The author believes that the Russian example reveals in detail both the strengths and the weaknesses of social constructivism. Though many areas of Russian science show the unmistakable influence of social factors, the deviation of the Soviet Union from standard genetics for many years, followed by its eventual restoration, indicates the weakness of social constructivism and illustrates the relationship of science to reality.

He further maintains that although science in Russia has been terribly abused, it nonetheless remains strong; it has proven to be much more resilient than most previous observers believed, and, furthermore, is not nearly as directly dependent on political freedom for its vitality as Western analysts maintained.