[
    "the situation in biological science 1 of industry in the uss.r. has been so 'rapid and so striking that there has been a tendeney to regard as the characteristic feature of the developing soviet economy. especially in england, with our overwhelmingly industrial 'cconomy, are we apt to forget that the soviet industrial develop- ment rests on and demands a parallel development in agriculture 'to provide the food for the growing industrial population. the 'progress from socialism to communism ealls forth even greater 'lmtnds om both industry and agit, if \"yo each acoding 'to his work\" isto change into \"to each according to his needs.\" 'ue way in which the young soviet stat wought to ast thie development of agriculture was to give the seience of genetics full 'opportunity to show its value in practice. under vavilov (generally considered a firt-lass geneticist and administrator  'vast nation-wide aystem of experiment stations was set up, ample funds were provided and every possible support was given. we 'now see that in face of this unprecedented opportunity, genetios failed. the decision has now been taken to replace the old fan-morganist genetics by the new michurinist genetics. the ofthis book: i that it shows bow and why this decisioa 'was arrived at; the object of this review is to show why it is im- 'to read and study the book, to try to help towards aa understanding of the decision, to try to expose the absurdity, if not downright wickedness of the picture of a dictatorial decision, pond on slats by plan my taki not to fustily the aeeision or otherwise that wil be the task of the future historian. 1 his agrarian studies, lenin never tied of exposing the fallacy of the bourgeois \"law of diminishing returns.\" rulsian agricultural fsentists, clearly influenced by lenin's writings, have been at pln to show by conerete examples thatthe so-called \"law\" is aa 'rror, due to a failure to apprecinte the iateraction of qualitatively 'iflerent factors (see, for example, v. e. wiliams, principles of <agricature, now available in english translation). 1 this is 0, 'then the possiblities of advance in agricultural production are, in principe, unlit wn the whole mathsiandectrn fal to te \"7 stan ain ania aste of apia se eb say rape, 4h (aes 201",
    "the modern quarterly 'ground. the contrast between this confident soviet outlook. and the prophets of woe, specially in america, who see the only hope of survival of the human racein famine, pestilence and atom bombs to remove \"surplus\" peoples probably the clearest example of the induence of soviety on seientists. 'what is important to our argument is the importance of inte grating the advances in agricultural technique: the erroneous cw\" of diminishing returns reste on a too mechanical analysis, 'considering the action of factors one at a time accurately enough dut failing to see how they interact, conversely, the way to avoid the operation of this restrictive \"law\" is through planned, all 'ound improvement #0 that no factor is held back in producing its full effect because other factors are becoming limiting. herein lies, 'one of the essential differences between socialist development and cepitalit growth. tis this concept of planned, all round improvement which is at 'the heart of the travopmlye system, based on the work of russian soil scientists and plant physiologists, two feds of study in which 'russia bas long held a leading place. briefly, it consists in the use fof sown grasses and legumes to provide forage and improve soil structure, cultivation with the right implements and at the right times to maintain the structure, correct use of erop rotations, of stock, of fertilisers, of shelter belts and so on. it bears some re- 'semblance to the british practice of ley farming but is far les 'one-sided in that neither the sown grasses nor any other feature is regarded as the pivot or keystone: the central feature of the travopalye system is the ion of all features so that the 'maxim return is obtained from the labour expended. clearly this isa system peeulinly appropriate for  socialist country with, collective agriculture, the breath-taking soope of the great shelter- 'et programme gives an indication of the incaleulable advances 'which i is destined to produce. the tennessee valley authority is the nearest thing the eapitalist world has produced, but even it 'the exeeption which proves the rule that planned advance isin principle impossible under capitalism. its very success was enough to.evoke organised opposition and kill ue misisippi scheme, whieh might have been comparable with the soviet progeamme for don 'and volga, a more typical eapitalist efor is the groundnut flasoo.. \"another factor in this drive to increase productivity, a fhotor which ocoupies a special place, isthe soviet people, incomparably 'the most valuable astetof the union of sovict socialist republics. the situation in biological science in stalin's words, \"cadres decide everything.\" the soviet worker {snot merely an item on a balance sheet, selling his inbour power for a capitalist to exploit. he is a living, human being actively fand consciously building communism, a new civilisation. he has 'to know where he is going, to understand and participate in the technical and acientie advances involved in that progress. \"the first important point to note about the book is that all these aspects are covered by it. they are important in themselves, but 'important if the new trend in biological seienceis to be lunderstood, in the discussion at thelenin academy of agricultural sciences, soviet workers, administrators and scientists discussed all these aspects with the utmost freedom and we have the opportunity of studying the discussion in an extremely good translation. 'the seeond important point about the book is that the exposition and elaboration of the michurinist approach to the problems of heredity and development, given by academy president t. d. llysenko and many others, are not merely clear, uncompromising 'and unambiguous, but are related to the aspects we have briefly indicated and to many other more immediately practical aspects 'of agriculture as well as to biological science in general, both, bourgeois and soviet, tt is clear from lysenko's definition of heredity as the capacity to require definite conditions for develop- 'ment, that the intereelations of heredity and environment have the central place in michurinst biology and it becomes clear as the giseussion continues that here i its great strength, on the basis of this theory, soviet workers ofall kinds testify, their understanding of the qualitative features of plants and animals has been deepened land extended and their control of them correspondingly increased. formal genetics, on the other hand, shows how to handlediferences in breeding work but fails to develop this understanding of the differences themselves, especially if one asks how they are inte: fated in the living organisms, inseparable, while it is growing and veloping, from its environment. te would be unprofitable in this review to elaborate the theo- retical differences between michurinism and mendes. 'the former ie developing 50 rapidly that a detailed comparison might be out of date before it was completed, the inter, if we may judge by a comparison of the 1089 and 1948 international congresses, is badly bogged down at present, but does nevertheless contain the intemal contradictions which may make its further advance possible, the most important theoretical difference between the",
    "the modern quarterly 'ovo theories isthe refusal ofthe michurinists to accept a bard and fast distinction between genotype and phenotype, leading to their acceptance of the inheritance of adaptive changes and of graft hybridisation. the important practical difference lies in the em- phasis on studying the onganism's development in relation to the environment, 'the book shows very clearly how much more appropriate this method is forth towards a new soviet 'agriculture. the conoept of mendelian genetice as a general theory 'of breeding equally valid for all higher organisms with sexual reproduction, regardless of the special features of those organist, is wel adapted to the needs of specialist research workers and, 'pecially, of scientific bureaucrats. even in capitalist: countries its wealmesses become more evident in proprtion as practical improvements aresought, because here the qualitativefeaturesof the organism become all-important. in asocalist eountry, with radically diferent concepts of labour and ofthe relation between theory wad 'practice, events have shown this approach to be quite inadequate. 'these ideas may sound controversial to the nglish reader, bat 'the book shows that they are no longer controversial inthe us.s.r. nobody taking part in the diseussion was concerned to defend {formal geneties. what was controversial there was whether the two trends could continue side by side, with the mendel-morgenist approach predominating in the universities and some research, institutes, the michurinist approach dominant in other research, institutes and on the collective farts. a quite casual perusal of 'the book is enough to show that such a situation could not last without the most harmful effects on the unity of theory and practice. it also shows how soviet scientists, administrators and workers themueler decided to end it. remembering that while the aiscussion was proceeding the reports of it were fling the eolumns of soviet newspapers, we are foreed, if we are still eapable of facing facts, to conclude thet this was an outstanding example of demoo- racy in science, 'when we tum from these general considerations to the more special aspects of the discussion, we find equally strong rensons \"why everybody eoncemed in any way with the seience of biology should study the book. t can only point to some of them, much food for thought is provided by the striking similarity between stockbreeding methods in the ussr. and in britain, plant- breeders will ind the discussion of the application of michurin's 'methods and principles to agricultural erops most stimulating. we 04 the situation in biological science note again certain basic similarities between soviet and enpitalist plant breeding, but also certain new methods. we seem to note some reluctance on the part of plant breeders to take part in the discussion, as though some of them were not yet fully convinced, 'the rye-breeder, dolgushin, however, made e very illuminating 'contsibution which very concisely demonstrates certain weaknesses fof the mendelian approach. on the question of evolutionary theory, the report is again very stinmalating. for example there isso drastic a re-evaluation of the significance of lamarck that from now on it will no longer be possible to damn a theory with the simple ibel, \"lamarekism.\" marxist students of evolution (and no serious marist ean afford to neglect evolution) will find much to ponder concerning the dia- tectie relationship between the organisin and environment in development, in heredity and in evolution. other sides of bio- gical science are covered by various speakers. \"to sum up, the report gives a clear, instructive and stimulati account of a most fundamental turning point in the history of soviet science and possibly of world science. it is essentially a 'human picture, built up by the protagonists themselves in their own words; their individual characteristics, flings, strong points, 'nimosities, humour are all there, adding to the fascination of th book and effectively disposing of the \"dull-uniformity-of socal rype of propaganda. any account of geneticists stricken with terror will henceforward bring only ridicule to its invent ts main value is for the general render and consists in the light it throws on soviet society in general and on the advance of soviet agriculture and soviet culture in particular. biologists will find it an intensely, almost painfully, stimulating book and will be driven by it to re-examine their own work. of the biologists, those directly concerned with practical application will find the hook of especial value, for whether they accept the michurinist. trend eagerly or maintain reservations, the work reported here and the new methods of approach eannot be ignored. i 't would take a leng review to do justice to this book. it covers 'jot of ground; problems of animal and plant breeding, the principles of rotational eropping, the comect use of fertilisers, eytology, celbiochemistry and the theory of the gene all receive 205 3l pym,",
    "the modern quarterly attention, but itis not so much the breadth of the field covered in discussion that is remarkable as the breadth of outlook shown by the participants. we are frequently over-specialised inthis eountry fand its unusual and stimulating to read the speeches of people \"ho are trying to understand nature, and the practical problems _ 'of the control of nature, in all their tue complexity. 'the polemical vigour may be unpalatable to some, but it would 'not have appeared out of place to an english intellectual of the 'ighteenth century. in any ease, the polemical style in no way con- 'eals the fact that theoretical iaues of the greatest importance to the future of biological science are involved. \"though the diseussion was allowed to develop in a broad field, 'one theme was of special importancethe attack on the theory of the gene, in an intervention, lyteako protests when professor lm. polyakov takes up the views of lyseako on intra-specific 'competition\". the question of intra-specific competition is not 'aly' second-rate but even third-rate question in our controversy the ise in the sigoifleance of environment for the organism, the evolution of variability.\" so, although many intriguing pro- 'lems are raised, this review will concem itself oaly with the criticism of the theoretical basis of geneties as we know it considerable variation in detail may be detected between the theoretical views of leading geneticists but there is fairly general fagreement nowadays on certain basi principles. put briefly and goubtless rather erudely, these are as follows. 'the likenesses between parent and offspring are determined by the distribution from pareat to offspring of certain genetic material. this material is particulate, the particles being known as genes, which are, in the main, arranged in linear order on certain well-defined organs in the nucleus of the cellthe chromosomes. it is considered that these genes, nucleoprotein in chemical nature, owe their specific properties to their specific chemical constitution. occasionally [eene may change, by an apparently random process known 03 iutation, and this change may be refcted, in the offspring receiving this changed gene, in a changed physiological or morpho- logical character. consequently the inherited characters of an frgenism depend primarily on the nature of the genes passed to it 'on the chromoromes of the gametes involved in the sexual repro- guctive processes of its parents. some of the earlier mendelians regarded a given gene as rigidly determining a certain character dut it has now for some time been recognised that, in the develop- 26 'the situation in biological science 'ment of an organism, the genes it has received interact with one fanother and with the products of environmental conditions, to produce the characters of the mature organism. thus a gene may rxpress itself differently under different circumstances, but, as the american geneticist muller has been at pains to make clear in his rocent pilgrim trust lecture on \"the gene\" (proe. roy. $0 (b) 184, 1, 1047), these interactions are of gene ffecs only, the igenes in the process of self-reproduction and passage from parent {fo offspring remaining independent of one another and of environ- ental conditions. thie rigid distinction between phenotype and genotype, this belief in the insulation of the gene from its environ ihent, isthe aspect of genetical theory attacked by the michurinists. 'their theoretical altack is very weighty and must surely make 'anyone stop to think, ail scientific investigation of resent years, fabove all in the field of biology, has emphasised the inter-con- nectedness of phenomena and the importance of processes. for 'ceample the ature of the vegetation in any given situation, and the historical changes in the vegetation, are the consequence of imulifold effects of organisms upon one another, of mutual inter- ftetions between organisms and soil conditions, of mutual inter- 'tctions between organisms and climate, and so on. or again in the study of cell-metabolism, one may for convenience separate the processes taking place under such eategoricy'as respiration and, ditrogen metabolism, or one may distinguish between processes of synthesis and processes of degradation, but the reat pleture is one fof great complexity, all these processes being linked in a web of feactions, so that in fact the molecular groupings composing the 'protein of the cell are never the same from one moment to the hext, but the gene, we are asked to believe is unique in the whole patural world in that, though admittedly chemically reactive, itis, [bolated from this flux and, unlike everything else around it in the 'cel is utterly unaffected in its essential properties by all surround ing processes and changes, the effects of the gene may interact withthe effects produced by environmental change, but the gene melt is an unalterable and stationary rock in a raging sea of change 'tnd motion, the michurinists say that they eannot believe in such f situation; it is, they say, an undialectical conception quite out of 'accord with all our knowledge of nature. now that it is pointed out to.us, itis difficult to disagree. 'the michurinists'ertieiem of the gene theory was based on doubts aroused by experimental observations. it is obvious from 7",
    "the modern quarterly the book that a weslth of significant experimental work exists, 'well known to all the participants in the diseussion, unfortunately 'we know little ofthe details of these experiments and all we get is 'series of fascinating glimpaes, nevertheless itis posible to give 'some idea of the kind of work on which their erticism has been 'based. the present writer confines his attention to the botanical ~ examples, this being the feld most familiar to him. \"there is frst of all the evidence from vegetative hybridisation. apparently there are now many examples of hereditary changes induced in either stock or scion after grafting procedures. no answer to demonstrations of such experiments was made by the \"orthodox\" geneticists attending the conference. tt is difficult to find any reason for rejecting these results exeept that they fail to 'agree with preconceived theories and that is not good reason, tl. prezent tells an amusing story of the passers-by who leaned, 'over the fence round the plantations of the timiryazey academy fand picked and ate the fruit from some tomato plants. unfor- tsinately, these originated from flowers of tomato. grafted on datura stramonium stocks; the capacity to synthesise poisonous. 'alkaloids had been transmitted to the \"tomatoes\" and the passers by miche their experiment in hospital the proof ofthe pudding isin the eating! 'then there is the work on \"training\" plants by exposing them, over several generations, to new environmental conditions at fcrtain stages of their development. lysenko and other speakers aesoribe experiments in which a spring wheat, characterised by law resistance to winter conditions, was changed by such a process of training into a winter wheat, characterised by resistance to winter conditions and falure to forin ears if sown in spring. this starting tcange, in which s hard, durum, 20-chromosome wheat was transformed into. soft, 'oulgare, 42-chromosome wheat, was discontinuous, without the formation of intermediates. this experimental claim has caused much astonishment and even balay in this country; the kindest erities have suggested that the 'stocks of wheat used in the ist place were mixed, less kind erties thatthe result was faked, time will show who is ight; meanwhile, 'an equally astonishing change will be diseassed below, which has 'been observed in lahoratories both in england and america. tn addition to providing their own experimental evidence uhat characters may be inherited in a non mendelian way, in eireur- tances where the chromosomes are unlikely to intervene, and that 28 'the situation in biological science 'with suitable experimental methods (contrasting remarkably with ome of the methods used by geneticists to increase the mutation tate) adaptive changes may be induced in an organism and trans- imitted to offspring, the michurinists point with effect to data 'obtained by workers in other countries. much of the apparent {olidity of the gene theory is based on the close parallels ssid to 'exist between the behaviour of the chromosomes during meiosis fand the segregation and. distribution of inherited characters; ll. prezent quotes with elle the damaging blows at the chromo- 'some theory recently made by the american cytologsts b. c. 'elfry and f, schrader (science, october fed, 1947; ibid, february 8th, 1048). again, several contributors mention the growing 'umber of eases of non-mendellan inheritance which are nowadays. explained by various subsidiary hypotheses to the clasical gene theory. they pointed out, however, that the theoretical explana= tions evolved by geneticists to account for those facts, being based fon e variant of the gene theory, were quite dstinet from michur- in conclusion it is interesting to consider certain recent work. carried out in this country, not in the main field of genetical research, which has a bearing on the poiats at issue. in recent years biochemists have directed much attention to micro-organisms; there brevery reason to believe that their fundamental processes of cell: 'metabolism are comparable with those of higher plants and animals tind they are very convenient working materials. geneticist, too, fare devoting more and more sttention to them. recently, work on 'adaptation to drugs has achieved prominence, partly beosuse of its ebvious practical significance. the fact i, that if  population. of bacteria fs grown in the presence of a sublethal dose of a drug, ft measure of resistance frequently develops and by increasing the dose of the drug in steps a strain of the organism may be obtained 'hich is highly resistant to the drug. 'e. f. gale (j. gen, microbiol, 8, 127, 1940) has recently pubs lished some work on adaptation of staphylococcus aureus to pedi cilln, pencil isa speifie drug affecting certain bacteria in very tow concentrations and others searecly at all. by and large, the 'pnicilin-sensitive organisms poses certain characteristic stain- jag reactions (so-called gram-positive) and, for growth and multi plication, have to be supplied with a varity of amino-acids, being tnable to synthesise them for themselves: on the other band igromnegatice organisms which do not show the staining reaction 290",
    "the modern quarterly and are astrtioally nomexacting, are generally restant to peneilin, gal, in the proceso rising his stophylooror aureus {which is 'a \"grampostive, \"mutritionlly'eectingy spherical 'rgaism) to grow in the prestnee of ever-increasing eovcentrations ft peicli, found that st a certain tage a cncotinuous change took place, and his organism had become gran negative, nate tionally non-exacting, and rod-shaped! any systematic acter 'logit wonld gre that this a change of fr greater magne in 1 ge of pig whe nt wet 'there are roughly two ways of interpreting the body of know ledge of hacer traning inning the spec case deserted, michuinists would postulate direct action of the drug on the 'rganisation of the cll, producing s heritable adaptive response. mendelian geneticists povtolate \"a simple. section of chance stations invlving several gens, but al they bave been able to do to support this view is to show that, with certain accosry hypotheses, the observations col be explained on such a basis professor sis cyril hinshelwod, physical chemist at oxford who tas been responsible for much valusle work on the kinetic of drageedapttion in. bacteria, ssewsing' this phenomenon, of 'raling and is explanation, say \"hth suite usiioy asramption [any ialicep. w. b.] some fra ofthe setetion hypothesis ean be made to acco for nearly all the fects; but is eens these auxiliary assumptions themselves appear to inctenein artitrerinss and complet ae 'one proce, that one concoes by declining the rn these limprobabe\" (c. n. hinshelwood, 'chemie kinafes of bacerial cell, oxford, 1018). he then proces o offer @ mich more simple explanation based on \"dec ection ofthe new envionment in causing (a) the opera tion of alternative modes of growth (2) the quantitative tctease cf certain parts af the cellmaterial, (the dusatitative modifeae tion inthe textre and coafguration of certain perts of the ell 'material, (2) move of celldivcion likely to fevour growth in the few environment.\" this point of view, unorthodox tough it may tei sapported by @ mas of experimental evidence. the analogy wih the view of the michurinnts in an analogous ei sting further, hishelnood!'s ertcinm of the overcahorstion of mex dinn explanations of tsning i essay sia to that made by n. vs turbinin the soriet disouions, dealing with cureat fenctial explanations of non mendian inheritance 200 | | the situation in biological science \"the appearance of these new ideas, of the new hypotheses of 'morganist genetics, isin itself stxiking evidence that some of the 'prominent adherents of this theory of genetics, who up tll now have ignored the facts obtained by michurinists and which under- 'mine their theory, are themselves coming up against such facts 'more and more often, but they are incapable of breaking away from the fundsmental pscudoscientifie dogma of mendelist 'morganist genetics, from the theory of a hereditary substance; they are incapable of drawing correct conclusions from these facts, these scientists are trying to save the bankrupt: meta physical dogma sbout a hereditary substance by means of various supplementary hypothe.\" [my italiesp. w. b.] both hinshelwood, in his book, and turbin, in the soviet dis. cussions, call attention to. the numerous sccessory hypotheses needed by the mendelians to account for certain biological bserva- tions. hinshelwood's explanation of bacterial training is essentially the same as the michurinist explanation of \"training\" of higher plants. tf by calling attention to this parallel, the present writer 'has helped to convince readers that the michurinists have a serious scientific ease, he wil be satisfied. the book under review is at present the best entry into michurinist literature nore ince rt en me rr ear hes n oo gi vig than he best br aia 2 sn tt om preeti aes ws ses seer te emit atin een ocean tact rac tet content of the ratroms sows mill sald tbe se pat o mot thatthe igh yi cows ofthis kostoma tweed havea king sib cfabining im iso boye. i a0"
]