Talk:Trofim Lysenko/Archive 1

Archive 1

Old talk

I removed a lot of the preexisting text because much of it was suspect if not just wrong (i.e. the notion that after WWII Stalin rejected "science" as a whole -- that is pure nonsense despite his presumptuous leaning in on certain scientific questions, anyway Lysenkoism is BEFORE WWII anyway so it's hardly the way to start out a "Biography" section, is it?). As it was the only facts about Trofim Lysenko's life were scattershot and potentially quite false. Maybe I'll get time to add in some actual facts later but we'll see. Until then it is a biostub in my opinion. What this article should have:

• Where/when was he born?
• Where did he go to school? How did he get involved in agriculture?
• When did he get involved in politics? How?
• The ups and downs of his political career/influence/Lysenkoism.
• After Khruschev rejects Lysenkoism, what happens to Lysenko?
• Where/when did he die?

Most of these are pretty straight questions (many of the print sources in Lysenkoism cover this). As it stands though the article was more likely to misinform than to inform. --Fastfission 06:06, 12 October 2004 (UTC)

Nevermind, I edited it to more or less my satisfaction. Could still use a lot of biographical facts but I'm happier with this as a basic article than what was there before. --Fastfission 15:53, 12 October 2004 (UTC)

can you see this paper?

Can anyone else Google:doi:10.1038/35088598 or is it just because I'm at uni? Dunc_Harris|☺ 13:38, 12 October 2004 (UTC)

Sakharov

Wasn't Andrei Sakharov also crucial in discrediting Lysenko? I remember there was quite a lot about that in his Memoirs, which I unfortunately don't have handy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joke137 (talk • contribs) 13:39, 5 April 2005 (UTC)

If I remember -- and I likely don't -- I think he was one of many Soviet scientists who started to openly attack Lysenko in the early 1960s. I can double-check that though. --Fastfission 22:25, 5 April 2005 (UTC)

Well, I added it in because it seems important. It occupies quite a bit of Sakharov's Memoirs, although I don't know the context that well. --Joke137 18:28, 6 April 2005 (UTC)

I could've sworn there was something about it in Sakharov Speaks, but that's out of print now and I don't know what I did with my copy. The subject of the book was the importance of intellectual freedom in science, so I suspect that was it. But yes, I believe Sakharov did at least say he was influential in the downfall of Lysenko. Fearwig 19:56, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Nectarines...

There was a recent BBC biography of SF author John Wyndham in which it was presented as fact that Lysenko "Invented" the nectarine through experiments involving radiation. Presumably this is untrue! Presumably, also, it is a myth which has legs, in order to fool the researchers for a BBC TV program (or am I being naieve?) - it might be worth mentioning. 62.69.54.97 20:42, 14 November 2005 (UTC) Andy Jones

Hmm, probably not, see nectarine. We have higher standards than the BBC, er... Dunc|☺ 20:52, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, BBC might be referring to newspaper reports or something similar from the period. The problem is that these were bogus propaganda, perpetuated by popular enthusiasm. For a few years, people would have told you Lysenko had invented the cabbage and the reindeer, too. Fearwig 22:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Merge proposal

The two articles are extremely heavily overlap. There is almost nothing to say in Lysenko's bio but about his Lysenkoism. mikka (t) 01:29, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

• I don't know... they aren't exactly the same thing though this is a lot of overlap. Hmm. Let me think about this a little. --Fastfission 01:53, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
  • At least a very clear cut must be done. mikka (t) 02:05, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

The answer here is that the bio needs to be more solidly rooted in chronology, and while it should make regular note of Lysenkoism it shouldn't try to lay out precisely what it means. Alternatively, we can merge. We're getting overlap because the people writing each article weren't looking at the other. Fearwig 22:09, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

This article is complete bs

Lysenko was a scientist with a practical mind. Types of grain developed by him and his team are still in use in Russia and other former soviet republics.

Lysenko developed those grains like Russians invented the lightbulb. Positive views of Lysenko's work are the perpetuation of folk myths. His theories were impracticable, his methods were unscientific, and his results were inconsistent and (reportedly) often forged. Fearwig 19:58, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

• The name Lysenko and "scientist" don't belong in the same sentence. His tenure was a terrible setback for decades of science, and proof that political force and lack of education can never displace true science. The Stalinist notion that anyone in a position of power is some sort of "genius" is a naive and pernicious one, soundly put to rest by history.Landroo 22:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Matter of fact is, Lysenko did develop grains that are still in use in Russia and other formerly soviet countries. The reasons for him getting slandered are understandable if one ventures into history of Soviet sciense... PS> Light bulb was a cooperation between several Russian and American scientists... With respect, Ko Soi IX 04:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

If you read this article attentively you notice that there is no any proof given for any accusations against Lysenko. The only political propaganda. No documents, no citation of people in this field. He is made monster just for his eagerness to feed starving nation. He was not interested in pure truth maybe, he was interested to invent grains with more yield to feed people.

Very monstrous indeed. --Zha 10:20, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Objectivity or POV from sources?

While the article isn't "complete bs" (see above), I have to say it doesn't come across as purely objective. Lysenko's science has been debunked by modern understanding (and indeed contemporary understanding), but sentences like--

"Lysenko's 'science' was practically nonexistent. When he had any clearly formed theories, they were generally a mishmash of Lamarckism and various confused forms of Darwinism"

--really ruin the encyclopedic tone. It's also a generalization and in some ways a misrepresentation. Lysenko's following often accused the "menshevizing idealists" (his detractors) of harboring Darwinian ideals. Social Darwinism was considered the philosophy of the capitalist bourgeoisie, and by connection so were aspects of scientific Darwinism (note the overlap between social philosophy and science, really interesting stuff in the context of communist theory). Another problem with this article is that a lot of the contemporary critics of Lysenko had been personally affected by his personality cult, many had seen friends committed or imprisoned. Medvedev is a prime example. While it's only logical to note the inconsistencies in Lysenko's methods, there is a lot of hearsay here, and the controversy was really heated at the time, some of it too much so to be reliably citable. Having written some historiographical criticisms on Medvedev, I can tell you there's a lot in The Rise and Fall to be doubted. Because of that, I think the article needs to be a little clearer in terms of sourcing statements. You can say that he has been accused of falsifying results, for instance, but you shouldn't just say he falsified results. Fearwig 20:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I see exactly what you are disputing about the sentence, other than its tone? Much of the article is consistent with the work done by people like Joravsky and Graham, which is still regarded as historiographically rigorous to my knowledge. Anyway I'm happy to go over it carefully when I get the time and try and source anything specifically as needed. --Fastfission 21:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Tone is the main issue. I think that ideally it shouldn't sound quite so excited about pointing his pseudoscience--it should still state that it was pseudoscience, but I think the phrasing (as in the sentence above) is occasionally really unencyclopedic. Fearwig 20:56, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, that's valid. Though in the case of Lysenko, I think the sentence is pretty accurate (as I understand it, much of it was nothing more than an attack against others, in the same way that Deutsche Physik did not have a coherent scientific theory itself and was simply oppositional in its activities), but if you want to tone things down, you are more than welcome to. --Fastfission 21:00, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll give it a shot in a few days, then. But it should be said that while you could say there was no "science" (being that the methods were not scientific), there was certainly a consistent Lysenkoite dogma (which was dressed with mostly inaccurate scientific theory). From everything I've read (and this is interpretive), I'd say that it was less a reactionary argument meant to attack individuals than it was the result of the mistaken notion that nature had to conform with the philosophies of Marxism. Stalin really seemed to think people could make things happen in science by believing them and working endlessly toward them--I think that to him, scientists made discoveries, and didn't just discover them, if you see what I mean. That's not to say people weren't attacked, because they were--but it was for their opposition to Lysenkoism, which in turn betrayed what was perceived as an opposition to the communist spirit as a whole. But yeah, I think that Lysenko and at least a couple of his followers really believed in his new science, at least for the first years of his popularity. It's a great topic to study, if only because there are so many gray areas. Fearwig 21:51, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

My understanding of it, from Joravsky and Graham in particular, is that most of the ideology was just dressing for political maneuvering within Soviet scientific and party ranks, and had little to do with any genuine philosophical interests, at least not on behalf of the people who carried out these things. Ideology in the years under the Stalin had more to do with the whims of Stalin and the politics of the time than it did rigorous philosophy. (Which is not to say there weren't many scientists and philosophers who did take dialectical materialism seriously as a philosophy of nature, but is more to say that to blame dialectical materialism for Lysenkoism seems false.) And Lysenkoism consumed not only those who attacked it, but those who would defend anything else as well, as I understand it, as well as anyone who would stand in the way of the Lysenkoists in any form. In any case, feel free to make your edits, but source them where you can, and I'll let you know if there's anything that looks strange to me. --Fastfission 23:36, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your analysis, but not with the way in which it made its way to the page. I'll edit it and we can discuss the changes. I think that will be the best way to reach a consensus. I agree that politics were the main motivation at work here, but in being encyclopedic I think it best to outline the professed Lysenko ideology and then to make note of the analysis you just laid out, rather than giving it full credence. I also find (and this is a personal analysis, not going into the article) that the line between stated belief and true belief is so difficult to determine in analyzing the early Soviet period (and Stalin in particular) because the line was, for the people involved, very blurry. I think the adage that if you repeat something enough times and are forced to defend it you inevitably come to believe it somewhat applies to this period more than anywhere else in recent history, though it tends to apply in societies with arbitrary governments in general. I think that Stalin was attracted to this philosophy because it rang true with his own. I find it interesting that modern historians are taking a more cynical approach to the subject, and I look forward to reading some of the sources here. Fearwig 04:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC) On another point, did your sources outline the specific political motives that might have been involved, that is, those that would most benefit Stalin in particular (since Lysenko's are more obvious)? I'd be interested to know whether the Lysenko cult advantaged Stalin by removing anyone particularly oppositional from their position. Without such, I personally question whether he himself had political motives for plucking Lysenko from obscurity (aside from the public moral benefit of showing that Soviet culture was on the cutting edge, even through falsification, which was surely on the table if not a primary goal). This bit is more a matter of personal curiosity than relevant to my possible edits. Fearwig 04:21, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

NPOV tag

The judgemental tone needs to be neutralized quite a bit. Statements like this in the article opening, "politician who made pretense of being a biologist" (Lysenko had a doctorate in agricultural science from the Kiev Agricultural Institute), or editorializing like "typical peasant "miracle" of the early Soviet press", are not a npov voice. The article needs to better let the facts stand without editorializing. And opinions or judgements offered here need to be associated more directly to the source of those opinions, preferably with footnotes.Professor marginalia 20:10, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

A doctorate in agricultural science is not a degree in genetics. Lysenko was no scientist, he was a straight-up fraud. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.159.76 (talk) 14:59, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

poor opening paragraph

Really, it's hard to take the article seriously - or even want to read it - when it begins so tendentiously (and I think it needs to be re-written by a native speaker of English)

I've made some improvements. I agree with you. This is supposed to be an informative encyclopedic article, not a judgment. The rest of the article needs further work also.Professor marginalia 18:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Biography assessment rating comment

WikiProject Biography Summer 2007 Assessment Drive

The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- Yamara 13:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Enthusiastic peasants

Lysenko further impressed political officials with his success in motivating peasant farmers. ... Lysenko energized the enthusiasm of the peasants, and led them to feel they held an empowered role in the Soviet revolutionary experiment

This needs a bit of clarification. Were these the same peasants being starved to death and sent east by the trainload? —Michael Z. 15:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I deleted the whole as unreferenced. BTW no need to be ironic. Vast majority was not sent anywhere. It may be a surprize for you, but vast majority of simple folk in Russia loved Stalin dearly. Míkka 18:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm not surprised. I was just unimpressed that the way it was written, one could easily infer that the majority of peasant farmers in the Soviet Union were enthusiastic about their empowerment in the revolutionary experiment. —Michael Z. 19:01, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how you can reasonably infer all that from this statement. This simply says that some peasants were motivated by being given a role that made them feel they were participants in the revolutionary process. Perhaps you have come to believe that no one at all in the countryside of Russia was actively interested in the purported goals of the revolution; if so, you are incorrect. Your facetious nonsense above indicates to me that you are dissatisfied primarily with the article's failure to conform to your own outright bias. Fearwig 23:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

It says "the peasants", not "some peasants". The implication is quite clear, and quite incorrect. And incidentally, not just about Russia.

Let's just discuss the text of the article rather than speculating about what I believe. —Michael Z. 23:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I missed this discussion when it was fact tagged. I have sourced it, and tried to clarify the issue. It speaks to why Lysenko may have found early favor with Soviet leadership, and the case made in these references is that he was seen to be a politically useful figure who could reengage peasants balking at the reforms. Soviet officials seemed to hold this belief that the way to grow a lot of food was simply to supplant bourgeoisie officials with proletariat, and replace with political and ideological "purity" all preexisting scientific agricultural theory.Professor marginalia 22:00, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Khrushchev and Lysenko.jpg

Image:Khrushchev and Lysenko.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 06:55, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Khrushchev and Lysenko.jpg

Image:Khrushchev and Lysenko.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 13:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Vernalization and Lysenkoism

Vernalization (using exposure to cold as a way to hasten seeds' sprouting and flowering) is a real behavior seen in many plants, and one that has great practical importance for increasing the yield of crops that show this behavior. Lysenko made a real contribution to the science of vernalization, a word invented to translate "jarovization", which was the word he coined for it.[1] His mistaken belief that a vernalized state was hereditable is part of the story, but it is not the entire story of his connection with vernalization. Sharktopus^talk 16:45, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

It really is the hugest part of his story; note that the article you link to says "Lysenko's efforts to obtain or fabricate results that supported a political ideology and, with the assistance of Stalin's regime, to force others to accept his views had disastrous consequences for Russian genetics." I think we should be very careful to recognize that most sources describe him as a willfully lying scientist who destroyed the science of biology in the Soviet Union and used politics to crush any who disagreed with him. What little real science he did would barely earn him a Wikipedia article.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:52, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree he did little real science by comparison to the actions that made him most notable and notorious. IMO, explaining the science he did improves the article. Sharktopus^talk 01:05, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Fair Use policy as it applies to this article

Which fair use policy that applies to text are you referring to? Usually a paragraph from a long work is not excessive for fair use, and I thought your original quotes added more to the article. But I'm not familiar with Wikipedia's policies on quotes.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:59, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I liked the long quotes too. But I was advised that for works published after 1923, I should use shorter quotes. All the sources I used were things I read online, so with a bit of clicking around you should be able to see even more than I transcribed from them. Sharktopus^talk 22:17, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

POV problems

The article's state is unacceptable because it only insults and says negative things about Lysenko. There is a need for objectivity. A scholarly article summarizes some of Lysenko's achievements[2]

One of Lysenko’s greatest contributions in plant physiology is that he put forward the concept of vernalization and the theory of phasic development of plants, which have been recognized internationally, and were highly praised even by his strongest critics among geneticists, such as Vavilov

In the middle of the 1930s, Lysenko reposed the problem of conversion and proved that the conversion of winter wheat and spring wheat could be realized by skillful training.

Based on the works of Darwin and Michurin, Lysenko not only recognized the existence of graft hybrid, but also applied graft hybridization to the practice of plant breeding. According to incomplete statistics, there were about 500 papers on graft hybridization published in Soviet Union during 1950-1958 (Zu and Li [1964])... Over the past decades, however, several independent groups of scientists repeatedly showed that graft-induced variant characteristics were stable and inheritable (Shinoto [1955]; Frankel [1956]; Zu and Li [1964]; Ohta [1991]; Taller et al. [1998], [1999]; Fan [1999]; Hirata et al. [2003]).

Lysenko’s practical achievements in agriculture were very impressive.

Based on a practical farming method of raising kok-saghyz plants, Lysenko argued that there exists no intraspecific competition but mutual assistance among individuals within a species, and there does exist interspecific competition and also mutual assistance between different species. Lysenko had done a service to biology by pointing out how rarely intraspecific competition happens, though he had stated his case too strongly... Obviously, Lysenko’s claim of nonex-istence of intraspecific competition in nature is too one-sided, as Haldane [1948] correctly pointed out. However, the facts he described might be true. Recently, Cresswell et al. [2001] demonstrated that attributes of individual flowers of Brassica napus L. are affected by defoliation but not by intraspecific competition, which is similar to Lysenko’s experimental result. Bossdorf et al. [2004] formulated a new ERCA (Evolutionary Reduced Competitive Ability) hypothesis: if there is less competition in the invasive range and competitive ability involves traits that have a fitness cost, then selection might act against it, thereby reducing intra-specific competition too... Mutualism may play a more important role in the evolution of specialized cooperative societies than has previously been supposed (Clutton-Brock [2002]), thus supporting Lysenko’s claim of mutual assistance within and between species.

In 1940, Lysenko became Director of the Institute of Genetics within the USSR Academy of Sciences, where he used his political influence and power to dismiss Mendelian genetics as “bourgeois science” and “pseudoscience”. Yet, even Stalin was not convinced of Lysenko's scientific and political claims. Stalin removed all mention of “bourgeois biology” from Lysenko's report, The State of Biology in the Soviet Union, and in the margin next to the statement that “any science is based on class” Stalin wrote, “Ha-ha-ha!! And what about mathematics? Or Darwinism?” [3]

You're citing two sources, both by Yongsheng Liu. That's a pretty narrow source to go against what's pretty clearly the consensus opinion, a bit WP:UNDUE. Moreover, the "Science and Politics" letter ends "Lysenko was a tyrant who used politics and public popularity to suppress free scientific thinking and those who opposed him. The history of Lysenkoism and its devastating effect on Soviet research stands as a warning to those who argue that scientific research ought to answer to public opinion or political decisions." That is the consensus opinion; that he was a tyrant who pushed bad science and crushed those who opposed him. That's why the article reads as it does.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:49, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Most of the cited sources consist of outdated material from the 1960s and 1970s. Yongsheng Liu's work supersedes them because he cites the most recent research to make his case.

Lysenko's practical successes in agriculture are absolutely irrefutable, as shown in Yongsheng Liu's work, so slandering him as a "pseudoscientist" is unacceptable. The controversy around Lysenko is that he allegedly rejected the work done by others like Mendel, which is not completely true. Other sources show that Lysenko actually accepted some of what Mendel thought.75.51.175.187 (talk) 22:14, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Yongsheng Liu does not superseded them until he has achieved consensus. Lysenko's successes are refutable, and certainly not established by what others could do along different lines many years down the road. The controversy around Lysenko is that he used tyranny to enforce his opinions, which is a very pseudoscientific act.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:44, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Your original research and personal opinions are interesting, but are of no use to the contents of this article, which must be based solely on scholarship. The "pseudoscientist" slur has no place in the article.

By whom have Lysenko's practical accomplishments been refuted? He was a controversial man when it came to his scientific theories, but what is indisputable is that he made big practical accomplishments in agriculture.

You also have the facts wrong: Lysenko and his rivals coexisted on an official level during the 1930s and much of the 1940s. 75.51.168.98 (talk) 06:48, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Liu's one article and one unpeer-reviewed letter do not define scholarship. What's indisputable is that millions starved because of him.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:56, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Mr. Prosfilaes, what exactly is your problem and why are you so eager to get in the way of much needed revisions to this article? The revisions to this article are absolutely NOT based solely on Liu's work, as the criticism of Lysenko's work was largely left untouched. Only the unsourced slurs of "pseudoscientist" and other claims were removed.

Either you are not informed about the subject at hand or you are lying because no one died as a result of Lysenko's work. Rather, Lysenko's work, as Liu describes, helped to bring about noteworthy increases in agricultural production, which won him respect among many people.

The previous versions of the article are largely based on outdated sources from the 1960s and 1970s which have been discredited by recent science.

Liu is an established expert about Lysenko, which cannot be said about any of the other sources in this article. 75.51.168.98 (talk) 01:25, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

"Lysenko served this purpose by causing the expulsion, imprisonment, and death of hundreds of scientists". The fact that you dismiss all sources except for Liu is the problem here.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:08, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Your behavior has to be interpreted as disruptive because my edits left intact the criticisms of Lysenko by other sources.75.51.168.98 (talk) 03:30, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

A statement trivially disproven by any comparison of the two texts.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:56, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Your behavior on this page is not helpful in any way. You're editing this article just for the sake of it rather than providing anything constructive.

Why did you remove this? - At the 6th International Congress of Genetics (1932), Vavilov, known as one of the strongest critics of Lysenko, said: "The remarkable discovery recently made by T D Lysenko of Odessa opens enormous new possibilities to plant breeders and plant geneticists of mastering individual variation. He found simple physiological methods of shortening the period of growth, of transforming winter varieties into spring ones and late varieties into early ones by inducing processes of fermentation in seeds before sowing them.

Why did you remove this? - Lysenko made noteworthy practical achievements in agriculture. For regions with poor summer rainfall, vernalization was used, which chilled seeds of winter varieties, then planting them in the spring. The technique of summer planting was proposed by Lysenko in 1935 to solve the problem of planting potatoes in the hot, dry regions of southern Russia. He created a variety of spring wheat suitable for the region. Lysenko brought about massive increases in the yield of millet, which played an important role in feeding the Red Army soldiers during the Great Patriotic War.

Why did you remove this? - Lysenko argued that there is not only competition, but also mutual assistance among individuals within a species, and that mutual assistance also exists between different species. Recent scientific works support Lysenko's theory. Experiments demonstrate that individual flowers of the Brassica napus L. are affected by defoliation, but not by intraspecific competition. Some scientists conclude that mutualism may play a more important role in the evolution of cooperative soceities than has been previously thought.75.51.168.98 (talk) 07:07, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I have to agree with Prosfilaes, one author is not enough to justify a drastic rewrite of the article. Especially as the article cited is a theoretical/opinion piece - not an experimental one. If you have actual experimental proof that backs up the claims being made, why are you not citing that? As far as I can tell, Liu seems to be a lone voice in advocating this view. While it always important to have people challenging the orthodoxy in science, his views are decidedly outside the mainstream and thus inappropriate for an encyclopedic entry. Sorath (talk) 04:58, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

The problem I see here is that Lysenko was fundamentally right on some important points about acquired inheritance and graft hybridization, though these are limited mechanisms. Just look up something like "Arabidopsis transgenerational" on PubMed and look at all the stuff that comes out - [4] [5] [6] etc. Now to be sure, the adaptations don't always last more than one generation, and may or may not fade out in three, but they cover a wide range of common problems like heat, salt, flood, cold, and UV. Now to be sure, Lysenko's involvement in political purges should be utterly appalling to anyone, and is contrary to being a scientist - however, in Stalinist Russia somebody was always getting voted off the island. I think calling him a pseudoscientist on the basis of his advocated beliefs doesn't really stand up, and based on his tactics is dubious. Now to be sure, we have to go by sources, but to look at the sources, well, #2 speaks of "alleged pseudoscientist" and "perceived pseudoscience", and #17 refers to one person's opinion. I'm not saying to remove statements like this, but I think putting him in Category:Pseudoscientists goes too far. Wnt (talk) 14:26, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Wnt -- He may have been right about a few things as an agronomist (though he conspicuously failed to deliver the dramatically increased crop yields that he was perpetually promising), but he claimed to be a geneticist (not just an agronomist), and as a geneticist he was an utter and complete miserable and wretched failure, as far as I can see, doing little beyond regurgitating and clothing in Marxist terminology some old speculations which may have been reasonable when first made, but which were rapidly being discredited by the Modern evolutionary synthesis by Lysenko's time. The unpleasant truth was that Stalin crippled Soviet agriculture by harsh repressions and quasi-genocides, and by refusing to give peasants reasonable incentives to greater production -- and Stalin sought to restore agricultural production not by reversing any of these policies, but by techno fixes which would cover for the deleterious effects of his policies, and Lysenko was the loudest in promising such techno fixes... AnonMoos (talk) 11:40, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Chronology of Lysenko's downfall

The article gives the impression that it happened in 1964-1965, but according to Fads and Fallacies: In the Name of Science, "In 1954 Lysenko was severely rebuked in a speech of Khrushchev's and later by several official party organs. He was branded a 'scientific monopolist' and 'academic schemer' who stifled all theories opposed to his own. He was accused of failing to make practical contributions to Soviet agriculture. ...in 1956 he resigned as head of the All-Union Academy of Agricultural Sciences." -- AnonMoos (talk) 11:54, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

University?

“In the beginning when working at the university” (sic). As far as I know, Lysenko took evening courses in agronomy and worked in agricultural institutions, never at university level. --Dominique Meeùs (talk) 20:07, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

As a student Lysenko found himself interested in agriculture

Why use twelve letters when three will do?

Surely "As a student Lysenko found himself interested in agriculture" should be "As a student Lysenko was interested in agriculture".

Anyway, to say "found himself" could have - how can I put it? - other meanings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.170.150.62 (talk) 13:39, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Other investigations Lysenko found himself curious with, was the effect of heat on plant growth.

Oh no, another bloated phrase, with the wrong punctuation added in this time.

"Other investigations Lysenko found himself curious with, was the effect of heat on plant growth." should read "Lysenko also investigated the effect of heat on plant growth." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.170.150.62 (talk) 13:49, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Lysenko's genetic theory

The 'Lysenko's genetic theory' segment states that "Lysenko did not believe that genes or DNA existed, and only spoke about them to say that they did not exist. He instead believed that any body, once alive, obtained heredity. That meant that the entirety of the body was able to pass on the hereditary information of that organism, and was not dependent on a special element such as DNA or genes.[6] That puzzled biologists at that time because it went against all established notions of heredity and inheritance. It also contradicted the Mendelian principles that most biologists had been using to base their ideas on.[10] Most scientists believed that Lysenko's ideas were not credible, because they did not truly explain the mechanisms of inheritance. Many scientists and history of science writers believe that his beliefs are pseudo-scientific, and have little relationship to genetics."

Lysenko however did believe in both genes and DNA and spoke of their existence:

Thus experiments in vegetative hybridisation provide unmistakable proof that any particle of a living body, even the juices exchanged between scion and stock, possesses hereditary qualities. Does this detract from the role of the chromosomes? Not in the least, Is heredity transmitted through the chromosomes in the sexual process? Of course it is.

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

By mentioning Mendelism-Morganism, he was talking about the trend in biology that suggested inheritance of acquired characteristics was not at all possible. He framed the debate like this:

We, the representatives of the Soviet Michurin trend, contend that inheritance of characters acquired by plants and animals in the process of their development is possible and necessary. Ivan Vladimirovich Michurin mastered these possibilities in his experiments and practical activities. The most important point is that Michurin's teaching, expounded in his works, shows every biologist the way to regulating the nature of vegetable and animal organisms, the way of altering it in a direction required for practical purposes by regulating the conditions of life, i.e., by physiological means.

A sharp controversy, which has divided biologists into two irreconcilable camps, has thus flared up over the old question: is it possible for features and characteristics acquired by vegetable and animal organisms in the course of their life to be inherited? In other words, whether qualitative variations of the nature of vegetable and animal organisms depend on the conditions of life which act upon the living body, upon the organism.

The Michurin teaching, which is in essence materialist and dialectical, proves by facts that such dependence does exist.

The Mendel-Morgan teaching, which in essence is metaphysical and idealist, denies the existence of such dependence, though it can cite no evidence to prove its point.

This being his theory and all I think it makes sense to use some of the original source material and probably mention that denying that the genes exist is a common misconception.--Hnhkqt (talk) 20:52, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Trofim Lysenko. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101008121744/http://marx2mao.com/Other/Proletarian%20Science.pdf to http://www.marx2mao.com/Other/Proletarian%20Science.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:14, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Unsourced commentary removed

I reverted a series of edits that inserted a substantial amount of content without any sources. The content was talk-like commentary that seemed original research. The article already needs substantial improvement in it's sourcing. Much of the content tagged citation needed could probably be sourced from the Further reading. MrBill3 (talk) 07:01, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Politically biased

This article is filled with biased claims that aren't backed by any citations.

"following the famine and loss of productivity resulting from forced collectivization in several regions of the Soviet Union in the early 1930s"

The famines weren't cause by the collectivization, famines occurred since the time of the Russian Empire whenever weather conditions were bad. Collectivization took place in the 30s, after which there were no more famines until the World War 2 famine and the famines that followed the collapse of the USSR. There were other causes too, like kulak sabotage. All of these things are a matter of historical record, yet in this article it is claimed that the famines resulted from "forced" collectivization.

"The Soviet's collectivist reforms forced the confiscation of agricultural landholdings from peasant farmers and heavily damaged the country's overall food production, and the dispossessed peasant farmers posed new problems for the regime"

Again, pure propaganda with no citations provided. You can check the birth rates and as well as the documented statistics of calorie intake and the quality of life before and after collectivization, you will clearly see that collectivization put an end to famines that were a common occurrence in the Russian Empire and in the Soviet Union before collectivization.

"Many had abandoned the farms altogether; many more waged resistance to collectivization by poor work quality and pilfering. The dislocated and disenchanted peasant farmers were a major political concern to the USSR's leadership"

As a citation here, pages 5 and 6 of "Stalin's Peasants: Resistance and Survival in the Russian Village after Collectivization" are provided. The book itself however can only be described as an "opinion piece", since none of the claims within are backed by any citation to historical records whatsoever.

"as Stalin wanted to appear to stand with the proletariat"

Again, blatant bias.

"Due to close partnership between Stalin and Lysenko, Lysenko acquired an influence over genetics in the Soviet Union during the early and mid twentieth century"

Again, no citation for these claims is given. While Stalin has been observed to have applauded after one of Lysenko's speeches, that is all I could find that would dictate Stalin personally had any give-and-take with Lysenko.

"the logic was that if people are able to inherit the acquired characteristics, it could be possible to create a better society. This led the leaders of the Soviet Union to hope that peasants could be turned into exceptional citizens. However, this was never one of Lysenko's intentions; he strongly opposed genetic engineering of humans and the eugenics movement"

The Soviet leadership was never pro-eugenics, in fact eugenics were a big part as to how and why Lysenko managed to gain so much influence, as genetics at the time were used in the west to justify racist pseudoscience and were hence viewed as reactionary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.212.189.163 (talk) 14:01, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately, some of your claims are quite false. The purpose of collectivization was to give the Soviet government the ability to extract as much agricultural produce as it wanted from the peasants, and to be able to directly interfere in peasants' daily lives at an individual level. It caused huge disruptions to agriculture in the Soviet Union, partly because the so-called "kulaks" (who were in many cases simply the most knowledgeable and productive farmers) were shot or deported to the gulags, also because peasants slaughtered their animals rather than have them confiscated by the state, and most importantly because Stalin had absolutely no interest in the well-being of the peasants. The inevitable result was famine (much more severe in some areas than others). In some respects, the legacy of collectivization on Soviet agriculture persisted into the 1980s, with the grain deficiencies of those years which had to be made good with imports from the United States. To further enlighten your ignorance, see Holodomor etc. AnonMoos (talk) 20:56, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

The Holodomor page is a good suggestion, since it is a load of unhinged propaganda and shameful political bias, that corroborates what the guy above said. While Lysenko was indeed favoured by Stalin and had a bad influence on Soviet genetics and agriculture, nonetheless: famines were a frequent recurrence in Russia that disappeared only after the mechanization of agriculture in Soviet time, the struggle between the Soviet state and the kulaks worsened the situation, the climate in the Northern hemisphere at the beginning of the '30s was unfavourable. Trying hopelessly to mitigate your ignorance, I suggest you to read the Dust Bowl article. Cheers – 5.77.71.83 (talk) 12:23, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Could colleagues please note that here on Wikipedia, personal attacks are forbidden, and that talk pages must not be used as forums. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:34, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Of course, but the opening comment was about some problems, to various degrees grounded in facts, with the article. That criticism was met with run-for-the-mill propaganda talking points and laughable crazy assertions. For example, the idea that collectivization was the cause (or partially the cause) of the grain deficiencies of the SU in the 80s is simply unbridled revisionism; Felix Kogan, from the Atmospheric Science Department of the University of Missouri, wrote this in 1981: "over the past 30-35 years, the USSR grain production generally has been less than Soviet requirements for grain. Climate and weather have been primarily responsible for this shortfall."

And then: "The Soviet Union is the second largest grain producing country of the world. But over the past 6-8 years, increased variability in weather patterns in the USSR caused a substantial shortfall in grain production."

There are loads of academic sources about the weather and climate problems of agriculture in Russia, and loads of academic sources about the history of famines in old Russia (and other large agricultural societies like India, most of the Far East etc.). In particular, about Lysenko, there are studies about his influence in Russian agriculture and genetics, but it is quite a complicated history (see Michael D. Gordin's "Lysenko Unemployed" for a review). Further, collectivization was nothing new to Russian society: Obshchina existed for centuries, before their demise during the actuation of the Stolypin reform of 1906-1914. Needless to say that this de-collectivization of the Russian agriculture was among the gripes of the Russian society leading to the revolution. So, yes, that part of the article is bad and it is worth a broad discussion, like the guy above said. – 37.32.80.61 (talk) 18:58, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

All the talk of what happened in the 1980s is OFF TOPIC for the article and pure FORUM material: it should not be here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:12, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Do you realize that "over the past 30-35 years" in 1981 means since the late 40s, that is EXACTLY when LYSENKO was at the TOP of his influence (roughly 1948-1965). That is by far more ON TOPIC than anything you and your pal Chap contributed to this discussion.– 5.170.242.46 (talk) 08:23, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

References

Work in agriculture

Article states:

"Another area Lysenko found himself interested in was the effect of heat on plant growth. He believed that every plant needed a determinate amount of heat throughout its lifetime. He attempted to correlate the time and the amount of heat required by a particular plant to go through various phases of development."

This is exactly how plants (and exothermic animals) actually grow and develop. When I worked in ag research, we used "degree days" (monitor temps over time, then integrate) to predict important stages in crop/pest development. This is extremely basic stuff, and the entire section needs to be removed. It's embarrassing, to be honest. 2600:1700:6A80:BC30:B94A:A999:5B26:FF97 (talk) 05:59, 5 June 2019 (UTC)Alex Newton

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Lysenko in field with wheat.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:49, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Trokhym

Since when does he have a different first name? The article was moved from "Trofim Lysenko" to "Trokhym Lysenko" and all the instances changed. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:17, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

It does seem an odd decision, as while Lysenko was Ukrainian (Dav2ry7, who moved the page, gave "Ukrainian ethnicity" as the reason for the move), the majority of sources use "Trofim", rather than "Trokhym". I assume WP:COMMONNAME matters more than using the native spelling? ATeaAddict (talk) 18:07, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

This is not a justified move. 2003:d2:5748:d410:b072:7001:da7f:7865 simply replaced all "Trofim" with "Trokhym", and Dav2ry7 moved the page based on it. Just for example, Google Scholar has 2,950 hits for "Trofim Lysenko", and none for "Trokhym Lysenko". The page has to be reverted, along with it, the mentions of "Trofim". Chhandama (talk) 06:35, 3 November 2022 (UTC)