Lysenkoism in Poland

This article describes the impact of, and response to, Trofim D. Lysenko’s anti-genetics campaign in Poland between the years 1949 and 1956. It focuses particularly upon the response of three individuals – Teodor Marchlewski, Wac?aw Gajewski, and Aleksandra Putrament – who were central figures in the controversy in Poland. In addition to examining the responses and motivations of these individuals, the article also addresses the question of why the Lysenko-era in Poland ended relatively earlier than in neighboring Soviet-allied states such as Hungary, East Germany or Czechoslovakia, as well as 9?years before Lysenko was forced from power in the USSR. I argue that conditions specific to Polish politics and Poland’s relationship with the Soviet Union, during the Thaw after Stalin’s death, provided the opponents of “Lysenkoism” in Poland with an opportunity to criticize Lysenko, and restore Polish genetics. These conditions are linked to the near-revolution in Poland following the strike in Poznan in June, 1956, and successful transition of power between Edward Ochab and W?adys?aw Gomu?ka the following October.     

How Lysenkoism Became Pseudoscience: Dobzhansky to Velikovsky

At some point in America in the 1940s, T. D. Lysenko’s neo-Lamarckian hereditary theories transformed from a set of disputed doctrines into a prime exemplar of “pseudoscience.” This paper explores the context in which this theory acquired this pejorative status by examining American efforts to refute Lysenkoism both before and after the famous August 1948 endorsement of Lysenko’s doctrines by the Stalinist state, with particular attention to the translation efforts of Theodosius Dobzhansky. After enumerating numerous tactics for combating perceived pseudoscience, the Lysenko case is then juxtaposed with another American case of alleged pseudoscience: the notorious 1950 scandal surrounding Immanuel Velikovsky’s Worlds in Collision (1950, Worlds in Collision. New York: Macmillan). On several levels, the characterization of Lysenkoism as pseudoscientific served as a template for casting other rejected theories, including Velikovsky’s, in the same light.     

Brachyptera Group. Sp.32. C. Brachyptera. Sp.33. C.c RUFA. Sp.34. C. Troglodytes. Sp.35. C. Fulvicapilla.

A part from considerations as to where it is best wedged into the linear sequence, the brachyptera group is defined in general terms as a compact group of four small or very small species which resemble one another in many important specific characters and the other thirty-six species classified here as Cisticola in so many ways of form, coloration and behaviour as to make them best understood by classifying them also under that generic name.     

Robusta-Natalensis Pair. Sp. 30. C. Robusta. Sp.31. C. Natalensis.

T he two giants of the genus-that is so far as the cock birds are concerned, but, as with chiniana and a few others, their hens are so much smaller that even when in the field the two sexes are seen in company one may often doubt their being a pair of the same species.