Trofim Denisovich Lysenko
Science
Date of Birth
Place of Birth	With. Karlovka, Konstantinograd district, Poltava province, Russian Empire
Citizenship	USSR
Date of death
A place of death	Moscow, RSFSR, USSR
FreakRank

Trofim Denisovich Lysenko(1898 - 1976) - Soviet agronomist and biologist. Founder and largest representative of the pseudoscientific direction in biology - Michurin agrobiology, academician of the USSR Academy of Sciences (1939), academician of the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences (1934), academician of the All-Russian Academy of Agricultural Sciences (1935). Hero of Socialist Labor (1945). Winner of three Stalin Prizes of the first degree (1941, 1943, 1949). He was awarded eight Orders of Lenin, a gold medal named after. I. I. Mechnikov USSR Academy of Sciences (1950).

As an agronomist, Trofim Lysenko proposed and promoted a number of agrotechnical techniques (vernalization, cotton minting, summer planting of potatoes). Most of the methods proposed by Lysenko were criticized by scientists such as P. N. Konstantinov, A. A. Lyubishchev, P. I. Lisitsyn and others, even during the period of their widespread implementation in Soviet agriculture. Revealing the general shortcomings of Lysenko's theories and agronomic methods, his scientific opponents also condemned him for breaking with world science and economic practice. Some methods (such as, for example, the method of combating the beet weevil proposed by the Hungarian entomologist Yablonovsky) were known long before Lysenko, but did not live up to expectations or were outdated. Author of the theory of stage development of plants. The name of Lysenko is associated with a campaign of persecution against genetic scientists, as well as against his opponents who did not recognize “Michurin genetics”.

Life path and activities

Trofim Lysenko was born on September 17 (29), 1898 in a Ukrainian peasant family to Denis Nikanorovich and Oksana Fominichna Lysenko, in the village of Karlovka.

The family later welcomed two sons and a daughter.

Period of study

Lysenko did not learn to read or write until he was 13 years old. In 1913, after graduating from a two-year rural school, he entered the lower school of horticulture in Poltava. In 1917 he entered and in 1921 he graduated from the secondary school of horticulture in the city of Uman.

Lysenko’s period of study in Uman coincided with the First World War and the Civil War: the city was captured by Austro-Hungarian troops, then by the Central Ukrainian Rada. In February 1918, Soviet power was proclaimed in Uman, after which until 1920 the city periodically passed into the hands of the “red” and “white” armies.

In 1921, Lysenko was sent to Kiev for selection courses of Glavsakhar, then, in 1922, he entered the Kiev Agricultural Institute (now the National University of Bioresources and Natural Resources of Ukraine), to the correspondence department, from which he graduated with a degree in agronomy in 1925 . During his studies, he worked at the Belotserkovsk experimental station as a breeder of garden plants. In 1923, he published his first scientific works: “Techniques and methods of tomato selection at the Belotserkovskaya selection station” and “Grafting of sugar beets.” As Roll-Hansen writes, Lysenko did not speak a single foreign language.

In 1922-1925. Lysenko worked as a senior specialist at the Belotserkovskaya breeding station.

Early works

Work in Ganja (Azerbaijan)

In October 1925, Lysenko, having graduated from the Kiev Agricultural Institute, was sent to Azerbaijan, to a breeding station in the city of Ganja.

The Ganja breeding station was part of the staff of the All-Union Institute of Applied Botany and New Crops (VIPBiNK, later VIR), created in 1925, which was headed by N. I. Vavilov. The director of the station at that time was a specialist in mathematical statistics in agronomy N.F. Derevitsky. He set Lysenko the task of introducing legume crops (lupine, clover, china, vetch) into Azerbaijan, which could solve the problem of starvation of livestock in early spring, as well as increasing soil fertility when plowing these crops in the spring to green manure the soil "

On August 7, 1927, the Pravda newspaper published an article about Lysenko, where the following was said about his activities in Ganja:

Lysenko solves (and has solved) the problem of fertilizing the land without fertilizers and mineral fertilizers, greening the empty fields of Transcaucasia in winter, so that livestock does not die from meager food, and the Turkic peasant lives through the winter without trembling for tomorrow... The barefoot professor Lysenko now has followers, students , experimental field, the luminaries of agronomy come in winter, stand in front of the green fields of the station, gratefully shake his hand.

Here is what science historian David Joravsky (1970) writes about this period of Lysenko’s activity:

Session of VASKhNIL 1948 Confrontation with geneticists

On April 10, 1948, Yu. A. Zhdanov, who considered the complaints of scientists against Lysenko, made a report at the Polytechnic Museum at a seminar of regional party committee lecturers on the topic: “Controversial issues of modern Darwinism.” Lysenko himself listened to the critical speech of Yu. A. Zhdanov at the loudspeaker in another room, since he was denied a ticket to the report. Correspondence and a personal meeting between Lysenko and Stalin followed, who ordered the session to be held and personally made corrections to Lysenko’s report.

From July 31 to August 7, 1948, a Session of the All-Russian Academy of Agricultural Sciences took place, at which most of the speakers supported the biological views of T. D. Lysenko, and pointed to the “practical successes” of the specialists of the “Michurin direction,” which can be easily explained by the fate of Lysenko’s previous opponents.

Due to Lysenko’s erroneous views on genetics (denial of Mendelian segregation, denial of immutable “genes”), as well as politicized statements addressed to opponents (for example, Morgan genetics was credited with justifying racism, eugenics, and also serving the interests of the militaristic bourgeois class), Lysenko’s critics subsequently viewed the session as a “debacle of genetics.”

As the historian of science Aleksey Kozhevnikov (1998) notes, the session took place according to the scenario of one of the “games of internal party democracy” that Stalin’s regime introduced into all spheres of life of Soviet society at that time, namely, according to the scenario of the game of “party congress”: 1) decision a representative collective body carried much more weight than an individual decision; 2) factions and opposition were allowed only until the final vote. 2) The Lysenkoites directly stated at the session that the discussion (another element of the game) ended in 1939, and now “formal geneticists” continue their useless factional struggle; Thus, “formal geneticists” were relegated to the category of “disloyal pests”, to whom administrative measures should be applied, not words. According to the rules of the game of "congress", after the final discussion and voting, the discussion ceased forever, and the only possible remaining options for the game were "discussion" of the decision made and "criticism/self-criticism". Repressive measures or other measures of persecution were applied to the “formal geneticists” who were transferred to the category of “disloyal pests”. (see also the section “Lysenko and the repression of biologists”)

“Letter of the Three Hundred”, end of career

On October 11, 1955, a “letter of three hundred” was sent to the Presidium of the CPSU Central Committee - a letter criticizing Lysenko’s activities, signed by 297 scientists, among whom were biologists (including surviving geneticists), physicists, mathematicians, chemists, geologists, etc.

Critics considered Lysenko's activities "bringing incalculable losses", citing as examples the work of a group of Lysenko's supporters on vegetative hybridization, "remaking the nature" of plants and nesting plantings, and denying the practical and scientific significance of these works.

Lysenko's critics paid special attention to his denial of the method of incubating plants, in particular corn, considering this method the greatest practical achievement of genetics and referring to the experience of American geneticists. Critics in this letter considered the method of intervarietal hybridization of corn recommended by Lysenko’s supporters to be outdated and discarded by US practice. Regarding corn they wrote:

As a result of the activities of T.D. Lysenko, we did not have hybrid corn, the income from the introduction of which, according to the Americans, fully covered all their costs for the manufacture of atomic bombs.

Critics called Lysenko’s theory of the “generation of species” “medieval, disgracing Soviet science.” They pointed out that as a result of the discussions of 1952-1955. This theory was completely rejected by USSR specialists.

Mathematicians and physicists, who wrote a separate letter, argued that Academician A. N. Kolmogorov’s attempt to establish the correct application of statistics in biology was rejected by Academician T. D. Lysenko.

N. S. Khrushchev, according to I. V. Kurchatov, was very indignant and spoke of the letter as “outrageous.” Kurchatov himself and the President of the USSR Academy of Sciences, Academician A.N. Nesmeyanov, were familiarized with the text of the letter and fully approved it, but could not sign it, since they were members of the CPSU Central Committee. However, Kurchatov supported the opinions and conclusions of scientists in a conversation with Khrushchev.

The rejection of scientists and many letters to the governing bodies ultimately led to Lysenko’s resignation from the post of president of the All-Russian Academy of Agricultural Sciences, but in 1961-1962. Lysenko was returned to this post on the personal initiative of N. S. Khrushchev.

T. D. Lysenko spoke out against us [the All-Union Institute of Grain Farming] in the newspaper Pravda: “We must finish sowing grain in Northern Kazakhstan by May 15, and not start at this time.” But we knew something else: in 1961, the infestation of wild oats in the Virgin Lands was more than 80%, because we usually sowed early and did not wait for the germination of wild oats, which occurred on May 15 in optimal springs.
- Director of the All-Union Institute of Grain Farming A. I. Baraev

After Khrushchev's resignation in 1965, Lysenko was removed from his post as director of the Institute of Genetics of the USSR Academy of Sciences, and the institute itself was transformed into the Institute of General Genetics of the USSR Academy of Sciences.

In 1966-1976, Lysenko worked as the head of the laboratory of the Experimental Research Base of the USSR Academy of Sciences "Gorki Leninskie".

He was buried at the Kuntsevo cemetery.

Lysenko and the repression of biologists

The name of T. D. Lysenko was mentioned by critics in connection with the repression of biologists during the reign of I. V. Stalin.

In confrontation with opponents, whom he and his supporters called “Weismannists-Mendelists-Morganists.” Lysenko's supporter Isaac Izrailevich Prezent used accusations from his opponents of ideological unreliability. At the 1948 VASKhNIL session, Prezent said:

We are encouraged to debate here. We will not discuss with the Morganists (applause), we will continue to expose them as representatives of a harmful and ideologically alien movement, brought to us from an alien foreign country, pseudoscientific in its essence. (Applause.)

At the Second Congress of Collective Farmers-Shock Workers, held in February 1935 (Pravda, February 15, 1935), Lysenko, speaking about the kulak and class enemy “at the front” of vernalization, argued:

And in the learned world and not in the learned world, the class enemy is always an enemy, whether he is a scientist or not.

Relationship between Lysenko and N.I. Vavilov

In 1931-1935, Vavilov to a certain extent supported Lysenko’s work, in particular, nominated him for the V.I. Lenin Prize for his work on vernalization. However, from 1936 he switched to sharp criticism of his views and practical activities.

After the arrest of the director of the Institute of Genetics, Academician Vavilov, in 1940, Lysenko was appointed director. Most sources consider Lysenko directly involved in the Vavilov case.

“Michurin Genetics” Lysenko

Lysenko and his supporters extolled the practical and theoretical achievements of I.V. Michurin, while not verbally denying the role of genetics. In 1939, Lysenko stated in his speech: “It is in vain that the Mendelian comrades claim that we profess the closure of genetics. ... genetics is necessary, and we are fighting for its development, for its flourishing". However, the unconditional support of Lysenko by the party leadership of the USSR, Lysenko’s direct use of the party apparatus to suppress any dissent led to the virtual defeat and, ultimately, the official prohibition of genetics in the USSR.

Denial of Mendel's laws

T. D. Lysenko had a skeptical and even negative attitude towards Mendel’s laws, pointing out the non-compliance with the 3:1 ratio in the experiments of G. Mendel himself. However, Lysenko's experiments were not accompanied by a thorough scientific analysis of the results, and their results were not reproducible. As for Mendel’s laws, they were confirmed by three independent groups of scientists back in 1900. Postgraduate student Lysenko N.I. Ermolaeva in 1939 published the article “Once again about the “pea laws””, where, using extensive statistical material when crossing pea plants, she unsuccessfully tried refute this pattern.

Lysenko published a critical response in which he considered Kolmogorov’s work “absolutely impeccable” from a formal mathematical point of view, but did not prove the conclusions of the “Mendelists” in essence. However, as stated above, Mendel's experiments were confirmed back in 1900 by three independent groups of scientists.

Explaining the difficulties in clarifying this pattern when observing the crossing of plants, A. N. Kolmogorov recognized the presence of a fairly high probability of distribution of 3:1 only in large samples (in the example with Ermolaeva’s tables - 12000 with a probability of 0.99). Lysenko, although with significant reservations, also recognized the possibility of observing this law on large amounts of source data.

On average, of course, it can and does happen (though not always) a ratio of 3:1. After all, the average ratio of three to one is obtained and is derived by geneticists (they do not hide this) from the law of probability, from the law of large numbers.

At the same time, Lysenko considered the influence of the external environment to be a significant factor that prevents Mendel's laws from manifesting themselves in actually observed plants (in particular, during intravarietal crossing of cereals), and believed that following this law would be an obstacle in his work to improve cereal seeds , which was a completely unscientific argument, unacceptable among scientists.

J. B. S. Haldane, in an article "Lysenko and Genetics", published in 1940 in the journal Science and Society, discussing this position of Lysenko, pointed out that the 3:1 ratio "is very rarely obtained with complete accuracy." He considered systematic deviations of this kind to be an instrument of natural selection, and “a fact of extreme biological importance.” However, Haldane, unlike Lysenko, did not consider these deviations to be a direct result of the influence of the external environment.

Notes

1. http://slovari.yandex.ru/dict/bse/article/00043/92800.htm
2. Graham L., 1993, Science in Russia and the Soviet Union, New York: Cambridge University Press
3. Joravsky D., 1970, “The Lysenko affair”, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, USA
4. Soyfer V.N., 2001. “The consequences of political dictatorship for Russian science,” Nature Reviews Genetics 2, 723-729
5. Amasino R., 2004, “Vernalization, competence, and the epigenetic memory of winter,” The Plant Cell 16, 2553-2559
6. Roll-Hansen N., 2005. “The Lysenko effect: The politics of science,” Humanity Books, Amherst, New York
7. Roll-Hansen N., 2008. “Wishful science: The persistence of T.D. Lysenko’s agrobiology in the politics of science", OSIRIS 23, 166-188
8. Yongsheng Liu “Lysenko’s Contributions to Biology and His Tragedies” // Rivista di Biologia / Biology Forum 97 (2004), pp. 483-498.
9. http://www.warheroes.ru/hero/hero.asp?Hero_id=9475 ]
10. Lyubishchev A. A. About Lysenko’s Monopoly in Biology - M.: Monument to Historical Thought, 2006.
11. Vasily Leonov “The Long Farewell to Lysenkoism”
12. Great Soviet Encyclopedia
13. T. D. Lysenko

In the history of Soviet biology, the darkest pages are associated with the activities of T.D. Lysenko and his supporters, who achieved in the 30-60s. monopoly position in the biological science of our country. The forced dissemination of Lysenko’s ideas and his practical recommendations caused damage to science and agricultural practice in our country amounting to billions of rubles. However, in essence, this damage is much greater, since Lysenko’s pseudoscientific ideas were introduced into the teaching of biology in secondary and higher schools, and several generations of Soviet people were deprived of the opportunity to obtain correct ideas about the basic laws of biology. In fact, they purposefully formed a distorted, anti-materialistic worldview, which resulted in the scientific and methodological unpreparedness of many thousands of specialists, which is now being eliminated with great difficulty. Many difficult-to-calculate losses that agricultural practices, selection and breeding, ecology, and forestry in our country still suffer are due to these secondary effects of Lysenko’s activities.

In May 1988, the USSR Academy of Sciences, the USSR Academy of Medical Sciences and the All-Union Agricultural Academy named after. IN AND. Lenin made a joint decision to create a special commission to analyze the consequences of the monopolization of biological science by T.D. Lysenko and his supporters, which caused enormous harm to Soviet science and especially agricultural practice. The commission included the largest geneticists in our country. (The authors of this article V.A. Strunnikov and A.N. Shamin are, respectively, the chairman and deputy chairman of this commission).

The work of the commission, which continues to this day, is based on the analysis of archival documents, scientific and historical publications and personal memories of participants in the events. The commission's particular attention was drawn to the circumstances and facts that led to the establishment of Lysenko's monopoly position in Soviet biology.

The name Lysenko became famous in the late 20s. thanks to an article published in Pravda about him, then a novice breeder, experimenting with the timing of sowing various crops. No one could have imagined that this man would destroy the brilliantly developing Soviet genetics over the next ten years or so.

To understand how Lysenkoism could arise, it must be considered against the background of the most important historical processes that took place in our country in the 20s–40s.

The emergence of Lysenkoism was caused not only by scientific discussions among biologists, caused by unresolved problems of the theory of heredity, but also by serious political, economic and social factors. This was the period of the “winding down” of the NEP, the grain procurement crisis of 1927–1928. and a serious food problem that arose as a result of the collectivization processes, accompanied by the terror unleashed by Stalin against a significant part of the peasantry. Large-scale social changes covered entire classes, and the emergence and differentiation of individual social groups with their own interests occurred. Lysenkoism was a product of the era of the cult of personality. It was not a phenomenon peculiar to biology alone. In biology and agricultural practice, it only took on particularly monstrous forms and led to dire consequences. But all the typical manifestations of Lysenkoism - the ideologization of natural science, the opposition of Soviet and “bourgeois” science, the distorted interpretation of the criterion of practice, the use of the principle of party membership as a tool for repression against scientific opponents - all this affected, to a lesser extent, all the structures of science in our country. These manifestations were aggravated by the extreme centralization of science management and the formation in those years of simplified approaches to its planning.

The development of Lysenkoism was also facilitated by the atmosphere of repression in the era of the cult of personality. The case of the largest specialists in the field of agriculture A.V. Chayanova, N.D. Kondratiev and others, although it was not directly related to discussions in biology, it suggested to Lysenko that old specialists, as well as dissidents in the field of economic or scientific and technical issues, could be slandered, declared counter-revolutionaries, “enemies of the people”, “kulaks in science” ”, and scientific discussions are interpreted as manifestations of “class struggle”. Certain repressive actions of the Stalinist period affected major biologists and created an atmosphere of fear among Lysenko’s opponents (an example is the death of academicians G.A. Nadson and Ya.O. Parnas, Moscow University professor A.R. Kizel, etc.).

Knowledge of all this is necessary, since a number of conjectures are expressed abroad, which boil down mainly to the assertion that the Marxist-Leninist ideology, the socialist system, the Soviet system inevitably lead to the ideologization of natural science and, ultimately, to monopolization in science with all the ensuing negatives consequences. Knowledge of specific historical facts makes it possible to refute these assertions, revealing the true roots of Lysenkoism and its connection with the perversions of the era of the cult of personality.

Noting the political, economic and social factors that influenced the development of biology in our country, one cannot discount the subjective role of T.D. Lysenko, which was very ominous. It was around him that the forces rallied that destroyed many sections of Soviet biology, threw the country back into a very difficult period of its history, undermined the authority of Soviet scientists, and destroyed the boundaries separating science from quackery. Lysenko shares responsibility for all this with many of his supporters, including I.I. Present, N.I. Nuzhdin, I.E. Glushchenko and others.

Domestic genetics in the 20–30s.

Genetics as an independent scientific discipline began to develop in our country virtually after the Great October Socialist Revolution. At that time, genetics was in its infancy: the laws of heredity were “rediscovered” only in 1900 (the discovery of these laws by G. Mendel in 1865 turned out to be misunderstood and long forgotten). Soviet scientists made an important contribution to the development of the chromosomal theory of heredity, joining the world stream of the most important genetic research. The contribution of Soviet biologists to the development of genetics was so significant that biology occupied the most advanced positions in the science of the young Soviet state.

Among the most significant achievements are the works of N.I. Vavilov, first of all, his discovery of the law of homological series in hereditary variability, which not only played a huge role in the study of the evolution and systematics of cultivated plants, but also opened new ways for the selection of cultivated crops. N.I. Vavilov also developed a theory of the origin of cultivated plants and collected a unique collection of plants, creating the basis for further breeding work. It must be emphasized that numerous expeditions of N.I. Vavilov for collecting collections were not at all a purely botanical event. This was work without which neither fundamental biology nor applied botany and selection could develop further fully.

Following N.I. Vavilov should mention S.S. Chetverikova. His works laid the foundation for modern evolutionary and population genetics.

In 1925 G.A. Nadson and G.S. Filippov showed the possibility of artificially obtaining mutations (which was later brilliantly confirmed by the American geneticist G. Meller, who received the Nobel Prize for his work). A significant contribution to the study of mutation processes was made by S.S. Chetverikov, N.V. Timofeev-Resovsky and others. G.D. Karpechenko is a young talented student of N.I. Vavilova - began successful research on distant hybridization and production of polyploid forms of plants. His production of an intergeneric polyploid cabbage-radish hybrid was a discovery of outstanding theoretical and practical significance. Important studies on the cytogenetics of parthenogenesis (N.K. Koltsov) and radiation mutagenesis (B.L. Astaurov) were further developed in work on artificial parthenogenesis, in particular on the regulation of sex in the silkworm, which ensured a sharp increase in silk production.

Research related to the study of the structure and functions of genes was of fundamental importance. They opened the way to the formation of molecular biology and molecular genetics. Already in the 20s. Attempts were made to determine the size of the gene (A.S. Serebrovsky), which later led to experiments by N.V. Timofeev-Resovsky and fundamental conclusions about the nature of the gene, its “molecular” size and helical structure, made by participants in the Klampenborg School of Biology, which he collected in the 30s. N. Bohr and N.V. took an active part in it. Timofeev-Resovsky.

Another hypothesis far ahead of science was expressed in 1928 by N.K. Koltsov. He predicted the matrix mechanism of gene reproduction and protein biosynthesis. Only in 1953 did this idea receive final confirmation in the works of D. Watson and F. Crick, who created the famous “double helix” - a model of the DNA molecule and developed the principles of replication processes.

A number of fundamental concepts of modern genetics (“karyotype”, “gene pool”, “micro-” and “macroevolution”) were introduced by Soviet scientists. Described by N.P. Dubinin, “genetic-automatic processes” subsequently entered science under the name “genetic drift”, proposed by S. Wright.

Soviet genetics received worldwide recognition.

Already in those years, one important difference between Soviet genetics and world genetics emerged. The new science of genetics was then in its infancy, and it was difficult to expect quick practical results from it. But Soviet genetics turned out to be significantly advanced precisely in obtaining practical results. This was connected both with the traditions of Russian biology - connection with the general progress of botany, zoology, evolutionary orientation of theoretical understanding of the results, and with new trends - focus on practice, deep interest in strengthening the scientific base of agriculture. The most important practical significance was the work on the particular genetics of plants and animals by N.I. Vavilova, Yu.S. Filipchenko, A.S. Serebrovsky, G.D. Karpechenko, according to cytogenetics G.A. Levitsky and others. All this opened the way to the creation of dozens of new varieties of agricultural crops. And all this was picked up and developed abroad, becoming the basis of the so-called green revolution, which not only solved the food problem for many countries, but also turned them from food importers into large exporters. Only one example can be given. In the United States, hybrid corn seed production based on the phenomenon of cytoplasmic male sterility (CMS) has led to a doubling of yields. And this phenomenon was discovered in 1930 by M.I. Khadzhinov in the USSR at the All-Union Institute of Plant Growing, then, in 1933, studied by M. Rhodes in the USA.

Soviet scientists came closest to obtaining practical achievements in human genetics and medical genetics (the works of Yu.A. Filipchenko, N.K. Koltsov, S.G. Levit, S.N. Davidenkov and others). Works by S.N. Davidenkov found practical implementation in the genetics of nervous diseases, the genetic foundations of psychiatry, and the phenogenetics of diseases. A comprehensive program of human research with the active participation of genetics developed in the 1920s. at the Academy of Sciences, where the forces of geneticists (Yu.A. Filipchenko), psychiatrists (V.M. Bekhterev), ethnographers, historians and other specialists united.

It is very important to note that the attention of many biologists, doctors, psychologists and teachers in the late 20s - early 30s. It was also aimed at a comprehensive psychobiological study of children and the use of the obtained data in the organization of preschool and school education and upbringing. These works were based on the fundamentally genetic idea of ​​the individuality of inherited inclinations. The main center of these studies was the Medical Genetics Institute, headed by S.G. Levit. This institute had no equal among the centers of world genetics. Another center that used the ideas of genetics to solve practical problems of pedagogy was the Leningrad Pedagogical Institute. The third center was the Leningrad State Institute for Advanced Medical Training, where S.N.’s work began in 1932. Davidenkov, who had a practical orientation.

However, the most important were the strategic positions of Soviet geneticists, which ensured progress in the field of fundamental science. In world biology, it is these areas of research, along with biochemistry, that have led to the emergence of new fundamental generalizations and practical achievements of unprecedented efficiency. Modern biotechnology, genetic engineering, immunology, medical progress - all this was laid down by the research of those years. Works by S.S. Chetverikova, N.P. Dubinina, D.D. Romashov and others formed the basis of the synthetic theory of evolution and led to a number of important generalizations in modern biology (the theory of neutral evolution, the theory of molecular clocks, etc.). The development of ideas about the nature of the gene, its action, the mechanisms of modification variability, and the theory of experimental mutagenesis, which began in our country, were no less important. Genetic methods of combating harmful insects, developed by A.S. Serebryakov, represented the beginnings of environmentally friendly agriculture.

The phenomenon of Lysenkoism

Lysenkoism manifested itself in various historical conditions, going through three stages of its existence. The first stage is 20s - 40s. The second is from the 1948 VASKhNIL session to the early 50s. The third - after the death of Stalin until 1964.

T.D. In 1925, Lysenko began experiments on germinating plant seeds at low temperatures at the Azerbaijan (Ganja) experimental station. At the same time, he did not know anything about the fact that such experiments had been carried out for a long time at the All-Union Institute of Plant Growing N.A. Maksimov (in 1930 he received the V.I. Lenin Prize for his work) and that even earlier this phenomenon was studied by the German physiologist G. Gassner. Lysenko, sowing winter crops in winter or early spring, ensured that they would emerge in one year, like spring crops. At the same time, he noted that vernalization (this name was proposed by Lysenko) requires not just exposure to low temperatures, but a certain duration of their exposure (from several days when sowing in early spring, to several months when sowing in autumn or winter). N.I. Vavilov supported the young agronomist. In 1929, Lysenko reported on his work at the All-Union Congress on genetics, selection, seed production and livestock breeding, and in the same year he proposed to the People's Commissariat of Agriculture of the Ukrainian SSR to introduce vernalization into practice. This proposal was accepted, since during the cold winters of 1927–1928. There was a massive death of winter crops. Lysenko was offered to head the department of physiology at the Odessa Selection and Genetics Institute.

Mass vernalization activities carried out to the fields of the country ended in failure. But Lysenko attributed the failures first to inaccuracies in the instructions, and then to the inaccuracy of following the corrected instructions. However, Lysenko’s proposals were advertised in the press and, contrary to evidence, were declared a “revolution in grain farming” in the country. Lysenko provided a “theoretical” basis for the phenomenon of vernalization, proposing what he claimed was a universal theory of the stage development of plants. In 1931, N.I. made a report at the Collegium of the People's Commissariat of Agriculture of the USSR. Vavilov, where he first publicly expressed his opinion about the works of Lysenko and his theory of stage development. Vavilov opposed the desire to immediately implement his proposals into practice without proper scientific verification, as Lysenko did, with a program of applied scientific research that guaranteed the practical effectiveness of the developments he (Vavilov) proposed aimed at developing new varieties of agricultural crops. At the same time, Vavilov treated Lysenko kindly, paying tribute to his energy, he recommended him to the Academy of Sciences of the Ukrainian SSR, and then to a corresponding member of the USSR Academy of Sciences.

However, in these difficult years, in solving the most serious problems of biology and agriculture, the scientific approach began to be replaced by a primitively understood criterion of practice. Scientists led by N.I. Vavilov fought for the creation of truly scientific foundations of agriculture. But representatives of agricultural practice were interested in quick practical results, and Lysenko widely promised them. An example is the request of the People's Commissar of Agriculture of the USSR Y.A. Yakovlev in 1931 at a meeting of the board of the People's Commissariat of Health of the USSR regarding drought-resistant varieties of wheat, which were urgently needed by the country. In response, G.D. Karpechenko gave a balanced statement about the time frame for obtaining such a variety – 7–8 years. However, Lysenko promised to develop new varieties in 3 years. At the heart of these disagreements was a fundamental question: Lysenko believed that the so-called acquired characteristics were inherited by the body, and geneticists knew that this was not true.

In the late 20s - early 30s. genetics was just establishing itself in biology. Among biologists there were quite a lot of Lamarckists - adherents of the idea of ​​​​the possibility of inheritance of acquired characteristics. However, the discussions between them and geneticists (they took place not only among biologists, but were also actively discussed by philosophers) were of a scientific nature: the main arguments were experiments. But at the end of the 20s. the nature of the discussions began to change noticeably, “work began on the “socialist reconstruction” of biology, on straightening out the “general line” in it, on “introducing the dialectical method into it.” At the first stage of work, philosophy played an active role in it, in which heated discussions and struggles for leadership took place on the “philosophical front.” The result of this struggle, which ended in 1930, was the undivided dominance of the philosophy of the Stalin era - an extremely ideological and vulgarized Marxism without Marx, which is, in fact, a simplification and revision of the Marxist-Leninist teaching in all its main points.

Under these conditions, criticism of N. I. Vavilov unfolded, first within the walls of VIR, where, after the creation of the VASKhNIL graduate school, a group of poorly prepared young people was formed, covering up their ignorance and inability with loud criticism of the institute’s management. In 1934, during the reorganization of the All-Russian Academy of Agricultural Sciences, the People's Commissariat of Agriculture made an attempt to blame science for the failure of many practical measures, which caused sharp objections from N.I. Vavilova. But his persecution had already begun - the anniversary of VIR and the celebration of the 25th anniversary of N.I.’s creative activity were canceled. Vavilova.

It was at this time that Lysenko joined the discussion between Lamarckists and geneticists. His main assistant in this matter was I. I. Present. Lysenko strengthened his position, however, not by experiments that could be verified, but by putting forward more and more new practical recommendations and the formation (with the participation of Present) of his own “teaching.” Thus, in the first issue of the journal “Vernalization” in 1935, Lysenko and Present offered the following set of “recommendations”:

“Reducing the growing season in a field of cereal plants as a means of combating dry winds; vernalization of potatoes and planting eyes of vernalized tubers as a means of reducing planting material, while simultaneously leading to an increase in yield; the discovery of differences in winter hardiness of plants at different stages of development and the resulting measures to combat the death of winter crops; a method for developing winter crop varieties by selecting from populations using under-vernalized seeds; discovery of the causes of potato degeneration in the south and summer planting of potatoes as a means of combating the degeneration of planting material in dry areas of the steppe; theoretical foundations for the conscious selection of parental pairs for crossing when breeding varieties of different crops; discovery and formulation of patterns of shedding according to the timing of the growing season as a theoretical basis for new methods of rejection in the selection process; a completely new formulation of seed production issues.”

“New methods of rejecting in the selection process,” as well as “a completely new formulation of seed production issues,” were already an intrusion from selection into the problems of heredity, and a very dangerous one, since they threatened to destroy the entire seed production system. This was especially true of intra-varietal crossing - it was this that constituted the “novelty of seed production” according to Lysenko.

These issues could be discussed and resolved on the basis of experimental verification, but Lysenko and his supporters sought something completely different. I. I. Present directly said that they would not debate with their opponents, but would “expose” them. The goal of the Lysenkoites was clear - the administrative assertion of supremacy in biological and agricultural science.

In February 1935, T.D. Lysenko spoke at the II Congress of Collective Farmers-Shock Workers. When he spoke about “saboteurs and kulaks” in science, about the “class struggle on the front of vernalization,” Stalin, who was present at the meeting, exclaimed: “Bravo, Comrade Lysenko, bravo!”

This was a turning point: having received the support of Stalin, Lysenko no longer cared about the scientific side of the discussions; it began to play a secondary role, and sometimes was even used to disguise reprisals against opponents of Lysenkoism. Essentially, all the so-called discussions in biology, starting from the IV session of the VASKhNIL in 1936 and ending with the August session of the VASKhNIL in 1948, were not scientific discussions. The Lysenkoites countered scientific arguments with ideological slogans or direct political labels. N.I. Vavilov and his supporters took the discussions very seriously; their scientific arguments were of undoubted scientific value and correctly guided the scientific assessment of the situation. Geneticists believed that they would be able to convince the public and the country's leadership of the disastrous calls of Lysenko.

However, the conditions in which the struggle took place and the arena in which it took place were not conducive to scientific debate. They took place at various conferences, congresses, and meetings devoted to the practical problems of agriculture. Even the term “genetics” at these meetings was used in the same row or context with the words “selection”, “seed production”, “breeding work”. Scientists fought to create the scientific foundations of agriculture, Lysenko trumpeted his supposed “victories” and made more and more unsubstantiated promises.

In the press campaign against geneticists, led by Lysenko and Present, geneticists were first portrayed as scientific opponents of “Michurin biology”, later as bearers of bourgeois ideology, and finally as “enemies of the people”, political opponents of the Soviet system. The spearhead of these attacks was directed against N.I. Vavilova.

N. I. Vavilov’s calls to test the correctness of the debating parties by experiment did not suit Lysenko. Moreover, the successes of genetics led to the fact that a number of Marxist biologists, convinced that the geneticists were right, moved away from Lamarckism (S.G. Levit, I.I. Agol, V.N. Slepkov and others). A critical examination of Lysenko's views could lead to a situation where he would have to “pay the bills.”

In 1933 N.I. Vavilov, returning to VIR from an expedition to North and South America, learned that 18 of his employees had been arrested. He tried to protect his colleagues. However, an order followed to deprive Vavilov of the right to travel abroad on an expedition.

In 1934, the celebration of the 10th anniversary of VIR was suddenly (4 days before the celebration) cancelled.

In 1935, N. I. Vavilov was removed from the post of president of the All-Russian Academy of Agricultural Sciences and removed from the membership of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee.

In 1936, the IV session of the All-Russian Academy of Agricultural Sciences took place, at which the country's largest plant growers subjected a number of Lysenko's provisions to scathing criticism. However, Lysenko took all measures to turn the scientific discussion at the session into a discussion of an ideological and philosophical nature. Soon, a significant part of the specialists who criticized Lysenko’s line were arrested and shot.

Speeches against N.I. Vavilov and geneticists in 1938–1939. took on the nature of bullying. Vavilov’s successors as president of VASKhNIL, G.K., were arrested and then shot. Meister and A.I. Muralov. Arrest A.I. Muralov was preceded by a campaign to identify “enemies of the people” in VASKhNIL. At the All-Russian Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Lysenko and Present exposed Muralov’s “major mistakes,” which amounted only to the fact that he did not support them unconditionally. On January 11, 1938, the newspaper “Social Agriculture” published an article “Improve the Academy of Agricultural Sciences, mercilessly root out enemies and their rumps from scientific institutions.” Among the “enemies of the people” were N.I. Vavilov, M.M. Zavadovsky, P.N. Konstantinov. Even the USSR Academy of Sciences made a decision in 1938 accusing N.I. Vavilov:

“The Institute of Genetics of the USSR Academy of Sciences not only did not fight hostile attacks on the biological front, but objectively contributed to the development of such capabilities. The main reason for such work of the institute is that its activities were based on the theory of N. I. Vavilov - the “law of homological series”, which, with certain amendments, is recognized by him even now, and also that the institute ignored in its work the theoretical achievements of the largest biologists of Soviet science - Michurin and Lysenko."

T.D. Lysenko and his supporters did everything possible to disrupt the International Genetics Congress, which was scheduled to be held in Moscow. This congress was the only opportunity for N.I. Vavilov to speak before a competent audience, to show the true significance of the latest trends in biology and fundamental science in general for agricultural practice, and to demonstrate the highest international authority of Soviet genetics.

At the beginning of 1939, Lysenko was elected a full member of the USSR Academy of Sciences (I.V. Stalin was an honorary member of the USSR Academy of Sciences).

As a result of all these purposeful actions and events, Lysenko managed to establish his direction. “Michurinskaya agrobiology” is quickly turning from a naturalistic concept into a vulgar science of the “collective-state farm system”, an entrepreneurial style of activity is growing in it - a readiness to take on any tasks pleasing to the authorities - from obtaining varieties of branched wheat to scientific and political tasks of introducing planning into science, cleaning it from pests, etc.” All this activity was accompanied by administrative and party measures, often resulting in the arrests and death of scientists.

The list of those arrested during these years includes a large number of people. It is opened by N.I. Vavilov. He was arrested on August 6, 1940 during an expedition to Western Ukraine. On July 9, 1941, he was sentenced to death, which was commuted to a long prison term. N.I. Vavilov died of exhaustion in Saratov prison on January 26, 1943 at the age of 55.

Many scientists were repressed: N. M. Tulaikov, G. A. Levitsky, L. I. Govorov, S. G. Levit, G. D. Karpechenko, I. I. Agol, M. L. Levin, G. K Meister, S. S. Chetverikov, V. V. Talanov, S. A. Bondarenko, N. K. Belyaev and many others. The repressions also affected ordinary workers of the All-Russian Academy of Agricultural Sciences, breeding and agronomic stations. The activities and life of N.K. Koltsov were suppressed by administrative methods. The Institute of Experimental Biology, which he headed, was reorganized, after which N.K. Koltsov died suddenly (1940).

In fact, already at the end of the 30s. Lysenko monopolized significant areas of biology. By the 40s. he was not opposed by any major opponent with such international scientific authority as N.I. Vavilov or N.K. Koltsov. He no longer had to fear revelations from agronomy and agrochemistry (T.D. Lysenko received the support of V.R. Williams), agricultural economics (it suffered irreparable losses after the destruction of A.V. Chayanov, N.D. Kondratiev and their followers ). Supporters of the use of mathematical methods in ecology were scattered as a result of persecution of one of the founders of modern ecology - V.V. Stanchinsky. Director of the Institute of Microbiology of the USSR Academy of Sciences G.A. Nadson, who discovered radiation mutagenesis, was executed in 1940.

The most important damage that was caused by T.D. Lysenko and his supporters in these years of Soviet science and practice should recognize the defeat of Soviet schools in genetics and the liquidation of promising scientific directions and research centers. The country stopped working in a number of areas of theoretical and applied biology, which in the 50s. led to the formation of the most fruitful and promising areas in world biological science: molecular biology and genetics. The most significant (and not fully corrected so far) was the destruction of classical genetics in our country. Great damage was caused by the cessation of work on anthropogenetics and medical genetics: back in 1937, the Medical Genetics Institute was closed, and its director S.G. Levit was shot.

The teaching of biology was seriously damaged. Lysenko demanded that “Mendelism-Morganism” be removed from biology courses. The persecution of teachers who opposed Lysenko’s views began. These persecutions were carried out under the slogans of turning universities into “strongholds of the Michurin-Lysenko teaching.” The method of ideological bullying was tested by I.I. Presentation against Yu.A. Filipchenko back in the 20s. At the end of the 30s. The presentation began a campaign against G.D. Karpechenko, the youngest professor at Leningrad University, who headed the department of plant genetics. The department was virtually destroyed in 1940 and ceased to exist.

Huge damage was caused to agriculture and agricultural science. The scientific basis was knocked out from under agricultural practice. The network of breeding stations and the variety testing system created by N.I. were destroyed. Vavilov. Time, scientific effort and funds were wasted on obviously meaningless research. The directive introduction of unprofitable and unscientific measures caused direct material damage to the country's agriculture, amounting to billions of rubles: Lysenko and his supporters bear a significant share of the blame for grain purchases that are still ongoing.

“A lesson from our past,” said VASKhNIL President A.A. Nikonov, who, I think, will serve the present and the future, will not allow monopolism in any form. If in the economy a monopoly leads to stagnation and decay - which was convincingly proven by V.I. Lenin at the beginning of the century, and, as we see today, this applies to both capitalism and socialism - then in science it is many times more dangerous.” (Kommunist. 1988. No. 1. P. 58).

The development of Lysenkoism in subsequent stages - from the session of the All-Russian Academy of Agricultural Sciences in 1948 to 1964 - led to the complete monopolization of Soviet biology by T. D. Lysenko and his supporters.

Post-war stages of the history of Lysenkoism

After the victorious end of the Great Patriotic War, titanic work began to restore the country's destroyed economy. It was necessary not only to build housing for millions of people who had lost their homes, to launch new factories and factories, but also to actually re-establish agricultural production over vast territories. However, although in a number of countries around the world by the end of the 40s. biology and agricultural science have advanced significantly, primarily based on the implementation of the fundamental achievements of genetics; in the Soviet Union such progress was practically impossible, since it was genetics that suffered most from Lysenkoism.

The progress of science and technology, the emergence of the nuclear industry and the subsequent rise in the role of scientists in the world aroused hopes among many Soviet biologists and agricultural specialists that Lysenkoism would remain a thing of the past, that it would be possible to show the absurdity of the views developed by the Lysenkoites, their anti-scientific essence and re-establish the scientific foundations of genetics . And in the post-war years, discussions on the most important issues of biology began again. The second stage is beginning in the history of Lysenkoism.

The new discussions were of a different nature than the discussions of the 30s. They were no longer limited to discussing theoretical and methodological problems of biology, but became more constructive. By this time, the development of fundamental genetics had produced tangible practical results. It was the experimental areas of biology that changed the economic situation. It was no longer possible to ignore the need to use mutants in the production of, for example, antibiotic producers. This was proven not only by the work of foreign scientists, but also by the brilliant achievements of Soviet microbiologists Z. V. Ermolyeva, G. F. Gause and others, who received the antibiotics penicillin and gramicidin S. The basis for future molecular biology and molecular genetics, biotechnology began to form. Decisive steps were taken towards establishing the chemical nature of the gene, the very existence of which was denied by Lysenko. All this undermined the Lamarckian positions of the Lysenkoites.

However, there was another reason for the need for discussions. T.D. Lysenko, with the help of his associates, sought to create his own “teaching,” a kind of new biology that was supposed to replace Darwinism. The rallying of biologists against Lysenko occurred because he increasingly began to speak out on evolutionary problems, asserting obvious absurdities. Therefore, discussions in the 40s. were conducted not so much on genetic problems, but on issues of intraspecific relations, and later (1953–1958) – on issues of speciation.

A new bold criticism of T.D. Lysenko and his “Michurin agrobiology” was launched in 1946 in the journal “Selection and Seed Production” with the article “Darwinism in a Crooked Mirror,” written by the famous botanist and breeder, Academician of the All-Russian Academy of Agricultural Sciences P.M. Zhukovsky. He was an authoritative scientist, an excellent specialist, who, moreover, could not be accused of being isolated from practice - in 1943 he was awarded the Stalin Prize “for the discovery of new types of wheat and rye and the production of economically valuable hybrids from them.” And his criticism of Lysenko’s “version” of the theory of evolution, which rejected intraspecific struggle, was very significant. In 1946, N.P. was elected corresponding member of the USSR Academy of Sciences. Dubinin, a representative of the school of classical genetics, was elected despite the ardent protests of Lysenko himself. In November 1947, a discussion took place at Moscow State University regarding Lysenko’s denial of the intraspecific struggle for existence. Destructive criticism of Lysenko’s views was given by prominent biologists - Academician I. I. Shmalgauzen, professors D.A. Sabinin and A.N. Formozov. The discussion attracted a huge audience of scientists and students, but the Lysenkoites did not take part in it: it was clear that political attacks would only arouse sympathy for the scientists, and the Lysenkoites could not oppose anything serious to their opponents. In February 1948, a wide conference on the foundations of Darwinism was held at Moscow State University (the Lysenkoites were again absent), where 40 reports were heard, most of which completely rejected Lysenko’s “advanced Darwinism.” The main report at the conference was made by I.I. Schmalhausen.

In the spring of 1948, the head of the science sector of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks, Yu.A., met with a group of biologists who opposed Lysenko’s dictates in science. Zhdanov (son of A.A. Zhdanov), an organic chemist by training. This meeting was preceded by letters that began to arrive at the Central Committee after the war and in which the theoretical inconsistency and practical harmfulness of Lysenko’s concepts were very thoroughly exposed. In April 1948, Yu.A. Zhdanov gave a long lecture at the Polytechnic Museum at a seminar of propagandists, in which he criticized Lysenko for pseudoscientific theories and irresponsible promises of practical achievements.

The threat of complete collapse loomed over Lysenko and his supporters, since “Michurin’s agrobiology” could not exist in conditions of free criticism. Lysenko takes the extreme step; he writes to I.V. Stalin and A.A. Zhdanov a complaint against Yu.A. Zhdanova. At the same time, Lysenko launched a new advertising campaign, promising bumper harvests - this time from branched wheat.

A reaction to the letter followed in July 1948, when, with the sanction of Stalin, the elections of academicians of the VASKhNIL were canceled, and the vacancies were filled by appointing 35 academicians from a list drawn up by Lysenko and signed by Stalin. And on July 31 – August 7, 1948, a session of the All-Russian Academy of Agricultural Sciences took place, at which T.D. made a report “On the situation in biological science.” Lysenko. Typical is Lysenko’s statement in his final speech at the session: “In one of the notes they ask me what the attitude of the Party Central Committee is to my report. I answer that the Central Committee of the party reviewed my report and approved it.” The entire session was held in a style already worked out in the so-called discussions of the 30s. Essentially, there were no scientific disputes - there was harsh administrative suppression of opponents, implicated in ideological accusations. Despite this, there were people who defended the truth in science to the end. I.A. spoke about the achievements and prospects of genetics. Rapoport. Rector of the Moscow Agricultural Academy named after. K.A. Timiryazeva V.S. Nemchinov, in his closing remarks at the session, boldly said:

“I believe that the chromosomal theory of heredity has entered the golden fund of human science, and I continue to hold this point of view.”

But this couldn’t change anything. On August 7, a letter from Yu.A. was published in Pravda. Zhdanov to Stalin, where he repented for criticizing Lysenko. “Michurin Biology” became the party platform, and the denial of Lysenko’s dogmas threatened with exclusion from party membership.

Mass “recognition of the correctness” of Lysenko’s provisions followed. Minister of Higher Education of the USSR S.V. Kaftanov and USSR Minister of Agriculture I.A. Benediktov issued orders for the dismissal of numerous scientists and teachers who were opponents of Lysenko. Benediktov’s order stated that in the scientific institutions of the ministry “until recently, work based on the reactionary views of Mendelism-Morganism was widespread.” It was supposed to “eradicate anti-Michurin methods of work from the practice of research institutions and in the future, scientific research work will be entirely based only on the advanced teachings of Timiryazev – Michurin – Williams – Lysenko.” The order also included the following paragraph:

“Withdraw from use programs and manuals that do not meet the requirements for educating agricultural specialists in the spirit of the teachings of Michurin and Williams.”

By orders of Kaftanov, a large number of biological scientists were dismissed from universities and other universities in the country, among whom were outstanding scientists known throughout the world. They were dismissed “as having failed to ensure the education of Soviet youth in the spirit of advanced Michurin biology.” It was proposed to review the composition of departments, educational and scientific programs, programs and plans for the training of graduate students; textbooks were listed that were to be “removed from circulation as promoting the reactionary theories of Mendelism-Morganism.” The total number of people fired, demoted, or removed from management work after the 1948 session of the All-Russian Academy of Agricultural Sciences was in the thousands. Academician I.I. was dismissed from Moscow University. Shmalhausen, world-famous plant physiologist D.A. Sabinin (he later committed suicide, unable to withstand the persecution), academician V.N. Shaposhnikov, professor M.M. Zavadovsky, R.B. Khesin-Lurye (later, after the restoration of research in genetics, he became a corresponding member of the USSR Academy of Sciences, a Lenin Prize laureate). S.S. was dismissed from Gorky University. Chetverikov (who worked there since 1935), from Kyiv - S.M. Gershenzon, from Voronezh - N.P. Dubinin.

The 1948 session of the All-Union Academy of Agricultural Sciences marked the expansion of T. D. Lysenko’s monopoly over the entire Soviet biology. First of all, it opened the way to the destruction of cytology. Following the model of the session of the All-Russian Academy of Agricultural Sciences, a special meeting of the Biological Branch of the USSR Academy of Sciences was held, which approved the “teaching of O.B. Lepeshinskaya". Lepeshinskaya, starting in the 30s, published publications in which, based more on the statements of F. Engels, vulgarized beyond recognition, she claimed that she had discovered the formation of cells from structureless “living matter.” This rejected the position of R. Virchow, who in 1855 introduced the thesis: “a cell is formed only from a cell.” Lepeshinskaya declared this thesis, shared by all biologists, to be idealistic and metaphysical. No one took Lepeshinskaya’s “discoveries” seriously, but in 1945 the publication of her book was supported by T. D. Lysenko. Her book “The Origin of Cells from Living Matter and the Role of Living Matter in the Body” was published with a foreword by Lysenko. For him, the “Lepeshinskaya teaching” became one of the important sections of “Michurin biology”, since with the help of this “teaching” Lysenko explained the “transformation” of one type of organism into another. So, at a meeting at the Biological Department of the USSR Academy of Sciences, T.D. Lysenko explained that, in accordance with the teachings of Lepeshinskaya, the transformation of wheat into rye, for example, occurs as a result of “the appearance in the body of the wheat plant organism of grains... of a rye body.”

Now Lysenko was fighting not only with geneticists, but also with cytologists, histologists, microbiologists, and embryologists. Awarding Lepeshinskaya the Stalin Prize out of turn and her reporting in the press about Stalin’s attention to her work turned Lepeshinskaya’s teaching (like the earlier “Michurin biology”) into a political platform, criticism of which was considered an “anti-Soviet action” with all the ensuing consequences.

However, the “reorganization” of biology did not end there. In June 1950, under the leadership of academician K. M. Bykov, a scientific session was held devoted to the problems of the physiological teaching of academician I. P. Pavlov. The same session of the All-Russian Academy of Agricultural Sciences in 1948 served as a model for its conduct. Academicians L.A. . Orbeli, P.K. Anokhin and I.S. Beritashvili. Particularly harsh were the accusations of inattention to the study of the second signal system. This was due to the fact that just before the session itself, Stalin’s next “work of genius,” “Marxism and Issues of Linguistics,” was published, and the problem of linguistics is directly related to speech—the second signaling system.

The created Scientific Council on the problems of physiological teaching of Academician I.P. Pavlova began to suppress all the so-called distortions of Pavlovian teaching (although the ideas of I.P. Pavlov had even less to do with this than Michurin’s ideas had to do with Lysenkoism), persecution of major physiologists began (starting with L.A. Orbeli and his students).

The result was the pseudoscientific construction that T.D. Lysenko and his henchmen began to replace the basics of biology in scientific research, agricultural practice and teaching of biological, agricultural and medical disciplines. First of all, Lysenko denied the existence of genes as material carriers of biological information with which the heredity of organisms is associated. He argued that the entire organism has heredity. This absurd idea, however, was used (without any experimental evidence!) as the basis for many practical recommendations developed by the Lysenkoites related to the use of vegetative hybridization methods in scientific, selection work and agricultural practice as one of the shortest ways, Lysenko argued, to obtain new forms of plants "with altered heredity." This was a fundamentally wrong path, which led to the destruction of the foundations of breeding work and the principles of seed production.

The most important position that Lysenko actively preached was the Lamarckian idea of ​​the inheritance of acquired characteristics. This provision was also widely used by Lysenko when developing practical recommendations. It was argued, in particular, that creating good conditions for keeping livestock not only increases weight gain, milk yield, and milk fat content, but also allows us to count on the consolidation of these properties in the offspring. The results, of course, were terrible for agriculture, especially since the implementation of Lysenko’s recommendations was accompanied by the slaughter of breeding animals, the destruction of purebred herds, etc.

The result of the above sessions and conferences was the creation of a very specific structure of Soviet biology. It was driven into the mainstream of three officially approved directions: Michurin's agrobiology, the doctrine of living matter and Pavlovian physiology (the latter direction could only conditionally be called Pavlovian).

This structure of biology had nothing in common with the structure of normally developing biology of that time. Soviet biology found itself cut off from world science precisely at a time when the accelerated development of science and production began and scientific and technological progress began to play an increasingly increasing role in the development of human society; A period of revolutionary changes and increasing interdisciplinary interactions began in science.

The separation of Soviet scientists from the world scientific community directly led to a major strategic lag in our biology, which was confirmed by events in world science in subsequent years. In fact, the mechanism for using the achievements of fundamental biology in practice was destroyed, which led to an increasing lag in our agriculture and medicine in the implementation of the most advanced technologies and methods - this is the direct fault of Lysenko and his supporters.

At this, the second stage of its history, Lysenkoism not only embraced the whole of biology. It gave rise to attempts to carry out similar “reorganizations” in other natural sciences, as well as in mathematics. Cybernetics was declared a “bourgeois pseudoscience,” and this is one of the reasons for our lag in the development of computer technology. There were attempts to ideologize chemistry (criticism of the “resonance theory”) and attempts to impose ideological discussions in physics. The experience of introducing Lysenko's dogmas played a serious negative role in shaping the conditions for the development of science that emerged during the period of the cult of personality. A large group of philosophers, who grew up and accumulated “experience” in disseminating Lysenko’s views, actively contributed to the spread of the “fight against cosmopolitanism”, which covered not only science, but also other spheres of public life (a particularly negative role in this was played by the philosopher Academician M.B. Mitin, involved in biological discussions back in the 30s).

The results of the second stage of the history of Lysenkoism were depressing. Briefly they boiled down to the following.

Research on the most advanced and, as subsequent events showed, promising areas of modern biology were finally eliminated. The result was the loss of positions in the most important strategic areas of biology, as well as the development of new biological technologies. Despite many years of efforts, these consequences have not yet been completely eliminated.

The scientific basis of agriculture was destroyed and replaced by Lysenko's recipes, which led to huge losses in agricultural production.

The eradication of teaching the fundamentals of modern scientific biology led to the emergence of generations of specialists who received a distorted understanding of the fundamentals of science, were not methodologically and methodologically prepared, and did not master the scientific approach to setting problems and evaluating results. These losses are among those that have not yet been overcome and have a serious inhibitory effect on the progress of biology in our country.

The spread of Lysenkoism led to an exceptional and historically unprecedented discredit of Soviet science abroad. The spread of Lysenkoism in socialist countries repelled scientists in these countries from socialism and undermined the authority of the USSR. In capitalist countries, this led to the undermining of the authority of communist parties, primarily among the creative intelligentsia.

They tried to extend the “experience” of Lysenkoism to other sciences. And the resulting atmosphere of fear and uncertainty influenced the progress of Soviet science as a whole.

Lysenkoism entered the third stage of its history after the death of Stalin. The changes that began in the country, the XX and XXII Congresses of the CPSU significantly influenced the conditions for the development of Soviet science. Soviet science and technology provided the first breakthrough into space, and the “sputnik effect” dramatically raised the reputation of Soviet scientific and technological thought.

Important events also took place in world biology. In 1953, a discovery was made that not only biologists, but also representatives of other natural sciences, as well as mathematicians, could not ignore - a model of the DNA molecule was created and an explanation was given for the mechanism of action of genes. Hereditary mechanisms began to be explained using the concept of “biological information”; the concept of “biological code” appeared, first introduced in the book of the Austrian physicist E. Schrödinger “What is life? From the point of view of physics" (1947), which was particularly criticized and ridiculed by the Lysenkoites.

At this time, in our country, research on genetics was concentrated in the Department of Biological Sciences of the USSR Academy of Sciences; since 1940, T. D. Lysenko was the director of the Institute of General Genetics of the USSR Academy of Sciences. Therefore, the largest scientists of the Soviet Union, among whom were A.N. Nesmeyanov (president of the USSR Academy of Sciences in 1951–1961), N.N. Semenov (Nobel Prize winner, head of the Department of Chemical Sciences of the USSR Academy of Sciences, and then vice-president), I.V. Kurchatov, I.L. Knunyants, M.A. Leontovich, A.D. Sakharov, I.E. Tamm, A.N. Belozersky, V.A. Engelgardt, A.N. Kolmogorov, M.A. Lavrentyev, S.L. Sobolev, M.M. Shemyakin and others supported the continuation of research in the field of genetics, and then began to create groups and laboratories in institutions not subordinate to the Department of Biological Sciences of the USSR Academy of Sciences. Criticism against T.D. began again. Lysenko. It began with an unexpected episode during Stalin’s lifetime, in 1952, when the Botanical Journal published an article by N.V. Turbin, a former supporter of Lysenko, directed against Lysenko’s absurd statements on issues of speciation. In subsequent years, the Botanical Journal published critical articles against Lysenko, reporting on the falsification of scientific data and the inconsistency of many of his provisions.

In 1955, a letter was sent to the Party Central Committee calling for an end to Lysenkoism. This letter was signed by 297 biologists; a covering letter was prepared by Corresponding Member of the USSR Academy of Sciences P. A. Baranov and Academician N. P. Dubinin. In addition, a letter from 24 of the country's largest scientists working in the field of physics, chemistry and economics was submitted to the Central Committee (among those who signed this letter were P.L. Kapitsa, A.D. Sakharov, I.E. Tamm, Yu.B. Khariton , Ya.B. Zeldovich, M.A. Lavrentyev, V.L. Ginzburg, L.D. Landau, G.N. Flerov, E.S. Varga and others). As a result, there was a change in the leadership of the Department of Biological Sciences of the USSR Academy of Sciences. To the new secretary of the department V.A. Engelhardt was asked to eliminate the backlog in the most important areas of experimental science.

Important organizational measures were carried out in the Department of Biological Sciences, including those aimed at reorganizing old laboratories and institutes and creating new ones, among which it should be noted the Institute of Radiation and Physical-Chemical Biology (now the Institute of Molecular Biology) of the USSR Academy of Sciences, the Institute of Chemistry of Natural Compounds (now Institute of Bioorganic Chemistry named after M. M. Shemyakin) USSR Academy of Sciences. A number of laboratories were created in other departments of the USSR Academy of Sciences, as well as at the Institute of Atomic Energy. The leadership of the Siberian Branch of the USSR Academy of Sciences strongly supported genetic research (Akademgorodok began to be created in 1957).

However, even at this stage of the history of Lysenkoism, a number of factors continued to operate, which in the 30s and 40s. led to the emergence of the “Lysenko phenomenon”. Political and social conditions have changed, but the widespread introduction of Lysenko’s supporters into the administrative-state apparatus, into institutions of science and higher education led to the emergence of certain forces interested in preserving Lysenkoism. Among those who fought against Lysenkoism, the most important were groups of scientists representing fundamental and academic science, who also played a significant role in the development of nuclear, space and defense complexes in our country.

In this situation, N.S.’s support turned out to be decisive for maintaining Lysenko’s position. Khrushchev. In December 1958, Pravda published a critical article against the Botanical Journal and in defense of Lysenko. This article preceded criticisms made by Khrushchev against Lysenko's opponents. As a result, on January 20, 1959, Nesmeyanov, Topchiev and Engelhardt at a meeting of the Presidium of the USSR Academy of Sciences were forced to declare that they had underestimated Michurin biology and promised to take measures to correct the mistakes made. Engelhardt was replaced as Academician-Secretary of the Department of Biological Sciences by N.M. Sisakyan, who supported Lysenko.

However, resistance to Lysenko and his supporters continued to grow, despite the support of the leadership. Although party documents expressed support for Lysenko’s line, indications were introduced of the importance of physics and chemistry for the development of biology. Khrushchev’s position was also ambivalent: while supporting Lysenko, he was forced to support his opponents, since the negative consequences of Lysenkoism were very obvious. Thus, Khrushchev received support from N. N. Kuleshov, a scientist who was repressed during the years of the personality cult and a major expert on corn.

The USSR Academy of Sciences continued to provide support to institutes and laboratories developing research in the field of experimental biology. This was done especially energetically in the Siberian Branch of the USSR Academy of Sciences, then in the scientific complex in Pushchino, and later in the Interfaculty Laboratory of Molecular Biology and Bioorganic Chemistry named after. A.N. Belozersky at Moscow State University. A. N. Nesmeyanov played a major role in this, and was subjected to increasingly strong pressure from Lysenko for this, which played a certain role in Nesmeyanov’s removal from the post of President of the USSR Academy of Sciences in 1961.

However, in the USSR Academy of Sciences and in other organizations, the understanding continued to grow that Lysenko was causing enormous harm to Soviet science, agriculture, and the economy. It should also be noted that among Soviet philosophers there were forces who took on the difficult work of developing scientific philosophical and methodological problems of modern biology, primarily genetics. The most prominent role in this was played by the works of I.T. Frolov, who actively spoke in the late 50s. against the pseudoscientific philosophizing widespread around Lysenko’s works. His research in this area is summarized in the book “Philosophy and History of Genetics. Searches and discussions,” published in 1988 by the Nauka publishing house.

Events led to forms of protest that were unusual and bold for those times. So, for example, in the elections to the USSR Academy of Sciences in June 1964, the candidacy of N.I. Nuzhdin, one of Lysenko’s odious supporters, who was nominated for academician, was defeated. 126 academicians voted against his candidacy, and only 20 supported him.

The restoration of the rights of the destroyed areas of Soviet biology began in 1964 after the October Plenum of the CPSU Central Committee. In 1965, Lysenko was removed from his post as director of the Institute of General Genetics of the USSR Academy of Sciences. Lysenko’s pseudoscientific method of work, based on forgery and falsification, was revealed using the example of the activities of the Experimental Research Base of the USSR Academy of Sciences “Leninskie Gorki”, led by the “people’s academician” himself (the activities of this base were studied by a special commission of the Presidium of the USSR Academy of Sciences).

The damage caused by Lysenkoism to Soviet biology, especially genetics, has not yet been repaired. Heavy personnel losses and the loss of traditions in a number of important areas of research led to a serious lag in Soviet genetics from the world level. We cannot now take advantage of all the advantages and opportunities that modern biology provides. Work to restore Soviet genetics has begun, but it requires a lot of effort and economic costs. It also requires an influx of new personnel. Many of today's schoolchildren will work in research laboratories, in numerous agricultural and biotechnology centers using the achievements of modern genetics. And it is important that their knowledge be truly scientific, free from pseudoscientific dogmas, reflecting the true state of biological problems and all the wealth of ideas accumulated in the world about ways and approaches to solving them, about the prospects for the development of modern biology.

Strunnikov V.A., Shamin A.N. T.D. Lysenko and Lysenkoism. The defeat of Soviet genetics in the 30s and 40s. // Biology at school. – 1989. – No. 2. – P. 15–20. Strunnikov V.A., Shamin A.N. T.D. Lysenko and Lysenkoism. Difficult years of Soviet biology // Biology at school. – 1989. – No. 3. – P. 21–25.

We are so accustomed to living in a world of patterns and stereotypes that we have forgotten how not only to think, but even to be interested in anything.

I am not talking about everyone without exception (fortunately, there are exceptions!), but about the overwhelming majority, who with such unshakable conviction judge issues that they do not understand at all and know nothing about.

For example, ask anyone what they think about Vavilov And Lysenko? Not among young people, of course, to whom these names are completely unknown, but among older people, those who still remember “Ogonyok” of the late 80s and the film “White Clothes.” They will answer you that Vavilov was a geneticist, and Lysenko was a persecutor of genetics (whoever wants to show off his erudition will add that Lysenko was a “Michurinist”).

Meanwhile, this has nothing to do with the truth. This is just a stereotype, and a stupid, primitive one, designed to convey complete (not even partial, but complete!) ignorance of the subject.

The truth is that both were geneticists. Both Lysenko and Vavilov argued for the existence of the genome and the laws of heredity. Fundamentally, they differed only in one thing - the question of the heritability of acquired properties. Vavilov believed that acquired properties are not inherited and the genome remains unchanged throughout the history of its existence. In this he relied on the work of Weismann and Morgan (hence the “Weismann-Morganists”). Lysenko, on the contrary, argued that the genome can change, fixing acquired properties. In this he relied on Lamarck's neo-Darwinism.

Roughly speaking, if I succeed in the technical sciences or humanities through my labors and efforts, I have every chance of passing on these achievements in the form of a genetic inheritance to my son (daughter), and it doesn’t matter that my grandfather had no idea about these sciences.

Actually, the dispute between the “Weismannists” and the “neo-Darwinists” was purely academic. And this was not a dispute between genetics and antigenetics, but dispute between two directions in genetics. So there was no “persecution of genetics”! The Weismannists had troubles, yes, but not at all because they were geneticists, but for another reason: first, waste of public money, and then an attempt to attack their scientific opponents with the involvement of foreign colleagues (the conflict in the VASKhNIL was provoked precisely by them, through denunciations , study primary sources!).

Modern scientific research has fully confirmed the correctness of Lysenko and the fallacy of Vavilov’s views. Yes, the genome is changing! But the most interesting thing is that this had nothing to do with the fates of these two scientists.

Let me allow myself the smallest digression. Among the many modern, most modern and now classic works confirming the variability of the genome, I will cite only one paragraph and only for one reason: it is written L.A. Zhivotovsky, employee of the Institute of General Genetics named after. N.I. Vavilova (!) RAS.

“So, the only thing that remains on the issue under discussion is to call a spade a spade. Namely, J. Lamarck’s hypothesis about the inheritance of acquired characteristics is correct. A new trait may arise through the formation of protein/DNA/RNA regulatory complexes, modification of chromatin, or changes in the DNA of somatic cells and then be transmitted to offspring ... "(Zhivotovsky L.A. “Inheritance of acquired characteristics: Lamarck was right.” “Chemistry and Life”, 2003. No. 4. pp. 22-26).

So, geneticists working at the Institute named after. N.I. Vavilov, in fact, the “Vavilovites” confirm Lysenko’s rightness! What remains for them?

Of course, the range of interests and active work Lysenko was not limited to genetics. And of course, this is another reason to reproach him for being a dork. For example, for the introduction of the method of planting potatoes with the tops of tubers on March 22, 1943, T.D. Lysenko was awarded the Stalin Prize of the first degree.

If anyone doesn’t know: this means cutting the tuber into pieces, one eye for each, and using them as planting material instead of the whole tuber. You can go even further - use only the eye with a small fragment of the tuber - the top - for planting, and eat the rest of the potato.

“Trofim Lysenko took the risk of preparing these tops in the fall and eating the planting potatoes themselves during the winter, which was incredible - no one believed that the tops could be saved as planting material until spring. He also took the risk of sowing crops over the stubble. This method, which saves the soil from erosion, is still used both here on virgin lands and in Canada...”(Kiev Telegraph, 2010, November).

Fi, planting potatoes with tops, ha ha! But the date of the award says a lot about how this method helped save the country from hunger, helped feed the nation and ultimately win the war. From one tuber you can get one potato bush or five to ten bushes, plus saved potatoes, which truly became “second bread” during the Second World War, is there a difference? For armchair science, probably none. And during the war - big, huge!

“In 1936, Trofim Lysenko developed a method of minting (removing the tops of shoots) of cotton, and this agrotechnical technique, which increases cotton yield, is still used throughout the world. In 1939, he developed new agricultural technology for millet, which made it possible to increase the yield from 8-9 to 15 centners per hectare. In the pre-war years, he proposed using summer planting of potatoes in the southern regions of the Soviet Union to improve its varietal qualities. And its forest belts, which protected millions of hectares in the USSR from dry winds, and the use of natural enemies of agricultural pests instead of pesticides?..”(Kyiv Telegraph, 2010, November)

That is why on September 10, 1945, Lysenko was awarded the next Order of Lenin “for the successful completion of the government’s task during the war to provide the front and the country’s population with food.” Also nonsense, of course. And Lysenko has many such achievements, not just the Order of Lenin, but he had eight of them(!) (the same amount as A.N. Tupolev and S.V. Ilyushin), was not awarded just like that. Under Stalin, orders of Lenin were not simply awarded.

Word to the People's Commissar and Minister of Agriculture of the USSR I.A. Benediktov:

“...After all, it is a fact that on the basis of Lysenko’s work such varieties of agricultural crops as spring wheat “Lutents-1173”, “Odesskaya-13”, barley “Odessky-14”, cotton “Odessky-1” were created, a number of agrotechnical methods were developed , including vernalization, cotton minting. A devoted student of Lysenko, who highly revered him until the end of his days, was Pavel Panteleimonovich Lukyanenko, perhaps our most talented and prolific breeder, who has 15 zoned varieties of winter wheat, including the world-famous “Bezostaya-1”, “Aurora” ", "Caucasus"..."

The key words here are “may be interpreted” as sabotage. Conscious or unconscious is difficult to prove, the main thing is facts. Waste - sabotage! Here are the words of N.I. himself. Vavilov from the interrogation protocol:

“One of the main sabotage measures was the creation of an excessively large number of narrowly specialized, completely non-viable, scientific research institutes... divorced from direct agronomic work, this led to disorganization of scientific research work... to the scattering of already insufficient personnel and caused completely unnecessary large government expenditures..."(Protocol of interrogation of N.I. Vavilov on September 6, 1940)

All the fault of N.I. Vavilov was waste of huge public funds, including foreign exchange, which today, strictly speaking, is a crime. Another thing is that today they are not punished for this, they are not even deprived of bonuses. And in the difficult pre-war years, when every ruble counted, they questioned and punished.

But T.D. Lysenko spoke about this, repeatedly, persuaded, exhorted:

“I have repeatedly stated to Mendelian geneticists: let’s not argue, I won’t become a Mendelian anyway. It's not a matter of arguing, but let's work together according to a strictly scientifically developed plan. Let's take certain problems, receive orders from the People's Commissariat for Health of the USSR and carry them out scientifically. The paths for carrying out this or that practically important scientific work can be discussed, you can even argue about these paths, but arguing is not pointless...”(“Under the banner of Marxism”, No. 11, 1939)

Actually, Vavilov was quite normal "academic scientist", cut off from his country and his people. Perhaps this can be forgiven for an “academic scientist,” but this is not what he was allocated money for, and this is not what he promised, but the creation of new varieties. And he didn’t fulfill his promise, he squandered the money, which means he deliberately misled and deceived the state. And you won’t be jailed for this? Scold him and let him go? This is probably what Vavilov was counting on. But I couldn’t get away with it, I had to sit down.

Vavilov's trouble was the timing. In some 1970s, he would have received great prizes and titles. But in order to finance purely theoretical science, without practical return, requires exceptionally favorable conditions, few people can afford it. Of course, such conditions did not exist either in the 1930s or 1940s! But Vavilov pointedly ignored this fact, and he paid for it.

By the way, when this happened, everyone happily began to kick him, without in the least challenging the justice of the accusations. The people “in white robes” readily betrayed their comrade-in-arms and teacher. The only one who refused to participate in the condemnation campaign was... Lysenko! Testimony T.D. Lysenko:

“In response to the question asked, what do I know about the sabotage activities of N.I. Vavilov on the destruction of the seed collection at VIR, I answer: I know that Academician N.I. Vavilov collected this collection. I don’t know anything about the fact that he destroyed this collection...” Signature: Academician T.D. Lysenko. (From the investigation materials in the case of N.I. Vavilov)

From an interview with I.A. Benediktova:

“When Vavilov was arrested, his closest supporters and “friends,” shielding themselves, one after another began to confirm the investigator’s “sabotage” version. Lysenko, who by that time had disagreed with Vavilov on scientific positions, flatly refused to do this and confirmed his refusal in writing. But for aiding the “enemies of the people” at that time, people with a much higher position than Lysenko could have suffered, which he, of course, knew very well...”(Benediktov I.A. “About Stalin and Khrushchev.” Young Guard. 1989. No. 4.)

Well, what about the film based on Dudintsev’s book? "White Clothes"? The action takes place after the war in connection with the so-called “defeat of VASKHNIL and genetics.” Although, as we know, we can only talk about the defeat of the Weismannists, followers of N.I. Vavilov, but not geneticists and not VASKHNIL. Genetics in the USSR both developed and continued to develop, and no one decisively smashed her!

Word T.D. Lysenko:

“Approval of Academician. Serebrovsky that I deny the often observed facts of diversity of hybrid offspring in a 3:1 ratio is also incorrect. We don't deny this. We deny your position that this ratio cannot be manipulated. Based on the concept we are developing, it will be possible (and quite soon) to control fission..."(T.D. Lysenko “Agrobiology. Works on genetics, selection and seed production.” 6th edition. M.: Selkhozgiz, 1952. – p. 195.)

Thus, the work was carried out with the same notorious “Mendelian splitting”, the existence of which, according to Dudintsev, Lysenko allegedly denied! So genetics clearly has nothing to do with it. Here's a summary of what happened:

IN 1946-47 gg. Weismanists launched an attack against Lysenko, trying to remove him from the post of president of VASKHNIL. At first, their offensive, carried out with the involvement of the party apparatus and attempts to exert pressure by the foreign press, was successful. However, it ultimately failed. At the August session of VASKhNIL 1948, T.D. Lysenko and his group, supported by Stalin, defeated their opponents. Why I.V. Stalin supported Lysenko, of course. Because he knew very well that his work was beneficial to the country, and the Weismannists were useless.

“As a result of many years of work, Dubinin “enriched” science with the “discovery” that during the war, in the fly population of fruit flies in Voronezh and its environs, there was an increase in the percentage of flies with some chromosomal differences and a decrease in other fruit flies with other differences in chromosomes. Dubinin is not limited to the discoveries he made during the war, so “highly valuable” for theory and practice, he sets himself further tasks for the recovery period and writes: “It will be very interesting to study over the next few years the restoration of the karyotypic structure of the city’s population in connection with the restoration normal living conditions." (Movement in the hall. Laughter). This is the typical “contribution” of Morganists to science and practice before the war, during the war, and these are the prospects of Morganist “science” for the recovery period! (Applause)". (From the report of T.D. Lysenko at the session of the All-Union Academy of Agricultural Sciences in 1948)

East. Chronicles: 1938 - Vavilov And LysenkO

Michurintsy are against« geneticists» : in defense of LysenkO

"White Clothes"(all series)

More details and a variety of information about events taking place in Russia, Ukraine and other countries of our beautiful planet can be obtained at Internet Conferences, constantly held on the website “Keys of Knowledge”. All Conferences are open and completely free. We invite everyone who wakes up and is interested...

Soviet agronomist, biologist, academician Trofim Denisovich Lysenko was born on September 29 (according to Article 17), 1898 in the village of Karlovka (now the city of Karlovka, Poltava region, Ukraine).

He graduated from the Poltava Gardening School, the College of Agriculture and Horticulture in Uman, Kyiv Province in 1921, and the correspondence department of the Kyiv Agricultural Institute with a degree in agronomy in 1925.

In 1922-1925, Lysenko worked as a senior specialist at the Belotserkovsky breeding station near Kiev.

Since 1925, head of the department of selection of legumes at the Ganja breeding station in Azerbaijan. From 1929 to 1934, senior specialist in the physiology department of the All-Union Selection Genetic Institute in Odessa.

In 1934 he was elected academician of the Academy of Sciences of the Ukrainian SSR, and in 1935 - academician of the All-Union Academy of Agricultural Sciences named after. Lenin (VASKhNIL) USSR.

In 1934, Lysenko was appointed scientific director, and two years later director of the All-Union Selection Genetic Institute. Since 1938, scientific director of the laboratory of the Experimental Scientific Research Base of the USSR Academy of Sciences "Gorki Leninskie" in the Moscow region.

From 1938 to 1956, Trofim Lysenko was elected President of the USSR Academy of Agricultural Sciences.

In 1940-1965 he was director of the Institute of Genetics of the USSR Academy of Sciences.

Lysenko has considerable achievements in creating highly effective methods for increasing yields. He created the theory of staged development of plants, a method of directed change of hereditary winter varieties of grain crops into hereditary spring varieties and vice versa. He proposed a number of agrotechnical techniques (vernalization, cotton chasing, summer planting of potatoes).

Under the leadership of Trofim Lysenko, the winter wheat variety Odesskaya 3 and the spring barley variety Odessky 9 were developed; cotton variety Odessa 1, which became the main variety of cotton growing in new areas of its cultivation.

Lysenko's ideas were introduced into agriculture in the 1930s and 1960s.

Some of the theoretical positions and proposals put forward by Trofim Lysenko have not received experimental confirmation or widespread industrial application.

He put forward the position that in nature there is no intraspecific overpopulation and no intraspecific struggle, and also that existing biological species, under the influence of changes in environmental conditions, are capable of directly giving rise to other species. These provisions are not shared by many scientists.

Thanks to his successes in practical agricultural science, Lysenko received the support of the country's leadership and, above all, Joseph Stalin. This turned out to be enough for any criticism of Lysenko, both justified and unfounded, to be perceived as disagreement with the line of the Communist Party in the field of agriculture, and as a consequence of sabotage. Lysenko's monopoly in biology, combined with Stalin's methods of combating dissent, caused the destruction of entire scientific schools and the death of many scientists (including Nikolai Vavilov).

In 1955, the Presidium of the CPSU Central Committee received a “letter from three hundred” with harsh criticism of Lysenko’s activities, which described the damage he caused to science and the state. The letter was signed by 297 academicians, doctors and candidates of biological sciences. The consequence of this letter was the release of Lysenko from the post of President of VASKhNIL in 1956 “at his own request.” In 1956-1961 he was a member of the Presidium of VASKhNIL. During these years, Lysenko actively defended himself. At the Academy of Sciences and VASKhNIL there were continuous clashes between his supporters and opponents.

In 1961-1962, Trofim Lysenko took the post of president of VASKHNIL for the second time. After Nikita Khrushchev was removed from power, Lysenko was finally removed from leading scientific activities. In 1965, he was removed from his post as director of the Institute of Genetics of the USSR Academy of Sciences, and then the institute itself was liquidated. From 1966 until the end of his life, Trofim Lysenko worked as the head of the laboratory of the Experimental Scientific Research Base of the USSR Academy of Sciences "Gorki Leninskie" in the Moscow region, continuing his scientific research work.

Lysenko was deputy chairman of the Committee for Stalin Prizes in Science (since 1940), deputy chairman of the Higher Attestation Commission; member of the Central Executive Committee of the USSR (1935-1937), deputy chairman of the Council of the Union of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR (1937-1950), deputy of the Supreme Council of the 1st - 6th convocations (1937-1966).

For his practical and theoretical work, he was awarded the title of Hero of Socialist Labor, awarded 8 Orders of Lenin, a medal named after. Mechnikov, prizes at VDNKh exhibitions, etc. Lysenko was a laureate of the USSR State Prize three times (1941, 1943, 1949).

The material was prepared based on open sources

G.D. Lysenko

Poor health since childhood forced me to use medications. The grandmother with whom I lived did not recognize pharmaceutical pharmacology. Apparently, she passed on to me the belief in the limitless possibilities of traditional medicine, in the recipes of a natural pharmacy. I firmly decided to improve my health, strengthen myself, and became a career military man.

As a political worker, he became interested in psychology. Mastered the technique of hypnosis. While improving my knowledge of psychology, I became interested in psychotherapy. I didn’t forget herbal medicine. Despite annual sanatorium and hospital treatment, many diseases (rheumatism of the heart and joints, gastritis, atherosclerosis, prostate adenoma) did not leave me.

On February 25, 1993, my article “Living and Dead Water” appeared. After the article was published, I began to receive many letters. They write mainly from those who did not get rid of their ailments in the hospital. People also come to my home. People want to live. And those who come from all over the republic do not want to leave without water and activated carbon.

First of all, please take into account that Neither “living” nor “dead” water cures individual diseases. It heals the entire body as a whole. After all " “dead” water dissolves and removes salts, toxins, and all kinds of infection. And “live” normalizes acidity, blood pressure and metabolism.

Considering the anatomical structure of a person, I believe that the main thing in the body is the musculoskeletal system, and in it the spine. Based on this, I propose a 2-month course of treatment:

• 1st month. For 10 days, drink “living” and “dead” water every other day, 150 g, half an hour before meals;
  - apply a compress at night for osteochondrosis of the cervicothoracic region (place of compress: at the top - half of the neck, at the bottom - along the lower level of the shoulder blades, across the width - the shoulder joints).
  - Moisten a calico (linen) rag with the water you drink that day;
  — Drink only “living” water for 20 days.
• 2nd month. Also treat radiculitis for 10 days (place of compress: at the top - from the shoulder blades, at the bottom - include the tailbone, across the width - the hip joints); — Drink “living” water for 20 days.

  In the first month, the chest organs and atherosclerosis are cured. In the second - the organs of the genitourinary system, the gastrointestinal tract. You have finished treatment.

Now you can take care of disease prevention. Experience shows that this is no less important. Every morning, half an hour before breakfast, you need to drink 100 g of “dead” water. Rinse the nasopharynx thoroughly. After breakfast, rinse your mouth with “dead” water, then hold the “dead” water in your mouth for 15-20 minutes.

Half an hour before lunch and dinner, drink 150 g of “live” water. If you wake up at night, it is useful to drink 100 g of “dead” water. The use of “living” and “dead” water on oneself and other people made it possible to compile a table of procedures for treating various diseases. I was convinced in practice that this miracle water can replace many medications.

TABLE OF PROCEDURES

Diseases Order of procedures, results

• Prostate adenoma Every month for 20 days, half an hour before meals, take 150 g of “live” and “dead” water (every other day). Then drink “living” water for another 5 days. It is advisable to take additional “dead” water at night.

— While lying in the bath, massage the perineum of the shower.
- Massage with your finger through the perineum, very carefully.
— Enema of warm “living” water, 200 g.
— At night, put a compress on the perineum from “living” water, after washing with soap and moistening the perineum with “dead” water, allowing it to dry.
— When applying a compress, insert a candle made of peeled raw potatoes into the anus, after soaking it in “living” water.
- As a massage - cycling.
- Sunbathing.
— Regular sex life is useful, but during sexual intercourse do not regulate ejaculation.
— Eat more garlic, onions, and herbs.

After 3-4 months, mucus is released, the tumor is not felt. For the purpose of prevention, this course should be repeated periodically.

• Cracked heels and hands Wash your feet and hands with warm water and soap and let dry. Moisten with “dead” water and let dry. Apply a compress of “living” water overnight, scrape off the white coating from your feet in the morning and lubricate it with sunflower oil, let it absorb. In 3-4 days the heel will be healthy. Thoroughly disinfect shoes and slippers.
• Obliterating atherosclerosis of the arteries of the lower extremities Do everything as for cracked heels and hands, plus take 100 g of “dead” water half an hour before meals. This disease is accompanied by the fact that the skin on the soles of the feet dries out, and then due to the death of living cells, the skin thickens , then it cracks. If veins are visible, then you can put a compress on these places or at least moisten them with “dead” water, let them dry and moisten them with “living” water. Self-massage is also necessary. Cured in 6-10 days.
• Foot odor Wash your feet with warm water, wipe dry, then moisten with “dead” water, and after 10 minutes - with “live” water. Wipe the inside of the shoes with a swab moistened with “dead” water and dry. Wash socks, moisten with “dead” water and dry. For prevention, you can wet socks after washing (or new ones) with “dead” water and dry them.
• Purulent wounds Wash the wound first with “dead” water, and after 3-5 minutes with “live” water. Then during the day, rinse 5-6 times only with “living” water. The wound dries up immediately and heals within two days. Inflammatory processes, closed wounds, boils, acne, stye. Apply a warm compress to the sore spot for two days. Before applying a compress, moisten the inflamed area with “dead” water and allow to dry. At night, take a quarter glass of “dead” water.
• Pierce boils (if not on the face) and squeeze out. Cures in 2-3 days.
• Facial hygiene In the morning and evening after washing, the face is wiped first with “dead” water, then with “living” water. Do the same after shaving. The skin becomes smooth, acne disappears.
• Swelling of the legs (Do not treat without consulting a doctor. This may be an active phase of rheumatism of the heart). Half an hour before meals, drink 150 g of “dead” water, and on the second day drink “live” water. Moisten the sore spots of the legs with “dead” water, and when dry, with “living” water. You can also apply a compress overnight. Compress on the lower back. Dissolve salt in water 1:10. Soak a towel in this solution and place it on your lower back. Once the towel is warm, wet it again. Repeat the procedure 3-4 times. Sore throat For three days, rinse your throat and nasopharynx three times with “dead” water. After each rinse, take a quarter glass of “living” water. Be sure to rinse your mouth and throat before and after eating.
• Colds: Apply a compress of warm “dead” water to the neck and drink 0.5 cups of “dead” water 4 times a day before meals. At night, wipe your soles with vegetable oil and put on warm socks. Varicose veins Apply a compress: rinse the swollen areas with “dead” water, then moisten the gauze with “living” water, apply to these areas and cover with cellophane, insulate and secure. Drink half a glass of “dead” water once, and then after 1-2 hours, take half a glass of “living” water every 4 hours (a total of four times a day). Repeat the procedure for 2-3 days. On the third day, no veins noticeable.
• Flu: drink 150 g of “dead” water 3 times a day half an hour before meals. Rinse the nasopharynx with “dead” water 8 times during the day, and drink 0.5 cups of “live” water at night. Relief occurs within 24 hours.
• Atherosclerosis Drink “dead” and “living” water 2-3 days a month, half an hour before meals, 150 g each. Apply a compress of “living” water to the cervical spine. Include more fresh cabbage and vegetable oil in your food. After meals, drink 30 g of unboiled water every half hour. Eat 2-3 cloves of garlic daily. Headaches decrease in the first month and then disappear completely.
• Burns If there are blisters, they need to be pierced, and then the affected areas should be moistened 4-5 times with “dead” water, and after 20-25 minutes with “living” water and in the following days, moisten the areas in the same way 7-8 times. The affected areas are healed quickly, without changes in the cover. Toothache, damage to tooth enamel Rinse the mouth with “dead” water several times a day for 8-10 minutes. The pain disappears immediately.
• Gum disease (periodontal disease) rinse the mouth and throat 6 times a day for 10-15 minutes with “dead” water and then with “live” water. After the procedure, take 50 grams of “living” water orally. Improvement occurs within three days.
• Stomach ulcer, duodenal ulcer, gastritis Drink “dead” and “living” water half an hour before meals, 150 g each (every other day). And every half hour, drink 30 g of unboiled water, settled for 6 days on flint, or fresh cabbage juice, as well as linden tea with honey. The course of treatment is 10 days. Repeat monthly until recovery.
• Heartburn Drink 0.5 glasses of “live” water. The heartburn should stop. If there is no result, then you need to drink “dead” water. Constipation Drink 100 g of cold “living” water on an empty stomach. If constipation is chronic, then take daily. You can give an enema of warm “living” water.
• Hemorrhoids, anal fissures 1-2 days in the evening, wash the cracks, nodes with “dead” water, and then moisten tampons made with a candle (can be made from potatoes) with “living” water, insert into the anus. Heals in 2-3 days. Diarrhea Drink half a glass of “dead” water. If the diarrhea does not stop within half an hour, repeat the procedure. Abdominal pain disappears after 10-15 minutes.
• Diabetes mellitus, pancreatic diseases Drink “living” water constantly half an hour before meals, 150 g. Drink unboiled water, which can be settled for 6 days on flint, 30 g every half hour.
• Rheumatoid arthritis Half an hour before meals, drink 150 grams of “live” and “dead” water every other day. Place a compress with the water you drink on the lumbar region, including the tailbone. Bronchial asthma Drink “live” water, heated to 36 degrees, after meals, 100 g. Inhale “live” water with soda. Sanitation of the nasopharynx with “dead” and then “living” water after meals, every hour. Apply mustard plaster to the chest area and feet. A hot foot bath is recommended (as a distraction). Health improves already on the 2nd day. The course of treatment is 5 days. Repeat every month.
• Osteochondrosis of the spine Drink 150 g of “dead” water and 24 hours of “living” water every other day, half an hour before meals. Apply a compress using “dead” water to the sore spot. A massage is recommended. The course of treatment is 10 days.
• Metabolic polyarthritis with joint pain. For 10 days, 3 times a day before meals, drink half a glass of “dead” water. At night, apply a compress with “dead” water to the sore spots. Drink 150 g of “live” water after meals. Improvement occurs on the first day. Cut, puncture Wash the wound with “dead” water. Apply a compress with “living” water. It will heal in 1-2 days.
• Ringworm, eczema Within 10 minutes. Moisten the affected areas with “dead” water 4-5 times. After 20-25 minutes, moisten with “living” water. Repeat the procedure 4-5 times daily. Drink 100 g of “living” water half an hour before meals. After 5 days, if marks remain on the skin, take a 10-day break and repeat.
• Allergy Rinse the nasopharynx, nasal cavity and mouth with “dead” water for 1-2 minutes, then with “live” water for 3-5 minutes 3-4 times a day. Lotions of “dead” water for rashes and swelling. The rash and swelling disappear.
• Acute stomatitis Rinse with “dead” water for 10-15 minutes, then rinse for 2-3 minutes with “live” water. Repeat the procedure periodically for three days.
• Recurrent bronchitis The same procedures are recommended as for bronchial asthma. Repeat 3-4 times within an hour. Health improves already on the 2nd day. The course of treatment is 5 days. Repeat every month.
• Helminthiasis (worms) Cleansing enema with “dead” water, then an hour later with “living water”. Drink 150 g of “dead” water every half hour during the day. The condition may not be good. Then, during the day, drink 150 g of “living” water half an hour before meals. If after two days complete recovery has not occurred, then repeat the course. To improve your well-being and normalize the functioning of your organs, in the morning and evening after eating, rinse your mouth with “dead” water and drink 100 g of “living” water.
• Headaches: Drink 0.5 glasses of “dead” water once. The headache soon stops. Cosmetics Moisten the face, neck, hands, and other parts of the body with “dead” water in the morning and evening.
• Washing head:
• 
  Rinse your hair with “living” water and a small addition of shampoo. Rinse with “dead” water. Stimulation of plant growth Soak the seeds for 40 minutes to two hours in “living” water. Water the plants with “living” water 1-2 times a week. You can also soak in a mixture of “dead” and “living” water in a ratio of 1:2 or 1:4. Preservation of fruits Spray the fruits with “dead” water for four minutes and place in a container. Store at a temperature of 5-16 degrees.

  I CURED MYSELF - I TREAT OTHERS The experience of treatment convinced me of the need for preliminary preparation. I want to draw attention to the state of mind, emotions of the patient himself and the one who treats and helps him. I remembered lines from one letter: “It’s like the hostess - if she cooks food in a good mood, then the food will be good, but if she’s in a bad mood, with negative emotions, don’t expect good things, you can’t do without illnesses.” When taking water or performing any other procedure, always relax, becoming sensitive and permeable.

  Mentally accompany the effect of water and procedures in your body. Only then will the treatment benefit. If you do all this on the fly, without emotions, then everything will be in vain. I explain to the patient in the first conversation before treatment: - the cause of the disease or failure to recover is the lack of mental energy. It needs to be stocked up. How to do this is discussed further;

— we will treat not only the disease, but also the body as a whole;
— health depends on the psyche, skin, nutrition;
— it is very important not to allow immoral thoughts, and when they appear, turn to God with a prayer for forgiveness.

NUTRITION DURING RECOVERY

1st day.

• In the morning on an empty stomach, half an hour before meals, drink 50 grams of “living” water.
• Every day drink 100 grams of any juice (lemon, apple, carrot, beet, cabbage).
• Eat a few cloves of garlic and half an onion every day.
• Take 0.25 aspirin tablets three times a day after meals.
• Eat 10-15 grams of nuts (peanuts, walnuts) daily.
• Dinner: 100 grams of cottage cheese or cheese. After an hour, drink 50 grams of “living” water.

2nd day.

• If you feel good, repeat everything as on the first day. If you feel weak, have breakfast in the morning like this: pour 3 tablespoons of ground cereal an hour before meals with warm water, but not higher than 57 degrees. In an hour the porridge is ready.
• No lunch or dinner.
• The following days are like the second.

  My treatment usually consists of 10 sessions. In addition to water, massage is used for 1.5-2 hours from head to toes. Of course, I take into account the state of health.

TREATMENT OF PSORIASIS Reading the letters, I am once again convinced that the majority of those who want to be cured rely solely on water. She is truly omnipotent. But I want to show just one example how to treat psoriasis.

1. Drink 100 g of “living” water 30 minutes before meals.

2. Bath with nettle 10-15 minutes once a week, 4 times in total.

3. Massage: a) if in the upper part of the body - 2-4th thoracic vertebrae; b) if in the lower part of the body - 4-11th lumbar vertebrae; c) directly at the site of the lesion.

4. At night, massage your feet, then wipe them with vegetable oil, put on warm socks.

5. Sunbathing, dousing with salt water if there is no sea water.

6. A compress to the affected area using a spoonful of birch tar (I make it myself along the way when I prepare activated charcoal from birch), three tablespoons of fish oil. Mix everything thoroughly and spread on a cloth.

7. Nutrition: sprouted wheat, alfalfa. Eat more cabbage, carrots, yeast, drink sunflower oil. Limit the consumption of sweets, animal products, and alcohol.

“LIVING” AND “DEAD” WATER IN NATURE

The Gospel says: when Jesus Christ was crucified, on the second day Mary and Magdalsna brought LIVING water to him for healing... Does this mean that miraculous water existed even then? Yes, such water exists in nature.

The first time she comes is on Epiphany, January 19, from 0 o'clock to 3 am. But this is “dead” water. It should be collected, preferably from a source, in a glass container. This water has the ability to kill everything in the body that interferes with it. For the second time a year, water has healing powers on Kupala night from June 6 to 7, also from 0 to 3 o’clock.

Collect from the source into a glass container. This is “living” water. When you get sick, drink “dead” water, you will feel weak, but then drink “living” water - and you will feel better. On the night of Ivan Kupala, fire has a cleansing power. Many diseases disappear, especially gynecological ones. You need to jump over the fire three times if you take part in this folk festival.

CONCLUSION
Try to lead an active lifestyle! Believe me, this is the main medicine for achieving positive results in treatment.

A bedridden patient must move all the time. Move your whole body - arms, legs, fingers, eyes. If you can roll over, then this is already happiness. Turn over in bed more often. And if you can sit, then it’s a sin not to move, and you have to try to get up or at least crawl. Yes, yes, crawling, because this is movement. You are already able to do many exercises. A person who gets at least a little back on his feet should feel healthy. Always try to have some incentive to move.

Even a bedridden patient can find something to do: cut something, embroider. Don’t feel sorry for yourself, look for every opportunity to be active. Pensioners, sick people, if you can go outside, start collecting medicinal herbs.

You can do this not only for yourself, but also for other people. And the more good deeds you do, the healthier you will feel. Don't try to make money from herbs. Strive to promote them more.

It is very important to be happy more often. Rejoice in your movement, your smallest successes, the hour you have lived, the day you have lived. Celebrate the successes of others.

Don't judge anyone and don't envy anyone. Find opportunities to enjoy the diversity of people's personalities. When going out into nature, do not disdain and do not be afraid to eat leaves or flowers of dandelion and plantain. Make salads from them, especially from nettles and other greens.

Try to exclude meat products from your food, get rid of tobacco and alcohol, try to be calm - and healing will come to you.

I kindly ask everyone who will be treated using my brochure to report the results to me at the address: 231800 Grodno region, Slonim, st. Dovatora, 8a, apt. 46. ​​Lysenko Georgy Dmitrievich.