320 Forum TRENDS in Genetics Vol.18 No.6 June 2002

Science Chronicle How did East German genetics avoid ? Rudolf Hagemann

Lysenkoism gained favour in the Soviet in agreement with the communist ideology. Lysenko presented his ‘theory’ of the Union during the 1930s and 1940s, replacing This theory received official support from regular sudden transformation of species mendelian genetics. Opponents of Lysenko Stalin in 1936. Many distinguished in 1949–1951 (Box 1). were dismissed from their jobs, imprisoned geneticists who did not follow the political and, not infrequently, died. After World War II theories of and did not support The penetration of Lysenkoism into the in some of the East European Soviet satellite Lysenkoism (e.g. Vavilov, Karpechenko, GDR () states, Lysenkoism became the official Levitsky, Agol, Levit, Nadson and Meiser) It has to be remembered that during the genetics supported by the communist were caught by waves of arrests, often Stalin era, the policies in the authorities, and thus, genetics and biology ending in their death [3,4]. were dictated from Moscow, and so the were set back many years. Yet the uptake of After the war, Lysenko gave a notorious 1948 and Lysenko’s Lysenkoism was not uniform in the Eastern lecture on ‘The Situation in the Biological approval by Stalin signalled the transfer Bloc. The former East Germany (GDR) Science’ [5] during a conference of the of these concepts into all other communist mostly escaped its influence, owing to the Lenin Academy of Agricultural Sciences countries. The influence of Lysenko’s contribution of a few brave individuals and of the USSR (31 July to 7 August 1948, ‘Michurinist Biology’ was strong in the fact that the country had an open border Moscow). At the closing session, Lysenko Bulgaria, Rumania, Hungary and with the West (West Berlin). announced that the Central Committee of Czechoslovakia – in both schools and the Communist Party had examined and universities. In these countries, the In the 1920s–1930s, Soviet genetics was approved his lecture (Box 2). This marked damage done by Lysenkoism to teaching part of the mainstream, and Russian the political victory of Lysenkoism and and research in genetics and biology was geneticists were well known and respected the beginning of the (almost) complete severe and long lasting. However, the internationally. However, at about the destruction of ‘normal’ genetics in the situation in other East European same time a ‘new’ genetics gained political . Genetic institutes and countries was rather different. influence in the USSR. Lysenko – together laboratories were closed, geneticists were The authorities of GDR, under pressure with the marxist philosopher Prezent – dismissed from their academic positions from Moscow, actively distributed developed a theory contradicting [3,4], and the whole school and university Lysenkoistic publications, and several mendelian genetics [1,2]. system was brought into line with scientists and propagandists accepted A central tenet of this ‘Michurinist Lysenkoistic concepts. these concepts and promoted them in Biology’(Box 1) was the inheritance of Lysenkoism reached its public. However, in the GDR, the Lysenko acquired characters – an idea believed to be (and the beginning of its decline), when discussion was mainly political, not a

Box 1. Theses of Lysenko’s ‘Michurinist biology’

1935–1948 is inconsistent with the philosophy of dialectical materialism (1) Inheritance is an attribute of the whole organism, not of discrete (a cornerstone of Marxist theory). The title of a widely distributed hereditary factors. Genes do not exist. book of Lysenkoistic authors was Against the Reactionary (2) Changing the environment gives rise to new characters that are Mendelism–Morganism. inherited (‘inheritance of acquired characters’). The type of the (10) Mendel-Morgan genetics advocates the ‘monopoly of the nucleus’ hereditary changes induced depends on the environmental influences. for heredity (see point 1) [a–c]. (3) Winter varieties of cereal (e.g. wheat), which normally require a period of cold treatment (of the imbibed kernels or seedlings), can 1949–1951 be changed into spring forms without any cold treatment as a Lysenko’s concept reached its summit (and the beginning of its decline) consequence of the changed environment. with the ‘Theory of sudden species transformation’. This stated that (4) Hybridization within (rather than between) varieties of cultivated within cereals, a cultivated plant species is able to change suddenly plants leads to an increase of yield. into another cultivated species or into a related weed. Lysenko reported (5) Plants can be heritably altered by grafting. Graft hybridization is to have found a single rye grain in an ear of wheat, and claimed that analogous to sexual hybridization. plants of barley (Hordeum vulgare) suddenly form grains of the weed (6) There is no difference in principle between sexual and graft Hordeum spontaneum. His followers extended this ‘theory’ to other hybridization. species. (7) By grafting, it is possible to cause a ‘vegetative convergence’ of the grafting partners. Therefore, it is possible to make crosses References between grafted partners that could not by crossed sexually a Siemens, J. (1997) Lysenkoismus in Deutschland (1945–1965). Biologie in (the ‘Mentor method’). unserer Zeit 27, 255–262 (8) After grafting of F1 hybrids as scions (stems), the segregation b Stubbe, H. (1982) Geschichte des Institutes für Kulturpflanzenforschung ratios in their progeny will be changed under the influence of the Gatersleben der Deutschen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin (root) stock, on which they had been grafted. 1943–1968, Akademie-Verlag (9) Classical genetics – dismissively called c Hudson, P.S. and Richens, R.H. (1946) The New Genetics in the Soviet ‘Mendelism–Morganism–Weismannism’ by Lysenkoists – Union, p. 88, Imperial Bureau of Plant Breeding and Geneticsd

http://tig.trends.com 0168-9525/02/$ – see front matter © 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. PII: S0168-9525(02)02677-X Forum TRENDS in Genetics Vol.18 No.6 June 2002 321 genuine scientific debate. Lysenkoistic Box 2. Important events concepts never really took hold at all levels of society, nor did it damage East German In the USSR genetics. The reasons for this are the 1936 T.D. Lysenko presents, supported by I.I. Present, the first version of the theses of his Michurinist Biology. subject of this article. 1936 Official support of Lysenko’s concept by J.V. Stalin. Before going into details, an important 1936–1943 A wave of arrests of many distinguished geneticists, ending with their death fact should be emphasized: from 1945 to (e.g. Vavilov, Karpechenko, Levitsky, Agol, Levit, Nadson, Meiser [7]). 1961, the GDR had an open border with 31 July 1948 Lysenko’s lecture on ‘The Situation in the Biological Science’ at the Conference of the Lenin Academy of Agricultural Sciences of the USSR in Moscow. Full political victory West Berlin. One could travel freely from of Lysenkoism in the USSR following the announcement, ‘The Central Committee of East Berlin (Soviet sector) to West Berlin the Communist Party has examined Lysenko’s lecture and has approved it.’ [6] on the metro (subway), until the Berlin 1948 Beginning of the almost complete destruction of ‘normal genetics’ in the Soviet Wall was built in 1961. The supporters Union and start of the transmission of Lysenkoism to other communist countries. 5 March 1953 Death of J.V. Stalin; N.S. Chrustchev becomes the new First Secretary of the and the opponents of Lysenko, as well as Communist Party of USSR. the political authorities, realized that 1964 Dismissal of N.S. Chrustchev; L.I. Brezhnev becomes the new General Secretary of geneticists who were persecuted could the Communist party of USSR. simply leave. In East Germany 1945–1949 Eastern part of Germany and East sector of Berlin are the ‘Soviet Occupied Zone’. Influence on schools October 7 1949 Foundation of the German Democratic Republic (GDR; or in German: The Ministry for the Socialist Educational Deutsche Demokratische Republik, DDR). 1945–1961 There was an open border between East Berlin (the Soviet sector) and System was under strict political control West Berlin (the American, British and French sectors), including a metro service of the communist authorities. Between between the two parts of Berlin that was continued throughout this period. 1952–1959, Lysenkoism was introduced 13 August 1961 Building of the Berlin Wall; interruption of all uncontrolled traffic connections between the two parts of Berlin, and between East Germany (GDR) and West into the school textbooks, and biology Germany (Bundesrepublik). The only exceptions were Western military traffic teachers received orders to deal with these between West Germany and West Berlin, and air traffic between West Germany topics in their lessons. and West Berlin). But the Lysenkoistic influence only lasted a few years. In 1954, Lysenko was criticized for dogmatism by the new just opportunists who wanted to further who gave regular lectures on Lysenkoism Soviet communist party leader, Nikita their careers. (1953–1955). Support of the Lysenkoistic Chrustchev. This reduced Lysenkoistic In many universities, lectures on ideas also came from Werner Rothmaler influences in the GDR, and meant that genetics were discontinued for several (nicknamed Rouge Malheur by both Lysenkoistic ideas in school textbooks could years and replaced by lectures on ‘Creative opponents and friends). He was a be criticized by East German geneticists. Darwinism’ (a synonym of Lysenkoism). cultured, well-read man and a good After the dismissal of Chrustchev in In the Friedrich Schiller University, speaker who was influencial among 1964, Lysenkoism suddenly disappeared , there were two main proponents of students and young scientists. He from East German school textbooks; soon Lysenkoism: Georg Schneider, who worked promoted the Lysenkoistic ideas on textbooks were published that presented on developmental processes in amphibia in inheritance of acquired characters and mendelian genetics [6]. the thirties and forties in the Soviet Union, criticized the chromosome theory. returned to East Germany after World However, as an experienced botanist he The situation in East German universities War II and promoted Lysenkoistic concepts could not accept Lysenko’s ideas on the The influence of Lysenkoism in the [7,8]. Schneider was supported by the sudden transformation of species, and universities was not uniform and plant taxonomist Otto Schwarz, who criticized these ideas (in 1952–1953). depended on the local situation (for details, was rector of the University of Jena At some East German universities, see Ref. [7]). Of course, the Ministry for (1948–1951, 1958–1962). However, other Lysenkoists tried to apply pressure Higher Education of the GDR tried to professors at Jena (Wartenberg, Gersch, on students and young scientists to provide supporters of Lysenko with greater Drawert) held opposing views and propagate their ideas. For example, when influence. However, in general these distributed their views among students. I was an undergraduate student at the efforts were met with limited success. Another advocate of Lysenkoism was University of , the Associate The German Lysenkoists – when they Jakob Segal, animal physiologist at the Professor of Zoology, C.F. Werner, said were party members – often got ‘directions Humboldt University, East Berlin. in one of his lectures on zoology (1951), from the party’ (in German: Parteiauftrag) Curiously, Segal published several of his ‘I have the impression that some students to support Lysenkoism. Some did this by articles as an appendix to the newspaper in this lecture hall believe that it is conviction, because they believed in the ‘Press of the Soviet Union’ as if his their decision whether they accept the old Lamarckian–Darwinian idea of publications were part of or were Michurinist Biology of Lysenko or rather inheritance of acquired characters (which requested by this journal – a particularly hold onto Mendelism–Morganism. Those was rather popular among biologists in dubious method. who are not willing to accept Lysenko’s Germany in the 1930s). Others had been The Ernst Moritz Arndt University, theories will have no scientific future in opposition to the Nazi racist ideology Greifswald, had a strong Lysenkoistic here.’ One university in which there was and expected Lysenkoism to provide influence [7]. The university had invited a practically no Lysenkoism was the Martin new genetic thinking. And others were Russian guest lecturer, A.F. Scheremetjev, Luther University in , because of the

http://tig.trends.com 322 Forum TRENDS in Genetics Vol.18 No.6 June 2002 influence of three individuals, Hans Lysenko’s theories had been tested with Stubbe, Gustav Becker and Kurt Mothes. absolutely negative results, and this was Consequently, I contacted Stubbe and recognized by the political authorities. changed to the University in Halle, finally Second, these papers encouraged the joining Stubbe’s institute in Gatersleben. growing opposition against of Lysenko in Thus, at some universities, there was the Soviet Union and in other Eastern Bloc some pressure in favour of Lysenkoism; it countries. They clearly demonstrated that, could result in freezing of students and in an institute in East Germany, led by a young scientists out of an institute or famous geneticist and President of the a university, or in slowing down their Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Lysenko’s scientific career. But, in the GDR there assertions had been tested and disproved. were no charges, trials or sentences At Gatersleben, there were both pro- and against established scientists who were anti-Lysenkoists. Stubbe was fair to PhD opponents of Lysenko. students who held Lysenkoistic views. However, he asked them to repeat Lysenko’s Opposition of Lysenkoism by German grafting experiments, using proper genetic geneticists techniques (pure genetic material, Opponents of Lysenkoism whose including appropriate controls of scions and institutes were in West Berlin (American, Fig. 1. Hans Stubbe (1902–1989). Stubbe was PhD stocks, etc.). In this way, he was able to show British, French sectors) could express student and co-worker of the famous geneticist Erwin these PhD students that Lysenkoism had Baur (1875–1933), the founder of the Kaiser Wilhelm their opinion without any risk (e.g. Hans Institute for Breeding Research in Müncheberg (a small no experimental basis [19–22]. Kappert, Hans Nachtsheim, Elisabeth town 30 miles east of Berlin). In 1936, he was dismissed When I came to his office in 1955 to Schiemann and co-workers) [9–11]. The by the Nazi authorities for political reasons (leftist discuss a topic for my PhD thesis, I told situation was different in the Soviet sector convictions). After World War II, he was director of the him directly: ‘I am fully convinced that the Crop Plant Research Institute in Gatersleben. In 1946, of Berlin. Several scientists who had Stubbe became Professor of Genetics at the Martin Lysenkoistic ideas are wrong; therefore, initially been working in research Luther University in Halle, and was elected as a member I do not wish to perform any additional institutes at Berlin-Buch or at the of the German Academy of Sciences at Berlin. In work to test these Lysenkoistic Humboldt University in East Berlin addition, he became President of the German Academy assertations’. Stubbe answered, ‘Fine. of Agricultural Sciences at Berlin (1951–1968) [12–15]. moved to West Berlin after the foundation Among my tomato mutants, which were of the ‘Free University’ in West Berlin induced after X-ray treatment, there are (American sector); for example, official level he was the counterpart of two mutant lines with a very unusual Hans Nachtsheim and Herbert Lüers. Lysenko, who was president of the parallel green-yellow variegation. Find out the There were many opponents of Soviet institution in Moscow [12–15]. genetic basis of these variegations!’ That is Lysenkoism who remained at institutes in Stubbe criticized Lysenko from the what I did. One of these tomato mutants the former GDR, but three distinguished outset. He expressed his doubts on the showed paramutation (1958); the other scientists – Hans Stubbe, Gustav Becker scientific validity of Lysenkoism in mutant line contained a chromosome and Kurt Mothes, working in institutes at meetings with political authorities [16], fragment (1967) whose loss caused Gatersleben resp. Quedlinburg and the and when the attacks of German yellow-green variegation [24]. Martin Luther University in Halle – had a Lysenkoists on him and his institute At Halle, Stubbe lectured particularly important role. became too vigourous, he protested to the uninterruptedly through the years when political authorities, including the General Lysenkoists were trying to obtain influence The role of Professor Hans Stubbe Secretary of the East German Communist in East German universities. So, he was The leading figure of the resistance party (SED) and the Prime Minister [12]. able to pass on genetic knowledge to against Lysenkoism in the GDR was He and his co-workers tested Lysenko’s students of agriculture and biology, and to Hans Stubbe (Fig. 1). In 1936, he was hypotheses (especially the grafting recruit young scientists for his Gatersleben dismissed from the Müncheberg Institute experiments and the ‘Mentor method’) in institute. Many of them went on to do by the Nazi authorities for political his institute at Gatersleben. In a letter to modern genetic research and teach genetics reasons (‘leftist convictions’). Because of me on 1 August 1984 Stubbe said, ‘It was in universities before and after Stubbe’s these anti-Nazi credentials, Stubbe was clear to us that Lysenko was a forger and a retirement [14]. Stubbe was also very active trusted by the East German authorities criminal. But it was not sufficient that we producing books in German, making (although he never became a member of knew this. We had to demonstrate that his modern genetic literature available for East the communist party). “results” were wrong. The Russians could German students and scientists, especially He became Director of the Crop Plant not produce this evidence. We had to do it, the series Genetics. Basis, Results and Research Institute in Gatersleben and and furthermore while Stalin was still in Problems in single Monographs, which Professor of Genetics in Halle, and was power.’[14]. All of these experiments gave totalled 13 volumes [25,26]. Remarkably, all elected to the German Academy of clearcut negative results. None of the this happened in East Germany during a Sciences at Berlin. In addition, in 1951, he Lysenkoistic assertions could be sustained, time when, in other Eastern Bloc countries, was appointed as President of the newly as reported in several publications [17–24]. genetic research institutions were ruined founded German Academy of Agricultural These publications were of great and genetic teaching was forced to Sciences in East Berlin. Thus, at an importance. First, they showed that propagate Lysenkoistic views.

http://tig.trends.com Forum TRENDS in Genetics Vol.18 No.6 June 2002 323

In 1954, Mothes was elected President of the German Academy of Natural Scientists Leopoldina in Halle, and initiated the creation of a Darwin Medal of the Academy Leopoldina (1959). This medal was awarded to distinguished research workers in the field of genetics and evolution, among them were internationally well- known scientists from many countries, including opponents of Lysenkoism from the Soviet Union (N.V. Timofeev-Ressovskij, I.I. Schmalhausen, S.S. Chetverikov and N.P. Dubinin), but not a single follower of Lysenko. This gesture was well understood both in the West and East, signalling in favour of ‘normal’ genetics and against Fig. 2. Gustav Becker (1905–1970). Becker trained under Lysenkoism. Official representatives of Fritz von Wettstein, studying polyploids, and then science and policy in the Eastern Bloc entered the field of plant breeding, becoming Director of Breeding Research in the breeding firm Gebrüder Dippe were piqued. Mothes tried to present in Quedlinburg. After World War II, in 1947, he became these medals to the Russian scientists in Fig. 3. Kurt Mothes (1900–1983). Mothes was a plant Professor and Director of the Institute of Plant Breeding Moscow. After long negotiations, he was physiologist and plant biochemist. From 1949 to 1957, he was Head of the Department of Biochemistry at the in Quedlinburg, and, in 1951, in addition Professor of allowed to give the medal just to one of Plant Breeding in the Faculty of Agriculture of the Gatersleben Institute, and actively took part in the Martin Luther University in Halle [27,28]. them (Schmalhausen); the others were discussions about Lysenko. In 1957, he became claimed to be ill or too busy [29,30]. Professor at the Martin Luther University, and later he The role of Professor Gustav Becker Director of the Institute of Biochemistry of Plants, Halle, of the German Academy of Sciences at Berlin. From 1954 After World War II, Becker (Fig. 2) became Of course, other scientists were also to 1974, he was President of the Deutsche Akademie der director of the Quedlinburg Institute of opponents of Lysenkoism, but they did not Naturforscher Leopoldina in Halle [29]. Plant Breeding and Professor of Plant have the same opportunity, influence and Breeding at the University of Halle. steadfastness for an open confrontation distinguished scientists; there had already He was a close friend of Stubbe and with Lysenkoists as Stubbe, Becker and been too many who left East Germany for influenced the choice of Gatersleben as the Mothes. For instance, Professor Hermann West Berlin and West Germany. place for Stubbe’s institute (1945–1946). Kuckuck, an anti-Nazi who became director In contrast to other European Together with Stubbe and Rudolf Schick of the Central Research Institute for Plant socialist countries, the distinct opposition (another scientist with anti-Nazi Breeding Müncheberg in 1948 and who against Lysenkoistic ideas in the credentials), he proposed the creation of a supervised the translation and editing of institutes of the Deutsche Akademie der German Academy of Agricultural Sciences Lysenko’s book Agrobiology. He criticized Wissenschaften (Academy of Sciences) with the aim of coordinating activities in Lysenkoism in public lectures and, as a and the Deutsche Akademie der breeding and breeding research in East result of confrontations with authorities, his Landwirtschaftswissenschaften (Academy Germany. This proposal was accepted, and situation in Müncheberg became untenable of Agricultural Sciences), and the growing Becker became its Vice President (and in 1950. He went to West Berlin, finally opposition within the universities led to a Stubbe its President). Becker and Stubbe becoming professor of Applied Genetics at relatively early decline of Lysenkoism in took part in many discussions about the University of Hannover [9,31]. East Germany and prevented damage of Lysenkoism, and prevented any harm to research work. East German breeding institutes [27,28]. The decline of Lysenkoism However, an open and free critical The GDR government and the communist debate on Lysenkoism, its proponents and The role of Professor Kurt Mothes party, led by Walter Ulbricht, were supporting scientists as well as its political Mothes (Fig. 3) was a plant physiologist and somewhat hesitant about promoting supporters (in the background) never took plant biochemist. From 1949 to 1957, he was Lysenkoism. They were aware that place in public in the GDR (neither on Head of the Department of Biochemistry of scientists like Stubbe, Becker and Mothes radio and television, nor in newspapers or the Gatersleben Institute, and he took an had a great scientific reputation both in general journals). This was in line with the active part in the discussions about Lysenko. the country and internationally. Also, they official policy of the government and the In 1957, he became professor at Halle. He watched the development of Lysenkoism in ruling party and frequently was expressed was a gifted lecturer and frequently gave the USSR (after Stalin’s death in 1953) and with the slogan: ‘We do not want any talks in other East German universities, the reactions of the international scientific discussion of previous mistakes!’ (in where he openly criticized Lysenkoism. community. Furthermore, the government German: Keine Fehler-Diskussion!). Mothes enjoyed debating with the was well aware of the open border to West Lysenkoism came to its final end with audience and usually got the better of Berlin and could foresee the consequences of the political downfall of Chrustchev in the Lysenkoists because of his breadth of a political pressure in favour of Lysenkoism. Soviet Union (Box 2). With the assumption knowledge and talent for repartee. They did not wish to lose any more of power by Brezhnev in 1964, the Lysenko

http://tig.trends.com 324 Forum TRENDS in Genetics Vol.18 No.6 June 2002 period was over. A main reason for science and politics: Axolotl research at Jena 21 Zacharias, M. (1956) Ein Versuch zur University, Germany, during the Lysenko era Beeinflussung der F -Spaltungen von Bastarden Chrustchev’s downfall was severe failures 2 (1950s–1960s). Axolotl News 29, 12–15 aus der Gattung Antirrhinum durch Pfropfung in agricultural productivity – and this 9 Siemens, J. (1997) Lysenkoismus in Deutschland von F1-Bastarden auf ihre Ausgangseltern. was connected with Lysenko’s activities. (1945–1965). Biologie in unserer Zeit 27, 255–262 Kulturpflanze 4, 277–295 Parallel to his theoretical ideas, Lysenko 10 Brix, K. (1952) Untersuchungen über den Einfluβ 22 Zacharias, M. (1957) Über die Anwendbarkeit der had given his promise (to Stalin and der Pfropfung auf Reis und Unterlage und die Methode der vegetativen Annäherung zur Möglichkeit einer Übertragung eventueller Chrustchev) that the application of his Erhöhung der Kreuzbarkeit einiger Veränderungen auf die Nachkommen. Ztschr.f. Wildkartoffelarten mit der Kulturkartoffel. ‘new theory’ would lead to an increase of Pflanzenzüchtung 31, 285–288 Kulturpflanze 5, 240–252 agricultural yields. However, in the late 11 Schiemann, E. (1948) Review on Hudson, P.S., 23 Böhme, H. (2000) Genetik in der Klammer von fifties and sixties it became more and more Richens, R.H.: The new genetics in the Soviet Politik und Ideologie - Persönliche plain that these practical proposals did not Union, 1946. Naturwissenschaften 35, 62–64 Erinnerungen. Acta Historica Leopoldina 12 Käding, E. (1999) Engagement und actually produce more crops. (Halle/S.) 36, 111–136 Verantwortung. Hans Stubbe, Genetiker und 24 Stubbe, H. (1982) Geschichte des Institutes für In summary, Stubbe, Becker and Züchtungsforscher, ZALF-Bericht Nr. 36 Kulturpflanzenforschung Gatersleben der Mothes, backed by many colleagues, were 13 Hagemann, R. (1985) Einige Deutschen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin able to avoid any influence of Lysenkoism Hauptentwicklungslinien der Genetik seit 1985, In 1943–1968, Akademie-Verlag Beiträge zur Wissenschaftsgeschichte (Wendel, G., ed.), 25 Stubbe, H. (1963) Kurze Geschichte der on their work in genetics and breeding in pp. 93–110 Wissenschaftsentwicklung von 1945 bis Genetik bis zur Wiederentdeckung der the research institutes of the Academy of zur Gegenwart. Deutscher Verlag der Wissenschaften Vererbungsregeln Gregor Mendels.(Beitrag 1 14 Hagemann, R. (1999) Hans Stubbe – Genetiker, Sciences and the Academy of Agricultural von Genetik. Grundlagen, Ergebnisse und Forscher, Wissenschaftsorganisator, Mensch. Sciences of the GDR until the breakdown Probleme in Einzeldarstellungen), p. 232, Biospektrum 5, 306–309 of Lysenkoism in the USSR in 1964. Gustav Fischer Verlag 15 Böhme, H. (1998) Hans Stubbe (1902–1989). 26 Brandsch, H. (1983) Genetische Grundlagen References Mutationsforschung und Pflanzenzüchtung. der Tierzüchtung (Beitrag 13), p. 406, 1 Soyfer, V.N. (1994) Lysenko and the Tragedy of In Sachsen-Anhalt – eine Wiege der Gustav Fischer Verlag Soviet Science, Rutgers University Press Pflanzenzüchtung. Vorträge für Pflanzenzüchtung 27 Hoffmann, W. (1971) Nachruf auf Gustav Becker. 2 Medvedjev, Z.A. (1969) The Rise and Fall of (Stein, M., ed.) Heft 40, 61–68 Zeitschr. f. Pflanzenzüchtung 65, 89–94 T. D. Lysenko, Columbia University Press 16 Stubbe, H. (1952) Über einige Fragen der 28 Unger, K. et al. (2001) Prof. Dr. Dr.h.c. Gustav 3 Soyfer, V.N. (2001) The consequences of political Genetik. In Die sowjetische Agrarwissenschaft dictatorship for Russian science. Nat. Rev. Genet. und unsere Landwirtschaft. Protokoll der Tagung Becker und die Züchtungsforschung in 2, 723–729 des ZK der SED mit führenden Quedlinburg. Quedlinburger Annalen 4, 78–86 4 Popovsky, M. (1984) The Vavilov Affair, Agrarwissenschaftlern am 25./26.5.1951 29 Parthier, B. (2001) Kurt Mothes (1900–1983). Shoe String Press in Berlin, pp. 96–112, Dietz Verlag Gelehrter, Präsident, Persönlichkeit, Acta 5 Lysenko, T.D., ed. (1949) Über den Stand der 17 Stubbe, H. (1954) Über die vegetative Historica Leopoldina (Halle/S.) 17, 150 Biologischen Wissenschaft. Stenographischer Hybridisierung von Pflanzen. Versuche an 30 Gerstengarbe, S. (2000) Die Leopoldina in den Bericht über die Tagung der W.I.Lenin-Akademie Tomatenmutanten. Kulturpflanze 2, 185–236 konfliktreichen Jahren 1958–1962. Acta Historica der Landwirtschaftswissenschaften der UdSSR 18 Stubbe, H. (1955) Über die Umwandlung von Leopoldina (Halle/S.) 36, 63–100 (31 Juli–7 August 1948), Verlag für Winterweizen in Sommerweizen. Züchter 31 Kuckuck, H. (1988) Wandel und Beständigkeit Fremdsprachige Literatur Moskau (now Theor. Appl. Genet.) 25, 321–330 im Leben eines Pflanzenzüchters, 6 Zacharias, M. (1964, 1965) Lehrbuch der Biologie, 19 Böhme, H. (1954) Untersuchungen zum Problem Verlag Paul Parey 12. Klasse.; 10. Klasse, 12. Klasse, Verlag Volk der genetischen Bedeutung von Pfropfungen und Wissen zwischen genotypisch verschiedenen Pflanzen. Rudolf Hagemann 7 Höxtermann, E. (2000) ‘Klasssenbiologen’ und Ztschr. f. Pflanzenzüchtung 33, 367–418 Institut für Genetik, Universität, ‘Formalgenetiker’ – Zur Rezeption Lyssenkos 20 Böhme, H. (1957) Weitere Untersuchungen zum unter den Biologen in der DDR, Acta Historica Problem der genetischen Bedeutung von Zentrale Postelle Kaulenberg 8, Leopoldina (Halle/S.) 36, 273–300 Pfropfungen zwischen genotypisch verschiedenen D-06099 Halle/S., Germany. 8 Hossfeld, U. and Olsson, L. (2001) Between Pflanzen. Ztschr. f. Pflanzenzüchtung 38, 37–50 e-mail: [email protected]

Book Review

The genetic analysis of quantitative traits, Provine shows how Darwin’s view of How population and formerly somewhat of a backwater, is now gradual evolution by natural selection faced quantitative genetics big business, because of the new prospects many criticisms by his contemporaries, for exploiting it for medical and agricultural owing to the lack of understanding of began purposes. Population geneticists, having long inheritance. In response to this situation, been treated as largely irrelevant to modern Francis Galton developed the concept of The Origins of genetics, were described as being in short regression, in which the deviation from the Theoretical Population supply in a recent issue of Nature [1], in the population mean of a group of individuals Genetics light of the need to analyse large quantities was related to that of their relatives by an by William B. Provine of data on human molecular variation. This empirical coefficient. This was the origin of The University of reissue of Will Provine’s outstanding 1971 the statistical methods for describing the Chicago Press, 2001. book on the early history of these fields is resemblances between relatives, greatly $17.00 pbk thus very timely, because much of the elaborated by Karl Pearson. Galton (211 pages) material might be unfamiliar to geneticists believed that the phenomenon of regression ISBN 0 226 68464 6 who were trained after the early 1960s. meant that selection could not produce any

http://tig.trends.com