DOCSLIB.ORG

Repercussões Do Caso Lysenko No Brasil Por Meio Da Análise Da Mídia Impressa No Brasil (1940

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Repercussões Do Caso Lysenko No Brasil Por Meio Da Análise Da Mídia Impressa No Brasil (1940 Anais Eletrônicos do 14º Seminário Nacional de História da Ciência e da Tecnologia – 14º SNHCT REPERCUSSÕES DO CASO LYSENKO NO BRASIL Marcelo Lima Loreto* Luisa Medeiros Massarani** Ildeu de Castro Moreira*** 1 INTRODUÇÃO O caso Lysenko foi emblemático na História da Ciência e ocorreu no cenário de profundas disputas ideológicas e políticas que dividiam o mundo em capitalismo e comunismo, período denominado Guerra Fria. Em 7 de agosto de 1948, em uma sessão ocorrida na Academia de Ciências da União Soviética, que ficou conhecida como Conferência de VASKhNIL, o biólogo e agrônomo ucraniano Trofim Denisovič Lysenko (1898-1976) declarou que contava com o apoio do Partido Comunista da União Soviética (PCUS), dirigido por Josef V. Stalin, para sustentar a teoria michurinista na Biologia, elaborada originalmente pelo médico e pesquisador russo Ivan Vladimirovich Michurin (1855-1935). O Michurinismo consistiu em uma variedade de experiências e iniciativas agrícolas baseadas na teoria lamarckista da hereditariedade. Defendia a ideia de que os organismos vivos poderiam ser condicionados para sobreviverem em qualquer tipo de ambiente, passando às gerações seguintes as novas características adquiridas, diferente do que afirmavam os darwinistas, que falavam em seleção natural do mais apto, sem a possibilidade de condicionamento do genótipo. Estas e outras ideias foram amplamente desenvolvidas na URSS, na época de Lysenko, especialmente a partir do Plano de Stálin para a Transformação da Natureza1, lançado em 1949, que tinha o objetivo de combater a seca e aumentar a produção de cereais na URSS, que passava por um período de fome extrema. Lysenko retratou a Genética ocidental como sendo “burguesa”, “fascista” e que fornecia uma justificativa para o racismo e a colonização pelos países capitalistas. Na ocasião da conferência (1948), o governo soviético decidiu também censurar a pesquisa em Genética 1 Para saber mais sobre o plano ver: <http://www.hist-socialismo.com/docs/PlanoAgricola.pdf>. Acesso 03/08/2014. Belo Horizonte, Campus Pampulha da Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais – UFMG 08 a 11 de outubro de 2014 | ISBN: 978-85-62707-62-9 Anais Eletrônicos do 14º Seminário Nacional de História da Ciência e da Tecnologia – 14º SNHCT mendeliana por durante aproximadamente dez anos. Em seu discurso, convocou os cientistas e trabalhadores do campo a somarem esforços à teoria de Michurin, rumo à construção de “uma biologia materialista avançada”: I call upon all Academicians, scientific workers, agronomists, and animal breeders to bend all their efforts and work in close unity with the foremost men and women in socialist farming to achieve these great and noble aims. Progressive biological science owes it to the geniuses of humankind, Lenin and Stalin, that the teaching of I. V. Michurin has been added to the treasure house of our knowledge, has become part of the gold fund of our science. Long live the Michurin teaching, which shows how to transform living nature for the benefit of the Soviet people! Long live the Party of Lenin and Stalin, which discovered Michurin for the world and created all the conditions for the progress of advanced materialist biology in our country. Glory to the great friend and protagonist of science, our leader and teacher, Comrade Stalin! (LYSENKO, 1948, Marxists Internet Archive. Disponível em <http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/lysenko/works/1940s/report.htm>. Acesso em: 07/11/2013). Suas teorias e políticas deram origem à corrente de pensamento denominada Lysenkoísmo ou Lysenkismo, que teve repercussões em diversos países no mundo (DEJONG- LAMBERT, 2013:78). O objetivo principal do nosso trabalho é analisar as repercussões do caso Lysenko no Brasil, em particular por meio da análise de alguns dos principais jornais e revistas nacionais, bem como de documentos de pesquisadores e intelectuais brasileiros, no período de maior atividade do cientista soviético (décadas de 1940 a 1970). Lysenko nasceu na Ucrânia, em 1898, em uma família de origem camponesa. Entre 1921 e 1925 fez o curso por correspondência em Agronomia no Instituto Agrícola de Kiev. Em 1922, foi Assistente de Engenheiro Agrônomo, na Estação de Melhoramento de Plantas Belaya Tserkov. Em 1929 tornou-se pesquisador sênior do Instituto de Genética de Odessa, sendo diretor científico deste em 1934. Em 1935 foi nomeado pelo governo como membro da Academia de Ciências Agrícolas (VASKhNIL) e eleito Vice-Presidente do Conselho Soviético Supremo da União das Repúblicas Socialistas Soviéticas (URSS). Em 1938, presidiu a VASKhNIL e, em 1939, foi eleito para a Academia de Ciências da URSS e para membro de sua direção, tornando-se, no ano seguinte, diretor do Instituto de Genética dessa academia. Em 1948, foi nomeado chefe do Departamento de Grãos da Academia Agrícola de Moscou. Após a morte de Stalin (1953), que o favorecia, seu poder decaiu bastante (SOYFER, 2001). No início governo de Nikita Khrushchov (de 1953 a 1964), secretário geral do PCUS, Lysenko foi afastado de vários de seus cargos de confiança. Contudo, em 1958, Lysenko Belo Horizonte, Campus Pampulha da Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais – UFMG 08 a 11 de outubro de 2014 | ISBN: 978-85-62707-62-9 Anais Eletrônicos do 14º Seminário Nacional de História da Ciência e da Tecnologia – 14º SNHCT aproximou-se de Khrushchov, que compartilhava mesma origem ucraniana e rural, e convenceu-o de que o insucesso na agricultura soviética havia ocorrido devido à oposição de poderosos burocratas em academias e ministérios. Nos anos seguintes, o programa agrícola de Khrushchov voltou a conter formulações lysenkoístas, e em 1961/62 Lysenko retomou a presidência da VASKhNIL. Em 1963, Khrushchov estava em conflito aberto com a Academia de Ciências da URSS sobre o Lysenkoísmo, e sua saída do poder, em outubro de 1964, gerou um movimento que excluiu novamente Lysenko. No final de 1965, um relatório de uma comissão do Ministério da Agricultura e das academias teria demonstrado que os trabalhos experimentais de Lysenko foram realizados e testados de forma inadequada, e que todas as suas técnicas agrícolas eram ineficazes ou prejudiciais. Neste ano, Lysenko foi removido como diretor do Instituto de Genética, tendo falecido em 20 de novembro de 1976. Como vimos, Lysenko possuiu durante muito tempo um prestígio elevado na URSS. No Ocidente, o Lysenkoísmo foi apresentado como um dos eventos negativos mais importantes da Ciência soviética2. Sua influência estendeu-se em biólogos, cientistas e intelectuais do mundo inteiro. Em países soviéticos, como Polônia, Tchecoslováquia, Alemanha Oriental, e na Hungria, o Michurinismo foi inclusive adotado como teoria oficial. Na URSS, os cientistas que eram contrários à teoria foram perseguidos, demitidos ou mesmo assassinados, como ocorreu com um de seus principais rivais, o destacado pesquisador darwinista Nikolai Vavilov (1887-1943) (DEJONG-LAMBERT, 2013)3. No início da década de 1940, os biólogos ligados à pesquisa agrícola, chamados agrobiólogos, especialidade de Lysenko, haviam tomado quase todas as instituições de pesquisa em Genética, expulsando os geneticistas da Academia de Ciências Agrícolas e da Academia de Ciências da URSS. Para Gaglioti (1996), a análise da crise na agricultura soviética (década de 1930), ajuda na compreensão do contexto do surgimento de Lysenko. Desde o início da década de 1920, Leon Trotsky e a Oposição de Esquerda já alertavam sobre a política da promoção do crescimento de uma camada de camponeses ricos (Kulaks) em detrimento da agricultura 2 Esta argumentação é usada, por exemplo, por N. ROLL-HANSEN em The Lysenko effect: undermining the autonomy of science. Endeavour, v. 29, n. 4, p. 143-147, 2005. 3 Segundo Krementsov (1996), entre 1930 e 1940, vários cientistas que eram referências em estudos de Genética na URSS - como Isaak Agol, Solomon Levit, Grigori Levitskii e Georgii Karpechenko - foram presos e executados sob várias acusações, principalmente, por “afiliação como um inimigo do povo’’ (idem: 231) ou como, segundo Gaglioti (1996), "agentes trotskistas do fascismo internacional", demonstrando como a discussão Belo Horizonte, Campus Pampulha da Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais – UFMG 08 a 11 de outubro de 2014 | ISBN: 978-85-62707-62-9 Anais Eletrônicos do 14º Seminário Nacional de História da Ciência e da Tecnologia – 14º SNHCT estatal planificada e do desenvolvimento industrial. Ao final da década, o governo se defrontou com a retenção da produção agrícola pelos Kulaks, e uma série de revoltas armadas no campo. Stálin aplicou então uma política brutal de coletivização forçada e os camponeses, em reação, queimaram suas colheitas e mataram seus animais. A produção agrícola despencou e iniciou-se um período de grande fome em extensas regiões da URSS4. Em resposta à crise, Stalin teria exigido que os geneticistas desenvolvessem mais rapidamente plantas de cultivo eficientes para a resolução da questão da fome. Porém, impacientes com os métodos penosos e lentos da criação científica naquela ocasião, os dirigentes soviéticos apostaram em alternativas aos métodos tradicionais. Lysenko prometeu um rápido aumento no rendimento das culturas através do processo que chamou de "vernalização"5. O pesquisador afirmava também que uma espécie poderia ser convertida diretamente em outra, submetendo-a a influências externas, possibilitando, consequentemente, uma maior versatilidade na produção de grãos6. Nesse contexto, o então cultivador de plantas em Odessa, foi promovido para os cargos mais elevados da administração do campo. As posições de Lysenko
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Soviet History in the Gorbachev Revolution: the First Phase*
    SOVIET HISTORY IN THE GORBACHEV REVOLUTION: THE FIRST PHASE* R.W. Davies I. THE BACKGROUND The Khrushchev thaw among historians began early in 1956 and continued with retreats and starts for ten years. In the spring of 1956 Burdzhalov, the deputy editor of the principal Soviet historical journal, published a bold article re-examining the role of the Bolshevik party in the spring of 1917, demonstrating that Stalin was an ally of Kamenev's in compromising with the Provisional Government, and presenting Zinoviev as a close associate of en in.' The article was strongly criticised. Burdzhalov was moved to an uninfluential post, though he did manage eventually to publish an important history of the February revolution. The struggle continued; and after Khrushchev's further public denunciation of Stalin at the XXII Party Congress in 1961 there was a great flowering of publica- tions about Soviet history. The most remarkable achievement of these years was the publication of a substantial series of articles and books about the collectivisation of agriculture and 'de-kulakisation' in 1929-30, largely based on party archives. The authors-Danilov, Vyltsan, Zelenin, Moshkov and others- were strongly critical of Politburo policy in that period. Their writings were informed by a rather naive critical conception: they held that the decisions of the XVI Party Conference in April 1929, incorporating the optimum variant of the five-year plan and a relatively moderate pace of collectivisation, were entirely correct, but the November 1929 Central Committee Plenum, which speeded up collectivisation, and the decision to de-kulakise which followed, were imposed on the party by Stalin, who already exercised personal power, supported by his henchmen Molotov and Kaganovich.
    [Show full text]
  • Mathematics Education Policy As a High Stakes Political Struggle: the Case of Soviet Russia of the 1930S
    MATHEMATICS EDUCATION POLICY AS A HIGH STAKES POLITICAL STRUGGLE: THE CASE OF SOVIET RUSSIA OF THE 1930S ALEXANDRE V. BOROVIK, SERGUEI D. KARAKOZOV, AND SERGUEI A. POLIKARPOV Abstract. This chapter is an introduction to our ongoing more comprehensive work on a critically important period in the history of Russian mathematics education; it provides a glimpse into the socio-political environment in which the famous Soviet tradition of mathematics education was born. The authors are practitioners of mathematics education in two very different countries, England and Russia. We have a chance to see that too many trends and debates in current education policy resemble battles around math- ematics education in the 1920s and 1930s Soviet Russia. This is why this period should be revisited and re-analysed, despite quite a considerable amount of previous research [2]. Our main conclusion: mathematicians, first of all, were fighting for control over selection, education, and career development, of young mathematicians. In the harshest possible political environment, they were taking po- tentially lethal risks. 1. Introduction In the 1930s leading Russian mathematicians became deeply in- volved in mathematics education policy. Just a few names: Andrei Kolmogorov, Pavel Alexandrov, Boris Delaunay, Lev Schnirelmann, Alexander Gelfond, Lazar Lyusternik, Alexander Khinchin – they are arXiv:2105.10979v1 [math.HO] 23 May 2021 remembered, 80 years later, as internationally renowned creators of new fields of mathematical research – and they (and many of their less famous colleagues) were all engaged in political, by their nature, fights around education. This is usually interpreted as an idealistic desire to maintain higher – and not always realistic – standards in mathematics education; however, we argue that much more was at stake.
    [Show full text]
  • On Labels and Issues: the Lysenko Controversy and the Cold War
    Journal of the History of Biology (2012) 45:373–388 Ó Springer 2011 DOI 10.1007/s10739-011-9292-6 On Labels and Issues: The Lysenko Controversy and the Cold War WILLIAM DEJONG-LAMBERT City University of New York Bronx, NY USA E-mail: [email protected] WILLIAM DEJONG-LAMBERT Harriman Institute of Russian Eurasian and Eastern European Studies at Columbia University New York, NY USA NIKOLAI KREMENTSOV University of Toronto Toronto, ON Canada E-mail: [email protected] The early years of the Cold War were marked by vicious propaganda and counter-propaganda campaigns that thundered on both sides of the Iron Curtain, further dividing the newly formed ‘‘Western’’ and ‘‘Eastern’’ blocs. These campaigns aimed at the consolidation and mobilization of each camp’s politics, economy, ideology, and culture, and at the vilification and demonization of the opposite camp. One of the most notorious among these campaigns – ‘‘For Michurinist biol- ogy’’ and ‘‘Against Lysenkoism,’’ as it became known in Eastern and Western blocs respectively – clearly demonstrated that the Cold War drew the dividing line not only on political maps, but also on science. The centerpiece of the campaign was a session on ‘‘the situation in biological science’’ held in the summer of 1948 by the Lenin All-Union Academy of Agricultural Sciences (VASKhNIL) in Moscow. In his opening address on July 31, the academy’s president Trofim D. Lysenko stated that modern biology had diverged into two opposing trends. Lysenko and his disciples represented one trend, which
    [Show full text]
  • The Soviet Biological Weapons Program and Its Legacy in Today's
    Occasional Paper 11 The Soviet Biological Weapons Program and Its Legacy in Today’s Russia Raymond A. Zilinskas Center for the Study of Weapons of Mass Destruction National Defense University MR. CHARLES D. LUTES Director MR. JOHN P. CAVES, JR. Deputy Director Since its inception in 1994, the Center for the Study of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD Center) has been at the forefront of research on the implications of weapons of mass destruction for U.S. security. Originally focusing on threats to the military, the WMD Center now also applies its expertise and body of research to the challenges of homeland security. The Center’s mandate includes research, education, and outreach. Research focuses on understanding the security challenges posed by WMD and on fashioning effective responses thereto. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has designated the Center as the focal point for WMD education in the joint professional military education system. Education programs, including its courses on countering WMD and consequence management, enhance awareness in the next generation of military and civilian leaders of the WMD threat as it relates to defense and homeland security policy, programs, technology, and operations. As a part of its broad outreach efforts, the WMD Center hosts annual symposia on key issues bringing together leaders and experts from the government and private sectors. Visit the center online at http://wmdcenter.ndu.edu. The Soviet Biological Weapons Program and Its Legacy in Today’s Russia Raymond A. Zilinskas Center for the Study of Weapons of Mass Destruction Occasional Paper, No. 11 National Defense University Press Washington, D.C.
    [Show full text]
  • The International Bibliography of Communist Studies. Issue 2012
    The International Newsletter of Communist Studies XIX (2013), no. 26 182 SECTION VII: THE INTERNATIONAL BIBLIOGRAPHY OF COMMUNIST STUDIES. ISSUE 2012 Internationale wissenschaftliche Bibliographie der historischen Kommunismusforschung Bibliographie internationale concernant la recherche sur le communisme Bibliografia internacional de los estudios sobre el comunismo Bibliografia internacional dos estudos sobre o comunismo Интернациональная библиография по истории коммунизма Books and Journal Articles on Communism Compiled by Gleb J. Albert, Bernhard H. Bayerlein, and Véronique Mickisch. Further titles contributed by Serhiy Hirik (Kyiv), Jesper Jørgensen (Copenhagen), Dainis Karepovs (São Paulo), Jan-Holger Kirsch (Potsdam), Avgust Lešnik (Ljubljana), Brendan McGeever (Glasgow), Manfred Mugrauer (Vienna), Timur Mukhamatulin (Moscow), Uwe Sonnenberg (Potsdam), Raquel Varela (Lisbon/Amsterdam), Frank Wolff (Osnabrück), as well as authors sending us their own publications. The International Newsletter of Communist Studies XIX (2013), no. 26 183 VII.1: BOOKS ON COMMUNISM, 2012 500 books from 47 countries have been retrieved for the 2012 issue of the International Bibliography, also including selected addenda from 2010-2011. While compiling this bibliography, various web resources have been explored, such as numerous library online catalogues, but also bibliographies such as the bibliography of Bulgarian communism at http://red.cas.bg/ and the “New Books from Russia” section in Revolutionary Russia have been particularly helpful. Correspondents and readers are hereby encouraged to work together on the bibliography. We also look for more correspondents for the different countries and regions. NB.: From this issue onwards, we use LOC transliteration for Cyrillic-language titles. Albania Dervishi, Kastriot. Sigurimi i Shtetit. 1944 - 1991. Historia e policisë politike të regjimit komunist. Tiranë: Shtëpia Botuese 55, 2012.
    [Show full text]
  • The Legacy of the Soviet Agricultural Research System for the Republics of Central Asia and Caucasus
    Discussion Paper No 99-1 January 1999 The Legacy of the Soviet Agricultural Research System for the Republics of Central Asia and Caucasus Alexei Morgunov Larry Zuidema Discussion Papers are preliminary reports of work in progress at the International Service for National Agricultural Research (ISNAR). They are intended to stimulate discussion and elicit comments from interested professionals both within and outside ISNAR. They are not official ISNAR publications, they are not edited or reviewed by ISNAR, and their circulation is restricted. Discussion Papers reflect the views of the authors but not necessarily those of ISNAR. They may be cited with the author’s permission and due acknowledgment. International Service for National Agricultural Research (ISNAR) P.O Box 93375 2509AJ The Hague The Netherlands Tel: (+31) (70) 3496100 Fax: (+31) (70) 381 9677 Email: [email protected] Internet: http://www.cgiar.org/isnar Contents Acknowledgments 1. Introduction 2. Agricultural Research in the Academy of Agricultural Sciences in the Soviet Union (1918-1991) 2.1 Historical Development 2.2 National Structure and Resources 2.3 Management of Agricultural Research 2.4 National and International Linkages 3. Evaluation of the USSR Academy of Agricultural Sciences (1929-1991) 3.1 Advantages 3.2 Disadvantages 4. The Development of National Agricultural Research Systems in the Republics (1991-1998) 4.1 Armenia 4.2 Azerbaijan 4.3 Georgia 4.4 Kazakstan 4.5 Kyrgyzstan 4.6 Tadjikistan 4.7 Turkmenistan 4.8 Uzbekistan 4.9 Russia 4.10 Ukraine 5. Future Prospects for Agricultural Research Reforms in the Republics 5.1 Current Trends in Reforming Agricultural Research 5.2 Application of Strategies for Reforming Agricultural Research 6.
    [Show full text]
  • The Cold War Politics of Genetic Research Introduction on August, 7
    The Cold War Politics of Genetic Research William deJong-Lambert The Cold War Politics of Genetic Research Introduction On August, 7, 1948 at the end of week long session of the Lenin All-Union Academy of Sciences (VASKhNIL) at the Ministry of Agriculture in Moscow, Trofim D. Lysenko declared that he had the support of the Central Committee for his Michurinist theory in biology. 1 Genetics was denounced as a pseudo-scientific doctrine that had provided the scientific rationale for racism, colonization and Nazi eugenics. In response, prominent Soviet geneticists recanted their belief in the “gene theory.” In the aftermath, Lysenko wielded absolute authority in Soviet biology to promote his agricultural techniques, premised primarily upon belief in “Lamarckism,” or the inheritance of acquired characteristics.2 The losses to Soviet agriculture resulting from just one of his initiatives—the “cluster planting of trees,” based in the idea that the trees would cooperate, rather than compete, for light and nourishment—has been calculated as a billion rubles.3 Lysenko’s impact upon Soviet biology has been well-documented, however few scholars have yet examined what took place outside of the Soviet Union.4 The effective ban on genetic 1 Ivan Michurin (1855-1935) was a plant breeder celebrated by the Bolsheviks as a model “peasant scientist.” Lysenko claimed his legacy as a way of gaining credibility. For a description of Michurin’s background see Joravsky, The Lysenko Affair, 40-54. 2 The possibility that evolution takes place according to a process whereby living organisms develop features in direct response to the conditions of their environment, which are then inherited by their offspring, had been widely accepted until the “modern” or “evolutionary” synthesis of genetics and natural selection in the early 1940s.
    [Show full text]
  • Cahiers Du Monde Russe, 57/1
    Cahiers du monde russe Russie - Empire russe - Union soviétique et États indépendants 57/1 | 2016 Terres, sols et peuples : expertise agricole et pouvoir (xixe - xxe siècles) Land, soil and people : Agricultural expertise and power (19th-20th centuries) Édition électronique URL : http://journals.openedition.org/monderusse/8322 DOI : 10.4000/monderusse.8322 ISSN : 1777-5388 Éditeur Éditions de l’EHESS Édition imprimée Date de publication : 1 janvier 2016 ISBN : 978-2-7132-2540-6 ISSN : 1252-6576 Référence électronique Cahiers du monde russe, 57/1 | 2016, « Terres, sols et peuples : expertise agricole et pouvoir (xixe - xxe siècles) » [En ligne], mis en ligne le 01 janvier 2018, Consulté le 28 septembre 2020. URL : http:// journals.openedition.org/monderusse/8322 ; DOI : https://doi.org/10.4000/monderusse.8322 Ce document a été généré automatiquement le 28 septembre 2020. © École des hautes études en sciences sociales 1 NOTE DE LA RÉDACTION Ce numéro des Cahiers du Monde russe a bénéficié d’une aide à la traduction de l’Institut historique allemand de Moscou (DHIM). Cahiers du monde russe, 57/1 | 2016 2 SOMMAIRE Introduction Expertise And The Quest For Rural Modernization In The Russian Empire And The Soviet Union Katja Bruisch et Klaus Gestwa Réglementer l’utilisation des terres Blurred Lines Land surveying and the creation of landed property in nineteenth‑century Russia Igor Khristoforov Agrarian Experts And Social Justice Land allotment norms in revolution and Civil War, 1917‑1920 David Darrow The Soviet Village Revisited Household farming and the changing image of socialism in the late Soviet period Katja Bruisch Les intérêts politiques et économiques, facteurs déterminants de l’expertise Sweet Development The sugar beet industry, agricultural societies and agrarian transformations in the Russian empire 1818‑1913 Susan Smith‑Peter Engineering Empire Russian and foreign hydraulic experts in Central Asia, 1887‑1917 Maya K.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Mark B. Tauger September 2014 Retrospective for Yale Agrarian
    Mark B. Tauger September 2014 Retrospective for Yale Agrarian Studies This paper briefly presents the development of my ideas about Soviet agriculture and the famine of 1931-1933 and some of the issues that this research has raised. It omits my work on India and world agriculture, which I would be happy to discuss. The standard view sees Soviet collectivization as a policy of exploitation, a view based on certain Marxist theories and a very selective use of evidence. The standard view also holds that the famine of the early 1930s was the result of collectivization. A related interpretation views the famine as genocide aimed against allegedly rebellious nationalists. My research has shown that the famine resulted from drought, plant disease and pest infestations that caused two years of crop failures. I argue that this famine has to be understood in a broader context of earlier famines and Soviet agricultural sciences. I showed that the famines of the 1920s, not mentioned in previous studies, led Soviet leaders to resort to collectivization to restructure Soviet agriculture on the model of American mechanized farming, as an attempt to overcome its vulnerability to environmental disasters. Another important context is the history of Soviet agricultural sciences. The literature is split over the ability of Trofim Lysenko to distort Soviet biological research. Some studies focus on Lysenko’s victims such as N. I. Vavilov and overstate Lysenko’s impact; others show that many scientists evaded his domination. The case of Pavel Luk’ianenko shows that there were scientists in the USSR who witnessed the famine, understood its environmental causes, and worked to improve Soviet agriculture to prevent these disasters despite Lysenko.
    [Show full text]
  • The Concept of the 'New Soviet Man' As a Eugenic Project: Eugenics in Soviet Russia After World War II
    Ethics in Progress (ISSN 2084-9257). Vol. 4 (2013). No. 1. 57-81 The Concept of the 'New Soviet Man' As a Eugenic Project: Eugenics in Soviet Russia after World War II Filip Bardziński (Adam Mickiewicz University) 1. Introduction Modern bioethical reflection is mostly focused on dilemmas and challenges which closely relate to the development of biomedical sciences in early decades of the 20 th century (Fukuyama 1992; Habermas 2003). Following Alfred North Whitehead, the safest general claim regarding the European ethical tradition is that it consists of a series of footnotes to past dilemmas. The case of liberal eugenics and genetic enhancement, which presently attract the attention of Habermas, Fukuyama and others, may be viewed as an undergoing philosophical task to understand human nature, its value and ability to change. In this manner, it is possible to ask whether technology- based interventions on human heredity were and remain limited to somatic and cognitive capabilities of human beings. This paper focuses on the Soviet eugenic programme and – by evoking its ambiguous character – on the question how can biological interventions be transformed in efficient tools of shaping human nature and its social character. The history of the Russian and Soviet eugenic movement 1 covers a short period of time between late 19 th century until the II World War and the abolition of genetics – as a “bourgeois science” in the Soviet Union. Despite its rather short outbreak, Russian and Soviet eugenicists were able to develop a unique understanding of how to better the human population. Outlawing genetics in Soviet Russia is – generally – perceived as the end of the history of Soviet eugenics movement (see: Krementsov 1996, 2011; Spektorowski 2004, and other).
    [Show full text]
  • The Consequences of Political Dictatorship for Russian Science Valery N
    PERSPECTIVES TIMELINE The consequences of political dictatorship for Russian science Valery N. Soyfer The Soviet communist regime had ed the laws of genetics, which are incompati- devastating consequences on the state of ble with the theory of acquired characteristics Russian twentieth century science. Country proposed by Lamarck. The 1920s saw vicious Communist leaders promoted Trofim debates between geneticists and Lamarkists. Lysenko — an agronomist and keen Although, initially, many Soviet geneticists supporter of the inheritance of acquired argued that genetics was entirely compatible characters — and the Soviet government with Communist ideology2, the Communists imposed a complete ban on the practice soon shifted towards supporting the inheri- and teaching of genetics, which it tance of acquired characteristics. By the early condemned as a “bourgeois perversion”. 1920s, geneticists were being publicly attacked Russian science, which had previously by Lamarkists3, and by the end of the decade flourished, rapidly declined, and many many of them were being condemned as valuable scientific discoveries made by “bourgeois scientists”.It was also at that time leading Russian geneticists were forgotten. that Trofim Denisovich Lysenko, an agrono- mist by training who sided with the “We cannot wait for Nature’s good graces — Lamarkists, made his first claims of being able to take them from her is our goal.”1 to create new wheat varieties by varying envi- ronmental conditions, so providing a much The Communist state that replaced the needed improvement in grain harvest in the Russian Empire in 1917 was based on Marx USSR. Communist Party leaders wholeheart- and Engels’ thesis that it was possible to edly embraced Lysenko’s promising claims.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Agricultural Economy in Transition
    /,amf I STUDIES OF ECONOMIES IN TRANSFORMATION Food and Agricultural Policy Reforms Public Disclosure Authorized in the Former USSR An Agenda for the Transition Country Department III, Europe and Central Asia Region FILE COPY Report No.:11271 Type: (PUB) Title: FOOD & AGRICULTURAL POLICY REFl tAuthor: WORLD BANK Public Disclosure Authorized TH XExt.: O Room: Dept.: / / / / / / BOOKSTORE SEPTEMBER 1992 A m_; ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ----- --- -f - --- - -- --- -- -------"""" -------------- ------- ---- Public Disclosure Authorized T TXT T <~~~~~~~~~\ tW Xt~~~~~~~~~--V-------- Public Disclosure Authorized THE WORLD BANK STUDIES OF ECONOMIESIN TRANSFORMATION PAPERNUMBER 1 Food and AgriculturalPolicy Reforms in the FormerUSSR An Agendafor the Transition Country Department III Europe and Central Asia Region The World Bank Washington, D.C. Copyright C) 1992 The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/THEWORLD BANK 1818 H Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20433, U.S.A. All rights reserved Manufactured in the United States of America First printing September 1992 Papers in the "Studies of Economies in Transformation" series present the results of policy analysis and research on the states of the former USSR. The papers have been prepared by World Bank staff and consultants and issued by the World Bank's Europe and Central Asia Country Department III. Funding for the effort has been provided in part by the Technical Cooperation Program of the World Bank for states of the former USSR. In light of the worldwide interest in the problems and prospects of these countries, dissemination of these findings is encouraged for discussion and comment. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this paper are entirely those of the author(s) and should not be attributed in any manner to the World Bank, to its affiliated organizations, or to members of its Board of Executive Directors or the countries they represent.
    [Show full text]