer of educational events for children
Assistants:
Anastasia (7 years old), Vladimir (5 years old), Fixies - inquisitive, love creativity, experiences and experiments, fun adventures and good mood!)
1. Gaming and exciting development.
The laboratory is an excellent opportunity to interest a child in science and the secrets of understanding the world around him in a fun, entertaining and intriguing way. Children enjoy participating in exciting experiments, during which they learn the laws of nature, develop curiosity and ask new questions, to which they happily seek answers with the help of adults.
2. Intrigue and vivid emotions.
The laboratory not only helps to develop the child, but also gives the child a wide range of emotions:
3. An original approach to the visual representation of various phenomena, properties and patterns.
In the Laboratory, children will conduct interesting and entertaining experiments with simple objects, covering various areas knowledge and organized in a fun format that will allow them to understand the essence of the experiment being carried out and learn about the world around them.
4. The opportunity to become a real wizard for your children and give them a piece of magic.
Do you want your children to see you as a real wizard? It’s very simple. Our Secret Cognitive Laboratory can do this. We have prepared for you 6 unforgettable exciting days of elementary scientific experiments that will certainly make your children believe in miracles. And foryourself, make a couple of discoveries from the “how did I not notice this before” category.
5. Opportunity to get closer.But most importantly, the Laboratory is a great opportunity for parents to become closer to their children! FunnyIntriguing educational experiences and spending them with children is not only a good way to have fun and interesting leisure time, but also The best way introduce your child to the world of science. Together you will learn many interesting things scientific facts and perhaps even make a major scientific discovery.
| What participants of the Laboratory, as well as our other events, say |
"Svetochka! Thank you very much for the week of celebration and fairy tales! It was very interesting, every day there were some incidents and surprises! The whole week there was an atmosphere of magic in the house. My daughter is happy. And I have spring in my soul! I want to give you such a bouquet of flowers Happy holiday! May you always have love and prosperity in your home!
" Svetlana! Thank you so much.. This is our first time participating in a quest! We really liked everything. Intrigue, surprise... what's next? What's today? Every day my daughter asked questions. We had fun decorating the house, coming up with a fairy tale, solving riddles We looked for hints and received surprises. All this together is just great!!! HAPPY HOLIDAYS! And we are waiting for new adventures with you!
Enjoy exciting experiences and experiments, experiment with your children, explore a fascinating world, and enjoy a bright and interesting time spent with your child!
| How to order? |
Click on the ORDER button, place an order, select a payment method or transfer payment directly using one of the following methods:
Yandex money wallet number 410011982499196
Web-money wallet R337293344786
QIWI wallet: + 380501015878
Money transfers: Western Union, Zolotaya Korona, Contact, Migom, etc. (write to us by email and we will send you the details for making the transfer in a way convenient for you)
After payment, be sure to write to [email protected] your name and payment method.
If you have any questions with payment, also write to our support team at email address: [email protected] .
E If within 3 days from the date of purchasing the materials, you decide that the materials were useless to you, we will refund your money in full without any questions asked!
If you have any questions, you can ask them by writing to the following email address: [email protected]
All rights reserved (c)
Dissecting crayfish, crossing two different flies and creating life in a test tube - all this was done by the guys in the laboratories of Smart Novosibirsk. For the first time - at NSTU.
Fourth, but first
“Baba, I want to study biology as soon as possible!”- a girl of about 10 years old in a gray lab coat whines. “Another 15 minutes and it will start”, - she consoles her granddaughter. Meanwhile, more kids get out of the elevator and carefully approach the registration table.
“Hello, what is your first and last name? How old are you?" - from such words the guys freeze at first, but quickly become bolder, begin to smile and put on airs. Each young scientist receives a team badge: children are divided into five groups, according to age.
This is not the first time many children come here: the Smart Novosibirsk project started back in October. This is a regional partner of Smart Moscow: the Siberian capital became the 17th city where the project came. The children have already mastered three programs, the new one is called “Biological Experiments”. For the first time it is being held at NSTU.
“Today is the first program on a serious partnership basis - scientific. We really want children not just to study science, but to study it within the walls where they may later study. So that they understand that Novosibirsk has all the opportunities for development,” says Anna Petukhova, head of the Smart Novosibirsk project.
Another feature of the Novosibirsk project is Active participation adults. While the children are performing experiments, parents are given a popular science lecture and an interactive quiz.
“For adults, our ticket is free - and we just give them the opportunity not to sit on the phone. Parents who bring their children to us, as a rule, are very smart themselves, they love science and everything connected with it. Moms, dads, and grandparents come to us - it’s wonderful. In other cities, of course, there are also such moments, but in Novosibirsk this is especially pronounced. Apparently, the academic nature of the city is taking its toll,” continues Anna Petukhova.
“Will you give away the living?”
.jpg)
After 15 minutes the class has not yet started. Acquaintance begins with the laboratories, the university and the “teachers”. At a short presentation, children, together with the presenter, guess the names of the laboratories and are divided into teams. NSTU Rector Anatoly Bataev also comes to greet the guests of the university.
“We have a mercantile interest,” smiles Anatoly Bataev. - Our main task is that in the 11th grade, when you choose the Unified State Exam, you choose the subjects that our university needs. I hope you are our future potential students."
Future students wander around their classrooms and suddenly turn into real scientists - focused and courageous. Ten-year-old children readily dissect crayfish and joke when the presenter suggests comparing the structure of the animals with the Madagascar beetle: “Aren’t you going to give away the living ones?”
The lesson lasts about two hours. Children conduct five experiments: in the laboratories of zoology (here they dismember crayfish), microbiology, genetics, botany and zoology. Each young scientist receives a “laboratory journal” - a kind of waybill where he must write down the results of his research.
Some of them will continue beyond the walls of the university: seeds from experiments in botany and flies from genetic experiments will grow at the children’s homes.
And the most touching experiment takes place in the zoology laboratory: observations of mice are carried out here, very harmless ones. “Not a single mouse will be harmed,” all participants were promised this before the experiments. The program for adults at this time is not inferior to the children's program in terms of information content. In one of the questions interactive quiz
, for example, they sorted out a popular misconception: is a plastic bag really more dangerous for the environment than a paper one?
A tricky problem: if a country has a waste recycling system, then plastic can be used endlessly without being thrown away or polluting the environment. But how environmentally friendly is a paper bag, for the sake of which forests are being destroyed?
Lean Economy“Biological experiments” will be held at NSTU twice more, on February 10-11: six programs are planned.
They are designed for children 7-14 years old, the cost of one cycle is 1490 rubles.
As Anna Petukhova admits, in Novosibirsk the high price does not raise any questions:
“When people don't see what we do, it can seem expensive. But as soon as they arrive, they see that five laboratories with equipment and five full-fledged master classes are working simultaneously. And it’s not just smoke, ice, tinsel - the children do it with their own hands.”
After the biological experiments, Smart Novosibirsk will present three more programs until the summer: then a break for three months. These are “Surgery”, “Scientific Detective” and “Palaeontology”. You can buy tickets for all classes. There can only be hope for absolute openness and the absence of any secrecy in science. Only under these conditions can we hope that only those scientists who do not confuse human individuals with experimental animals will succeed.. He was arrested by SMERSH officers (“Death to Spies” - a special department in the army) at the beginning of 1945 and later disappeared without a trace in Lubyanka. There has been no real information about him since 1947.
In the late 1940s and early 1950s, Vladimir Prison was the place of detention for many convicted high-ranking Nazis, who, after their release and return to Germany in 1954-1956, testified to the Swedish authorities about Wallenberg’s stay in Moscow’s Lubyanka and Lefortovo prisons. For many years there were vague rumors about Wallenberg's possible stay in Vladimir prison. The international commission received personal permission from the USSR Minister of Internal Affairs Vadim Bakatin to check this information using the prison file. A card was created for each person arrested. It recorded brief biographical information, elements of the crime, articles under which the arrested person was convicted, details of movements in custody, etc. Before leaving for Vladimir, my colleagues at work at the Moscow Memorial also advised me to take an interest in the cards of several famous employees of the once all-powerful People's Commissar of Security Lavrentiy Beria, who were sentenced after the death of Stalin and the fall of Beria not to death (like Beria), but to imprisonment . This is how I first learned the name of Grigory Moiseevich Mayranovsky.
The International Commission did not find any traces of Wallenberg’s presence in the Vladimir prison, but the identity of Mairanovsky and his colleagues from the NKVD-MGB interested me. Mairanovsky’s card stated the following: profession - pharmacologist; senior engineer of Laboratory No. 1 OOT MGB USSR; convicted on February 14, 1953 under articles 193-17f and 179 for “abuse of official position” and “illegal possession of potent substances.” What was hidden behind these words? It was striking that the prisoner Mayranovsky was taken back to the MGB-KGB Internal Prison (the official name of the Lubyanka) several times in 1953, 1956-1958 - probably for interrogations. What did this man know that was so special?
In the Memorial archives, I became acquainted with several documents that shed light on Mairanovsky’s activities. Later there were publications about Mairanovsky in the press, including by my “memorial” colleagues. Additional information was released by Colonel of Justice Vladimir Bobrenev, who had access to the investigative files of Mayranovsky and Beria. Gradually, a clear picture began to emerge: in the late 1930s and early 1950s, there was a laboratory within the NKVD-MGB that developed poisons that killed victims without identifiable traces, and also searched for drugs that could stimulate the “candor” of interrogated victims. All poisons and drugs were tested on people - prisoners sentenced to death. The experiments were supervised and carried out by the “doctor” and biochemist Mairanovsky. In the late 1940s, the “doctor” also acted as an executioner: he injected lethal doses of poisons into victims - real or imagined political opponents of the Soviet regime, kidnapped by the team of Pavel Sudoplatov (more about him below) on the streets of different cities Soviet Union. Mairanovsky’s “achievements” were also used by KGB agents abroad for political assassinations. Until recently, one of Mairanovsky’s most terrible poisons, ricin, was industrially produced in Russia as a chemical and biological weapon.
"Laboratory of Death" - "Camera"
Brief background
For the first time, work on the use of poisons and drugs began to be carried out in the OGPU in 1926 at the direction of the People's Commissar for Security Vyacheslav Menzhinsky. The special laboratory was part of a secret group headed by former Socialist Revolutionary militant Yakov Serebryansky. The “Yashin Group” was created to carry out terrorist attacks abroad, reported directly to the People’s Commissar and existed until 1938.
Under the new People's Commissar, Nikolai Yezhov, the methods of the “Yasha Group” began to be used for “cleansing” even in the Lubyanka. On February 17, 1938, the head of the Foreign Department of the NKVD, Abram Slutsky, was found dead in the office of Mikhail Frinovsky, the deputy of the new People's Commissar. Next to Slutsky’s body, which clumsily slid from the chair, stood an empty glass of tea. Frinovsky confidentially announced to the NKVD employees that the doctor had already established the cause of death: heart rupture. Several officers who knew the symptoms of potassium cyanide poisoning noticed specific bluish spots on Slutsky’s face.
Yezhov's short, bloody reign ended at the end of 1938, when he was accused of "political unreliability", convicted and executed. Under the new People's Commissar, Lavrentiy Beria, the secret laboratory was reorganized. Since 1938, it was included in the 4th special department of the NKVD, and since March 1939 it was headed by Mikhail Filimonov, a pharmacist by training who had a candidate’s degree medical sciences. From that moment on, Mayranovsky was assigned as the head of the 7th department of the 2nd special department of the NKVD, one of the two laboratories of this special department. The head of the second laboratory was Sergei Muromtsev (more about him below). The special department reported directly to People's Commissar Lavrentiy Beria and his deputy Vsevolod Merkulov. The “Death Laboratory” existed until 1946, when it was included in the Operational Equipment Department (OOT) and became Laboratory No. 1 of the OOT under the new Minister of State Security Viktor Abakumov.
Under the leadership of Mayranovsky
Some details of the laboratory's work have become known only recently. Colonel Bobrenev, who had access to the investigative files of Mairanovsky and Beria, describes the “death laboratory” as follows:
“For the laboratory... we allocated a large room on the first floor of a corner building on Varsanofevsky Lane. The room was divided into five chambers, the doors of which, with slightly enlarged peepholes, opened into a spacious reception area. One of the laboratory staff was constantly on duty here during the experiments...
...Almost every day prisoners sentenced to death were delivered to the laboratory. The procedure looked like a regular medical examination. The “doctor” sympathetically asked the “patient” about his health, gave advice and immediately offered medicine...”
According to eyewitnesses, “Mairanovsky brought to the laboratory people who were decrepit and flourishing for health reasons, overweight and thin... Some died after three or four days, others suffered for a week.”
The main purpose of the laboratory was to search for poisons that could not be identified at autopsy. First, Mairanovsky tried tasteless derivatives of mustard gas. He appears to have begun experimenting with these substances even earlier than his colleagues in Nazi Germany, where the first experiments with mustard gas were carried out on prisoners in Sachsenhausen in 1939. The results of Mairanovsky's experiments with mustard gas derivatives ended unsuccessfully: the poison was found in the corpses of the victims. Mairanovsky’s Nazi colleagues had it easier: the mustard gas derivative “Zyklon B” worked effectively in the death camps, and there was no need to hide its use.
It took Mairanovsky more than a year to “work” with ricin, a vegetable protein contained in castor bean seeds. Since different doses of ricin were tried, one can only guess how many victims died in these experiments. The effect of each of the other poisons - digitoxin, thallium, colchicine - was tested on 10 “experimental” subjects. Experimenters observed the suffering of victims who did not die immediately for 10-14 days, after which the “test subjects” were killed.
In the end, a poison with the required properties was found - “K-2” (carbilaminecholine chloride). He killed the victim quickly and left no traces. According to eyewitnesses, after taking K-2, the “experimental subject” became “as if smaller in stature, weakened, and became quieter. And 15 minutes later he died.”
In 1942, Mairanovsky discovered that under the influence of certain doses of ricin, the “experimental subject” began to speak extremely frankly. Mairanovsky received approval from the leadership of the NKVD-NKGB to work on new topic- “the problem of frankness” during interrogations. It took two years for Mairanovsky’s laboratory to experiment to obtain “frank” and “truthful” testimony under the influence of medications. Chloralscopolamine and phenaminebenzedrine were tried without success. Interrogations using medications were carried out not only in the laboratory, but also in both Lubyanka prisons, No. 1 and 2. One of the main employees of the laboratory (as well as an assistant at the department of pharmacology of the 1st Moscow Medical Institute), Vladimir Naumov, openly considered these experiments to be profanation. However, it is known that after the war, in 1946, Soviet “advisers” from the MGB used drugs during the interrogation of political prisoners arrested in Eastern European countries.”
In addition to the poisons themselves, the problem was also the method of introducing them into the victim’s body. At first, poisons were mixed into food or water, given as “medicines” before and after meals, or administered by injection. The introduction of poison through the skin was also tested - it was sprayed or moistened with a poisonous solution. Then came the ideas of a peg cane and a shooting pen. A lot of time and effort went into developing the poisoned little bullets for these devices that effectively kill the victim. Again, one can only guess about the number of victims.
The chief of the 4th special department, Pavel Filimonov, was mainly responsible for firing poisoned bullets into the backs of the victims’ heads. The bullets were light, with a cavity for poison, so the killings did not always go smoothly. There were cases when a bullet got under the skin and the victim pulled it out, begging Filimonov not to shoot again. Filimonov shot a second time. According to Bobrenev's testimony, in 1953, during interrogations in the Beria case, Mairanovsky recalled an incident when he himself shot the victim three times: according to the rules of the laboratory, if the victim did not die from the poison contained in the first bullet, another poison should have been tried on the same victim. In 1954, during interrogation, VASKhNIL academician Sergei Muromtsev, who himself killed 15 prisoners (data from Bobrenev), claimed that he was struck by Mairanovsky’s sadistic attitude towards the victims.
After Mayranovsky was removed from his post as head in 1946, Laboratory No. 1 was divided into two, pharmacological and chemical. They were headed by the above-mentioned V. Naumov and A. Grigorovich. The laboratories were moved from the center of Moscow to a new building built in Kuchino. Apparently, work on poisons ended in 1949. In 1951, the issue of completely disbanding these laboratories was discussed. It seems that at this time the leadership of the USSR gave preference to bacteriological methods of political assassinations: in 1946, the head of the Bacteriological Group, Professor Sergei Muromtsev, was awarded the Stalin Prize. In any case, in 1952, one of the most successful MGB agents operating abroad, Joseph Grigulevich, trained to use special equipment to kill Yugoslav leader Josip Tito using sprayed plague bacilli.
Who are the victims? How many are there?
The 1st Special (later the Accounting and Archive or “A”) Directorate of the NKVD-MGB was responsible for supplying “experimental subjects” to Mayranovsky’s laboratory. The selection for experiments among those sentenced to death in the Butyrka prison was carried out by the head (1941-1953) of this department, Arkady Gertsovsky, and several other MGB employees (I. Balishansky, L. Bashtakov, Kalinin, Petrov, V. Podobedov), in the Lubyanka prison - the commandant General Vasily Blokhin and his special assistant P. Yakovlev. The selection and delivery of “experimental subjects” to the laboratory took place in accordance with the instructions developed and signed by Petrov, Bashtakov, Blokhin, Mayranovsky and Shchegolev and authorized by Beria and Merkulov. Later this document was kept in Sudoplatov’s personal safe.
Difficult to specify total number died during the experiments: different sources give figures from 150 to 250. According to Colonel Bobrenev, some of the victims were criminals, but undoubtedly under the notorious Article 58 of the Criminal Code of the RSFSR. It is known that among the victims were German and Japanese prisoners of war, Polish citizens, Koreans, and Chinese. Colonel Bobrenev indicates that at least four German prisoners of war in 1944, and at the end of 1945, three more German citizens were provided for experiments. The last three were anti-fascist political emigrants who fled Nazi Germany; they died 15 seconds after the lethal injections. The bodies of two victims were cremated, the body of the third was brought to the Research Institute of Emergency Medicine named after. N.V. Sklifosovsky. A post-mortem examination showed that the deceased died of cardiac paralysis; Pathologists found no traces of poison. Japanese prisoners of war, officers and enlisted men, and arrested Japanese diplomats were used in experiments on the "candor problem."
To these victims we must add at least four more who became objects of political murders. In his address to the XXIII Congress of the Communist Party, Sudoplatov wrote: “Inside the country, during the second half of 1946 and in 1947, 4 operations were carried out:
1. At the direction of Khrushchev, a member of the Politburo of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks of Ukraine, according to the plan developed by the Ministry of State Security of the Ukrainian SSR and approved by Khrushchev, in the city. Mukacheve, Romzha, the head of the Greek Catholic Church, who actively resisted the joining of Greek Catholics to Orthodoxy, was destroyed.
2. On the instructions of Stalin, the Polish citizen Samet was destroyed in Ulyanovsk, who, while working as an engineer in the USSR, obtained owls. secret information about Soviet submarines, planning to leave the Soviet Union and transfer this information to the Americans.
3. In Saratov, the well-known enemy of the party, Shumsky, was destroyed, whose name - Shumkism - was called one of the movements among Ukrainian nationalists. Abakumov, giving the order for this operation, referred to the instructions of Stalin and Kaganovich.
4. In Moscow, on the orders of Stalin and Molotov, the American citizen Oggins was killed, who, while serving his sentence in a camp during the war, contacted the US Embassy in the USSR, and the Americans repeatedly sent notes asking for his release and permission to travel to the USA .
In accordance with the Regulations on the work of Special. Services approved by the government, orders to carry out the listed operations were given by the then Minister of State Security of the USSR Abakumov. Eitingon and I know well that Abakumov, for all these operations, is Special. Service of the USSR MGB, reported to the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks).”
In his memoirs, Sudoplatov is even more frank and proudly describes these murders in detail. The Sudoplatov-Eitingon team was involved in the abduction of the victim, while the murder was the “work” of Mairanovsky. Since Archbishop Romzha was in the hospital after a car accident organized by the local leadership of the MGB, Mairanovsky supplied the nurse, an MGB employee, who was on duty near the archbishop with curare poison. In Saratov, under the guise of a doctor, he also personally injected the poison curare into A. Shumsky, who was lying in the hospital. Polish citizen Samet, kidnapped on the streets of Ulyanovsk and interned since 1939, also died in the hands of Mayranovsky from curare injections. Isaac Oggins, American communist and Comintern veteran, worked as an NKVD agent in China and other countries in the mid-1930s Far East. In 1938, he arrived in the USSR with a fake Czech passport and was immediately arrested by NKVD officers. After the Second World War, his wife contacted the American Embassy in Moscow with a request to facilitate her husband’s release and departure to the United States. Oggins was “freed” with the help of Eitingon and Mairanovsky’s injection. Sudoplatov also mentions other cases when Eitingon (who spoke several languages fluently) invited foreigners to special MGB apartments in Moscow, where “Doctor” Mayranovsky was waiting for them for an “examination.” Sudoplatov never tired of repeating that all this happened on the direct orders of the top leadership of the CPSU (b) and members of the government.
Executioner's career
Start
The autobiography, a copy of which is kept in the Memorial archive, helps to reconstruct the stages of Mairanovsky’s career.
Grigory Moiseevich Mayranovsky was born in 1899, a Jew, studied at Tiflis University and then at the 2nd Moscow University medical institute, from which he graduated in 1923. Since 1928, he was a graduate student, a researcher and then a senior researcher at the Biochemical Institute. A.N. Bach, and in 1933-1935 he headed the toxicology department of the same institute; in addition, in 1934 he was appointed deputy director of this institute. In 1935, Mairanovsky moved to the All-Union Institute of Experimental Medicine (VIEM), where until 1937 he was in charge of a secret toxicological special laboratory. In 1938-1940, he was a senior researcher in the department of pathology for the treatment of poisonous substances (poisonous substances) and at the same time began working in the NKVD system. From 1940 until his arrest (December 13, 1951), Mairanovsky devoted himself entirely to work in the “death laboratory.”
Judging by this biography, by the beginning of experiments on humans using mustard gas derivatives in Laboratory No. 1, Mairanovsky was a professional in working with toxic substances. In the late 1920s and early 1930s, the Soviet leadership was obsessed with the idea chemical weapons and research on poisonous gases was carried out jointly with German experts on Soviet territory, near Samara. The head of the Tomka special school was the German chemical warfare specialist Ludwig von Sicherer, and the first Soviet chemical weapons plant, Bersol, was built by German firms. In 1933, this cooperation ended, and Mayranovsky probably belonged to that generation of secret scientists who continued this work without German specialists.
In July 1940, at a closed meeting of the Academic Council of VIEM, Mairanovsky defended his dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Biological Sciences. The dissertation was entitled “Biological activity of mustard gas interaction products with skin tissue during superficial applications.” Opponents - A.D. Speransky, G.M. Frank, N.I. Gavrilov and B.N. Tarusov - given positive reviews. It is curious that the object of research - skin (whose?) - was not mentioned in the dissertation and did not raise questions among opponents. Later, during interrogations after his arrest, Mayranovsky was more frank. According to Colonel Bobrenev, Mairanovsky testified that he did not study the effect of mustard gas on the skin, but included in his dissertation data on the effect of mustard gas derivatives taken by “experimental subjects” in Laboratory No. 1 with food.
In 1964, in a letter addressed to the President of the USSR Academy of Medical Sciences, Academician Nikolai Blokhin, Mairanovsky characterized the essence of his dissertation as follows: “The dissertation revealed some aspects of the mechanism of toxic effects on the body (pathophysiology and clinic of mustard gas). Based on research into the mechanism of action of mustard gas, I have proposed rational methods therapy of mustard gas lesions. The toxic effect of mustard gas (slow action, a certain “incubation” period and latent nature of the action), extensive and general damage to the body (such as “chain” reactions) from relatively small quantities of the damaging substance have much in common with the damaging effect of malignant neoplasms on the body. These principles can also be applied to the treatment of certain malignant neoplasms.”
When reading these lines of a “humanistic doctor” thinking about the treatment of cancer, and knowing how information about the “pathophysiology and clinic of mustard gas” was obtained, I personally feel uneasy. After all, these were several years of “experiments”, during which Mayranovsky and his employees watched through a peephole in the cell door the suffering of the victims whom they poisoned with mustard gas compounds. It is curious that Academician Blokhin did not have such emotions and questions about how and on whom the data on the effects of mustard gas were obtained. He praised Mairanovsky’s work quite highly.
There was a hitch with the approval of Mayranovsky’s dissertation; the Plenum of the Higher Attestation Commission proposed that it be revised. The dissertation was submitted for the second time to the Higher Attestation Commission in 1943. It remains to be seen what new data Mairanovsky included in it and how many victims this data cost their lives. It seems that this time the approval occurred only with the active intervention of the director of VIEM, Professor N.I. Grashchenkov and academician A.D. Speransky, as well as under “pressure” from Deputy People’s Commissar of Security Merkulov. These minor difficulties did not prevent the Scientific Council of VIEM at a meeting on October 2, 1943 from awarding Mairanovsky the title of professor of pathophysiology. It is noteworthy that the vote was not unanimous, but with one vote against and two abstentions.
After the end of the war, Mayranovsky and two other laboratory employees were sent to Germany to track down German poison experts who were experimenting on people. Mairanovsky returned to Moscow convinced that the achievements of Nazi experts in this field were much less than those of the Soviets.
In 1946, Mayranovsky was removed from his post as head of the laboratory and, under the leadership of Sudoplatov and Eitingon, actively became involved in the activities of the DR Service as a killer.
| 21-36
Five experiments were carried out in the laboratory to observe diffraction using various diffraction gratings. Each of the gratings was illuminated by parallel beams of monochromatic light with a certain wavelength. In all cases, the light fell perpendicular to the grating. In two of these experiments, the same number of main diffraction maxima was observed. First indicate the number of the experiment in which a diffraction grating with a shorter period was used, and then the number of the experiment in which a diffraction grating with a larger period was used.
| Number experiment | Diffraction period | Wavelength incident light |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2d | |
| 2 | d | |
| 3 | 2d | |
| 4 | d/2 | |
| 5 | d/2 |
Solution.
The condition for the interference maxima of a diffraction grating has the form: The gratings will give the same number of maxima, provided that these maxima are observed at the same angles. From the table we find that in experiments 2 and 4 the same number of maxima is observed so that the smaller period of the grating at number 4, longer period for grating number 2.
Answer: 42.
Answer: 42
Source: Training work in physics 04/28/2017, option PH10503
The optical design consists of a diffraction grating and a screen located nearby parallel to it. A parallel beam of white light visible to the eye falls normally onto the grating.
Select the correct statement, if any.
A. This optical design allows you to observe a set of rainbow diffraction fringes on the screen.
B. In order to obtain an image of diffraction maxima on the screen, it is necessary to install a collecting lens in the path of the light beam, in the focal plane of which there should be a diffraction grating.
1) only A
2) only B
4) neither A nor B
Solution.
The diffraction grating gives maxima in the directions specified by the condition where is the grating period, and is the order of the maximum. As you can see, this condition depends on the wavelength, so light of different frequencies is refracted by the diffraction grating slightly differently. This basically makes it possible to see the rainbow spectrum of light.
However, all rays corresponding to a certain maximum and a certain wavelength, after passing through the diffraction grating, propagate parallel to each other, thereby forming a parallel beam of light. Such a parallel beam cannot produce a clear image on a nearby screen, so Statement A for this optical system turns out to be incorrect. The situation would be saved by a converging lens, which must be positioned so that its focal plane coincides with the screen. As you know, a thin lens collects any parallel beam of light to a point located on the focal plane. However, Statement B proposes to place such a lens differently. Thus, we can conclude that B’s statement is also erroneous.
Answer: 4.
Answer: 4
Anton
Valentina Giesbrecht 16.06.2016 13:32
The text of the problem says “can be observed,” therefore the eyes are included in the experimental scheme. Then why is answer A incorrect?
Anton
"observe on the screen»
If you look with your eye, you will see a rainbow, but if you place a screen and look at it, then you will not.
Light with a wavelength of angstroms falls normally onto a diffraction grating. One of the main diffraction maxima corresponds to a diffraction angle of 30°, and the highest order of the observed spectrum is 5. Find the period of this grating.
Reference: 1 angstrom = 10 −10 m.
Solution.
The condition for observing the main maxima for a diffraction grating has the form In this problem, the unknown order of the main maximum corresponds to the diffraction angle so that where the grating period is unknown, and is an integer.
The highest order of the observed spectrum corresponds to the diffraction angle so that the grating period is equal to
Substituting this period value into the formula for the order of the diffraction maximum, we obtain The nearest integer greater than this value is 3, so the grating period is
Answer:
3) If you reduce the wavelength of the incident light, then the distance on the screen between the zero and first diffraction maxima will decrease.
4) If you replace the lens with another one, with a larger focal length, and position the screen so that the distance from the lens to the screen is still equal to the focal length of the lens, then the distance on the screen between the zero and first diffraction maxima will decrease.
5) If you replace the diffraction grating with another one, with a larger period, then the angle at which the first diffraction maximum is observed will increase.
Solution.
m. A beam of rays after a thin lens, according to the rules for constructing images in it, is collected at a point in the focal plane of the lens.
d, after that it's ok m a parallel beam of light is obtained, traveling at such an angle that the maximum order is determined by the relation:
If the wavelength of the incident light is increased, the maximum order of the observed diffraction maxima does not increase. 2 - incorrect.
If you reduce the wavelength of the incident light, then, according to the basic equation, this will lead to a decrease in the angles and, as a result, the distance between the first and zero maximum on the screen will decrease. 3 is correct.
If we replace the diffraction grating with a grating with a larger period, then, according to the basic equation, this will lead to a decrease in angles and, as a consequence, we will observe the first diffraction maximum on the screen at a smaller angle. 5 - incorrect.
Answer: 13.
Answer: 13|31
Which figure correctly shows the relative position of the diffraction grating P, lens L and screen E, at which the diffraction of a parallel beam of light C can be observed?
Solution.
The correct relative position is indicated in Figure 4. First, diffraction of light C must occur in the diffraction grating P. Having passed through the grating, the light will travel in several parallel beams corresponding to different diffraction maxima. Then it is necessary to collect these parallel beams in the focal plane, this is done by the collecting lens L. Finally, it is necessary to install a screen to observe the focused diffraction maxima on it (in the figure, different diffraction maxima are depicted in different colors for convenience).
Answer: 4.
Answer: 4
Light with an unknown wavelength falls normally onto a diffraction grating with a period and one of the main diffraction maxima corresponds to a diffraction angle of 30°. In this case, the highest order of the observed spectrum is 5. Find the wavelength of the light incident on the grating and express it in angstroms.
Reference: 1 angstrom = 10 −10 m.
Solution.
The condition for observing the main maxima for a diffraction grating has the form In this problem, the unknown order of the main maximum corresponds to the diffraction angle so that where the wavelength is unknown, and is an integer.
The highest order of the observed spectrum corresponds to the diffraction angle such that the wavelength is equal to or
Substituting this inequality for the wavelength into the formula for the order of the diffraction maximum, we obtain The nearest integer greater than this value is 3, so the wavelength is
Answer:
The figure shows four diffraction gratings. The diffraction grating numbered has the maximum period
Solution.
The minimum distance through which the lines on the grating are repeated is called the period of the diffraction grating. It can be seen from the figure that on the first and second gratings the strokes are repeated after three divisions, on the third - after two, and on the fourth - after four. Thus, diffraction grating number 4 has the maximum period.
Answer: 4
Answer: 4
The figure shows four diffraction gratings. The diffraction grating numbered has the minimum period
Solution.
The minimum distance through which the lines on the grating are repeated is called the period of the diffraction grating. It can be seen from the figure that on the first and second gratings the strokes are repeated after three divisions, on the third - after two, and on the fourth - after four. Thus, diffraction grating number 3 has the minimum period.
Answer: 3
Answer: 3
A diffraction grating having 1000 lines per 1 mm of its length is illuminated by a parallel beam of monochromatic light with a wavelength of 420 nm. The light falls perpendicular to the grating. Close to the diffraction grating, immediately behind it, there is a thin collecting lens. Behind the grating, at a distance equal to the focal length of the lens, parallel to the grating, there is a screen on which the diffraction pattern is observed. Choose two true statements.
1) The maximum order of the observed diffraction maxima is 2.
2) If the wavelength of the incident light is increased, the maximum order of the observed diffraction maxima will increase.
3) If you reduce the wavelength of the incident light, then the distance on the screen between the zero and first diffraction maxima will increase.
4) If you replace the lens with another one, with a larger focal length, and position the screen so that the distance from the lens to the screen is still equal to the focal length of the lens, then the distance on the screen between the zero and first diffraction maxima will not change.
5) If you replace the diffraction grating with another one, with a larger period, then the angle at which the first diffraction maximum is observed from the side of the screen will decrease.
Solution.
First, let's plot the path of parallel rays from the source, going through the diffraction grating and lens to the screen, where a spectrum of the order of m(for some one spectral line of mercury with wavelength ). A beam of rays after a thin lens, according to the rules for constructing images in it, is collected at a point in the focal plane of the lens.
According to the basic equation for the angles of deflection of light with a wavelength by a grating with a period d after that it's ok m a parallel beam of light is obtained, traveling at such an angle that the maximum order will be observed at:
If the wavelength of the incident light is increased, then the maximum order of the observed diffraction maxima does not change or decreases. 2 - incorrect.
If you reduce the wavelength of the incident light, this will lead to a decrease in the angle between the zero and first diffraction maxima and, as a consequence, to a decrease in the distance between the zero and first maximum on the screen. 3 - incorrect.
According to the rules for constructing rays in a converging lens, a lens with a large focal length will increase the distance between the zero and the first maximum. 4 - incorrect.
If you replace the diffraction grating with a grating with a larger period, this will lead to a decrease in the angle at which the first diffraction maximum is observed. 5 is correct.
Answer: 15.
Answer: 15
Five experiments were carried out in the laboratory to observe diffraction using various diffraction gratings. Each of the gratings was illuminated by parallel beams of monochromatic light with a certain wavelength. In all cases, the light fell perpendicular to the grating. First indicate the number of the experiment in which you observed least amount main diffraction maxima, and then - the number of the experiment in which it was observed greatest number main diffraction maxima.
| Number experiment | Diffraction period | Wavelength incident light |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2d | |
| 2 | d | |
| 3 | 2d | |
| 4 | d/2 | |
| 5 | d/2 |
Solution.
The condition for interference maxima of a diffraction grating has the form: In this case, the more, the less diffraction maxima will be visible. Thus, the smallest number of main diffraction maxima was observed in experiment number 5, and the largest - in experiment number 1.
Answer: 51.
Answer: 51
Source: Physics training work 04/28/2017, version PH10504
A monochromatic beam of light falls normally on a diffraction grating with a period, and behind the grating there is a lens, in the focal plane of which diffraction maxima are observed (see figure). The dots show the diffraction maxima, and the numbers indicate their numbers. Diffraction angles are small.
This diffraction grating is alternately replaced by other diffraction gratings - A and B. Establish a correspondence between the patterns of diffraction maxima and the periods of the diffraction gratings used.
| SCHEME OF DIFFRACTION MAXIMUM | PERIOD OF THE DIFFRACTION GRATING | |