Lysenko Affair and Polish Botany

View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE

provided by Jagiellonian Univeristy Repository

Journal of the History of Biology (2011) 44:305–343 Springer 2010 DOI 10.1007/s10739-010-9238-4

Lysenko Aﬀair and Polish Botany

PIOTR KO¨HLER, Institute of Botany The Jagiellonian University Cracow Poland E-mail: [email protected]

Abstract. This article describes the slight impact of Lysenkoism upon Polish botany. I begin with an account of the development of plant genetics in Poland, as well as the attitude of scientists and the Polish intelligentsia toward Marxist philosophy prior to the World War II. Next I provide a short history of the introduction and demise of Lysenkoism in Polish science, with a focus on events in botany, in context with key events in Polish science from 1939 to 1958. The article outlines the little effects of Lysenkoism upon botanists and their research, as well as how botanists for the most part rejected what was often termed the ‘‘new biology.’’ My paper shows that though Lysenko’s theories received political support, and were actively promoted by a small circle of scientists and Communist party activists, they were never accepted by most botanists. Once the political climate in Poland altered after the events of 1956, Lysenko’s theories were immediately abandoned.

Keywords: Lysenkoism, botany, Poland, ideology and science, Cold War

Among the most striking reforms initiated by the Communist government in Poland (PZPR) after World War II was banning Mendelian genetics.1 On March 30, 1949, a meeting was held in Warsaw, organized by the Association of Marxist Naturalists at the editors of Nowe Drogi [New Ways]. At the conference the director of the Nencki Institute of Experimental Biology, and chair of Experimental Biology at University of Ło´dz, Jan Dembowski (1889–1963), delivered a lecture before 400 participants. In his lecture Dembowski presented Lysenko’s theory as an important, new revolutionary direction in biological science. The motions discussed at the session indicated how postwar politics would

1 (PZPR) Polska Zjednoczona Partia Robotnicza – Polish United Workers Party. Until December, 1948 the Polish communist party was the Polska Partia Robotnicza (PPR) – Polish Workers Party. 306 PIOTR KO¨HLER have a fundamental impact on Polish biology. First, efforts to popu- larize Lysenkoism should proceed, accompanied by the translation of literature currently available in the Soviet Union; second, Lysenko’s theories would provide the content for the education and training of biologists at schools, agricultural colleges, and universities (Dembowski, 1949, p. 166; Michajłow, 1949, p. 125). The meeting was relatively brief, considering that it was modeled on a week-long session of the Lenin All- Union Academy of Agricultural Sciences (VASKhNIL) held 8 months before in Moscow (numerous works have been published on Lysenko, including Adams, 1972; Graham, 1972; Huxley, 1949; Joravsky, 1970; Krementsov, 1997; Lecourt, 1977; Medvedev, 1971; Roll-Hansen, 2006; Soyfer, 1994; Zirkle, 1949). The VASKhNIL conference had concluded with a round of ‘‘self-criticism’’ by prominent Soviet geneticists ([anonym], 1949, pp. 618–624). In Poland, on the other hand, only one participant asked whether there might be any possibility of reconcilia- tion between the ‘‘new biology’’ and genetics.2 Dembowski responded that, ‘‘compromise would not enable us to achieve our goals,’’ making it clear that Lysenko’s doctrine would be the only acceptable approach to research in Polish biological science. The session ended with a statement by the director of the Science Department at the Ministry of Education, Włodzimierz Michajłow (1905–1994), that ‘‘the Polish government offers its full support towards research in the ‘new biology’’’ (Dembowski, 1949, p. 166). The Warsaw meeting was part of a larger process of ‘‘Stalinization’’ – including industrialization and collectivization of agriculture – which took place in the so-called ‘‘little democracies’’ in Eastern and Central Europe in the early years of the Cold War (for an excellent comparative study of this process see Rothschild and Wingfield, 2000, pp. 76–123). A com- pilation of the proceedings of the VASKhNIL session was soon translated into Polish, which by 1953 had run into five editions (Łysenko, 1949). Meanwhile, numerous books and papers by Soviet theoreticians of Lysenkoism were also translated and published.3 Until recently, there were very few historical accounts of Lysenkoism outside of the Soviet Union. In recent years, however, a number of books, articles and dissertations have appeared, chronicling political side of Lysenko’s impact upon biological science in worldwide. How- ever, the controversy also had a scientific side, which has not raised greater interest so far. This article focuses on Polish botany in order to

2 Other terms frequently used to refer to Lysenko’s theories were ‘‘Michurinism’’ and ‘‘Creative Darwinism.’’ 3 The vast majority of these materials appeared in 1950. LYSENKO AFFAIR AND POLISH BOTANY 307 provide a detailed analysis of how Lysenkoism impacted a specific area of biological science, as well as how one community among the wider network of biologists responded. As my study demonstrates, some Polish botanists, for reasons as fear, opportunism, or perhaps sincere belief, supported Lysenko’s Michurinist doctrine. For the most part, however, botanists were able to defend their discipline through a variety of strategies. These included attaching obligatory references to requisite authorities to research which was otherwise absent evidence of Lysenkoist influence, as well as the more risky response of open refusal to conform. Examples, of the latter are, understandably, extremely rare.4 I have chosen to limit my discussion to botany for a variety of reasons. First, Lysenko himself was a botanist–agrobiologist. Thus, it is particularly useful to consider how Polish botanists received Lysenko’s ideas, why they conformed to the dictates of the ‘‘new biology,’’ and the reasons they ultimately abandoned it. Second, since I am a botanist and historian of botany, I am particularly well-qualified to investigate this field. My hope is that this study will inspire historians to investigate the impact of Lysenkoism upon specific areas of biological science, as well as medicine and agricultural.

Genetics of Plants in Poland Before World War II

Lysenko’s work was not initially interpreted as being opposed to current theories of evolution, or current research in agricultural biology. In fact, Lysenko’s publications received positive reviews in many professional journals in the U.S. during the early 1930s (Roll-Hansen, 2006, Chap- ter 5 and 6). However, the synthesis of genetics and Darwin’s theory of natural selection, had deﬁnitively replaced the Lamarckian theory of heredity by the early 1940s. Therefore, the outcome of the VASKhNIL conference was seen by many biologists outside the Soviet Union as

4 Wacław Gajewski, as I will describe below, is one of the few biologists who was able to get away with this which is primarily due to the reputation and esteem he commanded among his colleagues. Other botanists who also would have had the authority to openly defy Lysenkoism, such as Władysław Szafer, chose not to. It is also important to recognize that there does not seem to have been much sympathy for Gajewski’s opinion among the up-and-coming generation of Polish biologists. For example, in an article describing her experiences as a biology student in Poland during the time period, Aleksandra Putrament remembered someone pointing Gajewski out to her as an opponent of the new biology. As she writes: ‘‘Characteristically for the time, I never thought that he ought to be allowed to present his point of view.’’ Putrament, 1990, p. 440. 308 PIOTR KO¨HLER either evidence of the deleterious influence of Marxism upon science in the USSR, or a disturbing example of state interference in scientific research. The adoption of Lysenkoism in Polish biology must be understood in terms of the broader history of genetics in Polish biology, as well as Poland’s political situation following the end of World War II. The earliest Polish genetic research on plants was conducted by Edward Janczewski (1846–1918), a professor at the Jagiellonian University in Cracow.5 From 1888 to 1893 Janczewski used crossing methods to obtain a new fertile species of Anemone. In his studies on the heredity of characters in hybrids he obtained results similar to those of Gregor Johann Mendel (1822–1884), however he did not generalize his observations into principles, and his paper (1898) did not become part of world literature (Ko¨hler, 2002, pp. 275–277 and 288; Skalin´ska 1928, p. 41). The research into hybrids in Anemone was also taken up by Kazimierz Miczyn´ski (1868–1918), a pupil of E. Janczewski’s.6 Miczyn´ski continued Janczewski’s research on Anemone crossings, studied their anatomy, and examined how crossing influenced their internal structure. The most outstanding figure in Polish plant genetics during the interwar period was Edmund Malinowski (1885–1979).7 Malinowski was a pupil of Erich von Tschermak–Seysenegg (1871–1962), one of three biologists who rediscovered Mendel’s work on genetics in 1900. From 1916 to 1919, Malinowski organized and directed the Genetic Station of the Warsaw Horticultural Society [Stacja Genetyczna

5 Edward Janczewski studied at universities in St. Petersburg, Russia and Halle, Germany. In 1875 he was nominated professor of plant anatomy and morphology at the Jagiellonian University in Cracow, and helped found the Agricultural Faculty at the university. His research concerned nearly all branches of botany, and one of his most important works was Monographie des Groseilliers. Ribes L. (Janczewski, 1907). For more information on him see Majewski, 2000. 6 Kazimierz Miczyn´ski studied at universities in Cracow and Lwo´w [then: Lwo´w/ Lemberg, capital of Galicia province, Austria–Hungary; now: L’viv, Ukraine]. He was a professor at the Agricultural Academy in Dublany near Lwo´w. For a few years he was a member of the Scientiﬁc Council of the Ministry of Agriculture in Austria–Hungary. He published about 100 papers on pedology, genetics and stock rearing. For further information see Gurski, 1930. 7 Edmund Malinowski graduated from Geneva University, Switzerland, and in 1920 became a professor at the Main School of Agriculture in Warsaw, and head of the (ﬁrst in Poland) Department of Genetics and Cultivation of Plants in Skierniewice. Mali- nowski was an active member of the Polish Academy of Sciences and Letters, and a członek rzeczywisty (full member) of the Polish Academy of Sciences. For further information see Barbacki, 1960a, b; Niemirowicz-Szczytt, 1996, p. 72. LYSENKO AFFAIR AND POLISH BOTANY 309

Towarzystwa Ogrodniczego Warszawskiego] in Mory near Warsaw – one of the first institutions in Poland to focus on theoretical genetics. Malinowski made great achievements researching the genetics of cereals and other cultivated plants, the heredity of dioeciousness, and the phenomenon of heterosis (Krzanowska, 2001, pp. 293–303; Skalin´ska, 1928, p. 44). He was also the author of one of the first Polish manuals on genetics (Malinowski, 1927). Cytogenetics was developed in Poland by Maria Skalin´ska (1890– 1977).8 During the interwar period Skalin´ska published numerous papers on cytogenetics of species of Aquilegia – their hybrids and experimental polyploids – and also wrote a manual on genetics (Skalin´ska, 1939). Skalin´ska’s research also attracted attention outside of Poland, enabling her to establish contacts in the international scientific community. She participated in the V International Congress of Genetics in Berlin, Ger- many (1927), as well as the VI Congress in Ithaca, USA (1932).9 The latter meeting was particularly important in terms of the history of Lysenkoism, because it marks the first time Lysenko’s work was described to many biologists, as well as the last time renowned Russian geneticist Nikolai Vavilov would ever travel to the United States. At PoznanÚniversity work on plant genetics was taken up by a pupil of K. Miczyn´ski’s, Konstanty Moldenhawer (1889–1962).10 Moldenhawer focused his attention on the intergenera hybrids Raphanus 9 Brassica, Secale 9 Aegilops, and those within the genera Brassica and Triticum. Moldenhawer is considered, along with Malinowski and Skalin´ska, among the founders of Polish genetics. Unfortunately, by the end of the 1940s, he would also become one of the most prominent adherents to the Lysenkoist doctrine.

8 Maria Skalin´ska after studies and doctorate in Bern (Switzerland) worked at the Genetic Station of the Warsaw Horticultural Society [Stacja Genetyczna Towarzystwa Ogrodniczego Warszawskiego] in Mory near Warsaw. In 1924 she received her habilitation, with a specialization in genetics, from the Jagiellonian University. From 1924 to 1939 she was a professor and director of the Chair of Genetics at Free Polish University [Wolna Wszechnica Polska]. From 1932 on she lectured on genetics at the Jagiellonian University. For more information on her see Jankun, 1991. 9 The VII international congress, scheduled for Moscow, was cancelled in 1936, for reasons related to the growing influence of Trofim D. Lysenko. For a comprehensive account of international genetics congresses during the interwar period see Krementsov, 2005. 10 Konstanty Moldenhawer graduated from the Univeristy of Breslau [then: German Empire], and began working at the University of Poznanáfter World War I. For further information see [anonym], 1958, pp. 719–720; K. St., 1987, p. 379. 310 PIOTR KO¨HLER

Despite the important work conducted by geneticists such as Malinowski, Skalin´ska and Moldenhawer, lectures on genetics were sporadic at Polish universities throughout the 1920s. Knowledge of genetics was added to the requirements for receipt of a Masters degree in 1926, but it was just one of seven subjects botany students could choose to be tested on in their qualifying examinations (Dybiec, 2000, pp. 265–266; Rozporza˛dzenie Ministra, 1926, pp. 154–156). Nevertheless, thanks to these regulations, courses in genetics were available at Polish universities by the early 1930s. Though Polish botanists were aware of Mendelian genetics during the interwar period, they do not seem to have taken much interest in applying it in their work. Polish genetics was not nearly as advanced as in neighboring Germany or the USSR (Krzanowska, 2001, p. 294). Genetics did, however, attract great interest in university agricultural departments as a tool which could be usefully applied to the cultivation of plants, as well as animal breeding. Genetic research was conducted on several varieties of cereals, root plants, leguminous plants, industrial plants and healing plants, and a number of new, valuable varieties were obtained (Brzozowski, 1983, p. 535). Despite some discussion on the nature of vegetative hybridization, there is absolutely no mention of Lysenkoist techniques in Polish botany prior to World War II (e.g., Karasiewicz, 1924, pp. 227–232). By 1932, however, critical points of view had emerged (Woýcicki, 1932, pp. 54–60). In 1928 a short article on the apparent adaptation of plants to their environment was published, however it presented conclusions which directly contradicted the types of claims Lysenko would advertise 20 years later (Szymkiewicz, 1928, p. 56). The article also made no reference to Lysenko as a researcher in this field. In fact, Lysenko’s name is completely absent from the scientific literature in botany during this period, and though Michurin was known, he was referred to simply as a fruit farmer (D. S., 1935; Dzikowski, 1935). In some other countries Lysenkoism had already been known, e.g. in Japan, since the late 1930s (Saito, 2009, p. 186). Just as Lysenko and Michurin were virtually unknown in Poland prior to World War II, there was also little significant support for Marxist socialist philosophy.11 The Polish Communist Party [Komunistyczna Partia Polski – KPP], sponsored by the Comintern, attracted few followers. Because its primary goal was the incorporation

11 For further information on the reception to Marxism among Polish intellectuals during the interwar period see Shore, 2006, particluarly Chapters 1–4 (pp. 10–89). LYSENKO AFFAIR AND POLISH BOTANY 311 of Poland into the Soviet Union, the Party was outlawed.12 KPP activists who competed for seats in the Polish parliament as members of other political parties only polled about 4% of the vote (Reguła, 1994, pp. 221–222). This ﬁgure probably reﬂects the level of support for Marxism in Poland – even among members of the left-wing intelligentsia – before World War II. The Comintern dissolved the KPP in 1938, and the Polish Communists who remained in the Soviet Union were imprisoned and/or executed (Bernacki et al., 2007, pp. 80–172). Scientists were primarily apolitical, and few joined the Communist movement. Many believed science could, and should be, apolitical. They mostly sympathized with the national democratic block, and only reluctantly accepted the triumph of Jo´zef Piłsudski’s radical right Sanacja regime in 1926.13

The Situation of Science in Poland: 1939–1958

Just as the authority of the PPR/PZPR in Polish post-war politics was not due to the popularity of Marxist socialism, the adoption of Lys- enko’s theories by certain biologists after 1948 were not related to developments in Polish science. It is possible to identify four major points along a timeline charting the ‘‘rise and fall’’ of Polish Lysenko- ism. First, the impact of the World War II upon Polish science and academia, as well as the reaction of the Polish intelligentsia to the establishment of the Communist regime once the war was over. Second, the development of the Stalinist system (1948–1953), followed by (third) the Thaw in Polish science and culture (1953–1956). Finally, the reaction to Lysenkoism during the early years of Władysław Gomułka

12 Russia, along with Prussia and Austria, was responsible for partitioning Poland at the end of the eighteenth century. Poland and the Soviet Union soon went to war with one another (Polish–Soviet War, 1919–1921) after Poland was restored on the map of the Europe after World War I. 13 Jaczewski, 1992, pp. 314, 315. The Sanacja (from the Latin sanatio – to ‘‘sanatize’’) was a coalition political movement which governed Poland from the uprising in May, 1926 until German–Soviet occupation begun in September 1939. The policies of the Sanacja regime focused on ending corruption in Polish politics and restoring social order. 312 PIOTR KO¨HLER

(1956–1958), which set the tone for how this troubling period in Polish biology would be assessed in the short-term, and in the long-term, forgotten.14 The World War II had a devastating impact upon science and academia in Poland. Universities were shut down and many faculty members were shipped to concentration camps or executed by firing squad.15 The occupation by German and Soviet forces resulted in serious losses of scientific equipment and literature, as the Polish academic community was completely cut off from the outside world.16 Once the war was over there was a severe shortage of science staff, and more advanced students were often employed to deliver lectures. In the postwar years the Communist authorities established new universities in major cities such as Lublin, Ło´dzánd Torun´, and heavy censorship was imposed on every publication, including magazines, books – and even song lyrics. The Polish Academy of Sciences and Letters [Polska Akademia Umieje˛tnosći]17 and the Academic Society of Warsaw [Towarzystwo Naukowe Warszawskie] were forced to rely completely on government funding. These academies had been organized along the same lines as the French Academy, and the Royal Society in Great Britain, however they now became fully dependent upon the state to finance their operations. It soon became clear that neither academy was willing to comply with state directives, so the Communist authorities organized their own (Hu¨bner, 1999, pp. 90, 99, 101, 105, 107).

14 Gomułka was a Polish nationalist who believed in a seperate ‘‘Polish road’’ to communism. Such views became unacceptable after a 1947 meeting in Szklarska Pore˛ba, where the Cominform was founded to direct the activities of communist movements internationally. Gomułka was kicked out of the Polish communist party and imprisoned by the regime of Bolesław Bierut in 1951. Gomułka was released in 1954, and became First Secretary of Central Committee of the Polish United Workers Party after a peaceful transition of power in 1956. During the early period of his rule he undertook numerous reforms such as the decollectivization of agriculture, and improved relations between the Polish government and the Catholic Church. 15 Among the more well-known examples are the Sonderaktion Krakau – the arrest and imprisonment of the Jagiellonian University faculty on November 6, 1939, and execution of faculty of Lwo´w University and Lwo´w Polytechnic, July 3–4, 1941. 16 Aleksandra Putrament describes, on the basis of her own experiences, the state of Polish education after World War II; see: Putrament, 1990, p. 436. 17 The activities of the Polish Academy of Sciences and Letters date back to the formation of the Science Society of Cracow in 1815, when Poland was still partitioned. In 1872, the Cracow Society was renamed the Academy of Sciences and Letters, and in 1919 – the Polish Academy of Sciences and Letters. LYSENKO AFFAIR AND POLISH BOTANY 313

In the spring of 1948, the Association of Marxist Naturalists [Koło Przyrodniko´w-Marksisto´w, and next: Zrzeszenie Przyrodniko´w- Marksisto´w] was organized, and attached to the editorial staff of New Ways. Among the main tasks of the Association was to struggle against ‘‘the penetration of the capitalist reactionary ideas in natural history by adhering to the achievements of the leading progressive Soviet science’’ (S´wia˛tkowska, 1955, p. 41). The Association began by organizing closed-seminars where attendance was limited to members and invited guests. The main objectives of these sessions included defining concepts of natural history according to dialectic materialism, and critically evaluating research activities from the perspective of Marxist philosophy. At the end of 1948, the Association embarked upon the propaganda of Lysenkoism as the embodiment of the theory of dialectical materialism in biology. Next, the Association organized open sessions, which included lectures on the ‘‘new biology’’ being developed by Lysenko in the Soviet Union, a topic which (they claimed) was beginning to attract particular interest. Many of the most important figures in Polish science and academia were invited to these meetings (Michajłow and Petrusewicz, 1954a, p. 716). During this period the Communist government also began reorga- nizing the structure of higher education, including scientific research within the universities. These alterations included dissolving old faculties and creating new ones. Agriculture departments were transformed into higher schools of agriculture, medical faculties were transformed into medical academies, and theological faculties were liquidated. Contacts with Western science were not resumed, only a few copies of select pieces of scientific literature were allowed,18 and only scientists trusted by the Communist authorities were permitted to travel to the West to participate in international congresses (Szafer, 1957, p. 61; see also a statement by Aleksandra Putrament at a council organized by the editorial staff of the journal ‘‘Po prostu’’ on 17 April 1956 in [anonym], 1957, pp. 137–138). At the same time, Poland received abundant copies of translations of Soviet publications – often of an embarrassingly low standard (statement by Teodor Neuman at a council organized by the editorial staff of the journal ‘‘Po prostu’’ on 17 April 1956 in [anonym], 1957, pp. 43–44) – accompanied by propaganda magnifying Soviet scientific achievements. After the VASKhNIL session, Lysenkoism was

18 For the number of foreign institutions with which the Polish Academy of Sciences and Letters was in contact before and after World War II see Ko¨hler, 2002, pp. 185–189. 314 PIOTR KO¨HLER presented as a theory which had already been verified by practice, and was producing tremendous results in Soviet agriculture. By this time all the features of Stalinism were in place. The Red Army troops occupying Poland at the end of the war had been transformed into the so-called Northern Forces Group, consisting of ca. 300,000 soldiers.19 The establishment of the Polish socialist system was characterized by an atmosphere of intimidation and uncertainty, pre- ventive censorship, limited freedom, political show trials, propaganda, denunciations, and an omnipotent apparatus of constraint. The latter included the establishment of Urza˛d Bezpieczen´stwa [Security Service], modeled on the Soviet NKVD (compare e.g. Dybiec, 2001, and the discussion after the lecture, pp. 20–33; Salmanowicz, 2006, and the discussion after the lecture, pp. 95–104. The atmosphere at Polish universities and other higher educational institutions in those times is mentioned also by a zoologist; see Brze˛k, 1992, pp. 377, 383–386). One scientist later used the term ‘‘manual control’’ to describe degree of state authority over scientific research during this period (Chałasin´ski, 1957 pp. 9, 10; Petrusewicz and Michajłow, 1955a, p. 16; 1955b, pp. 737, 740. ‘‘Manual control’’ over science was also mentioned at the council organized by the editorial staff of the journal ‘‘Po prostu’’ on 17 April 1956: [anonym], 1957, pp. 9, 42, 68, 97), and the sense of fear among academics is conveyed by a member of the Polish Academy of Sciences, who recounted that, ‘‘the terror of the Security Service and lawlessness ruled the state. The rector of the university disappeared from the university for several months and came back broken down’’ ([anonym], 1956, p. 79 – statement by Jo´zef Chałasin´ski). It is obvious why, under these circumstances, few Polish botanists objected to Lysenko’s theories. Thought the PZPR never enjoyed popular support, members of the Polish intelligentsia proved particularly resistent to the new regime.20 Only a small faction were Party members, and most supported the Polish government in exile – the so-called ‘‘London Poles’’ (Zarnowski,_ 1992, p. 33; Salmanowicz, 2006, pp. 3–84). The overall attitude of the Polish population towards the situation immediately after the war has been described as a ‘‘passive lack of enthusiasm,’’ though acceptance of the new system undoubtedly increased over time (Salmanowicz, 2006, p. 88). There were few authentic Communists, however the government

19 The last troops of the Soviet Army left Poland in 1993. 20 In Captive University: The Sovietization of East German, Czech and Polish Higher Education, 1945–1956 Connelly (2000) provides a detailed account of the relationship between the Polish academic community and the PZPR. LYSENKO AFFAIR AND POLISH BOTANY 315 did gain support among rural youth and members of the working class. The Communists were also supported by a radical rural intelligentsia, and the secular intelligentsia in major cities such as Warsaw, Ło´dzánd Lublin (Salmanowicz, 2006, p. 88). There were also obviously a con- siderable number of opportunists who accepted the new system because they wished to assume managerial posts, or other types of positions reserved for members of the Communist party. The first step in introducing Lysenkoism into the biology curriculum was a session organized on January 26, 1949, by the Association of Marxist Naturalists. The Association submitted a proposal to make Michurinism, along with genetics, part of the syllabus in Polish middle schools and high schools (Michajłow, 1949, p. 20). Five months later the Association organized two summer courses on the ‘‘new biology’’ for teachers to introduce them to the alterations in the biology curriculum (texts of lectures and pronouncements see journal Biologia w Szkole, 2 (4) 1949). At this point, the ‘‘new biology’’ replaced genetics, as lectures in genetics were eliminated at universities and other institutions of higher education. Lysenko’s Polish supporters used two approaches to influence opinion and gain support – media propaganda, and organizing scientific conferences. The former was primarily aimed at a popular audience, while the latter was intended to ensure conformity in the scientific community. After the March 30, 1949 session in Warsaw, described above, four additional major conferences took place over the next 6 years. The Association organized the first session, the Theoretical Conference of Biologists, Agro- biologists and Physicians, on 27 December 1950–13 January 1951 in Kuzńice, a small hamlet near Zakopane in the Tatra Mountains ([anonym], 1951). The conference was intended to summarize the first stage of the development of the ‘‘new biology’’ in Poland, and lay the groundwork for future activities (Petrusewicz and Michajłow, 1951,p.231). The First Congress of Polish Science was held 20 June–2 July 1951, just 6 months after the conference in Kuzńice. The purpose of congress was to reorganize scientific institutions in Poland according to the Soviet model. This model consisted of three sectors – science and research, science and teaching, and science and technology. The first sector required the founding of a new academy of sciences, the second meant the establishment of new universities and other institutes of higher education, and the third entailed creating ministerial institutions of science and research. Three months later, the Communist authorities established the new Polish Academy of Sciences [Polska Akademia Nauk] along the lines determined at the congress. The hitherto existing academies – the Polish Academy of Sciences and Letters and the 316 PIOTR KO¨HLER

Academic Society of Warsaw – were required to cease their activities within the next year. Biological sciences (including botany) were incorporated into the Second Division of the new Academy, and one of the Second Division’s primary objectives was to propagate the ‘‘new biology.’’ This was achieved through conferences mentioned above. On March 2, 1952, the Association of Marxist Naturalists had effectively absorbed the membership and activities of the Copernican Society of Polish Naturalists, taking control of its agenda.21 The second major course on the ‘‘new biology’’ took place July 7–August 7, 1952 in Dziwno´w, a small town on the Baltic coast in north–western Poland (Petrusewicz et al., 1952). The next course was held August 18–28, 1953 in Kortowo (near Olsztyn; Michajłow and Petrusewicz, 1954b). Unlike the conference in Kuzńice, these courses were organized for younger biologists. After completion the participants were required to organize ‘‘seminars’’ to advertise Lysenko’s ideas among scientists and students at Polish universities ([anonym], 1954, pp. 106–107; Hurwic, 1953, p. 271). At meetings of the Evolution Committee of the Polish Academy of Sciences on May 9 and May 30, 1955, one participant complained that the propagation of the ‘‘new biology’’ had been a fiasco. Nevertheless, the Committee resolved to further the struggle to introduce Lysenko’s theories into Polish science ([anonym], 1955c, p. 582). At a follow-up meeting, special groups were created to take responsibility for pro- moting research in three important areas – the inheritance of acquired characters, stadiality of the development of organisms, and the process of speciation ([anonym], 1955d, p. 720). The final conference on the ‘‘new biology’’ took place shortly thereafter, August 17–25, 1955, once again in Kortowo. At the conference it was decided to cease teaching Lysenko’s theories to young biologists. Two leading Lysenkoists – Kazimierz Petrusewicz and Włodzimierz Michajłow – self-critically admitted that many mistakes had been made in managing Polish science by the Communist party, including, ‘‘dogmatism, issuing orders, half-heartedness, as well as insufficient activism and misplaced aggression on the part of the organizers of science in the struggle for the ‘new biology’.’’ Petrusewicz and Michajłow went onto admit that: ‘‘When the leaders were not able to win others over to Lysenkoism, they resorted to crude commands, the exertion of administrative pressure, and shutting down of journals that published expressions of opposing views’’ (Petrusewicz and Michajłow,

21 The Polskie Towarzystwo Przyrodniko´w im. Kopernika was established in Lwo´w/ Lemberg in 1875. LYSENKO AFFAIR AND POLISH BOTANY 317

1955a, p. 16). Nevertheless, the conference organizers reiterated their resolve to promote Lysenkoism. The years following Stalin’s death in 1953 mark a period of gradual political and cultural liberalization referred to as the Thaw. This process culminated in October, 1956 when Władysław Gomułka, a nationalist who had advocated greater Polish autonomy vis-a` -vis the Soviet Union, was appointed First Secretary of the PZPR. The ‘‘new biology’’ was abandoned, along with other features of Stalinist culture, such as collectivization and Socialist Realism. On April 17, 1956, a magazine Po Prostu, which played an important role in allowing Poles to voice their grievances with the socialist system, sponsored a one-day symposium on Lysenko and Michurinism ([anonym], 1957). The meeting served as a signal to biologists that Lysenko’s theories no longer represented an official doctrine in biology, and genetics was once again acceptable. The revisions to the biology syllabus that had been adopted in 1949 were abandoned by the end of the 1956/1957 school year, and a delegation of Polish botanists, including Wacław Gajewski (1911–1997),22 were sent to Moscow (Stawin´ski, 2006, p. 510). Gajewski had met Lysenko previously, and his discussion with the guru of the ‘‘new biology’’ confirmed his suspicions that Lysenko was a charlatan (Gajewski, 1957, pp. 23–24). The only botany papers published in Poland after 1956 which showed evidence of Lysenko’s influence were summaries and translations of papers by Soviet authors, such as Ivan Glushchenko (1907–1987), a pupil of Lysenko’s. A popular history of evolution was published which included a definitive rebuke of Lysenko (Halicz, 1958, pp. 187–188), and Teodor Marchlewski (1899–1962), a zoologist who had previously been one of Lysenko’s primary Polish supporters, published a paper where he expressed the following view: perhaps it will be appropriate to say a few words about the issue of the so-called Michurin-Lysenko genetics and the whole chaos that arose in Poland in connection with it in the very-recent past. I do not wish to bring up the obvious political issue, or the relationship between science and the party. On the basis of the facts I feel comfortable stating that the one-sided, unrealistic proposals for

22 Wacław Gajewski graduated from Warsaw University, where he worked in the Botanical Garden after 1937. He was barred from lecturing during the Lysenkoist period due to his open adherence to genetics. Gajewski later organized the Department of Genetics at Warsaw University, and the Department of General Genetics at the Polish Academy of Sciences. His publications were devoted to a wide range of issues, including ﬂoristics, experimental taxonomy, cytogenetics and molecular genetics. For further information see Paszewski, 2006. 318 PIOTR KO¨HLER

certain practical agricultural activities by certain Soviet authors were doomed to failure from the start, and resulted in many diﬃ- culties […] (Marchlewski, 1958, p. 524). The fact that Marchlewski expressed this opinion without any fear of retribution indicates that by 1957 the Lysenko-era in Polish biology was over.23 Though the liberal experiments of the Thaw would soon be dropped, Lysenkoism would not be reintroduced.24

Lysenkoism in Polish Botany

Government management of Polish science greatly facilitated the introduction of Lysenkoism into the research programs of some institutions. Directives for carrying out work on certain Lysenkoist techniques, such as vegetative hybridization, were issued as though it were a simple matter of replicating results which had already been achieved in the Soviet Union. Traditional procedures for formulating goals and an agenda for research were ignored ([anonym], 1955a, p. 766; Makarewicz, 1956). For several years after the 1949 meeting in Warsaw, small number of Polish botanists devoted their attention to a number of Lysenkoist theoretical problems (Ko¨hler, 2008, pp. 94–102). Today it is diﬃcult for us to pre- cisely determine how these experiments were carried out and what their results were. This is due to the fact that only brief and very general information was published instead of detailed reports describing the methods used in the experiments and discussing the obtained results. This was done in accordance with the doctrine in force of keeping everything secret out of a fear of the ‘‘enemies of the system’’ and the ‘‘imperialist spies’’ ([anonym], 1957, p. 72). Below I refer the main ‘‘new biology’’ problems which lay within the ﬁelds of interest of the few Polish botanists. The topic of vegetative hybrids25 was extremely important in Lysenkoism. Vegetative hybrids had already been known in Europe since the seventeenth century. Various theories were proposed to explain

23 Marchlewski’s role in Polish Lysenkoism is particularly striking given that, in 1924, he had received funding from the Rockefeller Foundation to spend a year working in Francis Crew’s laboratory in Edinburgh, Scotland. Marchlewski received his Rocke- feller Fellowship. 24 The relationship between the political thaw and the abandonment of Lysenkoism in Poland requires further studies and exceeds the scope of this paper. 25 A vegetative hybrid (now: a graft-chimaera) may arise in grafting at the point of contact between rootstock and scion and will have properties intermediate to those of its ‘‘parents.’’ A graft-chimaera is not a true hybrid but a mixture of cells, each with the genotype of one of its ‘‘parents.’’ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graft-chimaera. Accessed April 14, 2010. LYSENKO AFFAIR AND POLISH BOTANY 319 them. At first it was believed (e.g. Hugo de Vries, Edward Strasburger) that they are simply generative hybrids. Afterwards it was supposed that vegetative hybrids are produced as the result of the specific mutual interaction between the stock and scion tissues (practical observation by orchardists, e.g. Ivan Michurin). Hans Winkler’s studies showed that the tissues of organisms combined by transplantation only exert a modificatory influence on each other. Another idea supposed that the matter of scion and rootstock cells damaged during grafting in certain cases joins into a whole, consequently forming a tetraploid cell which combines the traits of both of the transplanted organisms. The question of vegetative hybrids was explained by Erwin Baur. His experiments and research conducted from 1910 to 1919 proved that vegetative hybrids are chimaeras. Baur’s experiments were know in Poland, and his results were confirmed in 1932 (Woýcicki, 1932, pp. 48–61). Lysenko did not accept Baur’s theses. He adopted instead Michurin’s views and constructed his ‘‘new genetics’’ upon them. According to this theory, environmental conditions decisively influence the characteristics of the offspring, and the characteristics acquired during ontogenesis are inherited. The ‘‘new biology’’ rejected Mendel’s laws, the concept of genes, Morgan’s chromosome theory of inheritance and Muller’s theory of mutation (Dembowski, 1949, pp. 18–24; Winogradowa, 1952, pp. 223–227). Lysenko’s collaborator, I.I. Prezent, successfully formu- lated his theories in terms which conformed to dialectical materialist philosophy (see especially Soyfer, 1994, pp. 62–64). Among all the ideas of Lysenkoism the possibility of obtaining vegetative hybrids attracted the greatest interest. The Department of Genetics and Plant Cultivation of the Main School of Agriculture [SzkołaGło´wna Gospodarstwa Wiejskiego] in Warsaw was located in Skierniewice, a small town just 76 km to the southwest. Beginning in 1948 the department, directed by Edmund Malinowski, researched vegetative hybrids of potatoes and tomatoes. The studies were supposed to lead to the generative reproduction of several varieties of potato propagating only vegetatively (Malinowski, 1950, pp. 202–203). Part of Michurin’s original collection, brought from Michurinsk (USSR) by the Germans during World War II, was located in the Arboretum in Ko´rnik,26 near Poznan´.27 At Ko´rnik Stefan Białobok

26 In 1952, the department was renamed the Department of Dendrology and Pomology of the Polish Academy of Sciences [Zakład Dendrologii i Pomologii Polskiej Akademii Nauk]. 27 Written information obtained from Władysław Chałupka (letter of 22 October 2007 from Ko´rnik). 320 PIOTR KO¨HLER

(1909–1992)28 carried out field research on vegetative hybrids in order to create forms more suitable to the Polish climate, and to obtain better fruit from apple, pear and cherry trees (Pienia˛zek,_ 1950a, p. 396). Some collaborators of Stefan Białobok are still active, and through personal interviews I was able to gain greater insight into the extent to which the titles of research projects actually represent was being conducted. Władysław Chałupka (Institute of Dendrology of the Polish Academy of Sciences, Ko´rnik), explained that after World War II Białobok started work on the cultivation of new varieties of poplar to increase the production of timber – a project of obvious value in a country where large amounts of forest area had been devastated during World War II. In Chałupka’s opinion, Białobok’s quotations of Michurin were ‘‘cer- emonial.’’ The true purpose of courses described as being ‘‘directed towards propagating vegetative hybrids’’ was to instruct nursery-keep- ers in grafting methods.29 Another colleague said Białobok’s pro-Lys- enkoist declarations at meetings and conferences were a kind of ‘‘feudal tribute’’ he paid in exchange for the continued existence of the Department of Research on Trees and Forest in Ko´rnik.30 Białobok organized special courses to teach students the techniques of vegetative hybridization (Dominik, 1950, p. 203), and conducted work on cultivating new varieties of poplar (Populs sp.), using Michurinist methods (Białobok, 1953a, pp. 72–75). The titles of other studies conducted at Ko´rnik – ‘‘variability of trees and shrubs with special consideration given to directional variability of plants,’’ ‘‘method of cultivation based on the achievements of Michurin’s biology’’ – also evince the influence of Michurinism (Białobok, 1953b, p. 108). Other researchers, however, may have been more sincere in their devotion to Michurinist methods. Konstanty Moldenhawer of the Department of Genetics and Cultivation of Plants at PoznanÚniver- sity, performed experiments aimed at obtaining vegetative hybrids by grafting. The initial results were published in 1950 (Moldenhawer, 1949a, b), and after that he concentrated on vegetative hybrids within the families Solanaceae and Compositae (Moldenhawer, 1951). Moldenhawer was not alone – the Bydgoszcz-based State Scientific Institute of Agriculture (from 1951: Institute of Cultivation and

28 Stefan Białobok graduated from the Main School of Agriculture in Warsaw. From the end of the World War II up until 1979 he supervised the Arboretum (from 1975: Institute of Dendrology of the Polish Academy of Sciences) in Ko´rnik near Poznan´.He was nominated extraordinary professor in 1954, and ordinary professor in 1970. For more information on him see Boratyn´ski et al., 1993. 29 Władysław Chałupka’s written information: letter of 22 October 2007. 30 Jacek Oleksyn’s written supposition: letter of 7 October 2007. LYSENKO AFFAIR AND POLISH BOTANY 321

Acclimatization of Plants [Instytut Hodowli i Aklimatyzacji Ros´lin]) carried out research on vegetative hybrids of beets (Beta sp.). Even in 1949 a theoretical work was published in Bydgoszcz which supported the Lysenkoist tenet that vegetative hybrids open unlimited possibilities for the creation of new plants which can have huge practical significance (Kuzdowicz_ and Bejnar, 1949, p. 139). In the spring of 1950, work on vegetative hybridization of beet was begun. After 2 years the possibility of wider vegetative hybrids in beet was stated (Bejnar, 1952, pp. 252, 257). Some time prior to 1953 the Forest Research Institute [Instytut Badawczy Lesńictwa] in Warsaw started vegetative hybridization of aspen (Populus tremula L.) ([anonym], 1953a, p. 78 – statement by S. Tyszkiewicz). Nonetheless, it lacked exact details. Introducing and acclimatizing new and useful plant species from other climatic regions was, for research as well as economic reasons, of central importance to practitioners of the ‘‘new biology.’’ Following the theoretical assumptions of Lysenkoism (i.e. that plant organisms have a natural, unlimited ability to adapt to different external conditions, and that characters acquired by organisms during their lifetime are inherited by their offspring), researchers endeavored to acclimatize species not normally found in Poland. These included castor bean (Ricinus com- munis L.), sweet sorghum (Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench), Dalmatian pyrethrum (Chrysanthemum cinerariaefolium (Trev.) Vis.), and lavender (Lavandula sp.) ([anonym], 1951, vol. i, pp. 317–325). Experiments with cotton (Gossypium sp.), sesame (Sesamum indicum L.) and common coffee (Coffea arabica L.) failed immediately (Bikont and Zago´rski, 1998). Other experiments, such as attempts to acclimatize rice (Oryza sativa L.), lasted for a few years. However, despite great effort and expense, these were eventually discontinued as well (Łazarewicz, 2000, pp. 9–10). The detailed process of cultivation and its related work belongs to the history of agriculture; therefore it needs to be placed outside the scope of this study. According to Lysenko’s theory of stadiality of the development of organisms the development of a plant takes place through several stages. Environmental factors are necessary for each of the stages to proceed correctly (nutritional substances, water, air, light, appropriate temperature). Lysenko sought the principles of a plant’s development in the interaction of the plant with the conditions in which it existed. The appearance and development of organs and of the plant’s traits was tied to the specific stages of development. Lysenko believed that 4 or 5 stages existed though he described only two: a stage of vernalization and a light stage. Lysenko believed that the plant’s passing through each stage 322 PIOTR KO¨HLER of development carried irreversible qualitative changes in the proto- plasm of the embryonic cells in the growing tip. These changes would be passed onto all newly formed cells. Old cells do not acquire this information. Therefore, according to Lysenko, older plants contain different parts in different stages of development (Łysenko, 1950, pp. 68–72). Polish Lysenkoist botany took up issues on stadiality of the development of organisms. Two works published in 1952 and 1953 attempted to reconcile the existence of phenophases in development of trees with Lysenko’s concept of stages (Obmin´ski, 1953, p. 407–408; Rejman, 1952, p. 2). In the years 1952–1954, tests on beech (Fagus silvatica L.) and fir (Abies alba Mill.) seedlings were conducted at the Higher School of Agriculture [Wyzsza_ Szkoła Rolnicza] in Cracow. These studies did not confirm the hypothesis of Yablokov about the existence of the vernalisation stage and light stage in the annual life cycle of trees (Bałut, 1954, p. 198). In the Department of Genetics of the Polish Academy of Sciences and Department of Genetics of the Main School of Agriculture in Skierniewice Edmund Malinowski, together with his team, continued to conduct experiments at least until 1954 or 1955, the task of which was – as he wrote – study of the ‘‘heredity of [characters acquired during] ontogenesis,’’ and the ‘‘progress of stadiality and its connection with phenological phases’’ (Malinowski, 1954, p. 467). Notwithstanding, there is a lack of accurate information on the progress and results of these studies. In the Bydgoszcz-based State Scientific Institute of Agri- culture over a two-year research conducted on beet seemed to confirm – according to the author’s research – that the data of the Soviet scientists demonstrated that flowering was the result of the stages of development (Bejnar, 1952, pp. 252, 257). Vernalization, according to Lysenko, is the first stage of a plants development and is necessary for the plant to blossom (Łysenko, 1950, pp. 34–44). Cooling the seeds of winter crops for some time before sowing in spring was supposed to cause their vernalization, i.e. it was supposed to bring them through the first developmental stage and consequently to increase their frost resistance by ‘‘transforming varieties of winter crops into spring crops through the influence of the conditions of their environment.’’ Before Lysenko it was already known that in genetically pure material (a pure line) it is not possible in any way to obtain a spring crop from a winter crop or the other way around. It is worth noting that pre-sowing vernalization was already being applied in the USA and Russia in the second half of the 19th century (and was already then found to be ineffective), so this idea was not Lysenko’s invention. LYSENKO AFFAIR AND POLISH BOTANY 323

One of the few Polish publications dealing with vernalization was a review article on devernalization or on the so-called reversibility of development. It reports experiments conducted in the West and in the USSR between 1936 and 1949 demonstrated the reversibility of vernalization. The discussed experiments which demonstrated the possibility of reversing vernalization are severely criticized as inconsonant with a ‘‘dialectical approach’’ (Listowski, 1954, pp. 23–24). There was no experimental botanical research carried in Poland on the topic of vernalization. Olga Lepeshinskaya’s ideas about the creation of cells from live non- cellular substance were presented in opposition to Virchow’s view about the origin of cells (‘‘omnis cellula e cellula’’) which were seen as incongruent with the principles of dialectical materialism. Lepeshins- kaya’s idea was strongly criticized in the Soviet Union, but despite this it was assimilated by Lysenko in 1950. The only Polish botanical work dealing with the topic of pre-cellular forms of life was published in 1953 by Władysław Kunicki-Goldfinger (1916–1995).31 This publication was a review article of experiments carried out in other countries which supposedly demonstrated that bacteria can transform into a non-cellular form. The author attempted to show that the existence of a form of life simpler than the cell, i.e. a pre-cellular form of life, is beyond doubt (Kunicki-Goldfinger, 1953, pp. 29–30). There was no experimental research done by Polish botanists on the topic of a living pre-cellular substance. Two notable examples of Lysenkoist literature in Polish botany are a university manual of geobotany (Motyka, 1953a), and a paper on dialectic materialism in geobotany (Figure 1; Motyka, 1953b), published in 1953 by Jo´zef Motyka (1900–1984).32 In the former, readers were as- sured by the author that by applying dialectical materialism he ‘‘had acquired,…, all the data to claim that we can double timber growth in our forests […]. We can also, without great effort, increase the

31 Władysław Kunicki-Goldfinger graduated from the Jagiellonian University in Cracow. From 1951 on he became a professor at the Maria Curie-Skłodowska Uni- versity in Lublin, then Wrocław University (where from 1955 to 1961 he headed the Institute of Botany), Warsaw University and, the Polish Academy of Sciences. His primary area of scientific interest was microbiology. For more information see Kuzńicki, 1996;Ose˛ka, 2000, pp. 198–200. 32 Jo´zef Motyka graduated from the Jagiellonian University of Cracow. After the establishment of the Maria Curie–Skłodowska University in Lublin (1945) he moved there and became head of the Department of Systematics and Plant Geography. For more information on him see Bystrek, 1985. 324 PIOTR KO¨HLER

Figure 1. The ﬁrst page of J. Motyka’s ‘‘Pro´ba zastosowania metod materializmu dialektycznego w geobotanice’’ with quotation marks and underlining in pencil by Władysław Szafer (Motyka, 1953b, p. 1). productivity of our hay meadows 10-fold simply by drawing on the knowledge of rules that govern the phenomena of vegetation’’ (Motyka, 1953a, p. 11). In the latter work, Motyka tried to replace the phytosociology for- mulated from the perspective of Josias Braun-Blanquet (1884–1980) by using dialectic materialism join phytosociology and phytogeography. LYSENKO AFFAIR AND POLISH BOTANY 325

As can be concluded from what has been presented above, there weren’t too many studies conducted in Poland dealing with Lysenko’s theories. At the beginning of the 1950s some individual botanists or a few research groups tried to show that they were conducting such research. However, when the results were not in accordance with the predictions of Lysenkoism the studies were quickly abandoned. There is also a lack of theoretical works providing a critical analysis of the various tenets of Lysenkoism. The reason is obvious: research demon- strating the falsity of such tenets were not allowed to be published.

The Reaction of Polish Botanists to Lysenkoism

Polish botanists took various standpoints towards Lysenkoism. Most of them (96.7%) never published any papers dealing with Lysenkoism. Sev- eral botanists from the very beginning openly presented a hardline stance on Lysenkoism, including Władysław Szafer (1886–1970),33 Wacław Gajewski and Maria Skalin´ska. It was already at the conference in Kuzńice (1950/1951) that Szafer distanced himself from Lysenkoism. In the following years he showed a consistently uncompromising stance towards the ‘‘new biology’’ imposed on Polish science, the result being that he was treated as an ‘‘enemy of the system.’’ Due to the utmost respect he evoked in the country and abroad he did not fall victim to repression (Ko¨hler, 2009, p. 404). Similarly, Wacław Gajewski adopted an implacably hostile attitude towards Lysenkoism. Those who recall his speeches affirm that he publicly criticized both the ‘‘new biology’’ and its propagators.34 After several years, in his work ‘‘Lysenkoism in Poland’’ he expounded the history of Lysenkoism (Gajewski, 1990). A somewhat different approach towards Lysenkoism, yet a negative one, was favoured by Maria Skalin´ska. She did not voice her criticism openly, she just ignored it. Skalin´ska continued to lecture on classical genetics at the Jagiellonian University in Cracow,

33 Władysław Szafer was one of the most outstanding Polish botanists of the twentieth century. He studied in Vienna under the guidance of the eminent botanist Richard Wettstein, and in Lwo´w under the eminent Polish botanist Marian Raciborski. Szafer also studied in Vienna, Munich and Tharandt. From 1918 to 1960, he was a professor at the Jagiellonian University in Cracow, and also organized the Institute of Botany at the Polish Academy of Sciences. Szafer was an active member of the Polish Academy of Sciences and Letters, and a full member of the Polish Academy of Sciences. He was the author of over 700 publications, devoted mainly to floristics, taxonomy of plants, phytogeography, palaeobotany and the protection of nature. For further information see Ko¨hler, 2009. 34 Memories of the eye-witnesses, i.e. prof. Anna Medwecka-Kornasánd prof. Kazimierz Zarzycki on October 22, 2009. 326 PIOTR KO¨HLER though under an altered title ‘‘General Botany’’ (Jankun, 1991, p. 6). Those three names did not constitute the only oponents of Lysenkoism among botanists. They serve as an example of a negative attitude towards the ‘‘new biology.’’ One of the few botanists who openly accepted Lysenkoism from the outset was the renowned and highly productive botanist Edmund Mali- nowski. Several months before the 1949 meeting in Warsaw, Malinowski reported on the results of his research from the perspective of the Michurin-Lysenko theory at a session organized for scientists by the Ministry of Agriculture and Agrarian Reform (Michajłow, 1949a, pp. 124–125). In November 1953, he published a revised edition of a university manual of plant anatomy, where passages on sub-cellular structures like chromosomes (chromatin) in resting nuclei (Figure 2, drawing A) were deleted, in accordance with Lysenko’s pronouncements that they did not exist (Malinowski, 1953, pp. 50–55; the first edition was published in 1938). As late as 1956, Malinowski stated (at a council organized by the editorial staff of the journal Po prostu on April 17) that tests he had conducted confirmed that Michurinian genetics could claim certain achievements ([anonym], 1957, p. 111). A second Lysenkoist- botanist worthy of mention who was also an orchardist was Szczepan Pienia˛zek_ (1913–2008; Halawa, 2000, p. 486; Mirek et al., 1995, pp. 273– 274), at the time a professor in the Faculty of Fruit Farming at the Main School of Agriculture in Warsaw. He was the author of many publications in support of Lysenko and Michurin and their theories. He presented lectures on Lysenkoism during many scientific conferences. He also propounded the ‘‘new biology’’ on Polish Radio. A series of broadcasts entitled ‘‘Natural principles of a world view’’ were aired from 1948 to 1952 as part of the ‘‘Radio University’’ program. He presented several lectures within this series from 1951 to 1952, including ‘‘Formal genetics – an anti-revolutionary direction in biology’’ and ‘‘The Discov- eries of Michurin and Lysenko.’’ A unusual event for those times was a debate between Pienia˛zek_ and Tadeusz Dominik (1909–1980),35 head of the Faculty of Phytopathology and Plant Protection at the University and Polytechnic of Wrocław and an opponent of Lysenkoism, which was published in the monthly Problemy [Problems] in 1949–1950. The argu- ments presented there were typical of the positions of proponents and opponents of Lysenkoism in Poland. It is worth presenting a sample here.

35 Tadeusz Dominik graduated from Poznan´University. After World War II he worked at the State Scientiﬁc Institute of Agriculture in Puławy, in 1949–1954 in Wrocław, from 1956 in Szczecin. For more information on him see Majewski and Majchrowicz, 1986. LYSENKO AFFAIR AND POLISH BOTANY 327

Figure 2. Schematic drawings of the course of mitosis in E. Malinowski’s Anatomia ros´lin (Malinowski, 1953, p. 51). 328 PIOTR KO¨HLER

Pienia˛zek_ claimed in accordance with the principles of Lysenkoism that ‘‘chromosomes do not possess exclusiveness in the transmission of hereditary characters, because biosomes play a similar role. […]In addition, inherited characters may also be transferred by plastic substances, such as sugars, amino acids, organic acids and other chemi- cals that circulate in the plant’’ (Pienia˛zek,_ 1949b, p. 573). Dominik responded to this article and noticed (ironically). the statement about the transmission of hereditary characters by chemical compounds such as amino acids and sugars may closely lead to the assumption that water and carbon dioxide circulating in a plant or animal can also transmit hereditary traits to a different plant or animal, with which they might accidentally have collided. The dispute between Dominik and Pienia˛zek_ is primarily notable because it took place so soon after the introduction of Lysenko’s theories into Polish biology.36 No other discussions were allowed to take place. A last group of botanists took an opportunistic position in regards to Lysenkoism. Examples of this are Jo´zef Motyka and Władysław Kunicki-Goldfinger. These botanists published valuable scientific papers both before and after Lysenkoism but during the period of the ‘‘new biology’s’’ reign in Poland they published works which were in accordance with the principles of Lysenkoism. A more subtle indicator of opposition to Lysenko during these years was the increased number of botanists who felt confident speaking out at the conferences in Warsaw (1949), Zakopane (1950/1951), Dziwno´w (1952) and Kortowo (1953, 1955). These sessions gathered together larger numbers of biologists, working in different fields, so those expressing disagreement were doing so in front of scientists who were not their immediate colleagues. In 1949, Michał Korczewski (1889– 1954)37 expressed doubts (Gajewski, 1990, p. 430; for a statement by Michał Korczewski see Dembowski, 1949, pp. 110–115). He did so again one year later at Kuzńice where he was joined by Władysław

36 The whole discussion see: Dominik, 1949, pp. 855–856; 1950, pp. 203–205; Pienia˛zek,_ 1949a, p. 857; 1949b, p. 573; 1950b, p. 205. 37 Michał Korczewski graduated from the Jagiellonian University in Cracow. After habilitation in 1922, he was nominated extraordinary professor at the Horticultural Faculty of the Main School of Agriculture in Warsaw. For more information see Majewski, 1958, pp. 264–266; S´ro´dka and Szczawin´ski, 1985, pp. 196–198. LYSENKO AFFAIR AND POLISH BOTANY 329

Szafer and Bogumił Pawłowski (1898–1971)38 who also dared to speak up on behalf of classical botany. Two years later in Kortowo even more botanists pointed out some inconsistencies in Lysenko’s theory, particularly as far as the emergence of species was concerned (Michajłow and Petrusewicz, 1954b, p. 96 – statement by Aleksandra Putrament). By the second meeting in Kortowo in 1955 – that last of such sessions to be held – only a few speakers defended Lysenko. A more obvious indicator of the developing resistance to the ‘‘new biology’’ is what took place among botanists themselves. The opposition of Polish botanists was notable, and was recorded even in oﬃcial reports published during the period (e.g. in 1950 (P., 1950, p. 956), 1953 ([anonym], 1953b, p. 145), and 1955 ([anonym], 1955b)). The Polish Botanical Society, to which most Polish botanists belonged, held yearly conventions. What took place in Wrocław September 9–11, 1950 was symptomatic. Most participants hoped there would be some discussion of genetics, but few geneticists attended, and those who were there did not present on genetics. However, they also did not say anything in favor of Lysenko – and their silence was signiﬁcant. The only botanist who mentioned the ‘‘new biology’’ was Stanisław Kulczyn´ski (1895– 1975),39 rector of the University and Polytechnic of Wrocław, who voiced support for the ‘‘struggle against Mendelism’’ in Polish botany. Lysenkoism was simply not discussed at subsequent sessions, and in June, 1956, Armen L. Takhtajan, a renowned Soviet botanist famously opposed to Lysenko,40 was among the invited guests at a meeting in Zakopane (Gajewski, 1956b, p. 605).

38 Bogumił Pawłowski graduated from the Jagiellonian University in Cracow, where he spent his career (1921–1968). In 1938 he was nominated titulary professor, and in 1951 ordinary professor. From 1961 to 1968 Pawłowski was head of the Institute of Botany at the Polish Academy of Sciences. He was a corresponding member of the Polish Academy of Sciences and Letters (1945), and a full member of the Polish Academy of Sciences (1966). He published over 150 papers on floristics, taxonomy, phytogeography and phytosociology. For more information see Kornas´, 1982; Kornas´, 2000, pp. 231–241. 39 Stanisław Kulczyn´ski graduated from the Jagiellonian University in Cracow, where he also obtained his doctorate and habilitation. He was nominated professor in 1924, and subsequently became head of the Department of Systematics and Morphology of Plants of Lwo´w University, where he then served as rector during the 1936–1937 academic year. After World War II he organized the Polytechnic and University in Wrocław as rector. He was also chairperson of the Democratic Party, and deputy–chairperson of the Council of State. For more information on him see S´ro´dka and Szczawin´ski, 1985, pp. 214–221. 40 Armen Leonovich Takhtajan (born in 1910) is an important Armenian botanist. His research focuses on plant evolution, systemtics and biogeography, morphology of flowering plants, palaeobotany, and flora of the Caucasus Mountains. See Zhilin, 1982, 2002. 330 PIOTR KO¨HLER

The first overt dispute over Lysenkoism among Polish botanists took place in August 29–31, 1952, during a session organized by the Section of Plant Sociology and Ecology of the Polish Botanical Society.41 At the demand of state authorities, one day was devoted to a discussion intended to renounce Braun-Blanquet’s phytosociology.42 A report of the meeting indicates that a majority of participants opposed this agenda ([editorial staff], 1953, p. 67; Pawłowski, 1953, p. 66): ‘‘during the de- bates a clear conflict between the materialistic and the idealistic attitude came to light. This is indicative of the not yet overcome – particularly in the Cracow centre – relics of bourgeois methodology in phytosociological research.’’43 To say something was one thing, to publish it was another. Of the 359 articles published in Acta Societatis Botanicorum Poloniae from 1948 to 1958, not one discussed Lysenko’s theories. Despite propaganda, administrative pressure, and promotion of the ‘‘new biology’’ by the Polish government (Dembowski, 1949, p. 166), only 55 botanists – 3.3% of those working during the decade – published research advo- cating the ‘‘new biology.’’ Of those, only a few – Stefan Białobok, Władysław Kunicki-Goldfinger, Edmund Malinowski, Konstanty Moldenhawer, Jo´zef Motyka, and Szczepan Pienia˛zek_ – were well- known. Most had just begun their careers, and some would publish barely anything else later on. As for the number of botanical papers written from the Lysenkoist perspective, there were very few. On the basis of the standard bibliog- raphy for Polish biological literature (Grodzin´ski, 1952, 1963;S´rodon´ and Wierzbicka, 1969, 1970) I can conclude that, of about 3,410 papers published from 1948 to 1958, only 140 (4.1%) were Lysenkoist, mostly (11.5%) in 1949. These papers were primarily summaries of conference lectures, or translations of articles from the Soviet Union.

41 Janion, 1952, p. 57. It is possible there were early disputes which were censured from meeting transcripts. 42 Josias Braun-Blanquet (1884–1980) developed the contemporary system of vegetation classification. Lysenkoists regarded Braun-Blanquet’s methods as unscientific, metaphysical, bourgeois, mechanistic, divorced from practice, and accused Braun- Blanquet of having failed to account for the impact of the environment upon different plant communities. 43 Janion, 1952, p. 58. The reference to Cracow is significant. Cracow is regarded as the center of Polish botany. Research using Braun-Blanquet’s method began in 1923, and the published results are among the earliest regional phytosociological monographs in world literature. This work helped define the main concepts used in phytosociology, and develop the foundations of cartography of plant communities (Ko¨hler, 2002, p. 267). LYSENKO AFFAIR AND POLISH BOTANY 331

The first Polish botanical paper offering experimental proof of the faultiness of Lysenkoism was published by Alfons Kuzdowicz_ in 1955 (Kuzdowicz,_ 1955, p. 565). Kuzdowicz_ concluded that, mutual grafting of alkaloid plants producing tropine alkaloids and nonalkaloid plants to increase or decrease the contents of the compounds yields no results. It is also not possible to force a plant to produce compounds not proper to it. The changes induced over the course of a year through grafting were not perpetuated in subsequent generations. Though Kuzdowicz_ did not mention Lysenko, he did not need to. His conclusions indicated direct opposition to Lysenkoist theory. At the time Kuzdowicz_ could not explicitly criticize Lysenko if he wanted to have his paper published. The first papers where authors dared to openly criticize Lysenko appeared already in 1956 (Gajewski, 1956a) and 1957 (Obmin´ski, 1957).

Final Remarks

The biological doctrines of T.D. Lysenko were initially received enthusiastically in Poland by a small group of opportunists, political activists, and sincere believers; very few of whom were scientists. They propagated and popularized the ‘‘new biology’’ at public discussions, lectures, conferences, meetings, and on the pages of newspapers and magazines, even in Polish Radio. These advocates tended to ignore scientific research that was not directed towards Lysenkoist prior- ities such as stage theory, vernalization, or vegetative hybridization (Obmin´ski, 1957, pp. 12–13). As for botany, though some institutions (mentioned above) gave attention to conducting botanical research along Lysenkoist lines, lack of productive results soon ended these initiatives. As evidence of utility failed to appear, the number of those inclined to undertake research declined. Within a few years botanists had essentially abandoned Lysenkoism. Pressure on Polish botanists to adopt Lysenko’s theories did not appear on the pages of botany publications, except as the absence of any objection to ideas which few botanists accepted. Coercion primarily took place orally, as evidenced by the transcripts of conference proceedings. Lectures on genetics – or at least course and lecture titles which indicated that genetics would be discussed – were not allowed, and those who ignored this exposed themselves to denunciations and 332 PIOTR KO¨HLER harassment. Not being able to publish ones research, or read the results of research using genetics conducted by your colleagues, obviously hampered the development of Polish plant genetics. However, no one lost their life because they opposed Lysenko. Lysenkoism may ultimately be termed a relatively minor episode in the history of Polish botany, as I evidenced above. In fact, for a country that suffered through so many periods of partition and occupation in its long history, the ‘‘affair’’ might even be described as pedestrian. As for why Lysenkoism had little impact upon Polish botany, and ended almost a decade sooner in Poland than it did in the Soviet Union, reasons range from the political to the scientific. Examples of the former include Poland’s turbulent history, the experience of the World War II, and the Thaw. Examples of the latter include the relative emphasis Lysenkoists placed on botanical science vis-a` -vis other areas of biology, the skepticism of Polish scientists, and the failure to achieve practical results. The historical relationship between Poland and Russia has been fraught, at best. Russia was one of three countries (along with Prussia and Austria) responsible for partitioning Poland at the end of the eighteenth century. During this period Poles attempted two unsuccessful uprisings against Russian rule, as well as one successful assassination attempt against Tsar Alexander II in 1881. Shortly after Poland was restored on the map of Europe after World War I, Lenin attempted to conquer Poland to spread the revolution further west. In 1939 the Soviet Union aided the Nazi Germany attack by invading Poland from the east, under the pretext of defending Russian civilians, and in 1940 the Soviets massacred thousands of Polish army officers in the Katyn´forest and other places.44 These events had a fundamental influence upon Polish–Soviet relations after World War II, and the response of Poles to the PZPR. Relations between Poles and Russians were far worse than between the Russians and other members of the ‘‘communist bloc,’’ such as Czechoslovakia – and Poles in general felt as though they ‘‘knew the Russians better’’ than Czechs or Germans (Rothschild and Wing- field, 2000, p. 88; Julian Dybiec: comment in a discussion after the presentation of a paper, see Salmanowicz, 2006, pp. 97–98). The details surrounding the establishment of the Communist government in Poland, and the devastation the country faced after World War II, also significantly influenced the outcome of Lysenkoism. The first Polish Communist government was led by Bolesław Bierut, a man who had been trained in Moscow and brought to Poland by the Soviets.

44 Until 1990 Russia oﬃcially denied responsibility for the massacre, and blamed it on Nazi Germany. LYSENKO AFFAIR AND POLISH BOTANY 333

The manner in which Bierut took power heightened the mistrust most Poles already felt towards the PZPR. Moreover, because the government faced a serious economic crisis, and the necessity of industrializing and increasing food production as rapidly as possible, certain aspects of the socialist system relating to art, science and higher education, were less strictly enforced than in neighboring states such as East Germany or Czechoslovakia. Polish Communists, busy with the country’s economic problems as well as disputes between various factions within the PZPR, did not strictly enforce conformity to the Lysenkoist doctrine. For these reasons, biologists such as Maria Skalin´ska at the Jagiellonian Uni- versity could continue to teach ‘‘Mendelist–Morganist’’ genetics by simply attaching benign titles to their lectures. The political Thaw after Stalin’s death allowed the skepticism Poles had felt since the early postwar period to emerge. Many memoirs from the early 1950s contain statements which reveal that Poles viewed socialism as something imported, rather than indigenous, and treated it with a certain sense of irony. It was apparently pointed out even to Khrushchev that his experiments with maize45 would fail that in Poland because Poles laughed at them (Julian Dybiec: comment in a discussion after a paper, see Salmanowicz, 2006, pp. 97–98). Many Poles also mocked experiments with the acclimatization and cultivation of exotic plants such as rice (Julian Dybiec: comment in a discussion after a paper, see Salmanowicz, 2006, pp. 97–98). Of course, for those ordered to do the cultivating the situation was no laughing matter. They guessed that the results would not be successful, an outcome which would leave them vulnerable to accusations of sabotage. Lysenkoism promised immediate results – such as creating frost- resistant varieties, or producing entirely new, economically useful, species – none of which panned out. When experiments with plants such as rice ultimately failed, practical necessity became an important motivator for the PZPR to not place too much emphasis on the ‘‘new biology’’ as a feature of scientific–agricultural policy. As for botany, botanists had particular reason to be disgruntled, due to the relative lack of importance attached to their work in Michurin science. When early experiments did not confirm the assumptions of the ‘‘new biology,’’ the botanists who had converted to Lysenkoism had abundant reason to return to classical botany and genetics (statement by Antoni Filutowicz at a council organized by the editorial staff of the journal ‘‘Po prostu’’ on 17 April 1956, see [anonym], 1957, pp. 35–41).

45 Nikita S. Khrushchev was a supporter of Lysenkoism. 334 PIOTR KO¨HLER

Finally, scientific reasons were equally important for the rejection of Lysenkoism by Polish botanists. Several fundamental such reasons were: the general familiarity with Mendel–Morgan genetics among the older generation, the courageous position of a few botanists who pointed out the errors and absurdities inherent in Lysenkoist principles and the faithful adhesion to scientific methodology. The rejection of Lysenkoism by the great majority of Polish botanists was also facilitated by the thematic structure of the scientific research being carried out at that time. It was possible to carry out this research without reference to Lysenko’s ideas. Therefore, official censorship permitted the results of this research to be published without the obligatory quotations from Lysenkoism and Marxism which would be required in other cases. The history of Lysenkoism in Polish botany shows that though in the short-term the state could influence science through propaganda on behalf of particular methodology and topics for research, in the long- term this strategy was insufficient. It also did not help that the promotion of Michurinism lacked subtlety and finesse (Makarewicz and Skowron, 1955, p. 749). Lysenkoism was imposed in Poland because the Polish Communist party was installed in power by the Soviet Union. The Soviet Communist Party linked its ideological program with practices meant to determine theories, hypotheses and methods of science (Amsterdamski, 1981, p. 38–39. The article was also published in the collection Łysenko i kosmopolici [Lysenko and the cosmopolitans] [anonym], 1989; Kunicki-Goldfinger, 1987,p.6;1989, p. 5–6; 1993, Chapter ‘‘Łysenkizm,’’ pp. 92–96; 2003, Chapter ‘‘Łysenkizm,’’ pp. 82– 85). When the administrative pressure in Poland abated, botanists were able to recover control over their work. Even after the Thaw ended there was no return to Lysenkoism – even though it continued on in the Soviet Union and elsewhere until Lysenko was forced to resign in 1965. Though Lysenko’s theories received political support, and were actively promoted by a small circle of scientists and Communist party activists, they were never accepted by most Polish botanists. Fortunately, Lysenkoism turned out to be a very short-lived and marginal episode in the history of Polish botany.

Acknowledgement

I am deeply grateful to Dr. William deJong-Lambert for his discussion and help in preparing this paper. LYSENKO AFFAIR AND POLISH BOTANY 335

References

Adams, Mark. 1972. Genetics and the Soviet Scientific Community, 1948–1965. Ph.D. Dissertation, Harvard University, 1972. Amsterdamski, Stefan. 1981. Zycie_ naukowe a monopol władzy (casus Łysenko). [Scientific life and the monopoly of power (the Lysenko case)]. Warszawa: Towarzystwo Kurso´w Naukowych, Wykłady ‘‘Nowa’’ [an underground print]. [anonym]. 1949. Situation in Biological Science: Proceedings of the Lenin Academy of Agricultural Sciences of the U.S.S.R., Session: July 31–August 7, 1948, Verbatim Report. Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing House. [anonym]. 1951. Materiały Konferencji Agrobiologo´w, Biologo´w i Medyko´w w Kuzńicach. [Proceedings of the Conference of Agrobiologists, Biologists and Physicians in Kuzńice], vol. i and ii. Warszawa: Ksia˛zka_ i Wiedza. [anonym]. 1953a. Materiały Konferencji Agrobiologicznej Lesńiko´w. Rogo´w, 9–13 wrzesńia 1952 r. [Proceedings of the Agrobiological Conference of Foresters. Rogo´w, 9–13 September 1952]. Warszawa: Pan´stwowe Wydawnictwo Rolnicze i Lesńe. [anonym]. 1953b. ‘‘Sprawozdanie Wydziału II za rok 1952. [Report of the Second Division of the Polish Academy of Sciences on 1952].’’ Sprawozdania z Czynnosći i Prac Polskiej Akademii Nauk 1 (1–2): 130–158. [anonym]. 1954. ‘‘Towarzystwa naukowe. [Learned societies].’’ Sprawozdania z Czyn- nosći i Prac Polskiej Akademii Nauk 2 (2): 105–118. [anonym]. 1955a. ‘‘Konferencja Biologo´w w Kortowie (17.VIII.–25.VIII.1955). [Con- ference of Biologists in Kortowo (17 August–25 August 1955)].’’ Kosmos Ser. A Biologiczna 4 (6): 725–806. [anonym]. 1955b. ‘‘Plenarne posiedzenie Wydziału II Polskiej Akademii Nauk. [Plenary meeting of the Second Division of the Polish Academy of Sciences].’’ Kosmos Ser. A Biologiczna 4 (3): 494. [anonym]. 1955c. ‘‘Plenarne zebranie Komisji Ewolucjonizmu. [Plenary meeting of the Commission on Evolutionism].’’ Kosmos Ser. A Biologiczna 4 (4): 569–582. [anonym]. 1955d. ‘‘Plenarne zebranie Komisji Ewolucjonizmu PAN. [Plenary meeting of the Commission on Evolutionism of the Polish Academy of Sciences].’’ Kosmos Ser. A Biologiczna 4 (5): 719–720. [anonym]. 1956. ‘‘VI Sesja Zgromadzenia Ogo´lnego członko´w Polskiej Akademii Nauk. [The 6th Session of the General Assembly of members of the Polish Academy of Sciences].’’ Sprawozdania z Czynnosći i Prac Polskiej Akademii Nauk 4 (3). [anonym]. 1957. Biologia i polityka. Materiały narady biologo´w zorganizowanej przez ‘‘Po prostu.’’ [Biology and politics. Proceedings of a council of biologists organized by ‘‘Po prostu’’]. Warszawa: Ksia˛zka_ i Wiedza. [anonym]. 1958. Konstanty Moldenhawer (z_yciorys). [Konstanty Moldenhawer (life history)]. [in:] Kronika Uniwersytetu Poznan´skiego za lata 1945–1954/55. [Chronicle of PoznanÚniversity 1945–1954/55]. Poznan´: Uniwersytet Poznan´ski. [anonym]. 1989. Łysenko i kosmopolici. [Lysenko and the cosmopolitans]. Warszawa: Niezalezna_ Oficyna Wydawnicza. Bałut, Stanisław. 1954. ‘‘Pro´ba wykorzystania zjawisk fotoperiodycznych do badan´ rozwoju stadialnego ros´lin drzewiastych. [An attempt at using photoperiodic phenomena in research on stadial development of tree plants].’’ Sylwan 98: 193–199. Barbacki, Stefan. 1960a. ‘‘Działalnosćńaukowa prof. dr Edmunda Malinowskiego. [The scientific activity of prof. dr Edmund Malinowski].’’ Roczniki Nauk Rolniczych Ser. A 83 (1): 215–228. 336 PIOTR KO¨HLER

—— 1960b. ‘‘Scientific activities of Edmund Malinowski—Professor in genetics.’’ Genetica Polonica 1 (1): 183–197. Bejnar, Witold. 1952. ‘‘Krzyzo_ ´wki wegetatywne u burako´w. [Vegetative hybrids in beets].’’ Roczniki Nauk Rolniczych 61: 249–258. Bernacki, Włodzimierz, Henryk Głe˛bocki, Maciej Korkuc´, Filip Musiał, Jarosław Szarek and Zdzisław Zblewski. 2007. Komunizm w Polsce: Zdrada, zbrodnia, zakłamanie, zniewolenie. Warszawa: Kluszczyn´ski. Białobok, Stefan. 1953a. Hodowla topoli w oparciu o metody miczurinowskiej biologii. [Cultivation of poplar based on of methods of Michurinian biology]. [in:] [anonym]. Materiały Konferencji Agrobiologicznej Lesńiko´w. Rogo´w, 9–13 wrzesńia 1952 r. [Proceedings of the Agrobiological Conference of Foresters. Rogo´w, 9–13 September 1952]. Warszawa: Pan´stwowe Wydawnictwo Rolnicze i Lesńe. —— 1953b. ‘‘Program badawczy Zakładu Dendrologii i Pomologii PAN w Ko´rniku. [Research program of the Department of Dendrology and Pomology at the Polish Academy of Sciences in Ko´rnik].’’ Kosmos Ser. A Biologiczna 2 (1): 107–109. Bikont, Anna and Sławomir Zago´rski. 1998. ‘‘Burzliwe dzieje gruszek na wierzbie. [The turbulent history of pears on a willow].’’ Gazeta Wyborcza 179: 12–15. Boratyn´ski, Adam, Jakub Dolatowski and Jacek Oleksyn. 1993. ‘‘Stefan Białobok (1909–1992).’’ Wiadomosći Botaniczne 37 (1/2): 93–109. Brze˛k, Gabriel. 1992. ZBłaz_owej ku z´ro´dłom wiedzy. [From Błazowa_ to the sources of knowledge]. Lublin: Wydawnictwo Lubelskie. Brzozowski, Stanisław. 1983. Nauki rolnicze. [Agricultural sciences]. [in:] Kazimierz Mas´lankiewicz (ed.), Zarys dziejo´w nauk przyrodniczych w Polsce. [An outline of the history of natural sciences in Poland]. Warszawa: Wiedza Powszechna. Bystrek, Jan. 1985. ‘‘Profesor dr Jo´zef Motyka (1900–1984).’’ Wiadomosći Botaniczne 29 (4): 279–284. Chałasin´ski, Jo´zef. 1957. ‘‘Drogi i bezdroza_ socjalizmu w nauce polskiej (1949–1956). [Paths and roadless tracts of socialism in Polish science (1949–1956)].’’ Kultura i Społeczen´stwo 1 (1): 7–43. Connelly, John. 2000. Captive University: The Sovietization of East German, Czech and Polish Higher Education, 1945–1956. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press. D. S. 1935. ‘‘Miczurin.’’ Wszechs´wiat 5: 161–162. Dembowski, Jan. 1949. O nowej genetyce i dyskusja uczonych polskich o teorii Miczurina–Łysenki. [On the new genetics and the discussion of Polish scientists on the Michurin–Lysenko theory]. Warszawa: Ksia˛zka_ i Wiedza. Dominik, Tadeusz. 1949. ‘‘Dalej o chromozomach… [Further on chromosomes…].’’ Problemy 5 (12): 855–856. —— 1950. ‘‘Jeszcze o chromozomach. [More on chromosomes].’’ Problemy 6 (3): 203– 205. Dybiec, Julian. 2000. Uniwersytet Jagiellon´ski 1918–1939. Krako´w: Polska Akademia Umieje˛tnosći. —— 2001. ‘‘Uniwersytet Jagiellon´ski wobec stalinizmu 1945–1956. [The Jagiellonian University in the face of Stalinism 1945–1956].’’ Prace Komisji Historii Nauki Pols- kiej Akademii Umieje˛tnosći 3: 5–20 [and the discussion after the lecture, p. 20–33]. Dzikowski, Bohdan. 1935. ‘‘I. W. Miczurin.’’ Przyroda i Technika 14 (8): 362–363. [editorial staff]. 1953. ‘‘[Umieszczaja˛c powyzej_ nadesłany w dn. 18.II.53 r. list prof. B. Pawłowskiego, redakcja ze swej strony wyjasńia co naste˛puje:] [Publishing above LYSENKO AFFAIR AND POLISH BOTANY 337

prof. Bogumił Pawłowski’s letter of 18 February 1953, the editorial staff offers the following explanation:].’’ Kosmos Ser. A Biologiczna 2 (3): 66–67. Gajewski, Wacław. 1956a. ‘‘Pare˛ sło´w o sytuacji w naukach biologicznych. [A few words on the situation in biological sciences].’’ Problemy 12 (10): 698–705. —— 1956b. ‘‘XXIX Zjazd Polskiego Towarzystwa Botanicznego. [The 29th convention of the Polish Botanical Society].’’ Kosmos Ser. A Biologiczna 5 (5): 605–610. —— 1957. ‘‘Z podro´zy_ do Zwia˛zku Radzieckiego. [From a journey to the Soviet Union].’’ Wiadomosći Botaniczne 1 (1): 19–39. —— 1990. ‘‘The grim heritage of Lysenkoism: Four personal accounts. II. Lysenkoism in Poland.’’ The Quaternary Review of Biology 65 (4): 423–434. Graham, Loren. 1972. Science and Philosophy in the Soviet Union. New York: Knopf. Grodzin´ski, Zygmunt (ed.). 1952 [published in 1954]. Katalog polskiej literatury mate- matyczno–przyrodniczej. Tom XXI za lata 1945–1949. Catalogue of Polish scientific literature. Vol. xxi (1945–1949). Krako´w: Polska Akademia Umieje˛tnosći. —— 1963. Katalog polskiej literatury biologicznej. Catalogue of Polish biological literature, Vol. xxii (1950–1954). Krako´w: Polska Akademia Nauk – Oddział w Krakowie. Komisja Nauk Biologicznych, Pan´stwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe. Gurski, J. H. 1930. ‘‘Pamie˛ci Kazimierza Miczyn´skiego. [In remembrance of Kazimierz Miczyn´ski].’’ Roczniki Nauk Rolniczych xxiii: 1–14. Halawa, Marek (ed.). 2000. Wspo´łczesńi uczeni polscy. Słownik biograficzny. Tom III M–R. [Contemporary Polish scientists. Biographical dictionary. Vol. iii M–R]. Warszawa: Os´rodek Przetwarzania Informacji. Halicz, Benedykt. 1958. Z dziejo´w mys´li ewolucyjnej. [From the history of evolutionary thought]. Warszawa: PWN. Hu¨bner, Piotr. 1999. ‘‘The Last Flight of Pegasus: The Story of the Polish Academy of Science and Letters and of the Warsaw Scientific Society, 1945–1952.’’ East European Politics and Societies 13 (1): 71–116. Hurwic, Jo´zef. 1953. ‘‘Walny Zjazd Polskiego Towarzystwa Przyrodniko´w im. Kop- ernika. [General Congress of the Polish Copernican Naturalist Society].’’ Problemy 9 (7): 489–490. Huxley, Julian. 1949. Heredity East and West: Lysenko and World Science. New York: Henry Shuman. Jaczewski, Bohdan. 1992. Organizacje i instytucje z_ycia naukowego w Polsce (listopad 1918–1939). [Organizations and institutions of scientific life in Poland (November 1918–1939)]. [in:] Bogdan Suchodolski (ed.), Historia nauki polskiej. [History of Polish science]. Vol. v 1918–1951. Part I (ed. Z. Skubała – Tokarska). Wrocław – Warszawa – Krako´w: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolin´skich. Janczewski, Edouard de. 1907. ‘‘Monographie des Groseilliers. Ribes L.’’ Me´moires de la Socie´te´ de Physique et d’Histoire Naturelle de Gene`ve 35 (3): 199–516. Janion, Stefan. 1952. ‘‘III Zjazd Sekcji Socjologii i Ekologii Ros´lin Polskiego Towarzystwa Botanicznego. [The 3rd Convention of the Section of Sociology and Ecology of Plants of the Polish Botanical Society].’’ Kosmos 1 (1): 56–58. Jankun, Andrzej. 1991. ‘‘Maria Magdalena Skalin´ska (1890–1977) – the 100th anniversary of her birth.’’ Polish Botanical Studies 2: 3–16. Joravsky, David. 1970. The Lysenko Affair. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. K. St. [Konstanty Stecki]. 1987. Moldenhawer Konstanty (1889–1962). [in:] Stanisław Feliksiak (ed.), Słownik biologo´w polskich. [Dictionary of Polish biologists]. Warsz- awa: Pan´stwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe. 338 PIOTR KO¨HLER

Karasiewicz, Stefan. 1924. ‘‘Mieszanće wegetatywne prof. Daniela. [Vegetative hybrids of prof. Daniel].’’ Ogrodnictwo 20: 227–232. Ko¨hler, Piotr. 2002. Botanika w Towarzystwie Naukowym Krakowskim, Akademii Umieje˛tnosći i Polskiej Akademii Umieje˛tnosći (1815–1952). Botany at the Academic Society of Cracow, Academy of Sciences and Letters and the Polish Academy of Sciences and Letters (1815–1952). Krako´w: Polska Akademia Umieje˛tnosći. —— 2008. ‘‘Łysenkizm w botanice polskiej. [Lysenkoism in Polish botany].’’ Kwar- talnik Historii Nauki i Techniki 53 (2): 83–161. —— 2009. ‘‘Szafer Władysław Jo´zef, krypt. W.S. (1886–1970).’’ Polski Słownik Biog- raficzny 46: 401–407. Kornas´, Jan. 1982. ‘‘Two´rczosćńaukowa Bogumiła Pawłowskiego i jej z´ro´dła. [Scientific output of Bogumił Pawłowski and its sources].’’ Wiadomosći Botaniczne 26 (3): 91–99. —— 2000. Bogumił Pawłowski (1898–1971). [in:] Alicja Zemanek (ed.), Uniwersytet Jagiellon´ski. Złota Ksie˛ga Wydziału Biologii i Nauk o Ziemi. Cze˛sćÍ: Biografie uczonych. Krako´w: Uniwersytet Jagiellon´ski. Krementsov, Nikolai. 1997. Stalinist Science. New Jersey: Princeton University Press. —— 2005. International Science Between the Wars: The Case of Genetics. New York, NY: Routledge. Krzanowska, Halina. 2001. Recepcja w Polsce przełomowych odkryc´ genetyki w XX wieku. [The reception in Poland of groundbreaking discoveries in genetics in the twentieth century]. [in:] Adam Strzałkowski (ed.), Recepcja w Polsce nowych kier- unko´w i teorii naukowych. [The reception in Poland of new scientific directions and theories]. Komisja Historii Nauki Polskiej Akademii Umieje˛tnosći. Monografie, vol. 4. Kunicki-Goldfinger, Władysław. 1953. ‘‘Przedkomo´rkowe formy zycia_ u bakterii. [Pre- cellular forms of life in bacteria].’’ Kosmos Ser. A Biologiczna 2 (3): 25–32. —— 1987. ‘‘Casus: Łysenko.’’ Przegla˛d Katolicki 75(40) (=172): 5–6. —— 1989. ‘‘Biologia–mity–polityka. [Biology–myths–politics].’’ Problemy 10: 2–6. —— 1993. Znika˛d do nika˛d. [From nowhere to nowhere], Ind ed. Warszawa: Pan´stwowy Instytut Wydawniczy. —— 2003. Znika˛d do nika˛d. [From nowhere to nowhere], IInd ed. Warszawa: Pan´stwowy Instytut Wydawniczy. Kuzdowicz,_ Alfons. 1955. ‘‘Wpływ szczepienia na synteze˛ alkaloido´w tropinowych. The influence of grafting on the synthesis of tropine alkaloids.’’ Acta Societatis Botani- corum Poloniae 24 (3): 549–566. Kuzdowicz,_ Alfons and W. Bejnar. 1949. ‘‘Mieszanće wegetatywne. [Vegetative hybrids].’’ Poste˛py Wiedzy Rolniczej 1 (1–2): 103–139. Kuzńicki, Leszek. 1996. ‘‘Władysław Kunicki-Goldfinger 1916–1995.’’ Nauka Polska 1: 213–215. Łazarewicz, Cezary. 2000. ‘‘Sadzimy ryz,_ budujemy socjalizm. [We are planting rice, we are building socialism].’’ Gazeta – Magazyn [weekly supplement to Gazeta Wyborcza], 26(382) (29 June 2000): 6–10. Lecourt, Dominique. 1977. Proletarian Science? The Case of Lysenko. NLB (trans. Ben Brewster): London. Listowski, Anatol. 1954. ‘‘Devernalizacja czyli o tzw. odwracalnosći rozwoju. [Dever- nalization or on the so–called reversibility of development].’’ Poste˛py Nauki Rol- niczej 1 (6): 20–24. Łysenko, Trofim [ed.]. 1949. O sytuacji w biologii. Referat wygłoszony na sesji Wszechzwia˛zkowej Akademii Nauk Rolniczych im. W. I. Lenina 31 lipca 1948 roku. LYSENKO AFFAIR AND POLISH BOTANY 339

[On the situation in biology. A lecture delivered at a session of the Vladimir I. Lenin All–Union Academy of Agricultural Sciences on 31 July 1948]. Warszawa: Pan´stwowy Instytut Wydawnictw Rolniczych. (translated into Polish by H. Birecka). Łysenko, Trofim. 1950. Agrobiologia. Prace z dziedziny genetyki, hodowli i nasiennictwa. [Agrobiology. Works on genetics, breeding, and seed production]. Warszawa: Pan´stwowy Instytut Wydawnictw Rolniczych. Majewski, F. 1958. Michał Korczewski. [in:] Ksie˛ga Pamia˛tkowa SGGW w Warszawie 1906–1956. [Commemorative book of the Main School of Agriculture in Warsaw, 1906–1956], vol. 1. Warszawa. Majewski, Tomasz. 2000. Edward Franciszek Glinka Janczewski (1846–1918). [in:] Alicja Zemanek (ed.), Uniwersytet Jagiellon´ski. Złota Ksie˛ga Wydziału Biologii i Nauk o Ziemi. Cze˛sćÍ: Biografie uczonych. Krako´w: Uniwersytet Jagiellon´ski. Majewski, Tomasz and Irena Majchrowicz. 1986. ‘‘Profesor Tadeusz Dominik (1909– 1980).’’ Acta Mycologica 22 (1): 53–65. Makarewicz, Aniela. 1956. ‘‘Za – czy przeciw Łysence. [For or against Lysenko].’’ Trybuna Ludu 95 (5 April 1956): 4. Makarewicz, Aniela and Stanisław Skowron. 1955. ‘‘Dziedzicznosćí zmiennosć´– za- gajenie. [Heredity and variability – preface].’’ Kosmos Ser. A Biologiczna 4 (6): 749– 765. Malinowski, Edmund. 1927. Dziedzicznosć´ i zmiennosć´. (Zarys genetyki). [Heredity and variability. (An outline of genetics)]. Lwo´w: Nakładem K. S. Jakubowskiego. —— 1950. ‘‘Zakład Genetyki i Hodowli Ros´lin SGGW. [Department of Genetics and Cultivation of Plants at the Main School of Agriculture].’’ Poste˛py Wiedzy Rolniczej 2 (1–2): 202–204. —— 1953. Anatomia ros´lin. [Plant anatomy]. Warszawa: Pan´stwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe. —— 1954. ‘‘Zakład Genetyki PAN i Zakład Genetyki SGGW w Skierniewicach. [Department of Genetics of the Polish Academy of Sciences and Department of Genetics of the Main School of Agriculture in Skierniewice].’’ Kosmos Ser. A Bio- logiczna 3 (4): 467–468. Marchlewski, Teodor. 1958. ‘‘Czy istnieje kryzys w genetyce. [Is there a crisis in genetics?].’’ Kosmos Ser. A Biologiczna 7 (5): 517–532. Medvedev, Zhores. 1971. The Rise and Fall of T.D. Lysenko. New York: Doubleday and Co. (trans. I. Michael Lerner). Michajłow, Włodzimierz. 1949a. ‘‘Na pierwszym etapie rozwoju nowej biologii w Polsce. [At the first stage of the development of the new biology in Poland].’’ Nowe Drogi 3 (3): 123–133. —— 1949b. Nowy kierunek rozwoju biologii wspo´łczesnej (teoria Miczurina–Łysenki). Stenogram odczytu wygłoszonego na wieczorze dyskusyjnym zorganizowanym stara- niem Koła Przyrodniko´w–Marksisto´w przy Redakcji ‘‘Nowych Dro´g’’ dn. 26. I. 49 r. [A new direction in the development of contemporary biology (Michurin–Lysenko theory). Shorthand notes of a lecture delivered at a discussion evening organized by the Association of Marxist Naturalists attached to the Editorial Staff of ‘‘Nowe Drogi’’, 26 January 1949]. Warszawa: Nowe Drogi. [separatum]. —— 1952. O two´rczym darwinizmie radzieckim. [On Soviet creative Darwinism]. [in:] Kazimierz Petrusewicz, Włodzimierz Michajłow and Stanisław Skowron, eds. Zagadnienia two´rczego darwinizmu. Materiały Kursu Biologii w Dziwnowie 7 VII–7 VIII 1952 r. [Issues in creative Darwinism. Proceedings of the Course in Biology, Dziwno´w, 7 July–7 August 1952]. Warszawa: Pan´stwowe Wydawnictwo Rolnicze i Lesńe. 340 PIOTR KO¨HLER

Michajłow, Włodzimierz and Kazimierz Petrusewicz. 1954a. ‘‘Dziesie˛c´lat rozwoju biologii w Polsce Ludowej. [Ten years of development of biology in People’s Poland].’’ Kosmos Ser. A Biologiczna 3 (6): 703–723. Michajłow, Włodzimierz and Kazimierz Petrusewicz (eds.). 1954b. Materiały Konferencji Młodej Kadry Biologo´w w Kortowie 18 VIII–28 VIII 1953. [Proceedings of the Conference of Young Biology Personnel in Kortowo, 18 August–28 August 1953]. Warszawa: Pan´stwowe Wydawnictwo Rolnicze i Lesńe. Mirek, Zbigniew, Lucyna Musiał and Janusz J. Wo´jcicki (eds.). 1995. Kto jest kim w botanice polskiej. Who is who in Polish botany. Krako´w: Polish Botanical Studies – Guidebook Series, vol. 14. Moldenhawer, Constantin. 1949 [published in 1950]. ‘‘Introduction to experiments carried out on vegetable hybrids by grafting.’’ Comptes Rendus Mensuels des seánces de la Classe des Sciences Mathe´matiques et Naturelles de l’Acade´mie Polonaise des Sciences et des Lettres 10: 13–14. Moldenhawer, Konstanty. 1949 [published in 1950]. ‘‘Wste˛pne dos´wiadczenia nad otrzymywaniem mieszanćo´w wegetatywnych na drodze szczepien´. (Komunikat tymczasowy). [Preliminary experiments in obtaining vegetative hybrids by means of grafting (Temporary report)].’’ Sprawozdania z Czynnosći i Posiedzen´ Polskiej Aka- demii Umieje˛tnosći 50 (8): 448–451. —— 1951 [published in 1952]. ‘‘Dalsze wyniki badanńad mieszanćami wegetatywnymi ze szczego´lnym uwzgle˛dnieniem rodziny Solanacea–Composita. [Further results of research on vegetative hybrids with special consideration given to the Solanacea– Composita family].’’ Sprawozdania z Czynnosći i Posiedzen´ Polskiej Akademii Umieje˛tnosći 52 (3): 222. Motyka, Jo´zef. 1953a. Geobotanika. [Geobotany]. Warszawa: Pan´stwowe Wydawnic- two Naukowe. —— 1953b. ‘‘Pro´ba zastosowania metod materializmu dialektycznego w geobotanice. [An attempt at applying the methods of dialectic materialism in geobotany].’’ Kosmos Ser. A Biologiczna 2 (4): 25–51. Niemirowicz-Szczytt, Katarzyna. 1996. Edmund Malinowski, profesor genetyki. [in:] Tomasz Majewski (ed.), Materiały do historii Wydziału Ogrodniczego SzkołyGło´wnej Gospodarstwa Wiejskiego. [Materials for the history of the Horticultural Faculty of the Main School of Agriculture]. Warszawa: Fundacja Rozwo´j SGGW. Obmin´ski, Zygmunt Marian. 1953. ‘‘Pro´ba interpretacji rozwoju osobniczego ros´lin drzewiastych z punktu widzenia nowej biologii. [An attempt at interpreting individual development of tree plants from the point of view of the new biology].’’ Sylwan 97: 401–440. Obmin´ski, Zygmunt. 1957. ‘‘O własćiwy pogla˛d na role˛ miczurinizmu w naukach biologicznych. [For a proper view on the role of Michurinism in biological sciences].’’ Sylwan 101 (4): 1–13. Ose˛ka, Piotr. 2000. Władysław Kunicki-Goldfinger. [in:] Jan Sko´rzyn´ski (ed.), Opozycja w PRL. Słownik biograficzny 1956–89. [Opposition in the Polish People’s Republic. Biographical dictionary 1956–89]. vol. 1. Warszawa: Os´rodek Karta. P. 1950. ‘‘Spostrzezenia_ ze Zjazdu Polskiego Towarzystwa Botanicznego we Wrocławiu. [Observations from the Convention of the Polish Botanical Society in Wrocław].’’ Zycie_ Nauki 5 (11–12): 954–956. Paszewski, Adam. 1998. ‘‘Prof. dr hab Wacław Gajewski, profesor zw. Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego i Instytutu Biochemii i Biofizyki PAN, członek rzeczywisty Polskiej Akademii Nauk (28.02.1911–12.12.1997). [Prof. dr hab. Wacław Gajewski, a pro- LYSENKO AFFAIR AND POLISH BOTANY 341

fessor of Warsaw University and the Institute of Biochemistry and Biophysics at the Polish Academy of Science, a real member of the Polish Academy of Sciences (28 February 1911–12 December 1997)].’’ Poste˛py Mikrobiologii 37 (1): 5–7. Pawłowski, Bogumił. 1953. ‘‘W sprawie Zjazdu Sekcji Socjologii i Ekologii Ros´lin Polskiego Towarzystwa Botanicznego w Białowiezy._ [On the issue of the Convention of the Section of Sociology and Ecology of Plants of the Polish Botanical Society in Białowieza].’’_ Kosmos Ser. A Biologiczna 2 (3): 65–66. Petrusewicz, Kazimierz and Włodzimierz Michajłow. 1951. ‘‘O two´rczy rozwo´j nauk biologicznych w Polsce (przed I Kongresem Nauki Polskiej). [For a creative development of biological sciences in Poland (before the 1st Congress of Polish Science)].’’ Nowe Drogi 5 (1) : 220–233. —— 1955a. ‘‘O obecnym etapie walk ideologicznych w biologii. [On the present stage of ideological struggle in biology].’’ Nowe Drogi 9(9): 11–27. —— 1955b. ‘‘O obecnym etapie walk ideologicznych w biologii. [On the present stage of ideological struggle in biology].’’ Kosmos Ser. A Biologiczna 4 (6): 729–748. Petrusewicz, Kazimierz, Włodzimierz Michajłow and Stanisław Skowron (eds.). 1952. Zagadnienia two´rczego darwinizmu. Materiały Kursu Biologii w Dziwnowie 7 VII–7 VIII 1952 r. [Issues in creative Darwinism. Proceedings of the Course in Biology, Dziwno´w, 7 July–7 August 1952]. Warszawa: Pan´stwowe Wydawnictwo Rolnicze i Lesńe. Pienia˛zek,_ Szczepan Aleksander. 1949a. ‘‘Odpowiedzńa list prof. Dominika. [Reply to a letter by prof. Dominik].’’ Problemy 5 (12): 857. —— 1949b. ‘‘Rola chromozomo´w. [The role of chromosomes].’’ Problemy 5 (8): 573. —— 1950a. ‘‘Krzyzo_ ´wki wegetatywne. [Vegetative hybrids].’’ Problemy 6 (6): 392–396. —— 1950b. ‘‘W odpowiedzi prof. Dominikowi. [In reply to prof. Dominik].’’ Problemy 6 (3): 205. Putrament, Aleksandra. 1990. ‘‘The grim heritage of Lysenkoism: four personal accounts. III. How I became a Lysenkoist.’’ The Quaternary Review of Biology 65 (4): 435–445. Reguła, Jan Alfred. 1994. Historia Komunistycznej Partii Polski w s´wietle fakto´wi dokumento´w. [The history of the Polish Communist Party in light of facts and documents], 3rd ed. Torun´: Portal. Rejman, Aleksander. 1952. ‘‘Rozwo´j stadialny, okresy wzrostu i owocowania, oraz fenofazy drzew owocowych. [Stadial development, periods of growth and fructifi- cation, and phenophases of fruit trees].’’ Przegla˛d Ogrodniczy 29 (9): 1–4. Roll-Hansen, Nils. 2006. The Lysenko Effect: The politics of science. Amherst, NY: Humanity Books. Rothschild, Joseph and Nancy M. Wingfield. 2000. Return to diversity: A political history of East Central Europe since World War II. New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press. ‘‘Rozporza˛dzenie Ministra Wyznan´Religijnych i Os´wiecenia Publicznego z dnia 12 marca 1926 w sprawie programu studio´w i egzamino´w w zakresie botaniki na stopien´ magistra filozofii. [An order of the Minister of Religious Denominations and Public Enlightenment of 12 March 1926 regarding the syllabus of studies and examinations in botany for the degree of Master of Philosophy].’’ Dziennik Urze˛dowy Ministers- twa Wyznan´Religijnych i Os´wiecenia Publicznego, nr 8 (15 May 1926), position 69. Saito, Hirofumi. 2009. The impact of the Soviet genetics controversy on Japan from the late 1930s to the early 1950. [in:] XXIII International Congress of History of Science and Technology ‘‘Ideas and Instruments in Social Context.’’ Book of Abstracts and 342 PIOTR KO¨HLER

List of Participants. 28 July–2 August 2009, Budapest, Hungary: Omigraf Ltd., pp. 186–187. Salmanowicz, Stanisław. 2006. ‘‘Mie˛dzy strachem a manipulacja˛: inteligencja polska wobec stalinizmu. [Between fear and manipulation: Polish intelligentsia in the face of Stalinism].’’ Prace Komisji Historii Nauki Polskiej Akademii Umieje˛tnosći 7: 81–94 [and the discussion after the lecture, pp. 95–104]. Shore, Marci. 2006. Caviar and Ashes: A Warsaw Generation’s Life and Death in Marxism, 1918–1968. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Skalin´ska, Marja. 1928. ‘‘Zarys rozwoju genetyki w Polsce. [An outline of the development of genetics in Poland].’’ Kosmos, tom jubileuszowy, part I: 40–44. —— 1939. Genetyka. Warszawa: Polskie Towarzystwo Eugeniczne. Soyfer, Valery. 1994. T.D. Lysenko and the Tragedy of Soviet Science. New Jersey: Rutgers University Press. S´ro´dka, Andrzej and Paweł Szczawin´ski. 1985. Biogramy Uczonych Polskich. Materiały o z_yciu i działalnosći członko´w AU w Krakowie, TNW, PAU, PAN. Cze˛sćÍI: Nauki biologiczne. [Biograms of Polish scientists. Materials on the life and activity of members of the Academy of Sciences and Letters in Cracow, Academic Society of Warsaw, Polish Academy of Sciences and Letters, Polish Academy of Sciences. Part II: Biological sciences]. Wrocław – Warszawa – Krako´w – Gdan´sk – Ło´dz´: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolin´skich. S´rodon´, Andrzej and Eugenia Wierzbicka. 1969. Katalog polskiej literatury biologicznej. Catalogue of Polish biological literature, Vol. xxiii (1955–1959) part 1. 1969. Wrocław – Warszawa – Krako´w: Polska Akademia Nauk – Oddział w Krakowie. Komisja Nauk Biologicznych: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolin´skich. S´rodon´, Andrzej and Eugenia Wierzbicka. 1970. Katalog polskiej literatury biologicznej. Catalogue of Polish biological literature. Vol. xxiii (1955–1959) part 2. 1970. Wrocław – Warszawa – Krako´w: Polska Akademia Nauk–Oddział w Krakowie. Komisja Nauk Biologicznych: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolin´skich. Stawin´ski, Wiesław. 2006. Nauczanie cytologii i genetyki na przestrzeni XX w. [Teaching cytology and genetics in the 20th century]. [in:] Wiesław Stawin´ski and Alicja Walosik (eds.), Dydaktyka biologii i ochrony s´rodowiska. [Didactics of biology and environment protection]. 2nd edition. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN. S´wia˛tkowska, K. 1955. ‘‘Z działalnosći Zrzeszenia Przyrodniko´w–Marksisto´w. [From the activity of the Association of Marxist Naturalists].’’ Wszechs´wiat 1 (1845): 41–42. Szafer, Władysław. 1957. ‘‘O niekto´rych niespełnionych zadaniach Polskiej Akademii Nauk. [On some tasks of the Polish Academy of Science that have not been carried out].’’ Kultura i Społeczen´stwo 1 (1): 56–63. Szymkiewicz, Dezydery. 1928. ‘‘Przyczynek do kwestji przystosowania sie˛ organizmo´w do otoczenia. [Contribution to the problem of adaptation of organisms to environment].’’ Kosmos Ser. B Przegla˛d zagadnienńaukowych 52: 54–56. Winogradowa, T. (ed.). 1952. Podstawy biologii miczurinowskiej. [Rudiments of Michurin biology]. Warszawa: Pan´stwowe Wydawnictwo Rolnicze i Lesńe. Woýcicki, Stanisław. 1932. ‘‘Krytyczny przegla˛d rozwoju pogla˛do´w na mieszanće wegetatywne w zwia˛zku z pro´ba˛ rozwia˛zania sprawy mieszanća wegetatywnego lilako´w odmian: President Poincare + Dame Blanche. [A critical survey of views on vegetative hybrids in connection with an attempt to solve the problem of a vegetative hybrid of the varieties of lilac: President Poincare + Dame Blanche].’’ Acta Soci- etatis Botanicorum Poloniae 9: 47–86. LYSENKO AFFAIR AND POLISH BOTANY 343

Z_arnowski, Janusz. 1992. ‘‘Społeczen´stwo polskie. c) Inteligencja. [Polish society. Section c) Intelligentsia].’’ [in:] Bogdan Suchodolski (ed.), Historia nauki polskiej. [History of Polish science]. Vol. v 1918–1951. Part I (ed. Z. Skubała–Tokarska). Wrocław–Warszawa–Krako´w: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolin´skich. Zhilin, Sergey G. 1982. Armen Leonovich Takhtadzhyan. Moskva: Nauka. —— 2002. ‘‘Szkoły botaniczne Armena Leonowicza Tachtadzjana_ (w dziewie˛c´dziesie˛ciolecie urodzin). Botanical scientiﬁc schools of Armen Leonovich Takhtajan (on the 90th anniversary of his birth).’’ Wiadomos´ci Botaniczne 46 (1/2): 7–17. (translated into Polish by P. Ko¨hler). Zirkle, Conway (ed.). 1949. Death of a Science in Russia. The Fate of Genetics as Described in Pravda and Elsewhere. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.