Talk:Lysenkoism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 | Lysenkoism has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: February 22, 2020. (Reviewed version). |
| This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | This article is written in British English with Oxford spelling (colour, realize, organization, analyse; note that -ize is used instead of -ise) and some terms may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
Apparent over-simplifications and caricatures on many indirect sources
It seems to me that this is a situation akin to the popular over-simplification that assumes that Darwin himself was a "mendelian" rather than a "lamarckist" when contrasting his theory of evolution with that of Lamarck. Example of weakness in the article and the reference that I believe contradicts it: "However, unlike Michurin, he advocated a form of Lamarckism, insisting on using only hybridization and grafting, as non-genetic techniques". Now, from Lysenko himself, emphasis mine:
[...] To us, followers of Michurin, it is clear that seeds of one and the same variety can be by their nature (genotype) better or worse. The nature of plants and animals can be improved or deteriorated. Hence, one of the basic tasks of the local selection stations is to do everything needed to improve, from year to year, the variety from which the elite seed is taken.
Our Soviet Darwinian agro-biological science must work out the scientific bases for the improvement of seed. This is indispensable in order that the elite strains of various cultures produced each year by the selection stations may be better compared to the seeds which they are destined to replace.
A second example: The Mendelians have continually blamed us (and still do), for not appreciating the teachings of Johannsen, and for taking a critical attitude toward this "classic" of biological science. We do not dispute with Johannsen, but with his present day followers. The same, naturally, with Mendel, Why should we disturb him who has departed and is at rest? But with his followers, with those who develop the conceptions of Mendel, we not only dispute, but we reject all their fantasies, because they interfere both with science and with practice.
As a matter of fact, why did we start to raise objections to the Johannsenists? Because the followers of Johannsen-Mendelian-Morganists-forbade by their theory such a practically proved method of improving plant varieties as beneficial selection.
For example, many agronomists and farmers know the spring wheat variety Liuteszens-062. This variety was initiated in 1911 at the Saratov selection station by means of selection of ears of the spring wheat Poltavka. The descendants of the selected ears were sown separately in order to determine which of them was the best. The descendants of one of the ears selected in 1911, having proved the best in the judgment of the selectors as the result of various tests, was called Liuteszens-062.
According to Johannsen's theory of pure lines, as our Mendelians understand it, any further selection of Liuteszens-062 and comparison with the original variety is not necessary. Selection within a so-called pure line, as Johannsen asserted, is ineffectual. But who will believe that the billions of plants of the Liuteszens-062 grown on millions of acres in various regions of the Union in the course of 20 years have not changed, but have remained the same? Who will believe that it is undesirable and unscientific to carry out a selection within such sowings? But a selection has not been carried out. Consequently, for over a period of 20 years, no new improved variety has been produced by means of selection from Liuteszens-062, as was done, e.g., in 1911 by selection from Poltavka.
The Mendelians assert that thanks to the theory of Johannsen individual selection began to be carried out on a wide scale. As a matter of fact, on account of the Johannsenists, beneficial selection in the practice of our selection work was, as a rule, discontinued on collective and state farms. This is why I disputed with Johannsen; not because I don't like Johannsen personally, but because the Mendelians support his theory, and propagandize for it in our advanced courses; and this has resulted in discontinuance of frequent selection and of year to year improvement.
Reflecting on this problem, experimenting, reading not only Mendelians and Morganists, but other authors as well, whose theories contradict the bases of Mendelism-Morganism, for instance such classics as Darwin, Timiryazev, Michurin, Burbank, and others, we came to the conclusion that there can not be pure strains in the absolute sense. [...]
Not only it seems to me a striking contradiction to the commonly notion that he rejected genetics and insisted in some ridiculous infantile marxist-endorsed form of lamarckism, but it pretty much flips things on their head. Apparently Lysenko proposed actually more artificial selection than "mendelianists/morganists", which, on his view, were working under over-simplified assumptions regarding the purity of the lines used on farming. To which some famous and well reputed biologists of the time agreed, like JBS Haldane, here roughly confirming Lysenko's last point quoted above:
[...] His next point, the importance of selection in the F1, or first hybrid generation, is correct if the hybrids are not between pure lines. As we saw, pure lines are ideals which are rarely quite realized, and agricultural varieties may be very far from pure lines [...].
— JBS Haldane, Science and Society, Volume IV, No. 4, Fall 1940
The second text is actually critical of Lysenko, not entirely praising him. The first text is part of a series of speeches, where Vavilov preceded Lysenko, and they had some interactions, such as:
[...] [Vavilov:] Great events have occurred in recent years in the application of the chromosome theory to the sphere of remote hybridization of unrelated forms. What greater miracle can we imagine in our biological science, comrades, than we are witnessing in the transformation of completely sterile hybrids into fertile seed and pollen bearers, accompanied by a reduplication of the chromosomes under the influence of specific factors.
Lysenko: Which factors?
Vavilov: Physical and chemical factors of which we know a great number. Particularly we must note the remarkable work of Academician A. A. Shmuk in our country who founded the theory of chemical induction invoking polyploidy in hybrid and non-hybrid forms. Dozens of chemical compounds are available for this purpose. The latest work of Academician Shmuk, who is unfortunately seriously ill at present, showed that one of these substances is colchicine, a readily soluble compound which acts on many diverse kinds of plants. Physical agents, such as temperature, and biological factors, as for example, the incision of plants, may also be effective. [...] If we study such a property as the baking characteristics of flours from different varieties of grain, it is very difficult to deal with it genetically. But even when we work with complex characters we must be guided by the rules established by Mendel, by the theory of polymorphous characters worked out by Nilsson-Ehle.
I go on to the next point. They tell us: "Stop engaging in sex hybridization. Replace sex hybridization by vegetative hybridization. The latter is much simpler."
Lysenko: Who said that and where did he say it?
Vavilov: In recent months I have had the opportunity of visiting a number of selection stations, and have seen how the work on ordinary hybridization was being abandoned, and the workers, especially the young ones, were engaged particularly with grafts.
Voice: At what station?
Vavilov: For example at the Polar Station.
Voice: There they have abandoned it altogether.
Vavilov: Yes, they have stopped occupying themselves with the hybrids of wheat and barley, and changed over to "vegetative hybridization." The only department where sexual hybridization is still applied, is concerned with potatoes.
As a matter of fact, is it not tempting to take the easier path instead of dealing with distributions, with generations, instead of carrying out long calculations and observations? It is simpler that way. Just graft an unstable variety on a stable sort and even on another stable variety, and then go ahead, multiply the scion on which the stock has to act in corresponding fashion.
M. M. Zavadovsky: Each stalk by itself?
Vavilov: Yes, I must say that here and there, this method is proposed.
Lysenko: Who proposes and where? You have not said that.
Vavilov: I said that this is being practiced in a number of stations.
Lysenko: Who proposes it and where?
Vavilov: Obviously, under your influence. It may be that I have misunderstood. If that is so, I should be extremely glad. In any case, it is your influence.
Lysenko: My influence has lasted only a year; yours has lasted more than twenty.
Vavilov: I don't want to speak either of my influence or yours. I have to speak of the modern point of view, supported by enormous Soviet and foreign experience. I consider it my duty to tell of this as a worker who has devoted three decades to plant husbandry. I consider it my duty to describe the situation in order to get a balanced account. What is happening is a serious disagreement not only with Vavilov, but with contemporary developments of biological science.
Prezent: Including Burbank.
Vavilov: Burbank was theoretically weak. I suppose I had better opportunities than others did to study Burbank and his work and his practical achievements. In the field of theory we need not take Burbank into account.
[...]
Lastly, but not least, some contemporary biologists, dealing not only with biology, but with the aspect of political persecution, which they dispute:
[...] Harper regarded Lysenko as a fraudulent agronomist. We disagree with him on this fundamental point. We are thinking that he was greatly misled by Medvedev’s book, The Rise and Fall of TD Lysenko,2 which he cited in his article. It should be noted that there are many misleading statements in this book. For example, in chapter 8, Medvedev argued against the validity of Lysenko’s work on plant graft hybridization, ... Over the past several decades, extensive experiments on graft hybridization have been carried out and numbers of new crops and varieties were developed by grafting, indicating that graft-induced variant characteristics were stable and inheritable.3 Now it has been proposed that graft hybridization may serve as a mechanism of horizontal (or lateral) gene transfer. Thus, it is not proper to continue to regard Lysenko as a fraudulent agronomist. [...]
Lysenko’s work on the conversion of spring wheat into winter wheat can be explained by transgenerational epigenetic inheritance.6 .... Harper also mentioned Lysenko’s errors and crimes, as well as the death of numerous researchers in genetics.1 The impression which one gets from reading this paragraph is that Lysenko was responsible for the death of these geneticists. We fear that this view is too one-sided and not supported by historical evidence. It is true that Lysenko disputed with Vavilov and many other geneticists on some genetic viewpoints. But we must know that Lysenko was a leading Soviet scientist in agriculture and genetics. He was not the NKVD chief, thus he had no power to arrest geneticists. Lysenko himself repeatedly maintained that he was not personally responsible for Vavilov’s arrest and death. [...]
It is not our intention to minimize Lysenko’s mistakes and to exalt his contributions, but we must try to see things in their right proportion. Actually, some of Lysenko’s work had a certain scientific merit, which was recognized internationally. [...]
— Zhengrong Wang & Yongsheng Liu, European Journal of Human Genetics volume 25, pages 1097–1098 (2017)
Similar simplifications of scientific history also seem to be common on the subjects of mutationism/saltationsm versus gradualism, in itself, but also in ramifications such as its confusion and conflation with punctuated equilibrium and phyletic gradualism, and even on the topic of abiogenesis, where Pasteur is often narrated as giving the last blow to "spontaneous generation", while he thought himself that parasitic worms were either spontaneously generated or a form of xenogenesis, an organism giving origin to an organism of another kind. And, as I said initially, Darwin himself, despite the common didactic contrast to Lamarck, was himself a "lamarckian", having his pangenesis theory of heredity rather than Mendelian genetics. Lysenko seems to be another instance, probably boosted by the potential of a red scare-like usage in ideological discourse.
- Too long to read.
- Please tell us in a few short sentences which changes you want to make in the article. If you do not want any changes in the article, you are on the wrong page. Forums are somewhere else. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:24, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
- I'm not suggesting that any simple change would fix it, but rather that it may be necessary to have a more extensive process of review and editing, based more on primary sources (ideally including direct quotes of Lysenko or pertinent lysenkoists), rather than only/mostly those already speaking of the concept of "lysenkoism", echoing distorted notions, possibly including made-up strawmen. The temporary fix would be to rephrase some definite statements of facts as more explicitly statements of claims/opinions of people/sources addressing "lysenkoism", perhaps contrasted with the respective opposing views. Or maybe an entire "criticism" section regarding such distortions, according to those making points like those of Wang and Liu on Nature. I'll see if I find more about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.234.134.130 (talk) 17:19, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
- See WP:PRIMARY. Primary sources are to be used with care. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:55, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
- I'm not suggesting that any simple change would fix it, but rather that it may be necessary to have a more extensive process of review and editing, based more on primary sources (ideally including direct quotes of Lysenko or pertinent lysenkoists), rather than only/mostly those already speaking of the concept of "lysenkoism", echoing distorted notions, possibly including made-up strawmen. The temporary fix would be to rephrase some definite statements of facts as more explicitly statements of claims/opinions of people/sources addressing "lysenkoism", perhaps contrasted with the respective opposing views. Or maybe an entire "criticism" section regarding such distortions, according to those making points like those of Wang and Liu on Nature. I'll see if I find more about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.234.134.130 (talk) 17:19, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
Reviewer: Guettarda (talk · contribs) 05:05, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
GA Review
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Lysenkoism/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
- It is reasonably well written.
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (reference section):
b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
- a (reference section):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- No edit wars, etc.:
- It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Pass/Fail:
Review
First pass, some thing that jumped out at me
Lead
- para 1:
Lysenkoism began in the late 1920s and formally ended in 1964.
While this bookends Lysenko's career and influence, it feels like a bit of a stretch. Lysenko started calling his techniques Michurinism c. 1935 in an attempt to shoehorn his ideas onto Michurin's. As for the end date, Lysenko remained in his position until 1965, and because it had made its way into textbooks, Lysenkoism continued to have a major impact for another decade or more.
- Yes. Said it was in the mid-20th century.
- The first reference points to the Merriam-Webster dictionary. I don't believe that dictionaries are appropriate sources for the meaning of scientific (or pseudoscientific) concepts, but more importantly, the dictionary entry doesn't support the idea that Lysenkoism is Lamarckism. (It is Lamarckism, or at least Neo-Lamarckism, but the source doesn't support the claim.)
- Removed: we don't need any citation there actually.
- Quotes around "gene", "natural selection" - these aren't actual quotes, and it isn't really a "words as words", so I'd suggest removing them.
- Done.
Lysenko's claims
- While the paragraphs are numbered, this isn't a list. I'd suggest getting rid of the numbers.
- Done.
- This section relies heavily on Charles Leone's 1952 article, and I have my doubts about it as a source. Leone's work is a bit polemic, and it isn't a dispassionate historical look at Lysenkoism - it's written in the thick of things, and is too much of a point-by-point refutation. With another almost 70 years of perspective, I'm not sure we should be relying so directly on Leone.
- Good point. Cut down Leone greatly, added newer sources.
- In particular, I have a problem with this:
In reality, the technique was neither new nor Soviet (it was discovered at Michigan State College in 1854
. The school now known as Michigan State University was founded in 1855 and classes didn't start until 1857. So Leone's date is wrong. Following his usage in terms of naming the school also creates a bit of an anachronism. While it was called Michigan State College when Leone was writing in 1952, it was not called that in the mid-19th century. While one error does not invalidate Leone's work, it does seem like we need to rely on other, preferably more recent, sources.
- In particular, I have a problem with this:
- Removed the mention of the College.
Rise
- The second and third paragraphs of this section lack citations, as does the second half of the fifth paragraph.
- Cited.
Fall
- Reading this, it seems like Lysenkoism fell with Stalin, but both Lysenko's Wikipedia bio and this article suggest that even after Stalin's death, Lysenko remained in favour until the death of Khrusschev.
- The section already says that the ban went only in the mid-1960s, and that there was repression under Kruschev. I've copy-edited the section to make this clearer.
Legacy
- The article suggests that Lysenkoism fell with Lyseenko, but this article discusses a rise in Lysenkoism in modern Russia. Have you considered mentioning this for completeness?
- Done.
Other
- The article has an overlinking problem.
- Removed all per Highlight duplicate links tool.
- This article says Lysenko denied DNA - but DNA wasn't truly "discovered" in popular science until the 1950s, and wasn't popularized until the 1960s - long after these theories began in the 1920s. Not defending these ideas, just pointing out this article makes no sense. Seems to be based around only a handful of sources, primarily one: "Joravsky, David (1986) [1970]. The Lysenko Affair. University Of Chicago Press." Lysenko's theories, some could argue, were not totally incorrect since we later discovered that there are "revolutionary" genetic changes that occur (though via DNA, not by some random force as described in these theories). 2603:7000:8C01:1513:F5EC:38CC:FB6:8C07 (talk) 06:04, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Discussion
Nice article, and good job getting it to this state. I've always found Lysenko fascinating (despite my vast admiration for Vavilov). Guettarda (talk) 05:05, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
- Many thanks, and I'll get to this very shortly. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:11, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
- Looks good Chiswick Chap. Thanks for your work improving this article. Congrats! Guettarda (talk) 17:52, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
- Many thanks, and I'll get to this very shortly. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:11, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:38, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:52, 16 March 2021 (UTC)