Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-5mhkq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-09-06T13:11:07.191Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Genetics in the Soviet Union

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2014

P. Parisi
P. Parisi*
Affiliation:
Istituto di Genetica Medica e Gemellologia “ G. Mendel”, Roma

Summary

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Genetics in the Soviet Union has undergone a profound and long crisis, involving the realm of Biological Sciences and Science and Culture as a whole.

This was not merely due to the emergence of neo-Lamarckian Michurinism, claiming the inheritance of acquired characters to be possible and necessary, and the genotype to be plastic and shakable, especially under particular environmental and physiological conditions: this could have been the object of scientific discussions, probably of a controversy, too, just as one century ago, but would have hardly involved matters of principle and of method in Scientific Research, nor would the controversy have degenerated, absurdly giving rise to a “ Western ” and a “ Soviet Science ”.

Two closely connected factors, equally important and equally witnessing a reject of the principles underlying the scientific method, may be considered as the actual source of this partition of Science, namely:

i) The assumption of a primacy of Ideology, thus making Science be submitted to it, and scientific theories be held right or wrong, according to their fitting or not ideological ones;

ii) Violent political pressures and administrative coercion on scientific thought, and on scientists themselves.

Along with such matters of principle, matters of method in research planning and the formulation of results made it impossible to reach a plain evaluation of Lysenko's theories and results.

Now that a normal athmosphere appears to have been re-established for the development of genetic research in the Soviet Union, rejecting, or ignoring the whole of Lysenko's work, could prove just as wrong as Lysenko's reject of Classic Genetics.

Type
Research Article
Information
Acta geneticae medicae et gemellologiae: twin research , Volume 15 , Issue 4 , September 1966 , pp. 409 - 435
Copyright
Copyright © The International Society for Twin Studies 1966

References

V.2. Bibliography

Ashby, E. (1946). Survey of Botany in the Soviet Union. Cit. in: Huxley, 1949.Google Scholar
Ashby, E. (1947). Scientist in Russia. Cit. in: Huxley, 1949.Google Scholar
Ashby, E. (1948). Genetics in the Soviet Union. Cit. in: Huxley, 1949.Google Scholar
Baoarev, A.N. (1953). Miciurin, Grande Trasformatore della Natura. Milano.Google Scholar
Bačurin, A. (1965). Tseny v planovom hozjajstve. Kommunist, 2.Google Scholar
Barnett, S. A. (1958). A Century of Darwin. London.Google Scholar
Beljaev, , (1964). In: Pravda, 11 22.Google Scholar
Bober, M. M. (1937). Karl Marx's Interpretation of History. Harvard.Google Scholar
Cook, R. C. (1949). Lysenko's wonderful genetics. Cit. in: Huxley, 1949.Google Scholar
Coon, C. S. (1962). The Origin of Races. New York.Google Scholar
Crane, M. B. (1949). Lysenko on grafting and genetics. Cit. in: Huxley, 1949.Google Scholar
Croce, B. (1900). Materialismo Storico e Economia Marxistica. Bari.Google Scholar
Darlington, C. D. (1947). A revolution in Soviet science. J. Heredity, 38.Google Scholar
Darlington, C. D., (1859). The Facts of Life. London.Google Scholar
Darwin, C. (1859). The Origin of Species. London.Google Scholar
Deutscher, I. (1949). Stalin: A Political Biography. Oxford.Google Scholar
De Vries, H. (1910). The Mutation Theory. Chicago.Google Scholar
Dobzhansky, T. (1949). The end of genetics in the Soviet Union. Bull. Atom. Scientists, 05.Google Scholar
Dobzhansky, T. (1951). Genetics and the Origin of Species. New York.Google Scholar
Dobzhansky, T. (1952). Evolution, Genetics and Man. London.Google Scholar
Dobzhansky, T. (1956). The Biological Basis of Human Freedom. New York.Google Scholar
Dobzhansky, T. (1962). Mankind Evolving. New Haven.Google Scholar
Dunn, L. C. (1951). Genetics in the 20th Century. New York.Google Scholar
Engels, F. (1952). Dialectique de la Nature. Paris.Google Scholar
Fisher, R. A. (1930). The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection. Oxford.Google Scholar
Fisher, R. A. (1931). The evolution of dominance. Biological Review, 6.Google Scholar
Ford, E. B. (1931). Mendelism and Evolution. London.Google Scholar
Gajsinovič, A. E. (1935). Gregor Mendel i ego predšestvenniki. Moskva.Google Scholar
Gajsinovič, A. E. (1965). Opyty nad Rastitel'nymi Gibridami (G. Mendel): Red. i komment. Stat'ja N. I. Vavilova i B. L. Astaurova. Moskva.Google Scholar
Gavrilov, V. Ju. (1965). In: Literaturnaja Gazeta, 11 24.Google Scholar
Goldman, L. (1952). Sciences Humaines et Philosophie. Paris.Google Scholar
Gurev, G. A. (1960). Darvinizm i Religija. Moskva.Google Scholar
Haldane, J. B. S. (1932). The Causes of Evolution. London.Google Scholar
Haldane, J. B. S. (1938). Heredity and Politics. London.Google Scholar
Harland, S. C. (1949). Cit. in: Huxley, 1949.Google Scholar
Hogben, L. T. (1949). The new authoritarianism. Cit. in: Huxley, 1949.Google Scholar
Hudson, P. S., Richens, R. H. (1936). The new genetics in the Soviet Union. Cit. in: Huxley, 1949.Google Scholar
Huxley, J. S. (1945). Evolutionary biology and related subjects (in the U.S.S.R.). Nature, 156.Google Scholar
Huxley, J. S. (1949). Soviet Genetics and World Science. London.Google Scholar
Iltis, H. (1951). Gregor Mendel's life and heritage. In: Dunn, 1951.Google Scholar
Kanaev, I. I. (1959). Bliznetsy. Moskva.Google Scholar
Kapitsa, H. (1962) Buduščee nauki. Nauka i Žizn’, 3.Google Scholar
Kedrov, B. M. (1965). In: Literaturnaja Gazeta, 11 24.Google Scholar
Keldyš, (1965). In: Pravda, 02 4.Google Scholar
Yu-Nung, Kiang (1958). Problem on the nature of the controversy between the two schools of genetics. Cit. in: Li, 1961.Google Scholar
Kosigin, A. (1964). Report to the USSR Supreme Soviet, 12 9.Google Scholar
Lamarck, J. B. (1809). Philosophie Zoologique. Paris.Google Scholar
Li, C. C. (1961). Genetics and animal and plant breeding. In: Sciences in Communist China. American Association for the Advancement of Science.Google Scholar
Liberman, , Nemčinov, , Trapeznikov, : Piano e Profitto nell'Economia Sovietica. A cura di Lisa Foa. Roma, 1965.Google Scholar
Lysenko, T. D. (1943). Heredity and its Variability. New York, 1946.Google Scholar
Lysenko, T. D. (1948). O Položenie v Biologičeskom Nauke. Moskva.Google Scholar
Lysenko, T. D. (1948 a). Agrobiologija. Moskva.Google Scholar
Lysenko, T. D. (1949). Vlijanie Termičeskogo Faktora na Prodolžitel'nost' Faz Razvitija Rastenii. Moskva.Google Scholar
Lysenko, T. D. (1949 a). Nuove Vie alla Biologia. Roma.Google Scholar
Lysenko, T. D. (1952). Novoe v Nauke o Biologičeskom Vide. Moskva.Google Scholar
Lysenko, T. D. (1952 a). Stadijnoe Razvitie Rastenii. Moskva.Google Scholar
Lysenko, T. D. (1958). Izbrannye Sočinenija. Moskva.Google Scholar
Makarenko, A. S. (1951). O Vospitanij Molodëži. Moskva.Google Scholar
Marx, K. (1867–1994). Das Kapital. Hamburg.Google Scholar
Mayer, C. F. (1961). History of Genetics. In: Gedda, L., De Genetica Medica I. Roma, 1961.Google Scholar
Mendel, J. G. (1865). Versuche über Pflanzenhybriden. Verhandlungen des Naturforschenden Vereines, Brünn.Google Scholar
Mičurin, I.V. (1948). Sočinenija v 4-h Tomah. Red. T. D. Lysenko. Moskva.Google Scholar
Mičurin, I.V. (1951). Oeuvres Choisies. Moscou.Google Scholar
Mičurin, I.V. (1955). Izbrannye Sočinenija. Moskva.Google Scholar
Mičurin, I.V. (1957). Vegetative Hybridization and Mentors. Moscow.Google Scholar
Morgan, T. H. (1932). The Scientific Basis of Evolution. New York.Google Scholar
Muller, H. J. (1927). Artificial transmutation of genes. Science, 66.Google Scholar
Muller, H. J. (1948). The destruction of science in the U.S.S.R. Cit. in: Huxley, 1949.Google Scholar
Muller, H. J. (1951). The development of the gene theory. In: Dunn, 1951.Google Scholar
Nejfach, A. A. (1965). In: Literaturnaja Gazeta, 11 24.Google Scholar
Nemčinov, E. I. (1964). Modeli narodnohozjaistvennogo planirovania. Voprosy Ekonomiki, 7.Google Scholar
Argomenti, Nuovi (1962). 8 Domande sul XXII Congresso del PCUS. 57–58. Roma.Google Scholar
Oparin, A. (1954). Nauka, trud i mir. Sovietskaia Kul'tura, 11 6.Google Scholar
Paramonov, A. A. (1965). In: Literaturnaja Gazeta, 11 24.Google Scholar
Prezent, I. I. (1948). Cit. in: Huxley, 1949.Google Scholar
Prezent, I. I. (1949). Velikij Preobrazovatel' Prirody V. I. Mičurin. Moskva.Google Scholar
Šarov, A. (1965). Zametki o genetike. Znamja, 4.Google Scholar
Segal, J. (1952). Miciurin, Lysenko e il Problema dell'Eredità. Milano.Google Scholar
Sheppard, P. M. (1958). Natural Selection and Heredity. London.Google Scholar
Sinnott, E. W., Dunn, L. C., Dobzhansky, T. (1925). Principles of Genetics. New York.Google Scholar
Struev, A. (1964). Torgovlja i proizvodstvo. Kommunist, 16.Google Scholar
Studitskij, A. N. (1965). In: Literaturnaja Gazeta, 11 24.Google Scholar
Timirjazev, K. A. (1882). C. Darwin i Ego Učenie. Peterburg.Google Scholar
Timirjazev, K. A. (1948–1949). Izbrannye Socinenija v 4-h Tomah. Moskva.Google Scholar
Timirjazev, K. A. (1950). Žizn' Rastenija. Leningrad.Google Scholar
Trotskij, L. D. (1933). Histoire de la Révolution Russe. Paris.Google Scholar
Trotskij, L. D. (1936). La Révolution Trahie. Paris.Google Scholar
Waddington, C. H. (1948–1949). Lysenko and the scientists. Cit. in: Huxley, 1949.Google Scholar
Weissmann, A. (1892). Das Keimplasma. Jena.Google Scholar
Wright, S. (1931). Evolution in Mendelian populations. Genetics, 16.Google Scholar
Zirkle, C. (1946). The early history of the idea of the inheritance of acquired characters and of pangenesis. Trans. Amer. Philosoph. Soc., 35.Google Scholar
Zirkle, C. (1951). The knowledge of heredity before 1900. In: Dunn, 1951.Google Scholar