sign in sign up
<<
Home , Lysenkoism

Genetics and Plant Physiology – 2018, Volume 8(1–2), pp. 94–102 ©2018 Published by the Institute of Plant Physiology and – Bulgarian Academy of Sciences Available online at http://www.ifrg-bg.com

Documentary LYSENKOISM IN BULGARIA: LESSONS FROM 1949

Karagyozov L.* and E. D. Ananiev

Faculty of , University of Sofia “St. Kl. Ohridsky”, 1164 Sofia, Bulgaria

Received: 27 June 2018 Accepted: 03 August 2018

Summary: Trofim D. Lysenko developed his pseudo-scientific biological concepts influenced mainly by the Marxist-Leninist-Stalinist ideology and not by scientific facts. Lysenko and his supporters, backed strongly by the apparatus of the Communist party, succeeded to inflict a final blow to the followers of the “capitalist and reactionary” genetic science in August 1948. The geopolitical changes after the Second World War placed Bulgaria in the Soviet sphere of influence. In 1949 Lysenkoism was forced onto Bulgarian science and education with disastrous consequences. The principal lessons from Bulgarian experience is that science should not be influenced by ideology, popular beliefs or politics.

Keywords: Lysenkoism; Bulgaria; Biological Conference in April 1949; neo-Lysenkoism.

Citation: Karagyozov L., E. D. Ananiev, 2018. Lysenkoism in Bulgaria: Lessons from 1949. Genetics and Plant Physiology, 8(1–2): 94–102.

For almost thirty years a prolonged and the Communist party: Joseph and sustained campaign was carried out in Stalin (1878-1953), and later by Nikita the , designed to impose the Khrushchev. The ousting of Khrushchev views of Trofim D. Lysenko (1898 – 1976) in 1964 marked the end of the open on the biology and agricultural scientists propaganda of Lysenkoism. of the country. The views of Lysenko were bizarre and pseudoscientific. However, they Lysenkoism were in agreement with the existent The views of Lysenko and the efforts interpretation of the philosophy of Marx to enforce them are known as Lysenkoism. and Lenin. Because of this for Lysenko It should be noted that in Russian and it was fairly easy to win the support of in Bulgarian often a distinction is made the authorities. In spite of the attitude of between “lysenkovizm” – the views of the Party, the teachings of Lysenko faced Lysenko, and “lysenkovshtina” – the strong criticism, notably by the world- open and crude bureaucratic imposition famous and botanist Nikolai of his unscientific views on genetics and Vavilov (1887 – 1943). A detailed . account of events related to Lysenkoism Lysenko’s views were publicly in the USSR are found in the book of backed up by the leaders of the country Valery Soyfer (1993, 1994).

*Corresponding author: [email protected] Lysenkoism in Bulgaria 95

Lysenko`s views and their and imprisoned as reactionary elements, implementation some never came out alive (as happened The principal concepts of Lysenko to ). In the universities may be summarized as follows. He and the agricultural centers the vacant believed that features acquired during positions were promptly occupied by the lifetime of an are inherited ardent supporters of the “progressive” (neo-); he rejected the ideas of Lysenko and Michurin. very idea of “” as discrete units of inheritance and their localization in The August 1948 Session of ; he rejected the laws of VASKhNIL Mendel; he disagreed with Darwin on The stronghold of Lysenko and his such important topics as the survival backers, such as I. I. Prezent, his principal of the fittest and . ideologist, was VASKhNIL, the Lenin All- Lysenko pronounced himself a follower Union Academy of Agricultural Sciences of Michurin (1855 – 1935). Michurin (in Russian: Vsesoyuznaia Akademia himself was a practitioner, renowned Selskohozyastvenih Nauk imeni Lenina). for his work on selection of fruit The decisive victory over the reactionary trees; Michurin’s work is unrelated scientists, still remaining in the Soviet to Lysenkoism. Later on, Lysenko Union, took place at the “August session proclaimed his teachings to be “creative of VASKhNIL” (July 31 – August 7, Darwinism”. 1948). This session was organized under Lysenko’s statements, widely the direct control of the Communist publicized in journals and newspapers, party; personally corrected were declared unquestionably true the draft of Lysenko’s opening statement. and utterly progressive, an example to At the 1948 VASKhNIL Session be followed by all. Moreover, Soviet the supporters of Mendelian genetics science was proclaimed to be socialist, confessed their mistakes. Decisions were materialistic, different and superior to taken to root out research and teaching the capitalist Western science, which of classical genetics. Normal work in the relied upon reactionary, idealistic related fields of , developmental ideas. Based on the ideology of Marx, biology, microbiology and virology could Lenin and Stalin, Soviet biology and not be carried out too. The circulation of agricultural sciences were expected some other outlandish theories, such as to produce immediate and spectacular that of Acad. O. B. Lepeshinskaya or that results. More grain, more milk and meat of G. M. Bashian, also contributed to this were supposed to be just around the (see also Edreva, 2015). corner. None of that materialized. One notable aspect of the vicious Changes in biological sciences in the campaign against the “traditional” 1940s and 1950s scientists was that thousands of them It is of interest to mark the trends were fired and lost their jobs. Many of in the investigation of and in them were forced to change the field of agricultural sciences during the period their research. Others were sentenced of Lysenkoism. The discovery of Avery,

Genetics & Plant Physiology 2018 vol. 8(1–2) 96 Karagyozov and Ananiev

MacLeod and McCarty, published Because of that, the declarations and in 1944, showing that DNA carried decisions of the Congress were entirely hereditary information was not even in accordance with Lysenkoism. The mentioned at the VASKhNIL session. main speaker on the subject was Valko It is hard to imagine what the loyal Chervenkov, a staunch Stalinist, head of Lysenkoists thought of “the double helix” the Committee for Science and Culture of Watson and Crick (1953). (in Bulgarian: Komitet za hauka i kultura, More importantly, at that same abbreviated KNIK). period Norman Borlaug was feverishly Here is what Chervenkov said working in his research station in (Supplement 1, p. 37 – 38): Mexico, developing varieties, “Our biological science, and the which became the basis for the Green related institutes, are obliged, in a revolution. N. Borlaug received a Nobel short period of time, to decisively price; the Green revolution bypassed the cleanse themselves from the Soviet Union and the . morganistic and other reactionary views, to stand unreservedly on Division of Europe Michurin-Lysenko positions, and to After the Second Word War (1939 start work with the greatest to – 1945) geopolitical changes took place implement… the Michurin-Lysenko in Europe. Prior to that, the ideological science in Bulgaria. discussions in the Soviet Union had a We will not solve the task of minor influence on Bulgarian science. reconstructing science, putting it However, history placed Bulgaria, and entirely in the service of the people some other European countries, under and its socialist cause, if we do Soviet domination. In 1946, one year not transform the old system of after the war, Winston Churchill noted secondary and higher education with anguish that “an iron curtain” has in our country, the pedagogical descended across Europe. Behind it, institutes, the Academy of Sciences from Warsaw to Sofia, the countries and the research institutes. “ were subjected and put under increasing These words spelled hard times control from Moscow (Crampton, 2005). for education, for Mendelian genetics, selection practices and agronomy in The Fifth Congress of the Bulgarian Bulgaria. Worker`s Party (communists) A major development in the Bulgarian The 1949 Biological Conference. political life was the Fifth Congress of Preparation the Communist party, which was held A climate of suspicion of anything in December 1948. Discussions on the that may be “bourgeois”, “reactionary” importance the historic Fifth Congress or “Anglo-American” was prevailing. are beyond the scope of this article. The VAShNIL session and the decisions It was significant, however, that of the Fifth Congress guided the the Bulgarian Congress was held after authorities. A replica of the Soviet witch- the 1948 August Session of VAShNIL. hunt of 1948 was promptly staged. The

Genetics & Plant Physiology 2018 vol. 8(1–2) Lysenkoism in Bulgaria 97 preparations took just few weeks. The also in our research institutes; important institutional figures were high this influenced their research and ranking members of the Communist practical work. Otherwise it could apparatus. One of them was Todor Pavlov, not be, as our first scientists and President of the Bulgarian Academy of specialists have received education Sciences, a philosopher. The other one and special training in universities was Titko Chernokolev, deputy minister and research institutes in Western of Agriculture, advocate of fast and Europe and America, where this complete collectivization in Soviet style. doctrine flourished and developed most. Moreover, our University has The 1949 Biological Conference. even won world renown with its Proceedings and -morganists”. The Conference about “The Situation Moreover, the Bulgarian of of the Biological Science …” took place 1949 were already very much aware about in Sofia, th4 to 8th of April 1949 (Fig. 1). the role of DNA in heredity. However, More than five hundred participants - describing and interpreting the Avery academicians, professors, agronomists, experiments, they followed the Party researchers and practical workers - took line. The speaker (E. Ianev) was scornful part. An important event happened a few (Supplement 1, p. 294): days just before the Conference. On the “In other words, the genes in the form 27th of March 1949 Traicho Kostov, of deoxyribonucleic acid are already a leading Bulgarian Communist, was kept locked in a glass. The “doings” accused of political mistakes and anti- went thus far!” Soviet leanings (by the end of the year In spite of their background and he was hanged as an Anglo-American knowledge as specialists, speaker after agent). The message was clear: no speaker declared their devotion to the one is protected. All scientists at the teaching of Michurin-Lysenko, praised Conference confessed mistakes and gave the fabulous achievements of the Soviet promises strictly to follow the teachings science and agriculture and promised to of Lysenko and Michurin. fight the reactionary, idealistic concepts A remarkable feature of the of Mendel-Weismann and Morgan to the Conference of April 1949 was that all very end. participants with biological education One disturbing feature in the had been followers of classical genetics. Conference was that some speakers (e.g. That includes the main speaker at the D. Boykov, Supplement p. 412 – 423) Conference Prof. Christo Daskalov. accused others of not being sincere enough Some participants were not very in their self-incrimination or in smearing cautious and admitted frankly (Supplement genetics. 1, p. 130): “Undoubtedly, the Weismannism- The fate of the leading Bulgarian Morganism, which dominated geneticists biology in the capitalist countries, Dontcho Kostoff (1897 – 1949) became a commonplace theory was (and still is) the most prominent

Genetics & Plant Physiology 2018 vol. 8(1–2) 98 Karagyozov and Ananiev

Figure 1. Title page of the Proceedings of the April Biological Conference (1949).

Bulgarian geneticist. His principal papers returned to Bulgaria. He never accepted were published in renowned international Lysenkoism. At the time of the April journals and were cited many times by Conference in 1949 Kostoff was already leading experts. He had leftist ideas and gravely ill. He wrote a letter to the illusions and went to the Soviet Union Conference, the organizers did not like it to work with Nikolai Vavilov for several and published a falsified version. Dontcho years (1932 – 1939). Vavilov was the Kostoff died of a heart attack on the 9th arch-rival of Trofim Lysenko. However, of August 1949, age 52 (Azmanov, 1984. Vavilov fell out of favor, and Kostoff 1988; Edreva, 2013, 2015; Tsikov, 1997).

Genetics & Plant Physiology 2018 vol. 8(1–2) Lysenkoism in Bulgaria 99

Figure 2. Title page of the “Genetics” by Michail Christoff (1936).

Michail Christoff (1896 – 1960) Christoff terminated his work in genetics wrote the first textbook in Bulgaria in and destroyed his seed collection (G. Genetics (Fig. 2). He answered most Georgiev, 1991; Rukmanski, 2011). briefly and to the point to the criticism Gentcho Gentchev (1906 – 1989) at the Conference (Supplement 1, pp. was severely criticized at the April 151 – 155). He “hoped to be able to Conference. Later on he attempted to master the ”; he find philosophical arguments in support promised to correct the “mistakes” in of Mendelism (Edreva, 2015; Spirova, his textbook in Botany. After 1949 Prof. 2016; Rukmanski, 2011).

Genetics & Plant Physiology 2018 vol. 8(1–2) 100 Karagyozov and Ananiev

Lysenkoism in other countries in which no scientific knowledge about Lysenkoism was also introduced in genetics, cytogenetics, evolutionary the other countries of Eastern Europe genetics or developmental biology was and in China. However, its acceptance given. That destroyed for long time the was not uniform. In Poland, and in basis for meaningful selection work in Czechoslovakia only single scientist agriculture, research in human genetics opposed openly the “Michurin biology”, and diagnostics of hereditary diseases while all others followed the Party (Edreva, 2015). line (Gajewski. 1990; Orel, 1992; All research and pedagogical staff deJong-Lambert, 2012). In the German was educated in the ideas of Michurin- Democratic Republic opposition to the Lysenko, making use also of long-term “creative Darwinism” was strong. The training of young loyal specialists in impact on science was minimal, partly the Soviet Union. This compromised due to the open border between the two the entire educational system for long parts of Berlin, and the cooperation years, hence the low biological literacy between the scientific institutions. in Bulgaria to this day. Nevertheless Lysenkoism was present as Another important aspect of the 1949 text in schoolbooks (Hagemann, 2002). reforms was the decline in scientific In China Lysenkoism was prevailing. ethics. Papers reported experiments However, during the short-lived which were not properly performed campaign “Let hundred flowers blossom, but suited progressive ideas (or simply let hundred schools of thought compete” the ideas of the higher authorities). in a genetics symposium (held in August Moral principles are hard to cultivate 1956), arguments in favor of Mendel and in a climate of political or bureaucratic Morgan were allowed (Li, 1987). pressure on science.

Consequences and repercussions The return to normalcy In 1949 the mass media was The first systemic criticism of presenting the April Conference as Lysenkoism in Bulgaria appeared in 1966 a scientific triumph. The public was when Prof. Gencho Gentchev published enthusiastic and expected great results his “Contemporary problems…” As in agronomy and in science. Liberated to our knowledge, no further detailed from the reactionary bourgeois ideology, criticism of the teachings of Lysenko guided by the progressive Soviet appeared in Bulgarian. The development example, great achievements were of science destroyed the very foundation around the corner (as remembered by G. of the principal Lysenko ideas. Georgiev, 1991). An important event in that respect The things which happened, was the publication by Prof. Asen A. however, were quite different. Hadjiolov (1972) of a short textbook on In accordance with the Resolutions molecular genetics. This book, first on of the April Conference (Supplement the subject, was written in accordance 1, p. 458) all school and University with the high standards of educational textbooks were replaced with new ones, texts, set by M. Christoff (1936).

Genetics & Plant Physiology 2018 vol. 8(1–2) Lysenkoism in Bulgaria 101

Attempts to rehabilitate Lysenkoism in – 8 April 1949 Biological Conference in Russia Sofia. One of the authors (L. K.) is grateful The Lysenkoist propaganda stopped to Prof. A. V. Troitsky (MSU, Moscow, in the mid-1960s. Since that time it was Russia) for attracting his attention to the believed that Lysenko, with his obsolete instances of neo-Lysenkoism. neo-Lamarkism and refusal to accept the existence of genes, has been forgotten for References good. However, recently in some none- April Conference of the Bulgarian peer-reviewed publications and in blogs Academy of Sciences, 1949. “The a new tune is heard: Lysenko was a great situation of the biological science agronomist; he did a lot for his country; in Bulgaria in view of Michurin`s the ill-wishers of Russia were plotting to teaching. Proceedings of the undermine his visions, etc. Biological Conference, 4–8 April It should be pointed out that the 1949, Sofia)”. Publishing House of unscientific ideas of Lysenko were not the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, based on facts or proper experiments but Sofia, pp 446 (In Bulgarian. Full text: rather on the doctrines of Marx-Lenin- Supplement 1 in the Elecronic version Stalin. In essence, Lysenkoism is an only). ideological phenomenon, a theoretical Avery OT, CM MacLeod and M McCarty, construction. 1944. Studies on the chemical Similarly, the present day neo- nature of the substance inducing Lysenkoism in Russia is not a result of transformation of pneumococcal scientific discoveries or discussions; it types: induction of transformation is a sociological event. Neo-Lysenkoism by a desoxyribonucleic acid fraction may not be explained by a single factor isolated from pneumococcus type III. or attributed to some unheard discoveries Journal of experimental medicine, 79: in biology. According to Kolchinsky et al., 137–158. (2017) several causes contribute to neo- August Session of VASKhNIL, 1948. Lysenkoism. These include: the general “About the Situation in the Biological decline in scientific literacy in Russia; Science. A shorthand report of the the rise of anti-science sentiments; the session of the Lenin All-Union surge of popularity of Stalin; the notion Academy of Agricultural Sciences” of Russia’s uniqueness among nations and (31st July – 7th August 1948), 1948, its imperial strength. Moscow, pp. 536 (in Russian; for full Neo-Lysenkoism has been recently text, visit http://lib.ru/DIALEKTIKA/ criticized in details in papers, e.g. washniil.txt). Ermolaev, 2015, and in the electronic Azmanov I, Academician Dontcho Kostoff media (Lysenko: genius or villain, 2016). – Life, Activities, Ideas (presence in history: 1924 – 1949). Bulgarian Acknowledgements Academy of Sciences, Blagoevgrad- The authors are obliged to Mr. Sofia (1972 – 1984), doctoral thesis, Latchezar Toshev for generously providing 417 typewritten pages (in Bulgarian). the full text of the Proceedings of the 4 Azmanov I, 1988. Bulgarian geneticist

Genetics & Plant Physiology 2018 vol. 8(1–2) 102 Karagyozov and Ananiev

recognized at last. Nature, 336, 423. disciplinary research, 1: 264–271 (in Georgiev G, 1991. Information Calendar: Russian) http://vir.nw.ru/books/vav_ Prof. Michail Christoff (in Bulgarian). seminar_06_10_2015/03.pdf Biotechnology & Biotechnological Gajewski W, 1990. Lysenkoism in Poland. Equipment, 5: 57–60. https://www. The Quarterly Review of Biology. 65: tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/131 423–434. 02818.1991.10819403 Kolchinsky EI, U Kutschera, U Hossfeld Crampton RJ, 2005. A Concise History and GS Levit, 2017. Russia’s new of Bulgaria, pp. 312. Cambridge Lysenkoism. Current Biology, 27: University Press, 2nd Ed. (Bulgarian R1042–R1047. translation, Sofia, 1994, pp. 368). Li CC, 1987. Lysenkoism in China. Gentcheff G, Contemporary Problems of Journal of Heredity. 78: 339–340. Genetics. Zemizdat, Sofia, 1966, pp. Lysenko: genius or villain, TV-Kultura_ 296 (in Bulgarian). Ru. 2016. http://tvkultura.ru/video/ Christoff M, 1936. Genetics. University show/brand_id/21985/episode_ library, No 172, Royal Printing house, id/1284482/ Sofia, pp. 401 (in Bulgarian). Orel V, 1992. Jaroslav Kříženecký (1896- deJong-Lambert W, 2012. Lysenkoism 1964), Tragic Victim of Lysenkoism in Poland. Journal of the History of in Czechoslovakia. Quarterly Review Biology, 45: 499–524. of Biology. 67: 487–494. Hadjiolov AA, 1972. Molecular Genetics. Rukmanski G, 2007. The Geneticist Acad. Nauka i Izkustvo, Sofia, pp. 203 (in Dontcho Kostoff. IK “Ecoprogress”, Bulgarian). Sofia, pp. 76 (In Bulgarian). Hagemann R, 2002. How did East German Rukmanski G, 2011. A Short avoid Lysenkoism? Trends in Genetics, Avangard Prima, Sofia, pp. Genetics. 18: 320–324. 196 (In Bulgarian). Edreva A, 2013. The destroying of an Soyfer VN, 1993. Power and Science. eminent geneticist: Dontcho Kostoff Lazur, Moscow, pp 706. (In Russian). and the Biological Conference in Soyfer VN, 1994. Lysenko and the Tragedy Bulgaria, 1949. Studies in the History of Soviet Science. New Brunswick, of Biology, 5: 54–62. NJ: Rutgers Univ. Press. Edreva A, 2015. The triumph of Spirova M., 2016. 110 Years since the Lysenkoism in Bulgaria: The birth of Professor Gencho Genchev Biological Conference (Sofia, 4–8 (02 September 1906 – 25 November April, 1949). Genetics and Plant 1989). Genetics and Plant Physiology, Physiology, 5: 188–198. 6: 195–200. Ermolaev AI, 2015. A distorted mirror Tsikov D. 1997. Dontcho Kostoff. or how the attempt to paint a portrait Scientific Work and Heritage. of T. D. Lysenko failed. Political Sofia: Diagnosis Press, pp. 24. (in conceptology: journal for meta- Bulgarian).

Supplement 1. Proceedings of the April Biological Conference 1949 (in Bulgarian). The full text (pdf) is avaliable online: http://www.bio21.bas.bg/ippg/bg/?page_id=8862

Genetics & Plant Physiology 2018 vol. 8(1–2)