LYSENKOISM
Trofim Denisovich Lysenko was the “dictator” biologist of the Soviet Union from 1948 until his ouster by Khrushchev in 1953 (he remained a scientific advisor). He became the preeminent scientist less by talent than by fitting his scientific ideas into the ideology of the Soviet government, which at that time meant Joseph Stalin.
Lysenko fit the communist ideal of a scientist, something not common to scientists of the time. He was famously called the “barefoot scientist,” highlighting his peasant origins. He was a true proletarian, not of bourgeois origins as were better known and established biologists, such as Nikolai Vavilov.
Vavilov was also a dedicated socialist who believed that a socialist system inherently offered greater freedom for scientific practice than the capitalist and theocratic governments of the West. Supported by Lenin, he was influential in putting his ideals into action, establishing institutes of agriculture and genetics that rivaled any in the world. He was able to persuade H. J. Muller, who had socialistic leanings, to leave the United States and work in Moscow even after he had won the Nobel Prize for his work describing mutations caused by radiation. On the other hand, Vavilov complained of Lysenko’s lack of culture as well as his scientific ignorance. He also insisted on studying Mendelian genetics and neo-Darwinism when Stalin preferred neo-Lamarckian theory. The idea that will power could improve a species (or a people) fit in with Stalin’s plans. He would make the Soviet people into communists, through acquired characteristics.
Lysenko’s politics were impeccable, inspiring bravos from Stalin. His science was not. His claim to fame was a process called vernalization, in which kernels of spring wheat are soaked and then refrigerated. The result is that they flower sooner and can be grown as winter wheat. That this was a common practice invented by someone else didn’t inhibit Lysenko, even when the inventor protested publicly — Lysenko claimed it as his own. Not only that, he claimed the changes were then permanent (as acquired inheritance) and so the process didn’t have to be repeated. They’re not, and it does.
Once installed in 1948, he imposed many equally unhelpful ideas on Soviet agriculture, such as cluster planting, and planting potatoes in the middle of the summer. The results were often disastrous, leading to famine. His scientific method was equally arbitrary. He refused to apply mathematics to his science, because once others had found a mistake in his calculations. He did experiments to get the results he wanted, limiting numbers, and often omitting controls to fit his purpose. Under his control genetics was removed from all scientific curricula, even medical study. In his words, “genetics is merely an amusement, like chess or football.”
Worst of all, he did what he needed to do to squelch his competition. Many scientists were exiled or simply vanished; Muller left in protest and returned to the United States. Vavilov resisted loudly, arguing that Lysenko’s ideas were outmoded. In response Vavilov was officially criticized, and removed from all his posts. He was finally tried and found guilty of sabotage in agriculture and faced the death penalty. His sentence was commuted, but he died in a gulag in Siberia.
Lysenko took over a nation’s science because he sided with government-supported ideology. Under his control, all Soviet science was performed within an ideological framework. As a result, biological science and agriculture in the Soviet Union stagnated. People starved. A small number of scientists in the United States today warn that something similar could happen if creationists ever succeed in having creation science taught alongside evolutionary theory.
Back in the lab and the field, scientists at mid-century paid scant attention to how society perceived their endeavors. They were too busy. Evolution was taking on new hues with the unveiling of the gene as a molecule called DNA. At about the same time, game theory and chaos made inroads into explaining the unexplainable about natural selection. Evolution remained controversial, a science of opposites. But it had gained a sophistication and viability taking it far beyond the quibbling of creationists.
By Cynthia Mills in "The Theory of Evolution", Wiley, USA, 2004, excerpts pp.148-152. Adapted and illustrated to be posted by Leopoldo Costa.
0 Response to "LYSENKOISM"
Post a Comment