Evolutionary Anthropology 18:50--54 (2009) Crotchets & Quiddities ‘‘There Is No Intra-Specific Struggle in Nature’’ Can we inherit the lessons of Lysenko’s time, in our own time? KENNETH M. WEISS The remarkable quote in my title is coveries that could bring productiv- he had few if any actual results, his not from the middle ages, but ity to barren fields. Agricultural wild promises were too tempting for actually was made, and repeated breeding, or ‘‘agrobiology,’’ as he the authorities to resist. many times during the 20th century, called his version of it, was an im- by an evolutionary geneticist, Trofim portant science in the Soviet Union, 7 Denisovich Lysenko (1898–1976; which, because its northern location, HOW TO PUT STEPPES INTO Fig. 1). How he could make such a was vulnerable to major crop fail- YOUR SPRING statement is a story with lessons for ures. In 1928, Lysenko published a Plant development involves both our own time. Lysenko was the monograph on the role of tempera- the stocks being grown and the con- predominant geneticist of the Soviet ture in plant development. His work, ditions of their cultivation. Plant era, even though he was not a geneti- which was presented and discussed improvement was achieved by selec- cist and vehemently opposed genet- at major science meetings,8 brought tive breeding. Recent advances made ics. Feeding on the government’s him to the attention of the govern- possible by the Mendelian theory of desperate attempt to improve agri- ment. inheritance had helped make genet- culture, he became the archetype of Starting in 1929, Stalin imple- ics a vigorous science in the USSR. the destructive duping of politicians mented grandly ambitious national Nonetheless, many of the world’s by pseudoscience. He also shares, programs of central planning in sci- leading biologists could not accept with Jean Baptiste de Lamarck ence. These programs were intended Mendelian genetics as the basis of (1744–1829), the dubious reputation the evolution or control of complex of having believed that traits to create the perfect socialist world, superior to the cruel capitalism that biological traits, including important acquired in life can be inherited and traits in domestic crops that geneti- are the basis of adaptive evolution. had collapsed into the Great Depres- sion. Stalin’s central planning cists traditionally improved by selec- The Lysenko saga has been tive breeding. included a brutal collectivization of described by outraged authors, The molecular nature of genes was agriculture that purged its most including combatants within Russia unknown. But it was known that knowledgeable (and well-off) land- who helped extirpate his influence genes were nearly invariant causal 1–4 holding farmers, with the side bene- and rescue Soviet science. But units that were faithfully transmitted everything arises from somewhere, fit of greatly worsening the problem from generation to generation; only and other authors have tried to of chronic food shortages. rarely were they altered by mutation. understand the degree to which the Along came Lysenko, with revolu- To Lysenko, it was absurd to suggest Lysenko fiasco began with legitimate tionary ideas that promised quick, 5,6 that such rare change, which was science and science policy. cheap, and dramatic improvements random in nature, could provide the In 1927, Lysenko, a young agrono- in crop yield. Lysenko’s work was variation that Darwinists proposed mist of Ukrainian peasant origin and controversial and widely criticized was always ready to be molded by a provincial education, appeared in because it was at odds with well- adaptive natural selection. Most the media, credited with major dis- established genetics. But Lysenko known mutations were harmful. already had a chip on his shoulder Moreover, gradual change, even as against the bourgeois ‘‘Ivy League’’ practiced intensely by agricultural Ken Weiss is Evan Pugh Professor of An- elite of Soviet scientific society. This, breeders, led to new strains but thropology and Genetics at Penn State along with his haste, sloppy experi- never to new species. The genetic ex- University. Email: [email protected] ments, prickliness in response to crit- planation for adaptive evolution icism, and fervid enthusiasm, led to seemed even less plausible given the a ‘‘conflation of theory with observa- theory of August Weismann (1834– VC 2009 Wiley-Liss, Inc. tion and speculation with experi- 1914), according to which somatic DOI 10.1002/evan.20196 ence.’’5:63 He was a master of creative Published online in Wiley InterScience (body) and germ (sperm or egg) cells (www.interscience.wiley.com). reporting and, despite the fact that were isolated from each other, pre- Crotchets & Quiddities ‘‘There Is No Intra-Specific Struggle in Nature’’ 51 isms respond to their environment by becoming different: for example, plants grow taller with sun and water. ‘‘The organism has no con- cretely given characters, nor does it undergo arbitrary changes of form.’’7:12 The way natural selection really works is that plants that are successfully modified by experience reproduce, not that they must out- reproduce their neighbors. Since each individual has the ability to respond, adaptations can accumulate in only a few generations. Natural selection is a true creative force that brings new traits into existence, unlike the geneticists’ theory by which selection can only sort through existing variation, unable to produce anything new. Lysenko did not claim personal credit for these ideas. They were due to the Russian fruit-grower, I.V. Michurin (1855–1935; Fig. 2), whose byword for agronomists was that: ‘‘We cannot wait for favors from Na- ture; we must wrest them from her.’’7:476 Lysenko conveniently greased his own Lamarckian-Michurinist skids Figure 1. T. D. Lysenko. From Lysenko7 (not copyright). by defining heredity as ‘‘the property of a living body to require definite conditions for its life and development and to respond in a definite way to venting changes that arose during an ments; their competition is from various conditions.’’7:390 organism’s life from being transmit- other species, not their own. After ted to its offspring. all, it is carnivores, not rabbits, that Lysenko accused Western science eat rabbits, and wheat competes with of abandoning Darwinian materialist weeds, not wheat. evolution for metaphysical, unchang- Unlike Darwinian competition, ing, but unknown ‘‘genes’’ that con- Lamarckian inheritance is positive veniently satisfied the capitalist’s and benign. It has been called ‘‘soft need to view the world in terms of inheritance’’ because it does not competition among individuals, a involve the competitive ‘‘hard inheri- view with consequences that tance’’ and excess mortality of natu- included the widespread advocacy of ral selection. Lysenko called eugenics. To the contrary, Lysenko Lamarck’s insight ‘‘one of the great- said that he was the true Darwinist. est acquisitions in the history of bio- The inheritance of acquired charac- logical science.’’7:526 teristics reflected change that, far The Mendelians’ mistake, Lysenko from being rare and random, was said, was to separate organisms from actually a direct material, not meta- their environment. Rather, ‘‘The or- physical, response to the environ- ganism and the conditions required ment, a direct product of the envi- for its life constitute a unity.’’7:583 At ronment. As in my title quote, each stage in an organism’s embryo- Lysenko repeatedly denied that evo- logical development and life history, lution worked through Malthusian appropriate cells are ‘‘educated’’ by overpopulation and competitive their environment to form specific struggle for resources. Instead, he types of cells. Moreover, those Figure 2. Ivan Vladimirovich Michurin, argued, individuals within a species changes are inherited: for example, Lamarckian fruiterer. www.russia-ic.com/ contend with challenging environ- leaf cells divide into leaf cells. Organ- people/general/m/86/. 52 Weiss Crotchets & Quiddities light. One gene, called Flowering Locus C (FLC), is responsible for the prevention of premature wintertime flowering. Numerous other genes have been found that regulate the use of FLC to control the process (see www.jic.ac.uk/profile/caroline-dean. asp). The mechanism appears to be epi- genetic, meaning that the organism’s DNA sequence is not changed, so the change is not a mutation in the usual sense. Instead, it involves chemical modifications of the way DNA is packaged in the cell. These modifica- tions make the FLC gene accessible to proteins that activate the gene’s expression. Some reports even sug- gest that the altered timing is affected by experience and can be inherited in the seeds that form from Figure 3. Vernalized wheat plants reported by Lysenko. Plants sown on the same day but with different numbers of presowing chill-days. Plants chilled for more than 36 days flowers that have been so 10,11 formed proper mature ears. From Lysenko7 (not copyright). induced. Unlike the usual sequence-changing mutations, epige- netic changes can easily be reversed. Numerous examples are being dis- covered.12,13 For example, exposure The USSR is a cold place. As a shiv- was hyped as a sensational discovery of maize roots to chill has been ering character in Chekov’s play The and became a legitimate topic for reported to cause major epigenetic Cherry Orchard quips on a frosty day research both at home and abroad.5 changes in the genomes of root cells in May, ‘‘Our climate is not adapted The evidence was scant. Negative that alter the phenotype of the plant to contribute.’’9:2 Much of the country results went selectively unreported, and its offspring.10,11 We mammals has a short growing season. Some while even hints of findings have a more rigidly separated germ plants, like winter wheat, need to were lauded. But Lysenko gained the line than plants do, but if environ- sprout in the fall and undergo winter ear of policy-makers.