[Lysenkoism in Polish botany]
Piotr Köhler
Abstract:Lysenkoism in Poland was never an autonomous phenomenon. The whole array of reasons for which it appeared in Polish science would require a separate study--here it only needs to be pointed out that the major reasons included terror on the part of the security service, lawlessness, the ubiquitous atmosphere of intimidation and terror, censorship, the diminishing sphere of civil liberties, political show trials, propaganda and denunciations. An important role in facilitating the introduction of Lysenkoism was played also by the reorganization of science after World War Two, the isolation of Polish science from science in the West, as well as the damage it had suffered during the war. At first, Lysenkoism was promoted in Poland by a small group of enthusiastic and uncritical proponents. A overview of the events connected with the ten years of Lysenkoism in Poland (end of 1948--beginning of 1958) shows a two-tier picture of how the 'idea' was propagated. The first tier consisted in the activities of the Association of Marxist Naturalists [Koło Przyrodników-Marksistów], which it engaged in since the end of 1948. The Association was later transformed into a Union of Marxist Naturalists, and this in turn merged, in 1952, with the Copernican Society of Polish Naturalists [Polskie Towarzystwo Przyrodników im. Kopernika]. It was that society which promoted Lysenkoism longest, until the end of 1956. The propaganda and training activities of the circle and the society prepared ground for analogous activities of the newly formed Polish Academy of Science (PAN), which--since its very establishment in 1952--engaged in promoting Lysenkoism through its Second Division. These activities were aimed at naturalists, initially at those who were prominent scientists (eg. the conference at Kuźnice, 1950/1951), and then at those who were only starting their academic career (including national courses in new biology at Dziwnów, 1952, or Kortowo, 1953 and 1955). The end to promoting Lysenkoism by PAN came with the Sixth General Assembly of its members on June 11-12, 1956. The second tier of propagating Lysenkoism consisted in activities aimed at the general public, including the teaching of creative Darwinism (obligatory for pupils of various levels of education), in the school years 1949/50-1956/57. There were few botanists who published studies in Lysenkoism: only 55 persons did so. Among them, there were only a few botanists who could boast of significant previous scientific achievements--they included Stefan Białobok (1909-1992), Władysław Kunicki-Goldfinger (1916-1995), Edmund Malinowski (1885-1979), Konstanty Moldenhawer (1889-1962), Józef Motyka (1900-1984), Szczepan Pieniazek. A majority of the authors of publication in Lysenkoism were young scientists or people who did publish anything later on. Basing on the available bibliographies, it is possible to ascertain that there were ca. 140 Lysenkoist botanical publications (out of the total of 3410), i.e. 4.1% (fig. 1) of all the botanist publications in Poland in that period. Their number in the years 1949-1953 was higher than in the next period, and oscillated between 15 and 24 publications annually (fig. 2). The percentage of Lysenkoist studies among all publications in botany published each year was highest in 1949 (11.5%), and decreased systematically in the following years (fig. 3). Lysenkoism was a marginal phenomenon in Polish botany. Among the Lysenkoist publications, most summarized papers delivered at successive conferences, or consisted in reprints of Soviet studies. A significant group was made up of publications popularizing the principles and achievements of Lysenkoism (on the basis of Soviet publications). There were relatively studies presenting the results of research conducted in Poland on the basis of Lysenko's theory. Botanists who remember those times recollect that topics connected with Michurinian-Lysenkoist biology were avoided. It is symptomatic that not a single Lysenkoist study was published in Acta Societatis Botanicorum Poloniae, the scientific journal of the Polish Botanical Society (out of the total of 359 articles published in the years 1948-1958). The attitudes of Polish botanists towards Lysenkoism varied. A great majority, i.e. ca. 96% of all botanists, dealt with research topics that did not require direct references to Lysenkoism and did not publish any Lysenkoist studies. A few botanists did publish studies based on the tenets of Lysenkoism. Some did so in a sincere belief in the validity of the theory (e.g. Aniela Makarewicz (1905-1990) or Szczepan Pieniazek). A number of botanists, who did not want to be exposed to harassment, avoided explicit endorsements of the theory or, whenever possible, used the "shield" of Soviet science. This consisted in using quotations from the classics of Marxism and Lysenkoism , both in papers delivered at conferences and in written publications. These references were a kind of levy paid in order to put vigilance of the censorship to sleep or to avoid non-substantive criticism. Other botanists (very few in number) took a hostile stand on Lysenkoism, which was a thing that required courage. The consequences for a university professor included being deprived of one's chair and being banned from publishing (this was, for instance, the case Prof. Wacław Gajewski (1911-1997)). The role of censorship should not be underestimated--it may be due to its activities that only isolated studies engaging in polemic with Lysenkoism, or trying to show the fallaciousness of its tenets, appeared in the first half of the 1950s. The content of publications was also affected by editors and editorial boards: as a result of their intervention, authors were forced to include obligatory quotations from the classics of Marxism and Lysenkoism in their articles. Since the current paper is based predominantly on publications, the strength of the opposition to Lysenkoism may be undervalued. It is well-known, not only from oral testimony, that the times of Lysenkoism were a terrible period in Polish botany, with all kinds of pressures exerted on botanists who did not adopt it. Fortunately, no Polish botanists lost their lives. The Lysenkoist period in Polish botany retarded the development of many of its branches. In the last fifty years many of the setbacks have been made up for, but it is in the biological education of the general public that Lysenkoism has had a more serious effect. Several generations of young people failed to be introduced to genetics, or at least its foundations, at any level of schooling. Instead they were inculcated with the erroneous belief of man's limitless possibilities in transforming nature, including the view that species can be shaped freely in line with economic needs. (ABSTRACT TRUNCATED)