sign in sign up
<<
Home , Lysenkoism, Vernalization

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 , Trofim portant science in the , 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 . He also shares, programs of central planning in sci- leading could not accept with Jean Baptiste de Lamarck ence. These programs were intended Mendelian as the basis of (1744–1829), the dubious reputation the 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 was 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 . 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 . Most the media, credited with major dis- established genetics. But Lysenko known 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 . 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 (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 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 ’ 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 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 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 . 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 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 , 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 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 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. And it wasn’t mental exposures induce epigenetic cold before growing to maturity in the just . Almost incredibly, changes in all our cells, they could spring. Unfortunately, many seedlings Lysenko was able to foist off a be inherited. Effects acquired or are lost in severe , reducing stream of ideas that were problem- learned in utero can yield parent-off- crop yield. But if seeds were chilled atic or even laughable. One was that spring correlations that seem to be and wetted for a number of days, then breeding normally self-fertilizing genetic. Human blood pressure levels stored, a process Lysenko called ‘‘ver- inbred (genetically identical) strains may be an example. How often nalization’’ (Fig. 3), they could sprout with other individuals from the same such changes persist for additional in the early spring and mature before strain would increase yield, Later, generations without being reset in the growing season ended. Lysenko this idea was sneeringly character- the offspring is a critical unanswered thought that by regionally adjusting ized as tantamount to asserting that question. this treatment one could ‘‘educate’’ if you shake a closed bottle of water We do know that environmental plants to particular growing condi- you will get more water.3 circumstances can make big enough tions and that the result would be Lysenko’s influence was highly de- differences in the traits of organisms inherited. Vernalization could be structive to science and scientists, that members of a species can achieved much faster than by selective which makes it difficult even to con- seem so different in different envi- breeding. What’s more, it could be sider which of his ideas might have ronments as to be mistakenly called done by local farmers themselves, the any merit. But legitimate science different species. Such variation is proletariat taking control from the must always be open-minded. The known as polyphenism.14 If, in a bourgeois scientists and their labora- phenomenon of vernalization is real; given environment, a polyphenic trait tories. The frozen steppes would we now know some of its genetic ba- is useful and mutations arise that bloom into a paradise, with bunches sis. At least in some experimental increase the chance that an individ- of berries and ears of grain. plants, the preflowering ual will manifest that trait, what In 1929, vernalization was tested (stem tips) require cold exposure started out as an environmental on Lysenko’s own father’s farm. A before being activated by warmer effect can evolve by natural selection great story for the media, its success springtime temperatures and sun- to become genetic. Such evolution is Crotchets & Quiddities ‘‘There Is No Intra-Specific Struggle in Nature’’ 53 known as the Baldwin effect, or In 1948, modern geneticists were whether Lysenko was a scientific genetic assimilation.15 purged from the Soviet science maverick seeking recognition, an This is interesting for evolutionary populations, some hauled before ignorant peasant sincerely driven to anthropology because much of our trumped-up tribunals for various improve Russian agriculture, or a experience really is inherited—but alleged crimes. Thousands of careers power-seeking ideologue. Fisher con- culturally, not genetically. In fact, were ruined; some opponents even cluded that ‘‘The reward he is so Baldwin’s ideas were largely based died in prison.4 If that was the hard- eagerly grasping is Power, power for on learned social behavior.16,17 Hom- est form of hard selection, an epi- himself, power to threaten, power to inin evolution has always been inte- sode of soft selection followed, as the torture, power to kill.’’22:875 grated with culture. As we strive to miscreants were replaced in their The Lysenko saga has faded into adapt to our environments by mak- jobs by scientists who had learned history, with little to teach us about ing houses, clothing, and weapons, the Lamarckian lesson from their science. But some of the cultural les- working together in groups, and environment and toed the Lysenko sons may still be with us. growing food, we pass those skills to line. We’ll never know whether the next generation. If learning to be Lysenko had painted himself into HARD AND SOFT SELECTION equitable to each other were benefi- such a corner that he feared being cial, the evolution of societies of the purged if he did not purge his oppo- On a recent BBC radio program kind Marxism predicted could even- nents first. But the stress was about Lysenko, the British tually become more genetically hard- enough for him to check into a sana- Steve Jones asserted that science is wired. That does not seem to be in torium for a bit of recuperation.5 again being ‘‘sovietized,’’ only this our behavioral deck of cards at the In the end, what had initially time it’s happening in the West. It moment, and anyway would take appeared as a great spring forward might seem poor taste to liken any- countless generations. If it were to for agriculture was not subject thing today to the Stalinist era, but happen, it would be ‘‘Lamarckian’’ in to sufficient independent scrutiny. he was referring to the ways science some sense, but not in any genetic Soviet science fell steeply backward increasingly depends on considera- sense that would threaten current ev- in what has been described as ‘‘sub- tions other than the disinterested olutionary theory. mission of the plant world to the pursuit of knowledge. We don’t face In any case, Lysenko’s ideas were orders of the party.’’19:277 Some the hard selection of the , but not supportable by his actual Western geneticists have tried to there is a growing amount of soft research, which included misrepre- absolve the Lysenko history to a selection. sentation of (non)results based on degree, in part because of its claimed If you doubt this, talk to someone shoddy experiments. So even if social goals. They have questioned whose tenure or even salary depends mechanisms for Lamarckian adapta- whether actually had a on grants in a system in which only tion are someday discovered, Lysen- negative effect on Soviet crop yield.6 a small percent of applications are ko’s ghost will not be able to claim But when careers are ruined and sci- funded. Careers depend on the judg- vindication. Instead, he was influen- entists are sent to prison, such sym- ment of confidential review tribunals tial only because, in the complex are- pathy is not very persuasive. who defend the interests of the field nas of science and politics, oversim- After Stalin’s death, Khrushchev as they see it. A widely recognized plified truth can play into wishful became even more enamored with result is that pressure to obtain thinking about difficult issues. Com- Lysenko. But an undercurrent of funds and publications has made sci- plexity is annoying. legitimate genetics had somehow ence increasingly conservative and survived in the USSR and, in 1965, incremental. People can be driven after Khrushchev also died, Lysenko out ‘‘softly’’ just by being discour- SPRING FORWARD...AND FALL was finally pushed out of his direc- aged. torship of the national Institute of Creative interpretation of research BACKWARD Genetics. Nonetheless, he was able to results is not unknown today and When the USSR needed drastic retire peacefully at home, not in the journalists sensationalize any new improvement in its food supply, Gulag. finding, flimsy evidence notwithstand- Lysenko answered the call. Stalin In 1918, R.A. Fisher (1890–1962) ing. Investigators, being humanly was taken in by a man a Pravda jour- had reconciled Darwinian gradual vain and needing to build careers, nalist dubbed the ‘‘barefoot profes- evolution with discrete Mendelian in- have learned to orchestrate the media sor,’’ who promised fast results that heritance into a single theory of to mutual benefit. Glowing promises also fit the Marxist egalitarian wish- genetic inheritance.20 Then, in 1930, are made that are privately acknowl- list.4,5 Although Lysenko was ‘‘not he extended that synthesis into a edged to be unrealistic, at best, but conspicuous for his erudition,’’4 his genetic theory of evolution.21 In that are fundable. Perhaps more se- influence grew in 1936 when Stalin debates about genetics, Fisher was rious is that large set-asides for pet repressed dissent to unify the USSR not exactly a disinterested party, but topics and mega-projects are against the encircling Nazi regime his take on Lysenko is instructive. In increasingly frequent. This arguably that rationalized its vicious racism the dreadful year 1948, Fisher quoted threatens science by making appli- on natural selection and genetics.18 from a Lysenko speech and asked cants tailor applications to the avail- 54 Weiss Crotchets & Quiddities able trough, encouraging incremen- It’s natural to grouse about how REFERENCES tal change and conformism and one’s own times are going to pot; 1 24 Graham L. 1972. Science and philosophy in sequestering funds from other ideas that’s not new even to science. A the Soviet Union. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. or approaches. There is pressure for lot of good work is being done, even 2 Joravsky D. 1970. The Lysenko affair. Cam- research to be ‘‘translated’’ into if not everyone who wants to do it bridge, MA: Harvard University Press. direct public or commercial impact. gets an equal chance. Those of us 3 Medvedev ZA. 1969. The rise and fall of T. D. Lysenko. New York: Columbia University Press. This laudable ultimate goal impa- who have been well-treated by the 4 Soyfer VN. 1989. New light on the Lysenko tiently colors the proximate course system naturally tend to be happier. era. Nature 339:415–420. of science, changing basic research But we needn’t face something as 5 Roll-Hansen N. 2005. The Lysenko effect: the into engineering and infusing curi- pernicious as Lysenkoism to be wary politics of science. New York: Humanity Books. 6 Lewontin RC, Levins R. 1976. The problem of osity with a profit motive even in of the risks presented by too much Lysenkoism. In: Rose H, Rose S, editors. The universities. centralization or conservatism in radicalization of science. Ideology of/in the Nat- These are problems of thought con- research, publication, or funding. If ural Sciences. London: Macmillan. p32–64. straint within science. But another there is any lesson for us from the 7 Lysenko TD. 1954. Agrobiology. Moscow: For- eign Languages Publishing House. manifestation in our country today is Lysenko history, it’s that ‘‘The more 8 Lysenko TD. 1928. Effects of the thermal fac- against science itself. Teachers are closely science is involved with poli- tor on the duration of phases in the develop- experiencing many forms of intimi- tics and practical affairs, the more ment of plants. Baku: Ghandzha. dation to prevent them teaching evo- pervasive becomes its dependence on 9 Chekov A. 1904. The cherry orchard. Mineola, 5 NY: Dover. lution in American high schools. social goals, values, and wishes.’’ 10 Sano H. 2002. DNA methylation and There has been soft selection by reli- Regardless of any legitimate sci- Lamarckian inheritance. Proc Japan Acad. Se- gious ideologues to silence them, ence with which it started, the ries B 78:293–298. and they have not, so for, been suf- Lysenko history shows there can be 11 Steward N, Ito M, Yamaguchi Y, Koizumi N, Sano H. 2002. Periodic DNA methylation in fering the hard selection of losing chill winds that blow no good to any- maize nucleosomes and demethylation by envi- their jobs. one except those who fall in line. ronmental stress. J Biol Chem 277:37741–37746. Science, like any aspect of society, Nowhere should science have to 12 Jablonka E, Lamb MJ. 2002. The changing concept of . Ann NY Acad Sci has its polarized orthodoxies and undergo a chill of orthodoxy in order 981:82–96. 23 ideologies, and the party line to flourish with springtime vigor. If 13 Chong S, Whitelaw E. 2004. Epigenetic changes. Today there is a growing there are lessons to learn, they may germline inheritance. Curr Opinion Genet Dev preference for nature over nurture, a be, first, to live in a pluralistic de- 14:692–696. 14 Suzuki Y, Nijhout HF. 2006. Evolution of a genetic determinism that is even mocracy, but second, not to let polyphenism by genetic accommodation. Sci- penetrating the social sciences. But if vested interests take control of sci- ence 311:650–652. nature rules today, it’s an emergence ence. And, if things aren’t going well, 15 Weiss KM. 2004. Doin’ what comes natur’lly. from past excesses on the nurture take a cold shower. It will put spring Evol Anthropol 13:47–52. 16 Baldwin JM. 1896. Heredity and instinct. side, not least being the various fer- in your steps! Science n.s. III:438–442. vently anti-science subjectivism that 17 Baldwin JM. 1897. Organic selection. Nature deeply affected many fields, includ- 55:558. ing anthropology. NOTES 18 Baur E, Fischer E, Lenz F. 1931. Human he- redity. New York: Macmillan. There will always be disputes and I welcome comments on this col- 19 Conquest R. 1991. Stalin: breaker of nations. false theories in science. If there umn: [email protected]. I have a New York: Viking Press. were not, it would mean we already feedback and supplemental material 20 Fisher RA. 1918. The correlation between knew everything. Screwy ideas are page at http://www.anthro.psu.edu/ relatives on the supposition of Mendelian inher- itance. Trans R Soc Edinborough 52:399–433. usually screwy, but occasionally turn weiss_lab/index.shtml. I thank Anne 21 Fisher RA. 1930. The genetical theory of nat- out to be true and transforming. Buchanan, Brian Lambert, Jeff Kur- ural selection. Oxford: Clarendon. More importantly, solid negative land, and John Fleagle for critically 22 Fisher RA. 1948. What sort of man is results that challenge current wis- reading this manuscript. This col- Lysenko? Listener 40:874–875. 23 dom have a hard time getting into umn is written with financial assis- Weiss KM. 2008. The good, the bad, and the Ugli. Evol Anthropol 17:129–134. print: They aren’t sexy enough, but tance from funds provided to Penn 24 Shapin S. 2008. The scientific life: a moral they can be the most informative State Evan Pugh professors. Thanks history of a late modern vocation. Chicago: Uni- results to publish because they can to George Milner for the gift of a versity of Chicago Press. force new thinking. copy of Lysenko’s book. VC 2009 Wiley-Liss, Inc.