August session: retirement age

The Trotsky Variant. — 2008. — № 9N (827). — P. 10. The August Session: Retirement Age Sixty years ago the August session of VASKhNILi took place, at which the Lysenkoists-“Michurinists,” with party support, prevailed over classical geneticists. Is it worth recalling this event? The boy born in those days is already going on pension... It is worth it! The consequences of Lysenkoism continue to manifest in post-Soviet biology to this day. At first glance, the session was above all a triumph for Trofim Lysenko. Soviet press “made” him. It all began with an article in Pravda published in 1927. The Moscow correspondent needed a progressive worker–peasant character, and he was introduced to an agronomist of the variety-testing station in Gandzha, Azerbaijan. The only work of Lysenko that could be considered scientific had been criticized, primarily for unsuccessful application of mathematics. But his lucid arguments appealing to party wisdom and folk common sense turned out well. What would have happened if the newspaper had encountered a different hero? Perhaps Lysenko’s fate would have been different: a failed researcher would not have tasted the success of propagandizing his work. And would the history of biology in the USSR have proceeded differently? Most likely—no. “Lysenkoism” would have been called something else, but the causes that engendered it would have operated all the same. [IMG_1] The roots of Lysenkoism lie in the Communist Party’s program of building socialism, launched in 1928. The failure of the first Five-Year Plan did not prevent the authorities from trumpeting its overfulfillment. The gap between reality and the agitational picture required bright and intelligible illustrations of Soviet victories. Lysenko’s level of work, like that of this very “Soviet” character, was a find for the propaganda of the time. Socially in demand, Lysenko rose upward. In collaboration with the communist philosopher I. I. Prezent, from 1935 he tied his ideas to dialectical materialism, joined the critics of genetics, and began an attack on Nikolai Ivanovich Vavilov, a scientist and organizer of science recognized worldwide. Two discussions between Lysenkoists and geneticists took place in the country: in 1936 and 1939. At these the authorities supported Lysenko (who called his biology “Michurinist”), but did not prohibit classical science. Alas, these years were not only a time of scientific disputes but also a time of repressions. Strange as it may seem, terror in science destroyed not so much open opponents of Lysenkoism as those who declared loyalty to the directives of the authorities while preserving their own way of thinking. Vavilov himself was among those who demonstrated loyalty. He should not be condemned for this—he was an inspired leader of a large collective. F. Dobzhansky recalled Vavilov’s words: “The opportunities to serve humanity that exist in the USSR are so enormous and inspiring that for the sake of these opportunities one must learn not to pay attention to the cruelties of the existing regime. [...] Nowhere in the world is the work of a scientist so highly valued”ii. Dobzhansky did not return from his trip to the USA, lived to a ripe old age, and became a classic of population genetics. Vavilov was arrested in 1940 and in 1943 was brought to death in prison from hunger and disease. Could he have expected such a fate? He could. “When The New York Times in 1936 reported the arrest of Vavilov, which put Soviet genetics on the brink of catastrophe and its ruin by Lysenkoists, Vavilov replied with a letter [...] in Izvestiia, in which he stated that he was free and occupied his former position and that the fate of Soviet genetics could not be affected by the arrest of several criminals”iii. Vavilov certainly understood that those arrested in 1936 (and later executed—though he probably did not know this) S. Levit, I. Agol, and M. Levin were not criminals... By 1948 Lysenko’s position had weakened. During the war years the country’s leadership was less occupied with science, and criticism of the views of the “Michurinists” intensified. The discussion held by Literaturnaia gazeta was indicative, in which I. I. Shmalhausen, A. N. Formozov, and D. A. Sabinin took part on the anti-Lysenko side. Lysenko acquired critics even at the very top of the party leadership, for example A. A. Zhdanov. However, the campaign against “kowtowing to foreign influences” launched in 1947 played into Lysenko’s hands. What scientific school could be more Soviet than “Michurinist biology,” supported in the West only by a few marginals? Possibly, the struggle for influence over Stalin between Zhdanov, on the one hand, and Beria and Malenkov, on the other, also played a role. The all-powerful Beria convinced Stalin to support the “people’s academician.” Thus, the agricultural academy is replenished with new members (not elected—appointed by Stalin!). At the session, the president of the academy speaks. The speaker explains both his own point of view and that of his opponents, and asks his opponents whether he is correctly expounding their thoughts... Do not be lazy—read Lysenko’s report, easily available online. Imagine that you do not know which school relied on scientific data and which relied on ideologized rhetoric. You will see a splendid example of Soviet demagogy: to a non-professional listener it will seem that Lysenko won fairly! Several days of the session pass. Some echo the president of the academy, some argue with him. Finally, Lysenko declares that his report has been considered and approved by the Party Central Committee (as it later became known, Stalin personally edited Lysenko’s report!). The dispute with the “Michurinists” turns out to be a form of struggle against the authorities. Opponents of Lysenko, including Zhdanov, begin to repent... The fate of Anton Romanovich Zhebrak, a prominent Belarusian geneticist, is indicative. In 1947 he was president of the Academy of Sciences of the BSSR and head of the Department of Propaganda and Agitation of the CC VKP(b). Zhebrak was soon removed from the presidency of the Academy for an article in Science in defense of Soviet science, containing criticism of Lysenko. At the August session Zhebrak did not support Lysenko, but after the latter laid out his main trump card, he was forced to change his point of view: “as a party member, I do not consider it possible for myself to remain at those positions that have been recognized as erroneous by the Central Committee of our party.” Zhebrak’s repentance was not considered sincere, his scientific work was terminated, and he himself was dismissed from his posts. Of those who spoke against Lysenko at the session, only the geneticist I. A. Rapoport and the statistician V. S. Nemchinov did not repent. Moreover, Iosif Abramovich Rapoport, who joined the party at the front, left the ranks of the VKP(b), which at that time was an act requiring unthinkable courage. Although Rapoport and Nemchinov were dismissed from the posts they held, neither was touched by punitive organs. Two days after the session G. M. Malenkov convened a meeting of the Orgburo and Secretariat of the CC VKP(b). The party demanded the cleansing of science and education of bearers of alien ideas. The order of the USSR Minister of Higher Education S. V. Kaftanov dated 23.08.1948 contained an extensive list of those to be dismissed—“Mendelists-Weismannists-Morganists.” Lysenkoists were put in their place. “Non-Michurinist” scientific topics were closed, and their executors were expelled. Meetings were held throughout the country at which speakers swore allegiance to “Michurinist” biology, repented of their mistakes, and denounced enemies. “If before the August session biologists could still dream of ‘freedom of speech’ within their specialty, then after the session, for very many, even the ‘freedom of silence’ became an unattainable dream”iv. An opportunity for open criticism of Lysenko appeared only in 1952. Clouds gathered over the people’s academician, and there was a likelihood that Lysenko would be dealt with by Stalin himself. Stalin’s death in 1953 led to the lifting of bans on the publication of genetic works, but did not open opportunities for serious criticism of the “Michurinists”: Lysenko managed to secure the support of N. S. Khrushchev. The end of official support for “Lysenkoism” can be considered the joint meeting of the Presidium of the USSR Academy of Sciences, the USSR Ministry of Agriculture, and the Presidium of VASKhNIL in September 1965, held after Khrushchev’s removal. Debates about the assessment of those events continue. Two points of view are connected with defending the opinions of the sides in the past dispute. “School” genetics denies any truth in Lysenko’s views, repeating assertions about the non-heritability of acquired characteristics (in many cases outdated). Few supporters of Lysenko repeat incantations about the achievements of Michurinist biologyv. Probably, the most reasonable approach consists in considering the data of modern science outside the dichotomy of “Vavilovites–Lysenkoites.” That Lysenko turned out to be right in some of his assertions was not a consequence of anticipating modern results. How inevitable was the rout of genetics? Explaining the August session by the personal qualities of I. V. Stalin and T. D. Lysenko is at least naive. The roots of “Lysenkoism” lie in dialectical materialism, the official doctrine of the VKP(b). At the foundation of this ideology are representations about the antagonism of materialism and idealism, and about the reflection of class struggle in science. With the final victory of Soviet power in the USSR, a radical restructuring of animal husbandry and crop farming was required—a transition from individual to collective farming. New breeds of animals and varieties of plants were needed. Within the framework of the planned national economy, scientific institutes and breeding stations were supposed to fulfill the task of the party and government in a short and predetermined time. Given that predispositions, not qualities of organisms, are inherited, classical geneticists required sufficiently long time for their work, spent enormous efforts on searching for genetically diverse material, mutagenesis, and organizing crosses. Breeding is a long and complex job. The essence of life at that time was clear: Engels established that it consists in metabolism. The assertion about the existence of “genes” that do not break down and are not created in the process of metabolism was inevitably perceived as idealistic. It could be understood so that the hereditary program (“idea”) is primary, and its realization in the process of metabolism (“matter”) is secondary. A clear social order arose for biologists who, with the help of dialectical materialism, would manage the exchange of heredity and change the properties of organisms in the desired direction. Lysenko turned out to be the first of the practitioners who spoke about people’s science, confronting it with enemy-theorists. He asserted that heredity could be “shaken up” and in the shortest possible time achieve the inheritance of acquired characteristics necessary for the party and government. Naturally, Stalin supported Lysenko and his supporters, and when geneticists began to explain why nothing would come of Lysenko’s approach, he took measures to suppress “anti-Soviet agitation.” [IMG_2] Another reason that contributed to the formation of the “father of nations’” suspicious attitude toward genetics was the connection of this science with eugenics—the doctrine of improving human nature. Most likely, the unfavorable role here was played by Muller’s letter to Stalin, sent and read in 1936. Hermann Muller, a student of T. Morgan, discoverer of chemical mutagenesis (1927) and Nobel laureate (1946), held left-wing views. In 1933 he moved to the USSR, where he worked in N. I. Vavilov’s laboratory. In his letter to Stalin, Muller presented a program of “Bolshevik” eugenics. Since “there is no such natural law that determines that man instinctively wants and loves precisely the product of his own sperm or eggvi,” Muller proposed to launch a state program of artificial insemination of conscious women “with reproductive material of the most transcendently high personalities.” Then “the mothers of tomorrow [...] will be proud to mix their plasma with the plasma of Lenin or Darwin, and give society a child inheriting their biological qualities.” Could this idea have pleased Stalin? Fortunately, no. He needed a rapid restructuring of society, connected not with breeding the best people (and still “children of Lenin”!), but with destroying his opponents and intimidating all the rest. As a result of Muller’s letter, genetics became associated in Stalin’s mind with eugenics, and through it—with fascism. Conditions for Muller’s work deteriorated, and he left the Soviet Union. Muller’s open letter with protests against the decisions of the 1948 VASKhNIL August session led only to his being stripped of the title of foreign member of the USSR Academy of Sciences. It was characteristic of Lysenko to categorically condemn the application of mathematics and statistics in biology. Apparently, his unsuccessful experience in applying mathematics in biology played a role in this. Lysenko decided that probabilistic prediction of any event is a capitulation of science. Is this feature of Lysenkoism accidental? Have you not encountered managers who, due to the limitations of their own understanding, begin to fight against “abstract models” or “sterile mathematization”? In addition, the inadequacy of state statistics was one of Lysenko’s strong points. As one of the most ardent fighters against the “Michurinists,” N. P. Dubinin pointed out, geneticists had no reason not to believe official reports about colossal successes from applying Lysenko’s methods. The statistics collected by collective farms were aimed at demonstrating confirmation of the expectations of the authorities. Allocating the best areas for them and sending reports about new successes “upward” for fulfilling the directive to use Lysenko’s methods, they could come to the conclusion that, even if collective farmers obtained a low yield in a specific place, this could be their local anomaly, and overall the method supported by the entire state machine undoubtedly brought benefit. In today’s society, the interest of the authorities in scientific issues manifests itself in financing promising (from the point of view of the expected result or, for example, “money laundering”) scientific schools. In a totalitarian state, where members of the ruling party’s Central Committee seriously engaged in reviewing scientific issues, campaigns to crush some scientists or elevate others were inevitable. Lysenko turned out to be the most successful, but not the only one, of such favorites of power (it is enough to recall the reformer of cytology O. B. Lepeshinskaya, the microbiological “innovator” G. M. Boshyan, or the leader of the “Pavlovian” direction in physiology K. M. Bykov). One of the most important consequences of the August session was its influence on the morality of scientists and teachers. The famous cytologist V. Ya. Alexandrov wrote that “Lysenkoist biology staged a grandiose experiment in social psychology, subject to serious study. The experiment revealed the limits of strength of the moral foundations of different people. It gave people material for self-knowledge, which those living in normal circumstances are deprived of. After all, normal circumstances allow a person to preserve the decency of his behavior to the end of his life and remain unaware of the fragility of the foundations on which this decency is based.” The totalitarian machine of managing science not only demonstrated examples of the elevation of dishonest and illiterate people. The organization of scientific and teaching activity made thousands of specialists accomplices in the committed “lawlessness,” forcing them to condemn their colleagues or repeat meaningless ideological formulas. Do you think the echoes of these events have not reached our days? When those who now manage biology in the post-Soviet space were being formed, and when were their teachers? What is the background of the managerial decisions being made now? How are the leaders of science chosen, what principles are implemented in contests for election to positions or for receiving funding?

ii Graham L. R. Science, Philosophy and Sciences of Human Behavior in the Soviet Union. — Moscow: Politizdat, 1991. — P. 121.

iii Joravsky D. The Lysenko Affair. Cambridge, 1970.

iv Alexandrov V. Ya. Difficult Years of Soviet Biology: Notes of a Contemporary. St. Petersburg: Nauka Publishing House, 1993.

v One of the examples may be the work of the author writing under the pseudonym Sigismund Mironin (as here: https://www.contr-tv.ru/print/2790/).

vi https://vivovoco.rsl.ru/VV/PAPERS/ ECCE/VV_EH6_W.HTM

Ecological features of amphibian study. The article is devoted to the issues of studying amphibian ecology. The author examines the peculiarities of the life activity of some amphibian species, in particular Pelophylax esculentus, and their role in ecosystems. The study of amphibian ecology is an important direction in biology. [BATRIMG1>BATR] These animals play a key role in many ecosystems, performing functions as both predators and prey. For example, Pelophylax esculentus (edible frog) is an object of intensive study due to its high adaptability and wide distribution. [BATRIMG2>BATR] The works of scientists devoted to the study of the life cycle and behavior of amphibians, such as the research by Shabanov et al., are of great importance for understanding the processes occurring in nature. [BATRIMG3>BATR] In their work, the authors consider the impact of anthropogenic factors on amphibian populations and propose conservation measures. Studies of this kind are published in specialized journals, such as the Journal of Herpetology.