DEBATE ON A. D. SPERANSKIY'S UNIFIED MEDICAL THEORY IN THE USSR

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP80-00809A000600320438-0
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: S
• Document Page Count: 6
• Document Creation Date: December 22, 2016
• Document Release Date: August 31, 2011
• Sequence Number: 438
• Publication Date: June 29, 1950
• Content Type: REPORT

Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/08/31 :CIA-RDP80-00809A000600320438-0
CLASSIF1CATi0N ~ ii~'cCt);'C ~~~`'~~~
CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY REPORT
INFORMATION FROM
FOREIGN DOCUMENTS OR RADIO BROADCASTS CD FrO.
COUNTRY USSR
SUBJECT ~~~~ -Theory
HOW
PUBLISHED Weekly newspapers
WHERE
PUBLISHED l~bscow
DATE
PUBLISHED 9 Feb - 11 May 7'~?50
LANGUAuE Russian
or~arxoi vimo inni nTMU~ii[ iuaui oi~ unoiiaN~rN
~o~ oa m aarauno~
~. a..e., at ?ao aa.aa ~aa~oas. m roaauua
ioino M u~ ' aanoDYCIlOa Oa TMI/ ioii ii np~ ,I 1nos. ~s ~
DATE OF
INFORMATION .1950
DATE DIST. ~~ Jun 1950
N0. OF PAGES 6
SUPPLEMENT TO
50X1-HUM
THIS IS UNEVALUATED INFORMATION
SOURCE Meditsinskiy Rabotnik and Literaturnaya Gazeta.
DEBATE ON A. D. gpEgA~ISTtiy'S
UNIF2ED MEDICAL 'THEORY IN THE USSR
umbers in parentheses refer to the table at the end of the report which
shows the amount of space devoted by "A~{+stnakiy Rabotnik to th.e various
articles discussed below)
The key~~article on Academician A. D. Speranskiy's unified medical theory (la,
which started the cu.~ent debate in Mediteinskiy Rabotnik was published by
S. Sarkisov, Academician-Secretary of the Academe of Medical Sciences USSR, in
the 9 r^ebruary 1950 issue of that under the title "The Teaching of
I. P. Pavlov and Medical Science? This was followed by au
article, "On the Contemporary State of Medical Science," published in the
16 February 1950 issue of the same paper by Speranskiy himself (2): In a foot- .
note to the latter. article the editorial board of MeditaYnskiy Rabotnik pointed
out that the questions raised by Ssskisov and Speranskiy are of the greatest im-
portsnce to the medical profession, ,and invited USSR medical scientists to ex-
press their opinion by writing to Meditsinskiy Rabotnik on these questions for
publication in that newspaper.
In the first article cited above, Professor Ssrkisov mentioned that some
people had opposed Speranskiy's~theory at a meeting, and had~rs~ueeteoPP nentao~l
experimental proof. Sarkisov asked in his srticle,~,~y SP Y
did not try to use their own experimental,Yaci.lities for obtaining p~oof~in
view of the fact that the Institute of General Pathology directedeby~~erans~iy
could not possibly do all the work in the field of pathology. Sp Y,
the article published u~sder his name, did not enter the discussion, but concen-
trated on the theoretical and philosophical aspects of the new theory and re-
ferred to Yircl~ov's and Erlich's theories'as sterile and bourgeois. He stated
in conclusion, however, that reactionary theories must be uprooted and that a?
reorientation of the medical profession and. medical research appearQ to be de-
sirable. This end, in Speranekiy's opinion, must be achieved by a discussion
on the broadest scientific front, with participation of the broadest masses of
CLASSIFICATION
NSRB
~~u~~
DISTRIBUTIdN
Q
SECRET
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/08/31 :CIA-RDP80-00809A000600320438-0
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/08/31 :CIA-RDP80-00809A000600320438-0
scientific workers, and definitely not carried on exclusively through the
medium of a newspaper. debate, in the course of which it is impossible to
present complete scientific data. Ha said he did not quite agree with Sarkisov's
attitude toward the discussion apparently proposed by the latter.
The articles by Sarkisov and Speranskiy and the invitation by the editors
of Me3ltsinskiy Rabotnik to continue the discussion resulted in a number of con-
tributions published in that newspaper during February, March, and April 1950.
~;d.itorials on statements. referring to Speranskiy's theory and news items, brief
letters to the editor, and other materisl also appeared in Meditsinskiy Rabotnik
during this period, up to 11 May. The principal published items coming within
the scope of that discussion are noted below.
In the 23 February 1950 issue of Meditsinckiy Rabotnik, Professor A. Strukov~
Corresponding Member of the Academy of Medical Sciences USSR, published an ar-
ticle, "For Progressive Soviet Medical Science" (3)? Although in general ap-
proving the new theory, Strukov rather obliquely points out the simultaneous
importance of humeral factors in disease. In the 2 March 1950 issue, Professor
S. Pavlenko (Kazan') reported on the All-Union Conference on Pathological
Ph~~siology which took place in Kazan' (4). Material relevant to the discussion
was presented at the meeting. In reporting on the meeting, Professor Pavlenko
includes his own remarlw, which are favorable to Speranskiy's theory.
The 16 March 1950 issue contains an article by A. Myasnikov, Acting Mem-
ber of the Academy of Medical Sciences USSR, "Nervism and Soviet ?'herapy" (5).
This article rejects Virchov's theory on general grounds, but otherwise crlt3_
The 16 March 1950 issue also presents an editorial on a meeting of the Mos-
cow Society of Pathological Anatomy which debated the questions raised in the
current controversy in bleditsinskiy Rabotnik: The editorial, entitled "On the
Wrong Path," (6) criticizes Professors A. I. Strukoy, I. V. Davydovskiy, and
Rapaport, who opposed the views of Speranskiy's group at the meeting. It de-
plores the "sensational" fight between adherents of Davydovskiy and Speranskiy
ai the meeting, berating Bronovitskiy and Ostryy, adherents of Speranskiy, for
sheer vituperation, and microbiologist Professor Sakharov and Dr Dzugaeva,
opponents of Speranskiy, for facetious conduct and ideological transgressions
(according to the report, Dr Dzugaeva reduced,. her arguments to criticism of the
system of administrative servility and nepotism which flourishes at certain
scientific institutes). In conclusion, the editorial praises the responsible
attitude of Professor Solov'ev, Dr M. Durmtsh'yan, adherents of Speranskiy's
"nervism"), and Professor Neyman, who does not accept Speranskiy's theory com-
pletely, b+.it assumes a neutral attitude, and calls on the Scientific Medical
Council of the Ministry of Health to intervene in uprooting surviving remai~:ders
of reactionary theories in scientific s es. A third item in the same issue,
"New Work Done by Soviet Pathologists" reports on experimental
results obtained under Speranskiy's direc on itute of General and
Fxperimental Pathology of the Academy of Medical Sciences USSR (7).
The report on the meeting of the Mpscow Society of Pathological Anatomists
(17 March 1950 session) was concluded in the next (23 March 1950) issue of
Meditsinskiy Rabotnik (8). Professor Kassirskiy's defense of the etiological
pr':nciple in clinical medicine against extreme conceptions of Speranskiy's school
is -mentioned first. This is followed by references to Professor Rusakov's re-
port (giving specific examples) on the inculcation of Pavlov's "nervism" into
psttiological anatomy by drawing the latter closer to physiology and Speranskiy's
report on the same general subject. After this, Professor Strukov's concluding
speech, in which he accepts criticism directed. against himself and against the
w~.rk of the Society of Pathological Anatomy as 3ustified, is reported. Professor
SE~FET .
50X1-HUM
50X1-HUM
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/08/31 :CIA-RDP80-00809A000600320438-0
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/08/31 :CIA-RDP80-00809A000600320438-0
? ~.
SECRET
Davydovskiy's speech, which closed the debate over which he had presided, is
mentioned next with a reference to Davidovskiy's final criticism of Speran-
skiy's theory as a mechanistic and incorrect conception of Pavlov's "nervism"
erring in the assumption of a virtual autonomy of the nervous system. Accord-
ing to the editorial, Davydcvakiy reproached Speranskiy with an attitude in-
volving the negation of successes of Soviet medicine in its fight with Virchov's
dogmas.
The 23 IQarch issue also carried an article by A. Alymov, Corresponding
Member of the Academy oY Sciences USSR, "For the Pavlov Direction in Medical
Science" (9). In this article Alymov gives a very favorable review of Speran-
slciy's theory and of experimental results obtained by Speranslciy and his group.
Alymov's attitude is seconded by Dr M. Durmish'yan in an article ublished in
the 30 March 1950 issue of Meditsinskiy Rabotnik under the
title "National Physiology in Opposition to Cellular a o ogy ). In the
30 March issue the editorial board published excerpts from letters to the edi-
tor (11) in which readers (medics]. practitioners, according to the heading "The
Medical Practitioner Speaks") er_press themselves both for ana against Speran-
the 30 March 1950 issue are defini+,ely in favor of Speranskiy's theory, however.
The editor points out that the current discussion has had a tremendous impact
en the medical opinion of the country and that neutrality in the fight between
two irreconcilable medical theories is impossible. Under the circumstances,
the editor is surprised that the Academy of Sciences of the USSR and the Scien-
tific Medical Council of the Ministry of Health still occupy the position of
inactive bystanders.
In the 6 April 1y50 issue Meditsinskiy Rabotnik published under the caption,
"Pavlov's Teaching Put Into Science and Practice:" the full text of a speech
held by E. I. Smirnov, Minister of Health USSR, at the Al ].-Union Meeting of
?ending Workers of University Medical Faculties (12). In this speech, Smirttov
squarely defends Speranskiy's theory and criticizes Professors A. I. Strukov
and A. L. N(yasnikov, on the basis of their articles in IMPditsinskiy Rabotntk
In the 13 April 19;0 is site of Meditsinskiy Rabotnik, Professor A. Zubkov
{Minsk) published an article entitled "Intreduci.ng Full Clarity" (13) in which
he criticizes Speranskiy's unified theory as metaphysical and rash in its
broad interpretation of Pavlov's purely experimental results leading to the
concept of "nervism." At the same time Zubkov appreciates the positive experi-
mental achievements of Speranskiy's group. In the same issue, V. Popov, as-
sistant to the chief anatomist of the Bezhitsa (Bryansk Oblast) Municipal Hos-
pital, in a letter entitled"Nearer to Practical Applications," {11+) declares
that he is a confirmed follower of Speranskiy, but criticizes Speranskiy's group
for inadequate publicity which they give to their own work and for a tendency
to negate past achievements of Russian medicine. A third item in the same issue
touching on the controversy is a dispatch from Leningrad 3y Special Correspondent
N. Orlov reporting cn a discussion of Speranskiy's theory at an expanded session
of the ~;cientific Council of the Institute of Experimental Medicine of the Academy
of Sciences USSR, i.e., I. P. Pavlov's institute, and other relevant papers pre-
sented at the same meeting (15). N. Orlov deplores the reluctance of D. N.
Nasonov and F. S. Kupalov, Acting Members Academy of Medical Sciences; Professor
A. Yu. Sronovitskiy; V. Ya. Alelcsandrov, Doctor of Biological Sciences; and
3. ~'. Anichkov, Corresponding Member, Academy of Medical Sciences, to express?
themselves explicitly on the subject of the current controversy. IIe also re-
prrts on comments made by Kupalov (against Speranskiy's theory), Dr M. G. Durmish'-
yan (for), Academician K. M. Bykov (against), V. I. Ioffe Corresponding Member,
1 for Release 2011/08/31 :CIA-RDP80-00809A000600320438-0
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/08/31 :CIA-RDP80-00809A000600320438-0
~~~~~r
Academy,of Sciences (favorable, but pointing out that Pavlov's work was
never concerned with the pathology of infectious diseases), N. N. Zayko
(for, pointing out lack of bolaheviat self-criticism evinced in the report
presented by the director of the institute, D. N. Nasonov), Dr 0. Ya
Ostryy (for)e and D. N. Nasonov (recognizing justification of the criticism
directed against himself and against the work of the institute). Ln con-
elusion Orlov mentions criticism leveled against the Institute of Experi-
mental Medicine at the Party Conference of the Petrograd Region of Lenin-
grad 9.nd himself criticizes the institute for a pseudoacsdemic attitude and
for unproductive work, the last being partly due, in Orlov's opinion, to
faulty management for which the directors of the institute and the Presidium
or the Academyy of yfedical Sciemces are responsible.
The 20 April 1950 issue of Meditsinskiy Rabotnik published under the
title "I. P. Pavlov's Heritage and 2dedical Science" an article written by
P. Kupalov (Leningrad), Acting Member, Academy of Medical Scie_res in which
the author criticizes Speranakiy's ideas on the role of the nervous system
in the pathology of infectious diseases. The criticism is rather mild and
is based wholly on experimental facts. This article is followed in the same
issue by a communication entitled "Against the Golden Middle" by Professor
V. Andguladze (16). Anguladze states that although the results obtained
at his institute are in complete agreement with Speranskiy's theory, the
editors of both Tera evticheslci Arkhiv (Archive of Therapy) and Klinicheskaya
Meditsina (Clinical Medicine have refused to publish them, and the Organiza-
tional Committee of the 13th Meeting of Therapeutiats has refused to give him
time for the presentation of a paper. Anguladze regards this as a manifes-
tation of the hidden war between two irreconcilable tendencies in medical
science.
In the 4 May 1950 issue of Meditsinaki Rabotnik an article, "Problems
of Nerve Trophism in Contemporary Medicine,'.' 17 was published in which the
author, Professor M. Borovskiy of t+toscow reviews favorably Speranskiy's work,
points out the universal significance of nerve distrophies in disease, and
mentions cases of successful treatment of bilateral tuberculosis by alcholiza-
tion of the peripherally .severed diaphragmal nerve oa one side carried out
by Professor V. F'. Shchebanov at the Moscow Oblast Tuberculosis Institute at
his, Borovakiy's, suggestion.
In the ll May 1950 issue of Meditsinskiy Rabotnik, Docent 0. Vasil'evskaya
published under the title "Against Remainders of Virchov's Teachings in Medi-
cal Literature" a report on an expanded meeting .of the Editorial Council of
Medgiz (State Press for Medical Literature) (18). According to Vasil'evskaya's
report, the meeting consisted of an address by Dr M. G. Durmish'yan,~~Senior
Editor of Medgiz, on the subject "Two Tendencies in Medical Science, and a
discussion of that address. A number of standard Soviet medical books ie
honeycombed with outlived remainders of Virchov's teachings, according to Dr
Durmish`yan's statement in his address, and this situation must be corrected.
He also said that a complete break between the principle of chemotherapy, on
one aide, and Pavlov's "nervism" and Diichurin's biology, on the other, has
taken place at present. All participants of the discussion whose opinions
are cited in the report on the meeting (Professor A. I. Strukov,.Corresponding
Member, Academy of Medical Sciences, Professor S. M. Pavlenko, Professor A. F.
Bilibi.n,'end Acting Prpfeseor.'.V. Aa~.G3~lyarovskiy, Member;rAcademy of YQedical.
Sciences) weed with?Dr ]humish'yad's essential thesis.,on~the>reaction o~.,.tj~e
organism as a whc7.e and the neurctropic.character~of 11 disease, i.e., Sper-
anskiy's theo:y,,according to, Vasil'evekaya:~,-?Professor.S. M. Pavlenko;~p?iited
out particalarly the significance_of Speranskiy's teachipgs.for,the solution
of questions in the..field oP a~nunology.and immunotherBPY~
-~-
SECRET
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/08/31 :CIA-RDP80-00809A000600320438-0
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/08/31 :CIA-RDP80-00809A000600320438-0
The controversy on the subject of Speransltiy's unifed theory has also
attracted attention elsewhere. Pointing out the broad public interest in the
questions touched upon i.n the discussion, the editors of LiteraturnaYa Gazeta
requested Academician Speranskiy +.o contribute an article. This article Was
published under the title "On the Situation in Medical Science" in the 29. March
1950 issue of that newspaper. In this article Speranskiy draws a parallel be-
tween Vlrchov's theory and the teachings of Weismann, Mendel, and Morgan. As
these teachings have been overthrown by Niichurinist biology, reactionary ten-
dencies in medicine must overthrown by the new school of pathology which origi-
nated. with Pavlov, according to Speranskiy. He deplores the attempt made by
niofessor I. V. Davidovskiy and his group to drive a wedge between the new
school of pathology and I. P: Pavlov's teachings. To demonstrate the value of
the new theory, Speranskiy enumerates methods of medical intervention which,
in accordance with the new theory, are aimed not at the disease agent; the
original cause of the disease, but at the organism, and particularly at its
nervous system. These methods of medical intervention, which have already
been applied successfully en thousands of patients, comprise, according to
Speranskiy'; statement, the novocaine renal vicinity?blockade (A. V. Bishnav-
skiy) and epidermal blockade in pneumonia (A. D. Speranskiy, E. M. Ginzburg,
and others), the magnesial blockade (Ya. Yu. Shpirt), the deep-sleep treat-
ment of internal diseases (F. A. Andreev), various forms of affecting a specific
(peripheral) segment of a nerve (M. L. Borovskiy,??F. M. Golub, and F. M. Shebanov),
and therapy of nonpulmonary tuberculosis by affecting the nerve apparatus of
the lung, et?c. (0. Ya. Ostryy, 'Q. A. Albov, D. N. Atabekov, 0. N. Podvysotskaya,
and others). According to Speranskiy, msny traditional.?methods of treatment,
which hiterto have been purely empirical (cups, leeches, mustard plasters, com-
presses, pneumothorax, balneotherapy, electrotherapy, etc.), can be explained?
scientifically on the basis of the new theory.
In conclusion, Speranskiy says, as far as the discussion on the pages of
Meditsinskiy Rabotni_k is concerned:
"It seems to me that the newspaper has ndt yet approximated an understand-
ing of the casks posed. A number of articles in this paper go into particulars,
but disregard the principle. Editorial articles of Meditsinskiy Rabotnik're-
flect the absence of s firm decision on the part of the paper in this discussion."
He concludes the article by saying:
"7.'he correct solution of this question has by no means purely theoretical
significance. The assertion of Pavlov's ideas in medicine will open up new
paths for the prevention and cure of disease. This is why millions of Soviet
people are interested in the outcome of the struggle between the old and the
new in medical science."
As far as could be established, the article by Speranskiy in "Literaturnya
Gazeta represents the only reference to the current controversy published out-
side the medical and scientific press.
The controversy has nut been mentioned in daily newspapers regularly avail-
able. So far, the discussion has been limited to a strictly scientific and
medical level, and the current prominence given to it apparently might be as-
cribed t?o an attempt to propagandize the medical profession.
The space given to this controversy in the various issues of Meditsinskiy
Rabotnik by the editors was as follows:
'S-
SECRET
Sanitized Co A~roved for Relea ~~ w~~
py pp_ se 2011/08/31 :CIA-RDP80-00809A000600320438-0
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/08/31 :CIA-RDP80-00809A000600320438-0
~~~~ET:
This amount of space devoted to the current discussion by afour-page
weekly newspaper, which carries official announcements occupying a large print
of the first cage, may possibly serve as a measure of the importance being
attached to the subject under discussion.
S~~ {C~~
.~, _,~_.
ed Copy Approved for Release 2011/08/31 :CIA-RDP80-00809A000600320438-0