USSR CRITICISM OF T. D. LYSENKO'S THEORY OF SPECIES

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP80-00809A000700110117-8
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: R
• Document Page Count: 3
• Document Creation Date: December 22, 2016
• Document Release Date: September 15, 2011
• Sequence Number: 117
• Publication Date: May 12, 1953
• Content Type: REPORT

Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/02/08: CIA-RDP80-00809A000700110117-8
FDD
ME
COPY
DATE OF
INFORMATION 1952
SUBJECT Scit:1tiflc - Biology, genetics
Economic - Agriculture
HOW
PUBLISHED Bimonthly periodical
WHERE
PUBLISHED Moscow
DATE
PUBLISHED Dec 1952
LANGUAGE R'.esian
.1 IN,
.TIO? OI I,. C41T.11 10 BY . . 1-D, 12
SUPPLEMENT TO
REPORT NO.
CLASSIFICATION RESTRICTED
SECURITY INFORMATION
INFORMATION FROM
FOREIGN DOCUMENTS OR RADIO BROADCASTS CD NO.
fcommeut: The following two discussions of Lysenko's theory
of species are taken from two extensive articles in the November -
December 1952 issue of Botanicheskiy Zhurnal criticising Lysenko's
theory of the origin of species. According to a note by the Soviet
editors, the prcblem of species and species formation hitherto had
not been adequately discussed in this journal. Therefore, the So-
viet editors state, a thorough discussion of the problem of species
from the standpoint of advanced Michuriniet biology will serve a
useful purpose. According to the note, the editorial board of the
journal has thus opened a discussion of the problem by publishing
the articles of N. V. Turbin and N. D. Ivanov, and invitee other
Soviet botanicists to express their views on the subJec+.
N. V. Turbine Discussion
The Commurist Party has urged all Soviet scientists to apply constructive
criticism to rai. the level of science and thus enable it to solve current prob-
lems more effe.:t.zvely. As far as conssuctive criticism is concerned, the pres-
ent situation of the problem of species formation is highly unsatisfactory. Al-
though Lysenko's theory is only 2-3 years old, it aspires to some sort of monop-
oly in our science. At the same time, Darwin's evolutionary theory, once held
in high esteem by adherents of Marxism and Leninism, is considered to be out of
date.
Contrary to Lysenko's views, Darwin's theory does not deny that qualitative
hLnges occur in addition to quantitative changes in the course of development
living nature. One cannot agree with Lysenko's assertion that Darwin's theory
^ primarily metaphysical. While Lysenko postulates formation of a new species
from an old by an abrupt jump, Darwinism assumes .hat there is gradual evolution
NAVY
AI R
DISTRIBUTION
STAT
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/02/08: CIA-RDP80-00809A000700110117-
 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/02/08: CIA-RDP80-00809A000700110117-8
through a number of intermediate stages. The qualitative change still occurs,
however: the changes are not merely quantitative ones which amount to growth
only. Darwinism does not negate the existence of border lines between species;
it merely regards the transitions which correspond to these border lines as
gradual and relative. In this respect, Darwinism is in complete accord with
dialectical materialism.
While Darwin's theory correctly reflects known facts of evolution that are
based on paleontological findings, Lysenko's theory is in conflict with those
findings. If we assume, in accordance with Lysenko's theory, that a certain
species may originate not only once but several times in the course of evolu-
tion from several parent species, and in turn may even to transmuted baclk into
its parent species, we arrive at a conclusion which is not in accordance with
observed facts of geochronological 5aleontologicaI stratigraphy.
Darwin's evolutionary theory of natural selection explains adaptation sat-
isfactorily, while Lysenko's theory does not. Lysenko states that this theory
of species formation is in accordance with I. V. Michurin's t.e-,atinga, 1:Ut
Michurin, in contradistinction to Lysenko, believes that there is slow a,. grad-
ual evolution in nature, although the course of evolution may be speeds,, by
man. Originally, Lysenko defended Darwinism against the attacks made -;;'.ins`
it by adherents of Mendelism-Morganism. At present, he criticizes the rery ba-
sis of Darwinism end supports his criticism by the following data.
In 1947-48, V. K. Karapetyan, Lyse__.o's collaborator, conducted experiments
on the modification of a summer variety of Triticum durum into winter wheat by
changing the conditions of planting. As a result of being planted in the fell;
Triticum durum, which normally has 26 chromosomes, developed, in the third gen-'
eration, plants having the species characteristics of the soft wheat T. vulaare,
which has 42 chromosomes. It was later established that individual grains of
soft wheat sometimes occt?- in hard-wheat plants. In 1952, M. M. Yakubtsiner
published data on the occurrence of individual rye grains in wheat plants.Thes;
findings, which have been interpreted as proving spontaneous transmutation of
wheat into rye, were made in localities of the Caucasus where conditions for the
growing of wheat are not particularly favorable. The wheat fields in these lo-
calities are strongly contaminated with rye. Later similar findings were made
with respect to other plants. On the basis of these findings, spontaneous gen-
eration of rye by wheat, of weeds by cultivated cereal plants, of firs by pines,
etc., was assumed by Lysenko and hi: pupils.
If the explanation of the phenomena that has been advanced by Lysenko's
.chool is correct, it is difficult to explain why only known specie: are gen-
erated, while spontaneous generation of entirely new, hitherto unknown species,
is Lever observed. The phenomena described by Lysenko's school are not essen-
tially new; it has been known for a long time that plants occasionally develop
characteristics of other, closely teleted species. The most likely explanation
is hybridization owing to pollination of female plants with pollen of the sane
species combined with a certain proportion of pollen of another species, Lyser,h's
arguments in favor of spontaneous generation of new species are not supported
by facts which he cites in that connection,(ll
Ivanov's Discussion
fcomment: Ivanov's arti-:le, which follows that by TurOin in
the same issue of Botanicheskiy Zhurnal, repeats many of Turbin's
arguments. However, the relative emphasis given to them by Ivanov
is slightly different. Thus, Ivanov stresses to a greater extent
than Tarbin that adaptation cannot be explained satisfactorily if
Darwin's theory of gradual evolution is rejected and Lysenko's
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/02/08_CIA-RDP80-00809A000700110117-8 I
 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/02/08: CIA-RDP80-00809A000700110117-8
theory of spontaneous generation of species is substituted for it.
In addition to criticizing Lysenko's theory along the same general
lines as Turbin, Ivanov also advances arguments which are not con-
tained in Turbin's article. Some of these arguments follow)
.In outlining his new theory of the origin of species, Lysenko did not crit-
icize the school of A. Weisman and T. G. Morgan; his criticism was 1 ev ele d
against Darwin and K. A. Timiryazev. The reason is that his theory does not con-
tain any substantial points which are in conflict with the precepts of that
school. Morgan attempted to replace Darwin's progressive teaching to the effect
that organisms are capable of multiplying in a geometric progression, once the
obstacles to their multiplication have been removed, by a reactionary theory to
the effect that many species would disappear altogether if they did net produce
an excessive number of eggs. In advancing this theory, Morgan substantially
postulates that living organisms have an enormous capacity to die. Adherents of
Weisman and Morgan deny the effects of overpopulation, and so does Lysenko; they
deny that there is competition between species Cbelonging to the same gems],
and so does Lysenko; they reject natural selection, and so does Lysenko. Darwin-
ism cannot be accused of being a variation of-the Malthusian theory: Darwin's
theory is diametrally opposed to Malthus's assumption that the production of
means of subsistence cannot be increased at a rate corresponding to that of the
growth of population. Anyone who refuses to.explain the evolution of organisms
by natural and historical causes is bound to sink into the idealistic morass of
the Weisman-Morgan school.
The reasons Lysenko, who is one of our outstanding biologists, made the er-
rors mentioned above are threefold. First, he started from the wrong precept
that processes leading to the formation of new species take place in exactly the
same manner irrespectively of the presence or absence of conscious human inter-
ference. Secondly, in attempting to equate the two types of processes (those
taking place in the absence of human interference and those occurring when there
is active human interference), Lysenko deviated from both Darwinism and Michuiin's
teaching. Thirdly, Lysenko's views have not been adequately criticized by USSR
biologists.(2)
1. N. V. Turbin, "Darwinism and the New Theory of Species," Botanicheskiy
Zhurnal, Vol XXXVII, No 6, 1952, PP 798-818
2. N. D. Ivanov, "Concerning `?. D. Lysenko's New Theory of Species," Botanich-
eskiy Zhurnal, Vol XXXVII, No 6, 1952, pp 819-8h2
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/02/08 : CIA-RDP80-00809A000700110117-8_M