Genetics in the USSR: Vavilov vs. Lysenko

2024 Author: Seth Attwood | [email protected]. Last modified: 2023-12-16 15:55

Academician Timofey Lysenko was slandered by the academic mafia simply for doing a lot of useful things for our country. Now the ability of the genome to change, fixing the acquired properties for the offspring has been proven, and in those days Vavilov hindered science by denying this fact …

We are so accustomed to living in a world of patterns and stereotypes that we have forgotten how not only to think, but even to be interested in anything.

I'm not talking about everyone without exception (there are, fortunately, there are exceptions!), But about the overwhelming majority, which, with such unshakable conviction, judge issues that they do not understand at all and do not know anything about them.

For example, ask anyone what they think of Vavilov and Lysenko. Not among young people, of course, who do not know these surnames at all, but among older people, those who still remember "Ogonyok" of the late 80s and the film "White Clothes".

You will be told that Vavilov was a geneticist, and Lysenko was a persecutor of genetics (whoever wants to show off his erudition will add that Lysenko was a "Michurinist").

Meanwhile, this has nothing to do with the truth. This is just a stereotype, and a dull, primitive one, calculated for complete (not even partial, but complete!) Ignorance, ignorance of the subject.

The truth is, both were geneticists.

Both Lysenko and Vavilov asserted the existence of the genome and the laws of heredity. Fundamentally, they differed only on one thing - the question of the inheritance of acquired properties.

Vavilov believed that the acquired properties are not inherited and the genome remains unchanged throughout the history of its existence. In this he relied on the work of Weismann and Morgan (hence the "Weismann-Morganists").

Lysenko, on the other hand, argued that the genome can change, fixing the acquired properties. In this he relied on Lamarck's neo-Darwinism.

Roughly speaking, if I succeed in the technical sciences or the humanities with my work and efforts, I have every chance to pass these conquests as a genetic inheritance to my son (daughter), and it doesn't matter that my grandfather had no idea about these sciences.

Actually, the dispute between "Weismanists" and "neo-Darwinists" was purely academic. And this was not a dispute between genetics and antigenetics, but a dispute between two directions in genetics.

So there was no "persecution of genetics"! The Weismanists had troubles, yes, but not at all because they were geneticists, but for a different reason: first, the waste of state money, and then an attempt to run over their scientific opponents with the involvement of foreign colleagues (the conflict in VASKHNIL was provoked precisely by them, through denunciations, study the primary sources!).

Modern scientific research has fully confirmed the correctness of Lysenko and the fallacy of Vavilov's views. Yes, the genome is changing! But the most interesting thing is that it had nothing to do with the fate of these two scientists.

I will allow myself the smallest digression. Among the multitude of modern, most modern and already classical works confirming the genome's variability, I will cite only one paragraph and only for one reason: it was written by L. A. Zhivotovsky, an employee of the Institute of General Genetics named after V. I. N. I. Vavilov (!) RAS.

“So, the only thing that remains on the discussed problem is to call a spade a spade. Namely, the hypothesis of J. Lamarck about the inheritance of acquired traits is correct. A new trait can arise through the formation of protein / DNA / RNA regulatory complexes, chromatin modification, or changes in the DNA of somatic cells and then passed on to offspring."

(Zhivotovsky L. A. Inheritance of acquired characters: Lamarck was right. Chemistry and Life, 2003. No. 4. pp. 22–26.)

So, geneticists working at the Institute. N. I. Vavilov, actually the "Vavilovites", confirm Lysenko's correctness! And what is left for them?

Of course, Lysenko's range of interests and active work was not limited to genetics. And, of course, this is another reason to accuse him of being muck. For example, for the introduction of the method of planting potatoes with the tops of tubers on March 22, 1943, T. D. Lysenko was awarded the Stalin Prize of the first degree.

If someone does not know: this means cutting the tuber into parts, one eye for each and using them as planting material instead of the whole tuber. You can go even further - use for planting only the eye with a small fragment of the tuber - the top, and use the rest of the potato for food.

“Trofim Lysenko ventured to prepare these tops in the fall, and eat the planting potatoes during the winter, which was incredible - no one believed that the tops could be saved as planting material until spring. He also took the risk of sowing grain on the stubble. This method, which saves the soil from erosion, is still used both in our virgin lands and in Canada."

(Kievsky Telegraph, 2010, November

Fi, planting potato tops, ha ha!

But the date of the award says a lot - how this method helped save the country from hunger, helped the nation's food supply and ultimately win the war. Get from one tuber one bushpotatoes or five to ten bushes, plus saved potatoes, which became truly "second bread" during the Second World War, is there a difference? For armchair science, probably none. And during the war - big, huge!

“In 1936, Trofim Lysenko developed a method of minting (removing the tops of the shoots) of cotton, and this agrotechnical technique, which increases the yield of cotton, is still widely used throughout the world.

In 1939, he developed a new agricultural technique for millet, which made it possible to increase the yield from 8-9 to 15 centners per hectare. In the pre-war years, he proposed to use summer planting of potatoes in the southern regions of the Soviet Union to improve its varietal qualities.

And what about its forest belts, which protected millions of hectares in the USSR from dry winds, and the use of natural enemies of agricultural pests instead of pesticides?"

(Kievsky Telegraph, 2010, November

That is why on September 10, 1945, Lysenko was awarded the next Order of Lenin "for the successful fulfillment of the government's assignment in the conditions of war to provide the front and the population of the country with food." Also nonsense, of course. And Lysenko has many such achievements, not a single Order of Lenin, and he had eight (!)(the same amount as A. N. Tupolev and S. V. Ilyushin), was not awarded just like that.

Under Stalin, Lenin's orders were not simply awarded.

The floor to the People's Commissar and Minister of Agriculture of the USSR I. A. Benediktov:

“… After all, it is a fact that on the basis of Lysenko's works such varieties of agricultural crops as spring wheat“Lyutenses-1173”,“Odessa-13”, barley“Odessa-14”, cotton“Odessa-1”have been developed, a number of agrotechnical methods have been developed, including vernalization, cotton minting. Pavel Panteleimonovich Lukyanenko, perhaps our most talented and prolific breeder, was a devoted student of Lysenko, who highly respected him until the end of his days. "," Caucasus ".

(Benediktov I. A. About Stalin and Khrushchev. Young Guard. 1989. No. 4.)

More about I. A. Benediktov here I highly recommend learning more about this truly great man

And, of course, the famous "wheat vernalization" - the technology of temperature mutagenesis, which made it possible to "use the influence of temperature factors on the ontogenesis of agricultural crops and their shaping in order to select new varieties, increase yields and improve agricultural technology for growing promising varieties in unfavorable climatic conditions."

For its time, it was an innovative technology that made it possible to significantly increase grain production and was successfully used for twenty years. Why was it ultimately abandoned? And it is very simple, because of the "excessive labor intensity". Any technology will become obsolete someday. This is completely normal. It does its job and leaves, giving way to new, more modern technologies.

It is interesting that work in this direction is being carried out today. And for our country, with its difficult climatic conditions, to put it mildly, this direction has had and is extremely topical. And it was no coincidence that in 1932 Vavilov rushed to the United States to report at the International Congress on Genetics and Breeding on a new revolutionary method - vernalization.

Yes, yes, you didn’t imagine it! It was Vavilov, specifically about Lysenko's work, the boss about the work of his subordinate, as usual - one works, and another reports abroad (remember, in the film "Garage": "Guskov works, but you go to Paris for clothes!").

“A remarkable discovery recently made by T. D. Lysenko in Odessa, opens up new tremendous opportunities for breeders and geneticists … This discovery allows us to use tropical and subtropical varieties in our climate”.

(N. I. Vavilov, USA, VI International Genetic Congress, 1932)

So there is nothing "anti-Vavilov" in wheat vernalization. Vavilov himself reported on it at a congress in the United States. True, as compensation, he, N. I. Vavilov in 1933 nominated Lysenko's work for the Stalin Prize as "the greatest achievement of plant physiology in the last decade." (Strunnikov V., Shamin A. Lysenko and Lysenkoism: features of the development of domestic genetics.)

Of course, it is somewhat strange to report on the possibilities of controlled mutagenesis and immediately assert about the immutability of the genome, like in the popular Soviet film: “I remember here, but I don’t remember here”. Anyway.

Nobody says that Vavilov was a bad person. It’s not at all for this that he was arrested and imprisoned (and not at all shot, as some believe).

Vavilov's problem was not that he was a geneticist (Lysenko was also a geneticist, and this did not prevent him from receiving eight Orders of Lenin). And not even that he was wrong (in 1940 it was not yet obvious). The problem was the misuse of public money. Do you want to know how it was? Refer to primary sources, they are not classified yet.

In fact, the processes against geneticists began with the fact that the plans declared by the Serebrovsky-Vavilov group for the development of new varieties in the five-year period 1932-1937 were not fulfilled.

The state has never been a philanthropist in relation to science, it has always been an investor!

Is always! And under socialism, and under capitalism, under any system, if a person takes money, promising a profit, but does not give this profit, he is punished. Wasted means stolen. "Stole, drank - to jail!"

Sadly? In the case of Vavilov, yes.

But true.

For a long time they did not ask. Denunciations against Vavilov were received from the beginning of the 1930s, no one attached any importance to them, let's wait - we'll see. In 1940 they started asking questions. If you brought, roughly speaking, three rubles for the invested ruble - well done, get an order.

Lysenko did not have any problems with this, for that and the order. Received new varieties, developed technologies, introduced a completely understandable, calculated economic effect. Lysenko's achievements are the result of the effective work of the scientific apparatus during periods of crisis in solving the most important national economic problems.

And Vavilov had problems. The money has been spent, but there is no return. Not a ruble. Nothing. That is, nothing at all, except for observing the fruit fly. This is certainly good, but this is not at all what the money was allocated for!

On November 20, 1939, Stalin finally asked: “Well, citizen Vavilov, will you continue to deal with flowers, petals, cornflowers and other botanical fintiflyushki? And who will be involved in increasing the productivity of agricultural crops?"

(Lebedev D. V., Kolchinsky E. I. The last meeting of N. I. Vavilov with I. V. Stalin (Interview with E. S. Yakushevsky)).

The people answered this with a ditty:

Geneticists have a miracle:

Drosophila lives there, The main agricultural animals

She has a reputation for a long time.

He brings fresh eggs, Wool and milk gives

Plows the land, mows the hay, Dashingly barks at the gate!

But of course, the Russian people are wild, backward, dense. And we are white, clean and in the offices. So the film is called "White Clothes", but how could it be otherwise.

Was Vavilov a deliberate pest? Unlikely. I think the investigators overdid it a bit. But Vavilov himself admitted that his activities could be interpreted as sabotage.

“For 2 weeks after his arrest, Vavilov denied the charges of sabotage. The situation changed when the investigator presented Vavilov with a number of testimonies from his friends and colleagues, confirming the version of the investigation. After that, Vavilov testified during several interrogations that his work could be interpreted as sabotage - deliberate damage to the country's economy. (The case of N. I. Vavilova)

The key words here are "can be interpreted" as sabotage. Conscious or unconscious - hard to prove, the main thing is the facts. Waste is sabotage!

Here are the words of N. I. Vavilov from the interrogation protocol:

“One of the main sabotage measures was the creation of an excessively large number of narrowly specialized, completely non-vital, scientific research institutes … divorced from direct agronomic work, this led to the disorganization of research work … to the dispersal of already insufficient personnel and caused completely unnecessary large state expenses."

(Protocol of interrogation of N. I. Vavilov on September 6, 1940)

All N. I. Vavilova consisted in the squandering of huge state funds, including foreign currency, which, strictly speaking, is still a crime today. It is another matter that today they are not punished for this, they are not even deprived of the prize. And in the difficult pre-war years, when every ruble was on the account, they asked and punished.

But T. D. Lysenko spoke about this, repeatedly, persuaded, admonished:

“I have repeatedly said to Mendelian geneticists: let's not argue, I will not become a Mendelian anyway. It's not about disputes, but let's work together according to a strictly scientifically developed plan. Let's take certain problems, receive orders from the USSR NKZ and fulfill them scientifically. Ways, when performing this or that practically important scientific work, can be discussed, you can even argue about these ways, but arguing is not pointless."

("Under the Banner of Marxism", No. 11, 1939)

Actually, Vavilov was a completely normal "academic scientist" cut off from his country and his people. Maybe the "academic scientist" is forgivable, but this was not the money he was allocated for, and this was not what he promised, but the creation of new varieties. And he did not fulfill his promise, he wasted the money - it means that he deliberately misled, deceived the state. And for this not to be imprisoned? Scold and let go? This is probably what Vavilov was counting on. But my hands did not get away, I had to sit.

Vavilov's trouble was inopportune. In some 1970s, he would have won awards and titles perfectly. But in order to finance a purely theoretical science, without practical return, extremely favorable conditions are required, few can afford it. Of course, there were no such conditions either in the 1930s or in the 1940s! But Vavilov defiantly ignored this fact, for which he paid.

By the way, when this happened, everyone happily kicked him, not in the least challenging the fairness of the accusations. People “in white robes” readily betrayed their comrade-in-arms and teacher. The only one who refused to participate in the conviction campaign was … Lysenko!

Testimony T. D. Lysenko:

“When asked what I know about the wrecking activities of N. I. Vavilov to destroy the collection of seeds in VIR, I answer: I know that Academician N. I. Vavilov collected this collection. nothing is known."

Signature: Academician T. D. Lysenko

(From the materials of the investigation in the case of N. I. Vavilova)

From an interview with I. A. Benediktov:

“When Vavilov was arrested, his closest supporters and 'friends', shielding themselves, one after another began to confirm the investigator's 'sabotage' version. Lysenko, who by that time had disagreed with Vavilov in scientific positions, flatly refused to do so and confirmed his refusal in writing. But people with a much higher position than Lysenko could suffer for aiding the "enemies of the people" at that time, which, of course, he knew very well …"

(Benediktov I. A. About Stalin and Khrushchev. Young Guard. 1989. No. 4.)

Well, what about the film based on Dudintsev's book "White Clothes"? The action takes place after the war in connection with the so-called "defeat of VASKHNIL and genetics." Although, as we know, we can only talk about the defeat of the Weismanists, followers of N. I. Vavilov, but not geneticists and not VASKHNIL. Genetics in the USSR both developed and continued to develop, and no one decisively smashed it!

The word of T. D. Lysenko:

"The assertion of Academician Serebrovsky that I deny the often observed facts of the diversity of hybrid offspring in a ratio of 3: 1 is also incorrect. We do not deny this. We deny your position, which says that this ratio cannot be controlled. Based on the concept we are developing, it will be possible (and pretty soon) manage splitting."

(T. D. Lysenko. Agrobiology. Works on genetics, selection and seed production. Edition 6th. M.: Selkhozgiz, 1952. - p. 195.)

Thus, the work was carried out with the same notorious "Mendelian splitting", the existence of which, according to Dudintsev Lysenko allegedly denied!

So genetics has nothing to do with it. Here's what happened in a nutshell:

In 1946-47. the Weismanists launched an attack against Lysenko, trying to remove him from the post of president of VASKHNIL. Initially, their offensive, carried out with the involvement of the party apparatus and attempts to put pressure on the foreign press, was successful. However, it ultimately failed. At the August session of the All-Union Agricultural Academy in 1948, T. D. Lysenko and his group, supported by Stalin, defeated their opponents.

Why I. V. Stalin supported Lysenko, of course. Because he knew perfectly well that his works are beneficial to the country, and the Weismanists are useless.

“As a result of many years of work, Dubinin“enriched”science with the“discovery”that in the composition of the fly population among fruit flies in Voronezh and its environs during the war there was an increase in the percentage of flies with some chromosomal differences and a decrease in other fruit flies with other differences in chromosomes.

Dubinin is not limited to discoveries so "highly valuable" for theory and practice, obtained by him during the war, he sets further tasks for himself for the recovery period and writes: normal living conditions. "(Movement in the hall. Laughter).

This is the typical Morganist "contribution" to science and practice before the war, during the war, and such are the prospects of Morganist "science" for the recovery period! (Applause)".

(From the report of T. D. Lysenko at the session of the All-Union Agricultural Academy in 1948)

Or blame Stalin for intervening in the "academic" dispute? What else could he do? It was necessary to stop this quarrel, which had been going on for two years and clearly interfered with scientific work. After all, the state was not an outside observer, but a customer of scientific research. All scientific work was carried out with government money. And naturally, the state was not indifferent to what they were spent on, and as a customer, it had the right and was obliged to intervene if necessary. And there was such a necessity, and an extreme necessity!

Dudintsev should have known about this? Yes. When you start writing about a subject, the first place to start is to collect all the facts on the subject.

But he is clearly not in the know!

Nevertheless, the book and film, according to Dudintsev, are based on documentary evidence. But here's the question. Why did Dudintsev use evidence from only one side? Why didn't he listen to the witnesses from the other side?

Do you consider this an impartial study?

Imagine a trial where only prosecution witnesses or only defense witnesses are heard? What kind of verdict will it be?

It would not be so bad if they were uninterested witnesses, but no! Dudintsev uses the testimony of interested parties!

So it turns out that the book and the film have no factual basis! For two reasons:

- used the testimony of interested witnesses;

- the testimony of witnesses from only one side was used.

This is a profanation, a lie, if you like. We can say meanness. So what is Dudintsev - a scoundrel, a scoundrel? I don’t know, I didn’t know him personally. Perhaps just a fool.

A kind of naive fool who believed himself and certainly wants everyone to believe in his childhood fantasy, but why, why, it doesn't matter!

Such fools or scoundrels of the Khrushchev "thaw" (and in essence Trotskyist revenge) and the subsequent years of "de-Stalinization" brought more harm to our country than the CIA.

Or what do you think?

So because of what all the fuss, for which Academician T. D. Lysenko was so much filth, abomination, lies poured out? What was the purpose of slandering a scientist, who has done so much good for our country? Why was it necessary to denigrate his name, undeservedly, unfairly, with persistence worthy of better application, to make him one of the most odious personalities of Russian science of the twentieth century?

Here is perhaps one of the best answers:

“To understand why against T. D. Lysenko in 1960-90. such a total information war was waged, attention should be paid to the social significance of the main concept he defended - the possibility of changing heredity under the influence of changes in the living conditions of the organism.

This position, which he confirmed on practical experiments, contradicted, however, the ideological attitudes of some influential groups who held beliefs about the innate and invariable superiority of some peoples (or social groups) over others.

Criticism of Weismann's theory by T. D. Lysenko also contributed to the failure of eugenic projects that were actively promoted in the 1920s and 1930s by the leading Weismannian geneticists in the USSR. These projects, dividing the Soviet people into "valuable" and "second-rate", were close to the way of thinking of both the then Trotskyists - analogues of the German Nazis, their rival colleagues - and many liberals, their successors and often relatives."

("Academician Trofim Denisovich Lysenko". Ovchinnikov NV Literary Studies (LUch), 2009).