“I APPEAL JUST TO YOU WITH MY PAIN”: STRUGGLE IN SOBIET BIOLOGICAL AND AGRICULTURAL SCIENCE IN LETTERS OF SCIENTISTS TO SOVIET LEADERS IN THE 1950s
Keywords:
Soviet leaders, “letters to power”, biological science, agricultural science, Lysenkoism, agriculture, bureaucratization, the USSRAbstract
The struggle in Soviet biological and agricultural science is examined through the prism of letters of scientists to Soviet leaders in the 1950s. Scientists’ “letters to power” were an important form of struggle of the scientific community to normalize the situation in the agrarian and scientific sphere under conditions of total party-state control. Considering science to be the most important element of the USSR’s international prestige, scientists who advocated classical genetics considered it necessary to rid biological and agricultural science of external "imperious" influences on the sphere of scientific knowledge. Moreover, some suggested the active use of party-state structures, not excluding law enforcement agencies, against their scientific opponents. Others believed that the shortcomings of the organization of Soviet science could only be eradicated by the scientists themselves, provided that the scientific community was widely involved in identifying the most important scientific areas through free creative discussions. With all the disagreements, the appeals of scientists to Soviet leaders, the author concludes, contributed to a change in public sentiment in favor of genetics. On the contrary, the supporters of Trofim Lysenko by their “letters to power” pursued the goal of maintaining his dominant position in science. Transferring scientific problems to the political plane, they called on Soviet leaders to resolve the contradictions accumulated in the agrarian-scientific sphere by the methods of party-state influence. The rejection of each other's arguments by the scientific opponents did not allow them to reduce the severity of confrontation in biological and agricultural science and did not contribute to scientific research. The appeal of geneticists to the authority of world science in the context of the Cold War further aggravated the situation in the scientific community, since in the opposite camp, this phenomenon was assessed as ideological sabotage. The inertia of such traditions of scientific communication persisted for a long time.References
Грэхэм Л.Р. Естествознание, философия и науки о человеческом поведении в Советском Сою-зе: Пер. с англ. М.: Политиздат, 1991. 480 с.
Жимулев И.Ф., Дубинина Л.Г. Новое о «письме трехсот» – массовом протесте советских ученых против лысенковщины в 1955 г.// Вестник ВОГиС. 2005. Т. 9, № 1 . С. 13–33.
Козлов С.А. Российские ученые-аграрники XIX – начала XX вв.: Историко-биографические очерки. М.: Полит. энциклопедия, 2019. 967 с.
Колчинский Э.И. Биология Германии и России-СССР в условиях социально-политических кри-зисов первой половины ХХ века (между либерализмом, коммунизмом и национал-социализмом). СПб.: Нестор-История, 2006. 638 с.
Колчинский Э.И. Н.И. Вавилова распинают вновь: Некоторые соображения о книге П.Ф. Ко-нонкова «Два мира – две идеологии: О положении в биологических и сельскохозяйственных науках в России в советский и постсоветский период» // Полит. концептология. 2015. № 1. C. 272–281.
Конашев М.Б. Лысенко вблизи, но издали, или взгляд на лысенкоизм из XXI века // Вестник Российской академии наук. 2019. Т. 89, №6. С. 637–645.
Кононков П.Ф. Два мира – две идеологии: О положении в биологических и сельскохозяйствен-ных науках в советский и постсоветский период. М.: ООО «Луч», 2014. 288 с.
Кременцов Н.Л. «Американская помощь» в советской генетике. 1945–1947 // Вопросы истории естествознания и техники. 1996. №3. C. 25–41.
Левина Е.С. Трагедия Вавилова // Репрессированная наука / ред. М.Г. Ярошевский. Л.: Наука, 1991. С. 223–239.
Русина Ю.А. Источниковедение новейшей истории России. Екатеринбург: Изд-во Урал. ун-та, 2015. 236 с.
Рычков А.В. Причины возникновения лысенковщины: историко-научные аспекты // Омский научный вестник. 2003. № 2. С. 20–23.
Сизов С.Г. Интеллигенция и власть в советском обществе в 1946–1964 гг. (На материалах За-падной Сибири): Монография: в 2 ч. Ч.1: Поздний сталинизм (1946 – март 1953 г.). Омск:
СибАДИ, 2001. 224 с.
Сойфер В.Н. Власть и наука (История разгрома коммунистами генетики в СССР). 4-е изд., пе-рераб. и доп. М.: ЧеРо, 2002. 691 с.
Шноль С.Э. Герои и злодеи российской науки. М.: КРОН-ПРЕСС, 1997. 464 с.
References
Grekhem, L.R. (1991), Estestvoznanie, filosofiya i nauki o chelovecheskom povedenii v Sovetskom Soyuze: Per. s angl. [Natural science, philosophy and sciences of human behavior in the Soviet Union], Politizdat, Moscow, Russia, 480 p.
Kolchinskiy, E.I. (2006), Biologiya Germanii i Rossii-SSSR v usloviyakh sotsial'no-politicheskikh krizisov pervoi poloviny XX veka (mezhdu liberalizmom, kommunizmom i natsional-sotsializmom) [Biology of Germany and Russia-USSR in the conditions of socio-political crises of the first half of the twentieth century (between liberalism, communism and national socialism)], Nestor-Istoriya, St. Petersburg, Russia, 638 p.
Kolchinskiy, E.I. (2015), “N.I. Vavilov is crucified again: Some considerations about the book by P.F. Kononkova "Two Worlds - Two Ideologies: On the Situation in Biological and Agricultural Sciences in Russia in the Soviet and Post-Soviet Periods"”, Politicheskaya kontseptologiya, № 1, pp. 272–281.
Konashev, M.B. (2019), “Lysenko up close, but from a distance, or a look at Lysenkoism from the 21st century”, Vestnik Rossiyskoy Akademii nauk, Vol. 89, № 6, pp. 637–645.
Kononkov, P.F. (2014), Dva mira – dve ideologii. O polozhenii v biologicheskikh i sel'skokhozyaistvennykh naukakh v sovetskiy i postsovetskiy period [ Two worlds - two ideologies. On the situation in biological and agricultural sciences in the Soviet and post-Soviet period], «Luch», Moscow, Russia, 288 p.
Kozlov, S.A. (2019), Rossiyskie uchenye – agrarniki XIX – nachala XX vv.: Istoriko-biograficheskie ocherki [Russian scientists - agrarians of the 19th – early 20th centuries: Historical and biographical sketches], Politicheskaya entsiklopediya, Moscow, Russia, 967 p.
Krementsov, N.L. (1996), “"American aid" in Soviet genetics. 1945-1947”, Voprosy istorii estestvoznaniya i tekhniki, № 3, pp. 25–41.
Levina, E.S. (1991), “Vavilov's tragedy”, in Yaroshevskiy, M.G. (ed.), Repressirovannaya nauka [Repressed science], Nauka, Leningrad, Russia, pp. 223–239.
Rusina, Yu.A. (2015), Istochnikovedenie noveyshey istorii Rossii [Source study of the modern history of Russia], Izd-vo Ural.un-ta, Yekaterinburg, Russia, 236 p.
Rychkov, A.V. (2003), “The causes of Lysenkoism: historical and scientific aspects”, Omskiy nauchnyy vestnik, № 2, pp. 20–23.
Shnol', S.E. (1997), Geroi i zlodei rossiyskoy nauki [Heroes and villains of Russian science], KRON-PRESS, Moscow, Russia, 464 p.
Sizov, S.G. (2001), Intelligentsiya i vlast' v sovetskom obshchestve v 1946-1964 gg. (Na materialakh Zapadnoy Sibiri): Monografiya. V 2-kh ch. Ch.1. «Pozdniy stalinizm» (1946 – mart 1953 gg.) [The intel-ligentsia and power in Soviet society in 1946-1964. (Based on materials from Western Siberia): Mon-ograph: in 2 parts, Part 1. Late Stalinism (1946 – March 1953)], SibADI, Omsk, Russia, 224 p.
Soyfer, V.N. (2002), Vlast' i nauka (Istoriya razgroma kommunistami genetiki v SSSR [Power and Science (History of the Communist Defeat of Genetics in the USSR], CHeRo, Moscow, Russia, 691 p.
Zhimulev, I.F. & L.G. Dubinina (2005), “New about the "letter of three hundred" - a mass protest of Soviet scientists against the Lysenkoism in 1955”, Vestnik VOGiS, Vol. 9, № 1, pp.13–33.
