Loren R. Graham. Lysenko's Ghost: Epigenetics and Russia. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2016. 224 pp. $24.95, cloth, ISBN 978-0-674-08905-1. Reviewed by William deJong-Lambert Published on H-Diplo (November, 2016) Commissioned by Seth Offenbach (Bronx Community College, The City University of New York) Although the excitement of the space race “iron curtain” of Europe, the Americas, Asia and and fret over the atomic bomb have traditionally beyond. been center stage in the historiography of Cold Loren Graham’s chapter on these events in War science, biology steals the spotlight from the his 1966 survey of Soviet science, Science, Philoso‐ “rocket scientists” with the “Lysenko affair.” The phy in the Soviet Union (1987), initiated the frst story of how a Ukrainian peasant who did not at‐ wave of literature to analyze the history and con‐ tend school until he was a teenager managed to sequences of what happened next. Now Graham destabilize the science behind the singular biolog‐ has written a sobering update for Lysenko schol‐ ical advance which could have fed the masses of ars, Lysenko’s Ghost: Epigenetics and Russia, in perpetually starving Russia, is compelling read‐ which he reveals that what in the English-speak‐ ing. The Lysenko affair began in the fateful sum‐ ing world we refer to as “Lysenkoism”—which in mer of 1948, when at the end of a week-long show Russian is used as a binary term to trial at the Lenin All-Union Academy of Agricul‐ Лысенковщина—“Lysenkovischina”—has sur‐ tural Sciences in Moscow, Ukrainian agronomist vived by adapting to the environment of its origin Trofim D. Lysenko announced he had received the today. support of the Communist Party of the Soviet In Russian, “Lysenkoism” is used solely to re‐ Union to launch a purge of genetics. What fol‐ fer to the content of what Lysenko said— i.e., vari‐ lowed, in global terms, was possibly the most ex‐ eties of wheat can be transformed by subjecting tensive fallout of executions, arrests, demotions, them to colder temperatures, genes do not exist, liquidated university departments, research insti‐ etc. “Lysenkovschina” is the rest of the story—Par‐ tutes, and careers of any event in the history of ty philosopher Isaac Prezent as Lysenko’s Karl science: a lost generation of geneticists behind the Marx whisperer, and Joseph Stalin as the man H-Net Reviews who could make it happen. “Lysenkovschina” has nored; nevertheless there certainly were anti-Ly‐ been generalized to any context where power and senko Cold Warriors, Conway Zirkle at the Univer‐ influence are used to credit one scientific theory sity of Pennsylvania being probably the most con‐ over another. spicuous, whose ire towards Lysenko was fueled In English we use the single word “Lysenko‐ by their antipathy to Lamarck.[1] Then there is ism” to describe both these issues—the theory and also the fact that Waddington, unable to get a the politics surrounding it, and the problem then hearing for his ideas in the West, frst published is that the content of what Lysenko said is not be‐ his studies in Agrobiologia—Lysenko’s mouth‐ ing separated from the fate of Nikolai Vavilov et piece journal. al. The genius of the Russian distinction is that it Graham’s story of his lunch with Lysenko in enables a more nuanced analysis of what actually the cafeteria of the Russian Academy Sciences, happened. where the latter sat alone, shunned by his col‐ With that in mind, it should come as no sur‐ leagues in the aftermath of his downfall, are prise to observers of contemporary Russian poli‐ among the riveting tales he recounts of his years tics that a class of nationalists writing their own following genetics and breeding in Soviet and history have seized upon Lysenko as a martyr of post-Soviet Russia. In the concluding chapter Gra‐ Soviet biology. This literature consists of a steady ham neatly dismisses Lysenko with a few sen‐ stream of books and articles online and off that tences and that would more or less seem to be the turn the tables by presenting Lysenko’s most fa‐ end of it, if not for everything that appears in the mous victim, Vavilov, as a wastrel squandering pages before. Ideas regain currency through rein‐ state support on fruitless expeditions around the vention. What a previous generation discarded globe. Meanwhile, the fact that Lysenko used the comes back to life once the dead are buried and enthusiasm of the Bolshevik press to promote a their stories are retold. Lysenko’s Ghost is a com‐ series of failed agricultural schemes which posi‐ pelling case study of how it happens. tioned him to usurp Vavilov, is portrayed as the Note triumph of a hero whose ideas had been given [1]. Conway Zirkle, Death of a Science in Rus‐ due recognition. Lysenko’s downfall was the re‐ sia (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania sult of the mechanizations of his enemies. Ly‐ Press, 1949), Evolution, Marxian Biology and the senko was right. Social Scene (Philadelphia: University of Pennsyl‐ There are many angles to this argument—but vania Press, 1959), and “Some Biological Aspects the most potent is that Lysenko should be credited of Individualism,” in Essays on Individuality, ed. as a precursor to epigenetics. Epigenetics is a feld Felix Morley (Philadelphia: University of Pennsyl‐ of study founded by British geneticist C. H. vania Press, 1958). Waddington, which shows that genetic inheri‐ tance is in fact influenced by environmental fac‐ Though the excitement of the space race and tors. This is a very important point because it fret over the atomic bomb have traditionally been highlights the extent to which Lysenko’s reign of center-stage in the historiography of Cold War sci‐ terror in Soviet biology provoked a counter-reac‐ ence, biology steals the spotlight from the “rocket tion against what many took to be centerpiece of scientists” with the “Lysenko affair.” The story of his ideas—the inheritance of acquired characters, how a Ukrainian peasant who did not attend often referred to as “Lamarckism.” That there is a school until he was a teenager managed to desta‐ lot more to the legacy of French biologist Jean- bilize the science behind the singular biological Baptiste Lamarck than this one idea is often ig‐ advance which could have fed the masses of per‐ 2 H-Net Reviews petually starving Russia, is compelling reading. separated from the fate of Nikolai Vavilov et. al. The Lysenko affair began in the fateful summer of The genius of the Russian distinction is that it en‐ 1948, when at the end of a week-long show trial at ables a more nuanced analysis of what actually the Lenin All-Union Academy of Agricultural Sci‐ happened. ences in Moscow, Ukrainian agronomist Trofim D. With that in mind, it should come as no sur‐ Lysenko, announced he had received the support prise to observers of contemporary Russian poli‐ of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union to tics that a class of nationalists writing their own launch a purge of genetics. What followed, in history have seized upon Lysenko as a martyr of global terms, was possibly the most extensive fall‐ Soviet biology. This literature consists of a steady out of executions, arrests, demotions, liquidated stream of books and articles online and off that university departments, research institutes, and turn the tables by presenting Lysenko’s most fa‐ careers of any event in the history of science: A mous victim, Vavilov, as a wastrel squandering lost generation of geneticists behind the “iron cur‐ state support on fruitless expeditions around the tain” of Europe, the Americas, Asia and beyond. globe. Meanwhile, the fact that Lysenko used the enthusiasm of the Bolshevik press to promote a Loren Graham’s chapter on these events in series of failed agricultural schemes which posi‐ his 1966 survey of Soviet science, Science, Philoso‐ tioned him to usurp Vavilov, is portrayed as the phy in the Soviet Union (1987), initiated the frst triumph of a hero whose ideas had been given wave of literature to analyze the history and con‐ due recognition. Lysenko’s downfall was the re‐ sequences of what happened next. Now Graham sult of the mechanizations of his enemies. Ly‐ has written a sobering update for Lysenko schol‐ senko was right. ars, Lysenko’s Ghost: Epigenetics and Russia, There are many angles to this argument—but wherein he reveals that what in the English- the most potent is that Lysenko should be credited speaking world we refer to as “Lysenkoism”— as a precursor to epigenetics. Epigenetics is a feld which in Russian is used as a binary term to of study founded by British geneticist, C.H. Лысенковщина—“Lysenkovischina”—has sur‐ Waddington, which shows that genetic inheri‐ vived by adapting to the environment of its origin tance is in fact influenced by environmental fac‐ today. tors. This is a very important point because it In Russian, Lysenkoism is used solely to refer highlights the extent to which Lysenko’s reign of to the content of what Lysenko said— i.e., vari‐ terror in Soviet biology provoked a counter-reac‐ eties of wheat can be transformed by subjecting tion against what many took to be centerpiece of them to colder temperatures, genes do not exist his ideas—the inheritance of acquired characters, etc. Lysenkovschina is the rest of the story—Party often referred to as “Lamarckism.” That there is a philosopher Isaac Prezent as Lysenko’s Karl Marx lot more to the legacy of French biologist Jean- whisperer, and Joseph Stalin as the man who Baptiste Lamarck than this one idea is often ig‐ could make it happen.