Lysenko on the Situation in Biological Science

T. D. Lysenko, Concluding Remarks on the Report on the Situation in Biological Science. August 5, 1948

Comrades! Before proceeding to the concluding remarks, I consider it my duty to declare the following.

I have been asked in one of the memoranda as to the attitude of the Central Committee concerning my paper. I answer: the Central Committee of the Party has examined my report and approved it. (Tremendous applause, passing into an ovation. All rise)

I proceed now to an account of some of the results of our session.

The supporters of the so-called chromosome theory of heredity who have appeared here denied that they are Weismannists and almost called themselves opponents of Weismann. At the same time it has been clearly shown in my report, and in the many appearances of the representatives of the Michurinist movement, that Weismannism and the chromosome theory of heredity are one and the same thing. Foreign Mendelists-Morganists do not conceal it in the least. In the report I quoted passages from articles by Morgan and Castle, published in 1945. In these articles it is directly stated that the basis of the chromosome theory of heredity is the so-called doctrine of Weismann. Weismannism. (and this is idealism in biology) is any idea on heredity recognizing the division of a living body into two principally different substances: the ordinary living body, apparently not possessing heredity but subject to changes and transformations, i.e., to development, and the specific hereditary substance, apparently independent of the living body and not subject to development in relation to the conditions of life of the ordinary body, called a soma. This is indisputable. None of the attempts of the defenders of the chromosome theory of heredity (whether they attended the session or not) to give their theory a materialistic appearance change the essentially idealistic character of this theory. (Applause)

The Michurinist movement in biology is materialistic because it doe's not separate the characteristic or heredity from the living body and the conditions of its life. Without heredity there is no living body, without the living body there is no heredity. The living body and its conditions of life are indissoluble. Should the organism be deprived of its conditions of life, it becomes extinct as a living body. According to the Morganists, heredity is detached and isolated from the mortal living body or, in their terminology, from the soma.

Out of our differences with Weismannism, significant in principle, arises the divergence on the important historical problem 0 the inheritance of acquired characteristics both by plants and animals. Michurinists proceed from the possibility and necessity of the inheritance of acquired characteristics. Voluminous factual material, demonstrated at the present session by its participants, again completely confirms this position. The Morganists, including those participating in the present session, are unable to understand this position not having entirely broken with their Weismannist notions.

For some it is still not clear that heredity is inherent not only in chromosomes, but also in any particle of a living body. Therefore they want, so to speak, to see with their own eyes an example of a transmission of hereditary properties and characteristics from one generation to another without a transmission of chromosomes,

For these problems, incomprehensible to Morganists, it is best and clearest of all to reply with a demonstration and explanation of our widely conducted experiments on vegetative hybridization. Vegetative hybridization was worked out as early as the time of I. V. Michurin. Experiments on vegetative hybridization show indisputably that everything living, all cells and all body particles, and not only the chromosomes, possess heredity. You know heredity is determined by a specific type of metabolism. If you are able to change the type of metabolism of a living body, you will change the heredity.

Academician P. M. Zhukovskii, as is worthy of a Mendelist-Morganist, cannot imagine a transmission of hereditary characteristics without a transmission of chromosomes. He cannot visualize that the ordinary living body possesses heredity. Heredity, according. to his view, is possessed allegedly only by chromosomes. Therefore, he cannot see the possibility of producing hybrids in plants by means of grafting; hence he cannot visualize the possibility of the inheritance of acquired characteristics by plants and animals. I have promised Academician Zhukovskii to show vegetative hybrids and here, now at this session, I will have the pleasure of showing them.

For instance, in the field of grafting, a potato-leaf variety of tomato was used, i.e., with leaves, not crosscut as is usually the case in tomatoes, but resembling potato leaves. The fruit of this variety are red and elongated.

The other variety of tomato involved in the graft has ordinary leaves, as all are accustomed to see on tomato plants-crosscut; its fruit in mature view is not red but white or yellowish.

The variety with the potato-like leaves is used in the graft as a stock (i.e., the other variety is grafted on it), and the crosscut-leaf variety is used as a scion.

During the year of the grafting no changes were observed whether on the scion or the stock.

The seed from the fruit grown on the scion and from the fruit grown on the stock was gathered. The seed collected was then sown.

From the seed which had been collected from the stock's fruit, plants grew which in the main were not different from the original variety, i.e., with potato-like leaves and elongated red fruit. Six of the plants did not have potato-like but crosscut leaves. Several of these plants had yellow fruit, i.e., both leaves and fruit were changed correspondingly to the influence of the other variety, the former graft.

Academician P. M. Zhukovskii has expressed doubt as to the purity of the experiments on vegetative hybridization, indicating that it was possible a cross-pollination of varieties took place here, i.e., sexual hybridization. But try, Comrade Zhukovskii, to explain the results of the experiment demonstrated by me.

It is well known to all having to do with hybridization of tomatoes that in a cross-pollination of crosscut-leaf, yellow-fruit varieties with potato-like leaf, yellow-fruit varieties that in the first generation the leaves must be crosscut, and the fruit certainly red.

And yet what was derived in these experiments? The leaves truly are crosscut but the fruit, you know, is yellow and not red. How is it possible to explain the results described by the usual crosspollination?

Here is fruit of another of the vegetative hybrid plants mentioned. On this plant the leaves are likewise crosscut and the ripe fruit on the cluster, as you see, are of two kinds-one is red and the other yellow. The phenomenon of diversity within the limits of a plant is in general fairly frequently evident among vegetative hybrids. It must be kept in mind that vegetative hybridization is not the usual method of uniting varieties; it is not the procedure which was developed in the process of the evolution of these plants. That is why as a result of grafting organisms are frequently produced which are unstable, and thus diversified.

During the year in which the graft was made and even in the first seed generation, it is not possible to observe in all plants easily recognizable changes. Regardless of this, we already have grounds to assert that there is no grafting of a developmentally young plant which would not produce a modification of heredity. As evidence of this condition we are continuing to carry on work with vegetative hybrids of tomatoes at the Institute of Genetics of the Academy of Sciences USSR.

I proceed to a demonstration of plants of the second seed generation from the same grafting, but from seed collected from plants which did not give visible changes in the first seed generation. The leaves of a series of plants in the second seed generation proved to be changed-in appearance they were not potato-like, but crosscut, and the fruit was not red but yellow. In this case likewise there is no basis to doubt the purity of the work or to speak of the possibility of cross-pollination. As you know, these plants had potato-like leaves and red fruit in the first generation. If it were possible for crosscut leaves to appear in plants of the second generation from cross-pollination, then why is the fruit yellow, and not red?

Thus, we see, that as a result of grafts there are produced directed, satisfactory changes; there are produced plants combining the characteristics of varieties united in grafting, i.e., real hybrids. New growths are likewise observed. For instance, here in the offspring of the same grafting are plants bearing small fruit as in uncultivated forms. But everyone knows that new growths are observable even with sexual hybridization in spite of the transmission of characteristics of the parental forms to the off spring.

It is possible to add many more examples of the production of vegetative hybrids. Without any exaggeration we have hundreds and thousands of them in our country. Michurinists not only understand how vegetative hybrids are produced, but produce them in great quantity on the most diverse crops.

I have dwelt on vegetative hybrids as educational material having unusual illustrative significance. As you know, not only Mendelists, but likewise certain materialists not having seen vegetative hybrids may not believe that any living thing, any part of a living body, possesses heredity in the same way as chromosomes. It is easy to demonstrate the condition mentioned in examples of vegetative hybridization. As you know, chromosomes cannot pass from a stock to a scion and vice versa. No one disputes this. In addition such hereditary characteristics as fruit color, fruit shape, leaf-shape, and others are transmitted from the scion to the stock and conversely. Show us then the sort of characteristics, even in tomatoes, which it would be possible to unite from two varieties into one by means of sexual hybridization and which it would be impossible to unite and which have not been united by Michurinists by means of vegetative hybridization.

Thus, experiments on vegetative hybridization indicate faultlessly that any part of a living body, even plastic substances and saps which are exchanged by the scion and stock, possess hereditary qualities.

Is the role of the chromosomes belittled by what has been said? Not in the least. Is heredity transmitted through chromosomes during the sexual process? Of course, how could it be otherwise I

We recognize chromosomes and do not deny their presence. But we do not recognize the chromosome theory of heredity; we do not recognize Mendelism-Morganism.

I remind the participants of the session: Academician P. M. Zhukovskii promised that if I show him vegetative hybrids, he will believe and will revise his attitude. I have now fulfilled my promise to show vegetative hybrids. But I must remark, first of all, that it has been possible to see such hybrids by the tens and hundreds in our country for more than ten years; and in the second place, is it possible that Academician Zhukovskii, a botanist, does not know what is well known, if not to everyone at least to numerous gardeners, namely, that much has been and is being done in ornamental gardening with the idea of changing the heredity of plants by means of grafting?

Some of the Morganists appearing at the session have stated that, together with the chromosome theory of heredity, Lysenko and his followers also allegedly reject completely all experimental facts achieved by Mendelist-Morganist science. Such statements are not true. We do not reject any experimental facts, including facts regarding the chromosomes.

As to the assertion that the Michurinist movement denies the effect on plants of so-called mutagenic factors--X-rays, colchicine, and others-how can this statement be made? We Michurinists can in no way deny the activity of these substances. As you know we recognize the activity of the conditions of life on a living body. Then why should we not recognize the activity of such rare factors as X-rays or the stronger poison colchicine and others. We do not deny the effect of the so-called mutagenic substances, but :we persistently argue that influences of this type, not penetrating an organism through its development or the process of assimilation and dissimilation, can only in rare instances and then accidentally lead to results useful to agriculture. This is not the path of systematic selection; it is not the path of progressive science.

The long and numerous works carried on in the Soviet Union on the production of polyploid plants with the aid of colchicine and other factors similar in effect have in no degree led to those results which were widely claimed by Morganists.

It was repeatedly said and written that the geranium began to produce seed following an increase of the chromosome set. But this geranium did not go into production, and I as a scientist express the hypothesis that it will not, because propagation of the geranium is markedly more practical by slips. As you know it is possible to sow currants from seed but in practice they are propagated by cuttings. The potato can likewise be grown from seed but planting from tubers is more practical. Usually plants which can be propagated both by seed and cuttings as a rule are propagated by a vegetative method in production.

This does not mean that we do not regard as progress the fact that the geranium produced is capable of producing seed. If not for production, then for selection work this method may prove useful.

That which has been mentioned about the geranium likewise pertains to mint.

About what sort of polyploids do the- Morganists still frequently speak as if about very important achievements? About wheat, millet, buckwheat, and a group of other plants. Yet, ac. cording to the declarations of the Morganists themselves, which we have heard here from the platform (for instance, A. R. Zhebrak), all of these polyploids-wheat, millet, and buckwheat -proved to be for the time being poorly productive as a rule, and the authors themselves are not turning them over to production.

There remains only the tetraploid kok-saghyz. This kok-saghyz is at present being tested in the collective farms in its first year. If it proves to be good, then it becomes clear in itself that it must be introduced into production. As yet, however, according to data of a three-year State variety test, it is not better than the usual diploid varieties, such as Bulgakov's. This year for the first time tetraploid kok-saghyz has been introduced to testing on collective farms. After the passage of two or three years, experience will show how good it is. I sincerely hope that this kok-saghyz proves to be the best of all the forms of kok-saghyz. This will be only to the advantage of production.

At the same time it is possible to forget that among the varieties of cultivated plants are many polyploids with whose origin not only colchicine and all of the "mutagenic" theory, but also in general all the theory of Morganism-Mendelism, has no connection whatsoever. As you know, people did not know for centuries that many good varieties, for instance, of pears, are polyploids. just as large a number of similarly good varieties of pear that we have in production are not polyploid. It is possible even out of one of these facts to reach the conclusion that the category of a variety is not determined by the number of chromosomes.

There are good and poor varieties of hard, 28-chromosome wheat and there are good and poor varieties of soft, 42-chromosome wheat.

Is it perhaps not clear that it is necessary to conduct selection not according to the number of chromosomes, not according to polyploidy, but to good variety characteristics and properties?

After the production of a good variety it is possible to determine the chromosome number. To whom would it occur to discard a good variety only because it proved to be a polyploid or a nonpolyploid? No Michurinist, no serious person in general, can thus raise the question.

Our Morganists, including often those of the present session, as evidence that their theory is effective, frequently refer to such widespread varieties of grain, as, for instance, Lyutestsens 062, Melanopus 069, and some of the other old established varieties, produced so to speak on a basis of Morganism-Mendelism. But, as you know, the development of these varieties has no connection with Mendelism. How, for example, were such varieties as Lyutestsens 062, Melyanopus 069, Ukrainka, and others developed? They were developed by a long-established method of selection from native varieties.

I refer to the words of Professor S. I. Zhegalov. In the work Introduction of Agricultural Plants into Selection, he wrote ... under ordinary agricultural conditions one has to deal not with pure forms but with "varieties," representing more or less complex mixtures of different forms ... Almost the very first, the Spanish botanist Mariano Lahaska turned attention to this fact in the first quarter of the nineteenth century (long before the appearance of Weismannism-T. L.), publishing his observations in Spanish. There is a very interesting story about how he visited his friend, Colonel Le Couteur, at his estate on the island of Jersey; while making the rounds of the estate with the host, he turned the latter's attention to the marked diversity of plants and suggested the idea of making a selection of individual forms for subsequent cultivation in pure strains. Le Couteur made use of this suggestion, chose 23 different forms from his field, and began to test their comparative qualities. As a result of this testing one of the isolated forms was acknowledged as the very best and in the year 1830 was released for sale under the name of a new variety "Talavera de Bellevue"! Similar work has been carried out many times since and has led to the release of many valuable varieties. The principle is a separation of the initial mixtures into their component parts; that is why such a method of selection obtained the name of "analytical selection?'! At present this method is basic in work with self-pollinating plants and is systematically applied by all stations, particularly at the beginning of work on plants formerly little affected by selection. [S. I. Zhegalov, Introduction of Agricultural Plant; into Selection, pp. 79-80. 1930.]

Further, Professor S. I. Zhegalov writes: "The method of analytical selection makes comprehensible the aphorism ascribed to :Jordan 'In order to produce a new variety, it is first necessary to master it.' "[Ibid., p. 83.]

Comrade Shekurdin, was the form of wheat, known now as variety Lyutestsens 062, among the native variety of Poltavka or not? (Voice from the audience: It was, definitely.) It is the same story with the forms which are known as varieties Ukrainka or Melyanopus 069.

And that is why S. I. Zhegalov accepts the aphorism that when utilizing the method of analytical selection to obtain new varieties it is necessary first of all to master them. The varieties indicated, to which our Mendelists refer, were in fact so obtained.

But we Michurinists cannot agree with Professor S. I. Zhelagov-with such an interpretation of Darwinist selection. It is possible to begin selecting plants, even with weak but useful characteristics barely noted, in order to obtain a development of these useful characteristics by repeated selections under proper cultivation and strengthening of plants. As it is clear to everyone, the Darwinist method of selection described by us has no connection with Mendelist-Morganist theories. It should be noted that formerly varieties were brought out only on the basis of the method just described, but even now it is used and will be used. It is a useful method. Practical people--selectionists who use this method success fully--should be appreciated and upheld.

We not only do not reject the method of continuously improving selection; but, as it is well known, we have always insisted on it. The Morganists meanwhile ridiculed improving repetitive selections in grain-growing practice.

Weismannism-Morganism never was and never will be a science which would offer the opportunity to create systematically new forms of plants and animals.

It is characteristic that abroad, for example in the United States of America, homeland of Morganism where it is so highly extolled as a theory, this doctrine is not applied in agricultural practice because of its uselessness. The theory of Morganism is considered by itself, while practice goes its own way. Weismannism-Morganism not only does not reveal the real regularities of animate nature but, being an idealistic doctrine to the core, it leaves an entirely false idea about natural regularities.

Thus, the Weismannist idea on the independence of hereditary characteristics of an organism from the conditions of the surrounding environment has led scientists to the assertion that the property of heredity (i.e., specificity of the organism's nature) is subject only to chance. All the so-called laws of Mendelism-Morganism are constructed exclusively on the idea of chance."

In confirmation of the above I will cite examples.

"Gene" mutations arise, according to the theory of Mendelism-Morganism, by chance. Chromosome mutations likewise appear by chance. The direction of the mutation process as a result of this; is also by chance. Proceeding from these fictitious accidents, Morganists construct their experiments on chance selection of the means of influence on the organism, the so-called mutagenic substances, assuming that by this they will influence their fictitious hereditary substance and hope to obtain by chance that which may be accidentally useful.

According to Morganism, the divergence of the so-called material and paternal chromosomes during the reduction division is likewise subject to pure chance. Fertilization, according to Morganism, does not proceed selectively, but on a principle of chance meeting of the sex cells. Hence, the segregation of characteristics in the hybrid offspring is likewise by chance, and so forth.

In accordance with this type of "science," the development of an organism is not accomplished on the principle of selectivity of conditions of life from the surrounding external environment, but again on the principle of perception of substances received from outside by chance.

In general, animate nature appears to the Morganists as a chaos of chance and torn phenomena outside of essential relations and conformities with the laws of development. Environment is conditioned by chance.

Not being able to reveal the conformity of the laws of development in animate nature, the Morganists have been forced to resort to the theory of probability and, not understanding the concrete content of biological processes, they transform biological science into bare statistics. Not in vain do the foreign statisticians--Galton, Pierson, and now Fisher and Wright-likewise consider themselves founders of Mendelism-Morganism. Probably for this reason Academician Nemchinov declared here that for him as a statistician the chromosome theory of heredity was readily comprehensible. (Laughter, applause)'

Mendelism-Morganism is built only on chance, and with this alone this "science" contradicts the requisite relationships in animate nature, dooming practice to fruitless expectation. Such science is devoid of effectiveness. Systematic work, objective practice, and scientific foresight are impossible on the basis of such a science.

A science which does not give practice a clear perspective, a power of orientation, and a confidence in attainment of practical aims does not merit being called a science. (Applause)

Such sciences as physics and chemistry have freed themselves from chance. That is why they became exact sciences.

Animate nature was developed and is developed on a foundation of the most strict and inherent rules. Organisms and species are developed on a foundation of their natural and intrinsic needs.

By getting rid of Mendelism-Morganism-Weismannism front our science we banish chance out of biological science. (Applause)

We must keep in mind clearly that science is the enemy of chance. (Tremendous applause) That is why the transformer- of nature Ivan Vladimirovich Michurin put forward the motto: "We can not expect favors from nature; our task is to take them from her." (,Applause)

Knowing the practical sterility of their theory, the Morganists do not even believe in the possibility of existence of an effective biological theory, Not knowing A from B in Michurinist science, they have been unable up to now to visualize that for the first time in the history of biology a real effective theory has appeared -the Michurinist doctrine. (Applause)

Proceeding from the Michurinist doctrine, it is possible to foresee scientifically, and ever more and more to free practical plant growers from chance in their work.

I. V. Michurin himself worked out his theory and his doctrine only through the process of the solution of important practical problems, through the process of developing good varieties. Therefore the Michurinist doctrine is in its spirit inseparable from practice. (Applause)

Our collective-farm system and socialistic agriculture have met all the conditions for the flourishing of the Michurinist doctrine. It is necessary to remember Michurin's words: "The history of the agriculture of all times and all peoples has in the person of the collective-farm worker an entirely new being, that of a cultivator who has entered into the struggle with the elements with a wonderful technical equipment and who is attacking nature from the viewpoint of a transformer."[I. V. Michurin, Works, 1, 477, 141.]

I see [wrote I. V. Michurin] that the collective-farm system through which the Communist Party has begun to carry out the task of the restoration of the land will lead working humanity to actual power over the forces of nature.

The great future of all our natural science lies in the collective and state farms. [I. V. Michurin, Works, Vol. 1, p. 477.]

The Michurinist doctrine is inseparable from collective- and state-farm practice. It is the finest form of the unity of theory and practice in agricultural science.

It is clear to us that a broad development of the Michurinist movement is impossible without the collective and state farms.

Without the Soviet order I. V. Michurin would have been, as he himself wrote, "an unknown hermit of experimental horticulture in czarist Russia."

The strength of the Michurinist doctrine lies in its close association with the collective and state farms, in the working out of deep theoretical problems by the method of a practical solution of the important tasks of socialistic agriculture.

Comrades, the work of our session comes to a close. This session is clear evidence of the strength and power of the Michurinist doctrine. Many hundreds of representatives of biological and agricultural science took part in the session's work.

Gathered here from all the corners of our vast country, they accepted an active role in considering the situation in biological science and, convinced by their practical work of many years of the accuracy of the Michurinist doctrine, they wholeheartedly support this movement in biological science.

The present session has shown the complete triumph of the Michurinist movement over Morganism-Mendelism. (Applause)

The present session is in truth a historical landmark in the development of biological science. (Applause)

I believe that I do not err in saying that this session is a great festival for all the workers of biological and agricultural science. (Applause)

Fatherly interest is shown by the Party and the Government for the strengthening and development of the Michurinist movement in our science, and for the elimination of all impediments on the road to its further flourishing. This obliges us to develop the work for the fulfillment of the order of the Soviet people in equipping even more widely and deeply collective and state farms with advanced scientific theory.

We must earnestly place science and theory at the service of the people to increase the fertility of the fields and productivity of animals and to increase the productive efficiency of collective and state farms at an even more rapid tempo.

I call upon all academicians, scientific workers, agronomists, and zoo-technicians to exert all their efforts in dose unity with the leaders of socialistic agriculture for the fulfillment of these great and noble tasks. (Applause)

Progressive biological science is indebted to humanity's geniuses-Lenin and Stalin-that like a golden fund the doctrine of I. V. Michurin has been added to the treasury of our knowledge, to science. (Applause)

Long live Michurin's doctrine, the doctrine of the transformation of animate nature to the benefit of the Soviet people! (Applause)

Long live the party of Lenin-Stalin, which revealed Michurin to the world (applause) and which created in our country all the conditions for the flourishing of advanced materialistic biology. (Applause)

Glory to the great friend and coryphaeus of science, to our leader and teacher Comrade Stalin!

(All rise and applaud for a long time)

Source: Conway Zirkle, ed., Death of a Science in Russia (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1949), pp. 249-261.