Genetics: Lysenko versus Mendel

Author(s): Charles A. Leone

Source: Transactions of the Kansas Academy of Science (1903-), Vol. 55, No. 4 (Dec., 1952), pp.
369-380
Published by: Kansas Academy of Science
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3625986
Accessed: 03-02-2016 06:28 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Kansas Academy of Science is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Transactions of the Kansas
Academy of Science (1903-).

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 137.99.31.134 on Wed, 03 Feb 2016 06:28:07 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Transactions
Kansas Academyof Science
uPER
Volume 55, No. 4 December1952

Genetics: Lysenkoversus MendeP

CHARLES A. LEONE
of Kansas,Lawrence
University
The editorhas foundthereviewbelowof realinterest.Presenting materialas
it does outsidehis ownimmediateprofessionalfieldand dealingwithone phase of
the currentideologicalcontroversieswith Russia,it is publishedprimarily for
members ofthescientific outsidethefieldof biology. The editorventures
profession
theopinion,however, thatmanybiologistswill findthereviewstimulating and in-
formative.
Dr. Leone,the authorof the review,has been a memberof the University
zoology stafffor the past four years, coming to Lawrence in 1949 from Rutgers
Universitywhere he received his doctorate. His particularfield of study is con-
cernedwith the applicationof serologicalmethodsto problemsin biology.
-The Editor.
Introduction
In the Soviet Union the science of genetics,as accepted and utilized
by the entirenon-communistworld, has been attackedby a group of ani-
mal and plant breeders,headed by Trofim D. Lysenko,as being impracti-
cal, mystical,idealistic, and metaphysical. Striking discoveries and im-
provementsin crop plants have been announced by these men to support
their denunciation of "foreign" genetic methods. The result of this
controversyhas been the purge of many internationallyknown Russian
geneticists, and their replacement with men whose quasi-scientific,
biological convictionswere more in harmonywith the political convic-
tions of the Central Committeeof the CommunistParty.
The following discussion of the controversyis primarilyconcerned
with its scientificaspects. Political philosophy is included only so far as
it seems to influencethe biological philosophy of Lysenko and his ad-
herents.
The controversyis about a subject that sometimes is called the
greatestbiological problem, namely: What determinesthe charateristics
of organisms? Genetics is the science most concernedwith the nature of
the origin, transmission,and expression of the charactersof organisms

Transactions of the Kansas Academy of Science, Vol. 55, No. 4, 1952.

1From an address presented before the Kansas Chapter of the Society of Sigma Xi,
November, 1951.

[369]

This content downloaded from 137.99.31.134 on Wed, 03 Feb 2016 06:28:07 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
370 The KansasAcademyof Science

and because of these factsthis science is most involved in the controversy.

The studyof heredityinformsus that organismsresembletheirparents,
at least in some respects,and the studyof variationinformsus that organ-
isms differfromtheirparentsto some extent. How heredityis determined
and the means by which variationsare introducedare the main points of
divergencebetween a new geneticsof the Soviet Union and the genetics
of the westernworld.
Heredityand Variation - The WesternWorld
A summaryof a subject as broad as is this fieldwill containgeneral-
izations,which while applyingin the main, could be challenged in detail.
The following observationsand commentson heredityand variationcon-
tain what I thinkare the major premiseson which moderngeneticstudies
are founded.
Three men, AugustWeismann (1834-1914), GregorJohannMendel
(1822-1884), and Thomas Hunt Morgan (1866-1945), were responsible
for establishingthe basic theoriesand principleswhich form the frame-
work for researchin genetics. Weismann is best known for his theoryof
the continuityof the germplasm. Accordingto his theorythe germplasm
is relativelyfree of the soma, and a modificationin the latter is not
reflectedby a correspondingchange in the gem cells (gametes). The
germ cells provide, moreover,the only protoplasmiccontinuitybetween
successivegenerationsof sexually reproducingorganisms. As a resultof
the researchesof Mendel, Morgan, and many others,it has been estab-
of
lished that the primarydeterminers(i.e. genes) for the characteristics
organismsare situated in the chromosomesof the nuclei of the gametes,
and that the nuclear contributionsof males and females to succeeding
generationsare generallyequal. There is a normalconstancyin the num-
ber and behavior of the chromosomesand a normal constancyin the
heredityof organisms. An aberrationin the chromosomesresultsin an
aberration in heredity. The behavior of the chromosomesduring the
maturationof the gametesof animals or the spores of plants provides the
physical mechanism which exactly accounts for Mendel's principles of
segregationand independentassortment,and for Morgan's principlesof
linkage, crossingover, and the linear orderof the genes2.
The cytoplasmin the gametesis recognizedby Mendelian geneticists
2Five principles in genetics are generally attributed to Mendel. Briefly, these are:
a. Unit Characters. Certain characters (or factors) in organisms behave essentially as
units in inheritance.
b. Equality of the Transmitting Capacity of Both Sexes. The results of reciprocal crosses
are the same.
c. Dominance. Only one member of a pair of alternative characters expresses itself in
the hybrid.
d. Segregation. Alternative unit characters (or factors) combined in the hybrid separate
out unchanged in subsequent generations.
e. Independent Assortment. Different pairs of alternative characters segregate indepen-
dently of each other.
Segregation refers to the separation of the corresponding genes in a pair of homolgous.

This content downloaded from 137.99.31.134 on Wed, 03 Feb 2016 06:28:07 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Genetics:LysenkoversusMendel 371

as playingan importantrolein heredity.3The greater portionof a female

is of
gamete usuallycomposed cytoplasm. Genes and chromosomes are
housed,nourished, and protected by the It
cytoplasm. provides the cen-
triolesand spindlefibers
whichare themechanisms bywhichthechromo-
somesareequallydistributed to daughter cells. It is themediumthrough
whichgenesexpressthemelves.The cytoplasm is alwaysorganizedand
usuallypolarized. Throughout development it interacts withthegenesto
bring out differentiated
organs and parts. The resultsof reciprocal
crossesbetweenorganisms of different
geneticconstitutions give thesame
results;hencethecytoplasms of thegametesmustbe the same. In fact,
it seemsto be moreconservative in inheritance than the chromosomal
material.

Variationamongorganisms is universal.Thereare two chiefkinds

of variation, and
hereditary non-hereditary. Of these,hereditary varia-
tions are of biologicaland evolutionary significance. Most hereditary
variationsresultfromnewcombinations of old characteristics.
Hereditary
variationsmayalso be caused by chromosomal changes. The primitive
(or haploid) number of chromosomes may be increasedin multiplesof
thisbasicnumber. Suchchangeis referred to as polyploidy.Theremay
be gain or loss of chromosomes not in multiplesof the haploidnumber
(i.e. heteroploidy). variations
Sectional withina chromosome such as
fragmentation, duplication,deletions,
translocation, and inversionswill
also increasethe geneticvariability of organisms. Such chromosomal
mutations do notinvolvequalitativechangesin thenatureof thechromatin
materialsconcerned. Qualitativechangesin the gene are knownto be
causedbychemicalagentssuchas colchicine, mustard gas, and formalde-
and
hyde, byphysical environmental agents such as highfrequency irradi-

chromosomes. IndependentAssortment pairs of chromosomes

refersto the behaviorof different
duringgametogenesis.
Three principlesin geneticsare generallyattributedto Morgan. Brieflythese are:
a. Linkage. Certaincharacterswhich entera cross togethertend to stay togetherin sub-
sequentgenerations.
b. Crossing-over. The occurrenceof new combinationsin linked traits; or, the mutual
interchangeof corresponding partsof homologouschromosomes.
c. Linear Order of the Genes. Linked genes are arrangedin a linear series along the
chromosomes.
Multiple Factor or QuantitativeInheritance. Even though this is seldom cited as a major
principle,an understanding of it is essential. Certaincharacteristics
depend upon the cumulative
action of manydifferent pairs of genes. In contrastto the analysesof the distributionof unit
charactersin inheritance,multiplefactorinheritanceis concernedwith the biometricalanalysis
which varymoreor less continuouslyfromone extremeto the other.
of characteristics

-In moderngeneticsthe term Mendelian Heredityhas been enlarged to include all that
behavior of inheritedtraits which is dependentupon the normal distributionand action of
chromosomesand theirgenes. Originallyonly the 3:1 monohybridand 9:3:3:1 dihybridratios
were thoughtto be Mendelian. From this there has been a general spread of the concept of
Mendelism. Modifieddihybridratios, and multihybridratios come into line because the same
distributionmechanismis involved. The chromosometheory becomes part of Mendelism.
Hence, Morganismfalls naturallyinto this concept. Multiple factor inheritanceis likewise
Mendelian. Even thoughthe expressionof a characteris a blend, the genes are not. Non-Men-
delian Heredityincludesasexual reproduction
and cytoplasmicinheritance.

This content downloaded from 137.99.31.134 on Wed, 03 Feb 2016 06:28:07 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
372 The KansasAcademyof Science

ation, heat, cold, and ultra-violetlight. Gene mutations,whatevertheir

cause, increasethe hereditaryvariationamong organisms.
Except in the cases of hybridizationbetween organisms of known
genetic composition,hereditaryvariation cannot, as yet, be predicted or
controlled. Germinal mutationsoccur at random and affectall kinds of
charactersin all kinds of ways. The natureof an organism is the chief
conditiondeterminingthe kinds and frequencyof variationsshown. Both
plants and animals have manygene mutations.
Somatic mutations are non-hereditaryvariations which may be
caused under the same circumstancesas germinalmutations. They do not
influencethe germinal material. These variations may be of economic
importancein the case of certaintypesof plants. Their propagationhow-
ever, depends upon cuttings,or grafts,or othertypesof purelyvegetative
maintenancewhichare independentof sexual reproduction.
Organic evolutionmaybe definedas descentwithhereditaryvariation.
It has occurredin the past and is occurringnow. Those hereditaryvaria-
tions which are adaptive, or at least not especially injurious,tend to sur-
vive. The expression of a hereditarycharacteralways involves heredity
and environment. The recentcontroversyhas revived the debate on the
relativeimportanceof these two variables. The more importantvariable
is the one thathas the greatereffecton a given character. Neitherheredity
nor environmentcan be eliminated. One can be held constant,however,
while the other is varied. Diversities which are apparent in a constant
environmentare due to heredity. Under differentenvironmentalcondi-
tions the resemblancesamong organismsare mainly due to heredity,but
the differencesmay be due to heredityor environment,or both. Both
heredityand environmentare necessaryand both effectall kinds of char-
acters. The relativeimportanceof heredityand environmentdepends on
character,the organism,and the particularhereditaryand environmental
factorsconcerned. The specificnature of organisms is determinedpri-
marilyby heredity;and neitherhereditynor environmentcan fullycom-
pensate for the defectsin each other.
Heredity and Variation - The Soviet Union
The cleareststatementof the biological conceptswhich are in contra-
diction to those of the westernworld may be found in the writingsof
Lysenko.4 I. V. Michurin (1855-1935) is the acknowledgedfounderof
the new Soviet biology. Frequent referencesare made to Michurin's
successin obtainingseveralvaluable varietiesof fruitswhich were adapted

4Unlessotherwiseindicateda referenceto Lysenkois based on his 15,000-wordpresidential

address, delivered on July 31, 1948 before the Lenin Acadmy of AgriculturalSciences, an
English translationof which is published in book formas "The Science of Biology Today'"
publishedin 1948 by InternationalPublishers,New York.

This content downloaded from 137.99.31.134 on Wed, 03 Feb 2016 06:28:07 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Genetics:LysenkoversusMendel 373

to thesevereclimaticconditions of centraland easternRussia. These and

a few generalizations derivedfrom his horticultural work, plus the
morerecentclaimsby Lysenkoand his supporters formthe essenceof
"'Michurinst biology"whichis heraldedas being a directrefutation of
"Mendelism-Morganism".
The biologicalprinciplesof the Michurinsts are summarized in the
followingstatements: The somais of primary importance in determining
an organism'shereditary potential. The entireorganismcontributes to
theproduction of thegermcells. In proportion to eachpart'scontribution
the germcells are altered. Different partsof organisms possessvarying
capacitiesto assimilate external
environmental conditions.The environ-
mentis directive upontheheredity
in its influence of an organism.
The philosophy whichmotivates Sovietbiologicalthinking is political,
but cannotbe divorcedfromtheirbiology. Dialecticalmaterialism is
made to assertitselfas the revolutionary transformation of the worldin
the interestof thepeople. Lysenkoinsiststhatonlysciencewhichgives
man practicalmastery overnature(as in chemistry and physics)can be
truescience. Underthe influence of theMichurinists, biologyis said to
be changingfroma sciencewhichprimarily explains past historyof
the
theorganicworld,to a sciencewhichis creatively, effectively,and system-
aticallymastering livingnature,making it serve practicalrequirements.
He believesthatit is possiblebyman'sintervention to forceanyformof
animalor plantto changemorequicklyand in a directiondesirableto
man. He rejectsnaturalselection becauseit is fortuitous, and consequently
holds thatno intra-specificstruggle,or assistanceexistsor is necessary,
buthe doesbelievethatthereis inter-specific
struggle andmutualassistance.
Here then,is a subtlebiologicaljustification for the "class" struggle
betweenpeople (governments) whichwouldbringthemall intoa single
of
species government in which no conflictor struggle is necessary. Their
government can now say thatthe superiorpolitical and physical environ-
mentof the SovietUnion,moreover, confersupon its people a superior
heredity,and in thebestinterestof thecommonpeopleof theworldthey
(the SovietUnion) are obligatedto imposethe superiorenvironment
upon others. Michurinistic biologyis thusmorepalatableto the Central
Committee of theCommunist partythanthemoreconservative, and more
precise"Mendelism-Morganism" whichwas spawnedand grewunderthe
so-calleddegradedenvironment of bourgeoiscapitalism.
The Facts in the Controversy
Neo-Dar-
by Lysenkoas "progressive
Michurinbiologyis identified
winism",eventhoughhe rejectsthe veryaspectsof Darwin'stheoryof
naturalselection(1859) whichbroughtaboutthe generalacceptanceof

This content downloaded from 137.99.31.134 on Wed, 03 Feb 2016 06:28:07 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
374 The KansasAcademyof Science

organicevolution, namelya struggle forexistence due to thegreatfertility

of organisms, and the selectionof fitvariantswho leave offspring with
newcharacters.Darwin'stheory to explainheredity wascalledpangenesis.
He believedthatcellsthrewoffminutegranules(gemmules),which,cir-
culatingfreely throughout thesystem and multiplying bysubdivision, were
collectedin the reproductive or
products(gametes), buds, so that the
gamete, or bud contained gemmules from all parts of the parent. The
cytogenetic,and ontogenetic evidenceaccumulated in the last centuryhas
generallydisproven this theory. Lysenko'sacceptance pangenesisis
of
complicated by his implication thattheconceptis originalwithhim and
nota revitalization of Darwin'stheory.
JeanBaptistede Lamarck(1744-1829) proposeda theoryon the
inheritanceof acquiredcharacters.He believed(1) thatthe production
of a new organresultedfromthesupervention of a newwantwhichcon-
tinuedto make itselffelt,(2) thatthe development of organswas in
proportionto theamountof use,and (3) thateverynewcharacter acquired
duringthelifeof an individualwas preserved by inheritance.Fromhis
theoryarosetheidea thattheenvironment inducedchangesin thesomaof
organisms, and thatthesechangesweretransmitted to succeeding genera-
tions. DarwinacceptedLamarck'stheoryas a factorin establishing vari-
ationamongorganisms, and propoundedthe theoryof pangenesisas the
mechanism fortheinheritance of environmentally inducedchangesin the
soma. Lysenkomaintains thattheLamarckian propositions arecorrectand
and at thesametimeinsiststhathis conceptson theinduction
scientific of
geneticchange are not neo-Lamarckism. He claims that his proposalsare
fundamentally different and are dynamicexpressionsof progressive
Michurinist biology. Westerngeneticists considerthe Lamarckian factor
as negligiblein complexplantsand animals.
Lysenkocitesspecificcaseswhichhe believesstrikethe deathblows
to Mendelian-Morganian genetics.Mostof thesehavebeenexaminedby
westerngeneticistsand horticulturists (since all of his examplesare
amongplants) and generally found to be incorrect, or wanting,in some
A
respect. summary of his claims are presented below.
Vernalization.This consistsof moisteningthe seedsof winterwheator
ryeand placing them in the refrigerator one to threeweeks. After
for
suchtreatment theseedof thewintervariety maybe plantedin thespring
and it will grownormally.Lysenko(1946, p. 10) claimsthe discovery
of vernalizationas his own. He uses it as an outstandingexampleof
the "shattering" effect
of environmenton the heredityof plants. Karl
Sax (1949, p. 143) has pointedout thatvernalizationwas actuallydis-
coveredin theUnitedStatesin 1854 at MichiganStateCollege. It has

This content downloaded from 137.99.31.134 on Wed, 03 Feb 2016 06:28:07 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Genetics:LysenkoversusMendel 375

been triedall overtheworldsincethattimeand foundto be of no prac-

ticalagriculturalvalue. Geneticists,
and horticulturistsfindit simplerto
transferthedesiredcharacters of springand wintervarietiesof wheatby
hybridizationthanto attempt seedtreatment in anymanner.Vernalization
resultsin thelossof considerablenumbers of seedsbecauseof theirfailure
to wetproperly. The vernalizedseed,in addition,producesan inferiorcrop
owing to seed damage in thesowing of thesoftened seed. The collective
farmsin the SovietUnion can ill affordto wasteseed and, at the same
time,obtainpooryields. Despiteitsinitialheraldingthepracticeof ver-
nalizationhas beenvirtually abandonedin the SovietUnion today.

Rapid Transformation of Species. Lysenkoclaimsto have changeda

spring wheat to a winter wheatin two,three,or fouryearsof autumn
planting. He asserted that Triticumdurum,the macaroniwheat,was
transformed into severalvarietiesof Triticumvulgare,the breadwheat.
Plant breedersand cytologists generallyregard:this transformation as
geneticallyimpossible. The conversionof the tetraploidspecies with 28
chromosomes to a hexaploidspecieswith42 chromosomes in itselfwould
notbe impossible.The difficulty arisesfromthefactthatthe28-chromo-
somewheat(T. durum)has onlygenomes5 A and B whilethe42-chromo-
somewheat(T. vulgare)has genomesA, B, and D. GenomeD cannot
in anywaybe derivedfromgenomesA and B. Lysenkomayhaveplanted
a mixedlotof seedwhichcontained theseedof the42-chromosome wheat,
and selectedfor theseover the period of the experiment.American
plantbreeders arewell awareof theease withwhichsuchseed contamina-
tionmayoccur,evento the extentof wheat-barley, and wheat-rye mix-
tures. Lysenko'srejectionof thiscriticism of his workwas based on his
randominspection of the seed to see thatit all lookedalike. (Lysenko,
1946, p. 35).
The asserted transformation of durumto vulgarewas accomplished in
outdoorexperimental plots at an station
agricultural which was primarily
engagedin investigations on cerealgrains. M. B. trane,geneticist in the
John Innes Horticultural Institution,London, suggestsan alternative
explanation fortherapidconversion of species(Crane 1949,p. 156). He
pointsoutthatin his ownpre-soil-sterilization dayshe has seenelderberry
germinate and growwhereonlygooseberry seedsweresown,and also a
proportion of redcurrants (Ribes rubrum)amonga sowingof blackcur-
rants(Ribes nigrum).
IntergenericHybridization.V. N. Yakolev(1945, p. 48), an advocateof
the new biologyin theSovietUnion,writes"forthe firsttimein world
practicesuch fruit-bearing hybridshave been producedin Michurinsk
5Genome. The sum total of geneticmaterialin the set of chromosomes.

This content downloaded from 137.99.31.134 on Wed, 03 Feb 2016 06:28:07 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
376 TheKansasAcademyofScience

(the important MichurinNurseries)as hybridsof apple and pear trees.

plumandpeach,cherry and plum,redand blackcurrants."His statement
is incorrect.Plum-peach, gooseberry-currant,pear-quince,peach-almond
and otherhybridshave been knownfora long time. The plum-peach
hybridwas describedby W. Laxtonin the Reportof theThirdInterna-
tionalConference on Genetics(1906). It was sterileand has beenvege-
propagatedformorethanthirty
tatively yearsbyM. B. Crane. He also.
has growna peach-almond hybrid which cropswell and has produced
seedsformorethanthirty years. The pear-quincewas raisedin England
in 1895. In Algeriathelatterhybrid producesseedlessfruitsabundantly.
As is commonamongthescientific of
reports Michurinist biologists
thedetailsare lackingon theactualprocessof producing theirfruit-bear-
ing hybrids. The generalfailureof westernplant breedersto achieve
apple-pear, and plum-peach hybrids wouldguarantee intenseinterestin an
accountof parentvarietiesand detailsof the flowersand fruits. Such
information notforthcoming
is generally and a betterappreciationof the
workof theMichurinist is
biologists notpossible.
Inheritance of AcquiredCharacters.In his book,SovietBiology,Lysenko.
(1948, p. 36) claimsthat"alteredsections of thebodyof parentorganisms
alwayspossess an altered heredity." He statesthatan alteredtwigor bud
of a fruittree,or theeye (bud) of a potatotuber,if cutawayand grown
separately(i.e. vegetatively propagated)as an independent plant will
a a
possess changedheredity.Asseyava(1928, pp. 1-26), countrywoman
of Lysenko,investigated manysuch somaticmutationsin potatoesand
found in all cases that "the of the mutantare not transmitted
characters
throughseed and its offspring are similarto theprogenyof theoriginal
variety."Eventhoughheralteredpotatoplants,whenvegetatively propa-
gatedas independent plants,weresufficiently to be givendifferent
distinct
varietalnames,the alterationdid not influence and the
the germ-tract,
offspring from seeds of themutants were of the originalparenttype.
Vegetative Hybridization.A keypointin Lysenko'stheoryis his claim
thatin a graftedplantthereis a permanentalteration
of thequalitiesof
the stockby the scion. Scientific in thiscountry
horticulturists and in
Europehaveneverknowna singlecase of grafthybridization. Karl Sax
reports(1949) thatat theArnoldArboretum of HarvardUniversity there
are pearsgrowingon hawthorns, hawthorns
on mountain ash,peacheson
and manyothercombinations.No effect
cherries, on thestockhas been
observed,andtheonlyeffecton thescionhas beensomedwarfing.
M. B. Crane(1949) has grownpeachscionson plumstock,plumon
plum,pearson quince,and apples on manydifferent stocks. Seedlings
fromeitherthestocksor thescionsshowedno mutualinfluence.He has.

This content downloaded from 137.99.31.134 on Wed, 03 Feb 2016 06:28:07 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Genetics:LysenkoversusMendel 377

also raisedinferiorscionson good stocks,and good scionson inferior

stocks. In no casewas a changein thegeneticqualitiesof eitherthestock
or scionobserved.

Buds or shootsfromthe place of junctionof scionand stockmay

producefruitsand leaveswithmixedcharacters.This behaviorresults
froman overlapping of tissueswhich,however,retaintheiridentity
in the
mixedtissues. Thesearethewellknownpericlinal chimeras.No fusion,
or interferencewiththeoriginalgeneticcomposition of thestockand the
scionoccurs. Seeds producedfromthe chimerical tissuealwaysshow a
segregationof theoriginalheredities.Lysenko'sreferencesarenotto this
of
type vegetative hybridization.He claimsthat inheritedcharactersare
transferredbetweenthe stockand scionwhichpermanently changetheir
geneticnatures. Such thingshave neverhappenedin the experienceof
western and plantbreeders.
horticulturists

Mentors. The so-calledMentorsof I. V. Michurinarefrequently citedby

as
Lysenko examples of definitechanges induced in fruit treesbyvarious
externalfactors.The methodconsistsof grafting scionsof old strainsof
fruittreeson thebranches of a youngtree. The grafted twigsaresaid to
"conferupon theyoung stock the propertieswhich it lacks." Michurin's
own description (Michurin1939, p. 209) of thebestexampleof how the
Mentormethodworksis as follows:"Supposingwe havea well developed
six-or-seven-year-oldhybridseedling,whichhas not startedfruiting, we
knowthatitwillnotstartfruiting beforesometenyearshaveelapsedsince
in somecasestheparental varietiesdo notnormally startto fruituntiltheir
twentieth year. Yet, by graftingclose to thebase of thelowerbranches
,ofthecrownseveralscionstakenfromthefruitbearing treewhichis known
to be of a highyieldingvariety theseedlingcan be inducedto bearfruit
withintwo years."

Otherclaimsby Michurinforthe methodincludeimprovement in

color of the and
fruits, increasesin sugar of
content the fleshof fruits.
He predictsalso "thatthemethodcan be used to effect otherchangesin
the propertiesand characteristics
of hybridvarieties,
suchas increaseof
attainment
fertility, of largersize fruits,
etc."

The statements of Michurinrelativeto long-delayedfruiting (i.e. 20

years) arecurious. The mostdelayedfruittreesin commoncultivation are
pears,withtheoccurrence of somefruiting in theeighthyear,about50 per
cent fruitingin the ninthyear,plus a small proportion whichmaybe
delayedas muchas fifteen years. Otherfruittreessuchas manyvarieties
of cherries in thefourth
havetheirearliestfruiting yearand theirlatestin

This content downloaded from 137.99.31.134 on Wed, 03 Feb 2016 06:28:07 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
378 The KansasAcademyof Science

the eighthyear. Michurin does not always definepreciselyhis varieties,

nor does he mentioncontrols.
The only real controlin this typeof experimentwould be to multiply
a single seedling vegetatively,and use some as controls and some for
experiment. Deductions from a single seedling, or even comparisons:
betweendifferent seedlingsof the same varietyare not generallyvalid since-
normal fruitingtime within a varietyis quite variable. In the light of
these facts, Michurin's Mentors could as readily be interpretedas con-
ferringno fruitingqualities upon the seedlings which would not have
occurrednormally.
It is possible also that the practiceof making several graftsat the
base of brancheswould be equivalentto bark-ringing, which is a common
practice among horticulturiststo reduce the juvenile period of some fruit:
treesand to bringtheminto earlierflower. The claims made for Mentors,.
however,are far more remarkablethan these simple root-stockeffects.
During his speech before the Lenin Academy,Lysenko derided the
contributionsof the Russian Mendelian-Morganian geneticist to the
improvementof Soviet agriculture. He assertedthat in the United States
of Americaalso, geneticistsdabbled in theirlaboratorieswhile the farmers
accomplished the job of crop and animal improvementindependently.
This claim has no foundationin fact in modern American agricultural
practice. In this countrypracticallyevery crop varietygrown today by
farmershas been developed by geneticistsand plant breedersof agricul-
tural experimentalstations. Hybrid corn was developed approximately
fortyyears ago by Dr. Shull, of Princeton,and Dr. East, of Harvard.
Hybrid seed permitsour farmersto grow in two years what normally
would requirethreeyearswith the old typeof varieties. The development
of rust resistantwheats by our plant breeders has permitteda steady
increasein the yields per acre. It also makes possible wheat planting in
many "impossible" areas of the United States. Numerous other striking
examples could be cited.
How, then, if all these facts are true,could the Michurinistsrise to
such positions of strengththat theycould topple the more scientific,and
morecertainMendelian geneticistsfrompositionsof influenceand control?
The answer lies in the primitivestate of agriculturewhich existed under
Tzarist Russia. Considerablecrop improvementis possible by strainselec-
tion of bettervarietiesin average lots of seeds. Simple selectionwould
do much to improve'and make uniformvarietieswhich are badly mixed.
The Michurinistswere undoubtedlycloserto the problemsof the collective
farmsthan were the Mendelian geneticists. The steadyimprovementof
Soviet agricultureis withoutquestion. Their progressin crop production

This content downloaded from 137.99.31.134 on Wed, 03 Feb 2016 06:28:07 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Genetics:LysenkoversusMendel 379

undoubtedly resulted fromthesameprocedures of selectionand trialwhich

werepracticed in theearlyagricultural historyof our own country, rather
than fromvernalization, suddenproductionof new species,vegetative
hybridization, and otherformsof biologicalalchemy preachedbyLysenko.
It is possiblealso, thata vacuumdevelopedbetweentheoryand practice
as a resultof too few properlytrainedgeneticists havingan interest in
problems related to animal and plantimprovement.
It is obviousthatin an articleas shortas thisall thepointsof differ-
encein thecontroversy couldnotbe considered.A selection was madeto
illustrate thediscrepancies betweenthe"claims"andthe"facts." I believe
thattheyare typicalof thecontroversy. The attackson politicalsystems,
and theslanderof individuals bothlivingand dead whichcharacterized a
significant portionof Lysenko'saddressbeforethe LeninAcademyhave
been ignored. The hybridization of politicaland biologicalphilosophy
withits consequentpurgeof geneticsin the SovietUnion holds many
lessonsforour own future. The necessity fora climateof freedomfor
the advancement of sciencebecomesstartlingly clearin a reviewof the
controversy. Science cannot long remain unfettered in a social system
whichseeksto exercisestrictcontroloverthewholespiritual and intellec-
tuallifeof a nation. The.correctness theory neverbe
of a scientific can
adjudgedby its readiness to give the answers desired by politicalleader-
ship. Similar dangers to the scientific
spiritmay be inherent in thelarge-
scaleorganization of research so evidentin Americaduringand sincethe
lastwar. It is hopedthatthisreviewof thecontroversy and thelessons
of thepurgewill encourage long-range perspectivesas to theconsequences
of "statism"forthe freegrowthof science.
Acknowledgments
The writerhas drawnheavilyupon the knowledgeand experiences
of othersin thepreparation of thisarticle. The fewreferences citedare
inadequateto guaranteeaccurate acknowledgements for all thefactsgiven
in thetext. The keenanalysesof Karl Sax and M. B. Cranehave served
as a majorsourceforthisreview. Editorialcomments, plus thewritings
of numerous othergeneticistshave providedthe substanceforthe main
bodyof notesfromwhichthe preparation of this paper was possible.
Gratitude also to mycolleaguesDrs. A. B. Leonard,and J.A.
is expressed
Weir who werekindenoughto reviewthispaper.
Literature Cited
T. 1928. Bud mutations
ASSEYAVA, in the potatoand theirchimericalnature.
J. Genet.,19:1-26.
CRANE,M. B. 1949. Lysenko'sexperiments. Bull. Atom.Scientists,
5:147-156.
LAXTON,W. 1906. The cross-breeding of peas and of hardy
and hybridization
fruits.Rept.ThirdInt.Conf.on Genetics.London.
T. D. 1946. Heredity
LYSENKO, fromtheRussian
anditsvariability.(Translated

This content downloaded from 137.99.31.134 on Wed, 03 Feb 2016 06:28:07 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
380 The KansasAcademyofScience

by T. Dobzhansky.) King's Crown Press, Columbia University,New

York.
LYSENKO,T. D. 1948. The science of biology today. InternationalPublishers,
New York. 62 pages. Also publishedunderthe title: "Soviet Biology",
Birch Books, Ltd., London, 1948.
MICHURIN, I. V. 1939. Translation of Michurin's selected works, Voronezh.
Region Publishers.
SAX,K. 1949. Geneticsand agriculture. Bull. Atom. Scientists,5:143-146.
YAKOLEV,P. M. 1945. Michurin'sheritage. Voks Bull., 7-8: 48-52.

This content downloaded from 137.99.31.134 on Wed, 03 Feb 2016 06:28:07 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions