Lysenkoism (Russian: Лысе́нковщина, tr. Lysenkovshchina) was a political campaign conducted by Trofim Lysenko, his followers and Soviet authorities against genetics and science-based agriculture. Lysenko served as the director of the Soviet Union's Lenin All-Union Academy of Agricultural Sciences. Lysenkoism began in the late 1920s and formally ended in 1964.
The pseudo-scientific ideas of Lysenkoism assumed the heritability of acquired characteristics (Lamarckism). Lysenko's theory rejected Mendelian inheritance and the concept of the "gene"; it departed from Darwinian evolutionary theory by rejecting natural selection. Proponents falsely claimed to have discovered, among many other things, that rye could transform into wheat and wheat into barley, that weeds could spontaneously transmute into food grains, and that "natural cooperation" was observed in nature as opposed to "natural selection". Lysenkoism promised extraordinary advances in breeding and in agriculture that never came about.
Joseph Stalin supported the campaign. More than 3,000 mainstream biologists were fired or even sent to prison, and numerous scientists were executed as part of a campaign instigated by Lysenko to suppress his scientific opponents. The president of the Agriculture Academy, Nikolai Vavilov, was sent to prison and died there, while scientific research in the field of genetics was effectively destroyed until the death of Stalin in 1953. Research and teaching in the fields of neurophysiology, cell biology, and many other biological disciplines was also negatively affected or banned.
In modern usage, the term lysenkoism has become distinct from normal pseudoscience. Where pseudoscience pretends to be science, lysenkoism aims at attacking the legitimacy of science itself, usually for political reasons. It is the rejection of the universality of scientific truth, and the deliberate defamation of the scientific method to the level of politics.
In 1928, Trofim Lysenko, a previously unknown agronomist, claimed to have developed an agricultural technique, termed vernalization, which tripled or quadrupled crop yield by exposing wheat seed to high humidity and low temperature. While cold and moisture exposure are a normal part of the life cycle of autumn-seeded winter cereals, the vernalization technique claimed to increase yields by increasing the intensity of exposure, in some cases planting soaked seeds directly into the snow cover of frozen fields. In reality, the technique was neither new (it had been known since 1854, and was extensively studied during the previous twenty years), nor did it produce the yields he promised, although some increase in production did occur.
When Lysenko began his fieldwork in the Soviet Union of the 1930s, the agriculture of the Soviet Union was in a massive crisis due to the forced collectivisation of farms, and the extermination of the kulaks. The resulting famine provoked the people and the government alike to search for any possible solution to the critical lack of food. Lysenko's vernalization practices yielded marginally greater food production on the farms, and he was quickly accepted as the hero of Soviet agriculture.
Many agronomists were educated before the revolution, and even many of those educated afterwards did not agree with the forced collectivization policies. Furthermore, among biologists of the day, the most popular topic was not agriculture at all, but the new genetics that was emerging out of studies of Drosophila melanogaster, commonly known as fruit flies. Drosophilid flies made experimental verification of genetics theories, such as Mendelian ratios and heritability, much easier.
Isaak Izrailevich Prezent, a main Lysenko theorist, presented Lysenko in Soviet mass-media as a genius who had developed a new, revolutionary agricultural technique. In this period, Soviet propaganda often focused on inspirational stories of peasants who, through their own canny ability and intelligence, came up with solutions to practical problems. Lysenko's widespread popularity provided him a platform to denounce theoretical genetics and to promote his own agricultural practices. He was, in turn, supported by the Soviet propaganda machine, which overstated his successes and omitted mention of his failures. This was accompanied by fake experimental data supporting Lysenkoism from scientists seeking favor and the destruction of counter-evidence to Lysenko's theories. Instead of performing controlled experiments, Lysenko claimed that vernalization increased wheat yields by 15%, solely based upon questionnaires taken of farmers.
Lysenko's political success was mostly due to his appeal to the Communist Party and Soviet ideology. Following the disastrous collectivization efforts of the late 1920s, Lysenko's "new" methods were seen by Soviet officials as paving the way to an "agricultural revolution." Lysenko himself was from a peasant family, and was an enthusiastic advocate of Leninism. During a period which saw a series of man-made agricultural disasters, he was also extremely fast in responding to problems, although not with real solutions. Whenever the Party announced plans to plant a new crop or cultivate a new area, Lysenko had immediate practical suggestions on how to proceed.
So quickly did he develop his prescriptions—from the cold treatment of grain, to the plucking of leaves from cotton plants, to the cluster planting of trees, to unusual fertilizer mixes—that academic biologists did not have time to demonstrate that one technique was valueless or harmful before a new one was adopted. The Party-controlled newspapers applauded Lysenko's "practical" efforts and questioned the motives of his critics. Lysenko's "revolution in agriculture" had a powerful propaganda advantage over the academics, who urged the patience and observation required for science.
Lysenko was admitted into the hierarchy of the Communist Party, and was put in charge of agricultural affairs. He used his position to denounce biologists as "fly-lovers and people haters", and to decry the "wreckers" in biology, who he claimed were trying to purposely disable the Soviet economy and cause it to fail. Furthermore, he denied the distinction between theoretical and applied biology.
Lysenko presented himself as a follower of Ivan Vladimirovich Michurin, a well-known and well-liked Soviet horticulturist. However, unlike Michurin, he advocated a form of Lamarckism, insisting on using only hybridization and grafting, as non-genetic techniques. With this came, most importantly, the implication that acquired characteristics of an organism—for example, the state of being leafless as a result of having been plucked—could be inherited by that organism's descendants. This is why Lysenko claimed vernalization would give greater productivity than it did; he believed the ability of his vernalized seeds to flower faster and produce more wheat would be passed on to the next generation of wheat seeds, thus causing vernalization to further amplify the process.
Support from Joseph Stalin gave Lysenko even more momentum and popularity. In 1935, Lysenko compared his opponents in biology to the peasants who still resisted the Soviet government's collectivization strategy, saying that by opposing his theories the traditional geneticists were setting themselves against Marxism. Stalin was in the audience when this speech was made, and he was the first one to stand and applaud, calling out "Bravo, Comrade Lysenko. Bravo." This event emboldened Lysenko and gave him and his ally Prezent free rein to slander the geneticists who still spoke out against him. Many of Lysenkoism's opponents, such as his former mentor Nikolai Ivanovich Vavilov, were imprisoned or even executed because of Lysenko's and Prezent's denunciations.
On August 7, 1948, the V.I. Lenin Academy of Agricultural Sciences announced that from that point on Lysenkoism would be taught as "the only correct theory". Soviet scientists were forced to denounce any work that contradicted Lysenko. Criticism of Lysenko was denounced as "bourgeois" or "fascist", and analogous "non-bourgeois" theories also flourished in other fields in the Soviet academy at this time (see Japhetic theory; socialist realism). Perhaps the only opponents of Lysenkoism during Stalin's lifetime to escape liquidation were from the small community of Soviet nuclear physicists: as Tony Judt has observed, "It is significant that Stalin left his nuclear physicists alone and never presumed to second guess their calculations. Stalin may well have been mad but he was not stupid."
In other countries
Many other countries of the Eastern Bloc accepted Lysenkoism as the official "new biology" as well; however the acceptance of Lysenkoism was not uniform in communist countries. In Poland, all geneticists except for Wacław Gajewski followed Lysenkoism. Even though Gajewski was not allowed contact with students, he was allowed to continue his scientific work at the Warsaw botanical garden. Lysenkoism was then rapidly rejected starting from 1956 and modern genetics research departments were formed, including the first department of genetics headed by Wacław Gajewski, which was started at the Warsaw University in 1958.
Czechoslovakia adopted Lysenkoism in 1949. Jaroslav Kříženecký (1896–1964) was one of the prominent Czechoslovak geneticists opposing Lysenkoism, and when he criticized Lysenkoism in his lectures, he was dismissed from the Agricultural University in 1949 for "serving the established capitalistic system, considering himself superior to the working class, and being hostile to the democratic order of the people", and imprisoned in 1958. In 1963, he was appointed head of the newly established Gregor Mendel department in the Moravian Museum in Brno, the city in which Gregor Mendel pursued his early experiments on inheritance and formulated the laws of Mendelian inheritance.
In the German Democratic Republic, although Lysenkoism was taught at some of the universities, it had very little impact on science due to the actions of a few scientists (for example, the geneticist and fierce critic of Lysenkoism, Hans Stubbe) and an open border to West Berlin research institutions. Nonetheless, Lysenkoist theories were found in schoolbooks until the dismissal of Nikita Khrushchev in 1964.
Lysenkoism dominated Chinese science from 1949 until 1956, particularly during the Great Leap Forward, when, during a genetics symposium opponents of Lysenkoism were permitted to freely criticize it and argue for Mendelian genetics. In the proceedings from the symposium, Tan Jiazhen is quoted as saying "Since [the] USSR started to criticize Lysenko, we have dared to criticize him too". For a while, both schools were permitted to coexist, although the influence of the Lysenkoists remained large for several years.
From 1934 to 1940, under Lysenko's admonitions and with Stalin's approval, many geneticists were executed (including Isaak Agol, Solomon Levit, Grigorii Levitskii, Georgii Karpechenko and Georgii Nadson) or sent to labor camps. The famous Soviet geneticist and president of the Agriculture Academy, Nikolai Vavilov, was arrested in 1940 and died in prison in 1943. Hermann Joseph Muller (and his teachings about genetics) was criticized as a bourgeois, capitalist, imperialist, and promoting fascism so he left the USSR, to return to the US via Republican Spain. In 1948, genetics was officially declared "a bourgeois pseudoscience"; all geneticists were fired from their jobs (some were also arrested), and all genetic research was discontinued.
Over 3,000 biologists were imprisoned, fired, or executed for attempting to oppose Lysenkoism at one time and overall, scientific research in genetics was effectively destroyed until the death of Stalin in 1953. Due to Lysenkoism, crop yields in the USSR actually declined as well.
At the end of 1952, the situation started changing, possibly due to Stalin taking offense to Lysenko's growing influence. Articles criticizing Lysenkoism were published in newspapers. However, the process of return to regular genetics slowed down in Nikita Khrushchev's times, due to Lysenko showing him the supposed successes of an experimental agricultural complex. It once again became forbidden to criticize Lysenkoism, though it was now possible to express different views, and all geneticists were released or rehabilitated posthumously. The ban was only waived in the mid-1960s.
Almost alone among Western scientists, John Desmond Bernal, Professor of Physics at Birkbeck College, University of London, and a Fellow of the Royal Society, made an aggressive public defense of Lysenko and some years later gave an obituary of "Stalin as a Scientist". However, despite Bernal's endorsement, other members of Britain's scientific community retreated from open support of the Soviet Union.
Neo-Lysenkoism as a pejorative
This Section is written like a personal reflection, personal essay, or argumentative essay that states a Wikipedia editor's personal feelings or presents an original argument about a topic. (April 2019) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)
The word "Neo-Lysenkoism" has occasionally been used by hereditarian researchers, such as Roger Pearson and Bernard Davis, as a pejorative term in the race and intelligence controversy and sociobiology to describe scientists supposedly minimizing the role of genes in shaping human behavior.[non-primary source needed]
The use of the term "neo-Lysenkoism" to describe criticism of evolutionary psychology have drawn criticism for misapplying the term "Lysenkoism" to things unrelated to actual Lysenkoism. For instance, Lysenko's views on inheritance of acquired characteristics presumed that individuals were born with characteristics acquired by their parents, not tabula rasa.
For example, Stalin's purges presumed that simply having biological parents who were capitalists constituted a risk factor for becoming a dissident. This was supposed to be due to inheritance of acquired capitalist interest even if the children had not been postnatally raised capitalist.
The definition of "nature" as "anything before birth" that is used by evolutionary psychologists is argued to fall into the same category when they classify ideas of hormones before birth on sexuality and empathy as "biological." This argument would also classify Lysenkoism as "biological" due to all three being prenatalist but not Mendelian genetic. This approach can be used to explain that social engineering in "nurture" models can simply be transformed into explanations from the prenatal environment in "womb environment" models.
The usage of the term "neo-Lysenkoism" for models of evolution that contradict the Darwinian model of gradual and maximized reproductive success is often criticized. It is argued that since it is uncertain whether Darwin knew about Gregor Mendel's genetic discoveries, so Darwin did not integrate Mendelian genetics into his model of evolution. Mendel read Origin of Species and accepted evolution but did not consider his discoveries a solution to any problems with Darwinian evolution. Hence, Mendelian genetics was the primary subject of suppression of modern biology under Lysenkoism. Mendelian genetics remains a source of modern criticism of the maximization of reproductive success model of evolution, as Mendelian models show that short term maximized reproductive success of specific genes can deplete genetic variation and could increase the long term risk of extinction. This is used to explain higher extinction risks in more sexually dimorphic species as a functional similarity between Bateman's principle and asexual reproduction.
Contrary to the allegation of anti-psychiatry being neo-Lysenkoist[by whom?], it is remarked that psychiatric medication was not suppressed in the Soviet Union under Lysenkoism. The use of psychiatric drugs in the Soviet Union actually increased and was approved by the regime during the Lysenko era. It is cited that Communists considered chemical imbalance models of mental illnesses to be more materialistic, and therefore to be in accordance with Marxist dialectical materialism, compared to other cultural factors influencíng behavior. Behavior that was considered idealist was used as an argument by officials in the Soviet Union for approving increased psychiatric medication.
- Great Leap Forward
- Japhetic theory
- Pavlovian session
- Politicization of science
- Roy Medvedev
- Suppressed research in the Soviet Union
- Deutsche Physik
- Tobacco science
- List of topics characterized as pseudoscience
- "Lysenkoism". merriam-webster.com.
- Birstein, Vadim J. (2004). The Perversion of Knowledge: The True Story of Soviet Science. Westview Press. ISBN 978-0813342801.
- Birstein, Vadim J. (2013). The Perversion Of Knowledge: The True Story Of Soviet Science. Perseus Books Group. ISBN 9780786751860. Retrieved 2016-06-30.
Academician Schmalhausen, Professors Formozov and Sabinin, and 3,000 other biologists, victims of the August 1948 Session, lost their professional jobs because of their integrity and moral principles [...]
- Wade, Nicholas (June 17, 2016). "The Scourge of Soviet Science". Wall Street Journal.
- Swedin, Eric G. (2005). Science in the Contemporary World : An Encyclopedia. Santa Barbara, Calif.: ABC-CLIO. pp. 168, 280. ISBN 978-1851095247.
- Soyfer, Valery N. (1 September 2001). "The Consequences of Political Dictatorship for Russian Science". Nature Reviews Genetics. 2 (9): 723–729. doi:10.1038/35088598. PMID 11533721.
- deJong-Lambert, William (2017). The Lysenko Controversy as a Global Phenomenon, Volume 1: Genetics and Agriculture in the Soviet Union and Beyond. Palgrave Macmillan. p. 104. ISBN 978-3319391755.
- Soyfer, Valery N. (1994). Lysenko and The Tragedy of Soviet Science. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers Univ. Press. ISBN 978-0813520872.
- Epistemology and the Social, Evandro Agazzi, Javier Echeverría, Amparo Gómez Rodríguez, Rodopi, Jan 1, 2008 - Philosophy - 231 pages, Google books scanned reference, p 149
- Pamela N. Wrinch. "Science and Politics in the U.S.S.R.: The Genetics Debate". World Politics, Vol. 3, No. 4 (Jul., 1951), pp. 486-519
- Judt, Tony. Postwar: A History of Europe Since 1945, (New York: Penguin Books, 2006), p. 174n.
- Gajewski W. (1990). "Lysenkoism in Poland". The Quarterly Review of Biology. 65 (4): 423–34. doi:10.1086/416949. PMID 2082404.
- Orel, Vitezslav (1992). "Jaroslav Kříženecký (1896-1964), Tragic Victim of Lysenkoism in Czechoslovakia". Quarterly Review of Biology. 67 (4): 487–494. doi:10.1086/417797. JSTOR 2832019.
- Hagemann, Rudolf (2002). "How did East German genetics avoid Lysenkoism?". Trends in Genetics. 18 (6): 320–324. doi:10.1016/S0168-9525(02)02677-X. PMID 12044362.
- Li, CC (1987). "Lysenkoism in China". Journal of Heredity. 78 (5): 339.
- Cohen, Barry Mandel. "Nikolai Ivanovich Vavilov: the explorer and plant collector". Economic Botany, 45 (1991): 38–46.
- Gardner, Martin (1957). Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science. New York: Dover Books. ISBN 9780486131627.
- Александров, В. Я. Трудные годы советской биологии: Записки современника.
- Davis, Bernard (1983). "Neo-Lysenkoism, IQ, and the press". The Public Interest (73): 41–59. Retrieved 30 November 2013.
- Stanchevici, Dmitri (2012). Stalinist genetics : the constitutional rhetoric of T.D. Lysenko. Baywood. ISBN 9780895034564.
- Joravsky, David (1986). The Lysenko affair. University of Chicago Press. ISBN 9780226410319.
- Denis Buican, L'éternel retour de Lyssenko, Paris, Copernic, 1978.
- Ronald Fisher, "What Sort of Man is Lysenko?" Listener, 40 (1948): 874–875. Contemporary commentary by a British evolutionary biologist (pdf format)
- Loren Graham, Science, Philosophy, and Human Behavior in the Soviet Union (New York: Columbia University Press, 1987). ISBN 0-231-06442-X.
- Loren Graham, "Stalinist Ideology and the Lysenko Affair", in Science in Russia and the Soviet Union (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1993).
- Loren Graham, What Have We Learned About Science and Technology from the Russian Experience? (Palo Alto: Stanford University Press, 1998).
- Loren Graham, Science and the Soviet Social Order (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2002). ISBN 0-674-79420-6.
- Oren Solomon Harman, "C. D. Darlington and the British and American Reaction to Lysenko and the Soviet Conception of Science." Journal of the History of Biology, Vol. 36 No. 2 (New York: Springer, 2003)
- Mikhail Heller and Aleksandr M. Nekrich, Utopia in Power: The History of the Soviet Union from 1917 to the Present. (New York: Summit Books, 1986)
- Julian Huxley, Soviet Genetics and World Science (Chatto & Windus, 1949).
- David Joravsky, The Lysenko Affair (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1970).
- Richard Levins and Richard Lewontin, "Lysenkoism", in The Dialectical Biologist (Boston: Harvard University Press, 1985).
- Anton Lang, "Michurin, Vavilov, and Lysenko". Science, Vol. 124 No. 3215 (Washington: American Association for the Advancement of Sciences, 1956)
- Richard Lewontin, "The apportionment of human diversity". Evolutionary Biology, 6 (1972): 381-398
- Roy Medvedev, Let History Judge: The Origins and Consequences of Stalinism. (New York: Columbia University Press, 1989)
- Roger Pearson, "Activist Lysenkoism: The Case of Barry Mehler". In Race, Intelligence and Bias in Academe (Washington: Scott-Townsend Publishers, 1997).
- Valery N. Soyfer, Lysenko and the Tragedy of Soviet Science (New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers University Press, 1994).
- Gary Werskey, The Visible College: The Collective Biography of British Scientific Socialists During the 1930s (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1978). ISBN 0-7139-0826-2.
- "The Disastrous Effects of Lysenkoism on Soviet Agriculture". Science and Its Times, ed. Neil Schlager and Josh Lauer, Vol. 6. (Detroit: Gale, 2001)