Behind palaeobotany 科学研究中的质疑精神和批判精神很重要，这种理念在中国尤为可贵、永远重要。期望年轻一代的中国古植物学家要有充满理性的质疑精神和批判精神，要敢于蔑视权威。不要忘记那个曾经在前苏联横行霸道的 ТрофимДенисович Лысенко （英文名“ Trofim Lysenko ”，中文名“ 李森科” 1898---1976 ）， 不要忘记那个曾经在中国猖狂一时的 李森科。孙启高 2014 年 4 月 3 日 ----------------------- Trofim Lysenko http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trofim_Lysenko Trofim Denisovich Lysenko ( Russian :Трофи́мДени́совичЛысе́нко, Ukrainian : Трохим Денисович Лисенко, Trochym Denysovyč Lysenko; (29 September 1898 – 20 November 1976) was a Soviet biologist andagronomist of Ukrainian origin. Lysenko rejected Mendelian genetics infavor of the hybridization theories of Russian horticulturist Ivan Vladimirovich Michurin , andadapted them to a pseudoscientific movement termed Lysenkoism . His experimental research inimproved crop yields earned the support of Soviet leader JosephStalin , especially following the famine and loss of productivity resultingfrom forced collectivization in severalregions of the Soviet Union in the early 1930s. In 1940, he became director ofthe Institute of Genetics within the USSR 's Academy of Sciences , and Lysenko'santi-Mendelian doctrines were further secured in Soviet science and educationby the exercise of political influence and power. Scientific dissent from Lysenko'stheories of environmentally acquired inheritance was formally outlawed in 1948. Though Lysenko remained at hispost in the Institute of Genetics until 1965, his influence on Soviet agricultural practice haddeclined by the 1950s. Early rise Trofim Lysenko, the son of Denisand Oksana Lysenko, was born to a peasant family in Karlivka , Poltava Governorate (in present-day PoltavaOblast , Ukraine )and attended the KievAgricultural Institute . In 1927, at 29 years of age, working at anagricultural experiment station in Azerbaijan ,he embarked on the research that would lead to his 1928 paper on vernalization ,which drew wide attention due to its practical consequences for Soviet agriculture . Severe cold and lack ofwinter snow had destroyed many early winter-wheat seedlings. By treating wheat seeds with moisture as well as cold, Lysenko induced themto bear a crop when planted in spring. Lysenko coined the termJarovization to describe a chilling process he used to make theseeds of winter cereals behave like spring cereals (Jarovoe); thisterm was translated as vernalization from the Latin vernumfor western texts. Later, however, Lysenkoincorrectly claimed that a vernalized state could be inherited – i.e., that theoffspring of a vernalized plant would behave as if they themselves had alsobeen vernalized and would not require vernalization in order to flower quickly. At the 6th International Congress of Genetics (1932), Vavilov , known as one of the strongest critics ofLysenko, said: The remarkable discovery recently made by T D Lysenko ofOdessa opens enormous new possibilities to plant breeders and plant geneticistsof mastering individual variation. He found simple physiological methods ofshortening the period of growth, of transforming winter varieties into springones and late varieties into early ones by inducing processes of fermentationin seeds before sowing them. Lysenko speakingat the Kremlin in 1935.At the back (left to right) are StanislavKosior , Anastas Mikoyan , Andrei Andreyev and the Soviet leader, JosephStalin Praise for Lysenko's workincluded such items as credit from the Soviet newspaper Pravda forhaving discovered a method to fertilize fields without using fertilizers orminerals, and for having proven that a winter crop of peas could be grown in Azerbaijan ,turning the barren fields of the Transcaucasus green in winter, so that cattle will not perish from poor feeding, and thepeasant Turk will live through the winter without trembling for tomorrow. Lysenko argued that there is notonly competition, but also mutual assistance among individuals within aspecies, and that mutual assistance also exists between different species.Experiments demonstrate that individual flowers of the Brassica napus L. are affected bydefoliation, but not by intraspecific competition. British zoologist TimClutton-Brock believes that mutualism may play a more important role in theevolution of cooperative societies than has been previously thought. According to Lysenko, The organism and the conditionsrequired for its life are an inseparable unity. Different living bodies requiredifferent environmental conditions for their development. By studying theserequirements we come to know the qualitative features of the nature oforganisms, the qualitative features of heredity. Heredity is the property of aliving body to require definite conditions for its life and development and torespond in a definite way to various conditions. Lysenko made noteworthy practicalachievements in agriculture. For regions with poor summer rainfall,vernalization was used, which chilled seeds of winter varieties, then plantingthem in the spring. The technique of summer planting was proposed by Lysenko in1935 to solve the problem of planting potatoes in the hot, dry regions ofsouthern Russia. He created a variety of springwheat suitable for the region. Lysenko brought about massive increases inthe yield of millet ,which played an important role in feeding the Red Army soldiers during the Great Patriotic War . He increased yields of kok-sagyz by cluster-planting. And he solvedthe problem of over-wintering wheat in Siberia by sowing in the autumn stubble.Lysenko's achievements won him the respect and affection of the Russian people. By the late 1920s, the Sovietpolitical leaders had given their support to Lysenko. This support was aconsequence, in part, of policies put in place by Communist Party personnel torapidly promote members of the proletariat into leadership positions in agriculture, science and industry. Party officialswere looking for promising candidates with backgrounds similar to Lysenko's:born of a peasant family, without formal academic training or affiliations tothe academic community. Lysenko in particular impressedpolitical officials further with his success in motivating peasants to returnto farming. The Soviet's Collectivistreforms forced the confiscation of agricultural landholdings from peasantfarmers and heavily damaged the country's overall food production, and thedispossessed peasant farmers posed new problems for the regime. Many hadabandoned the farms altogether; many more waged resistance to collectivizationby poor work quality and pilfering. The dislocated and disenchanted peasantfarmers were a major political concern to the Soviet leadership. Lysenko emerged during this periodinaugurating radically new agricultural methods, and also promising that thenew methods provided wider opportunities for year-round work in agriculture.Lysenko proved himself very useful to the Soviet leadership by reengagingpeasants to return to work, helping to secure from them a personal stake in theoverall success of the Soviet revolutionary experiment. Lysenko's genetic theories weregrounded in Lamarckism .His work was primarily devoted to developing new techniques and practices inagriculture. But he also contributed a new theoretical framework which wouldbecome the foundation of all Soviet agriculture: a discipline called agrobiology that is a fusion of plant physiology, cytology ,genetics and evolutionary theory. Central to Lysenko's tenets was the conceptof the inheritability of acquiredcharacteristics . In 1932 Lysenko was given his own journal, The Bulletinof Vernalization , and it became the main outlet for touting emergingdevelopments of Lysenkoist research. Based on the works of Darwin and Michurin, Lysenko applied graft hybridization to the practice of plant breeding. About 500 scientific papers on grafthybridization published in Russia during 1950–1958 support Lysenko's work, andseveral groups of scientists in recent years have demonstrated that graft-inducedcharacteristics are stable and reliable. After Stalin Following Stalin's death in 1953,Lysenko retained his position, with the support of the new leader NikitaKhrushchev . However, mainstream scientists re-emerged, and found newwillingness within Soviet government leadership to tolerate criticism ofLysenko, the first opportunity since the late 1920s. In 1962 three of the mostprominent Soviet physicists, Yakov Borisovich Zel'dovich , VitalyGinzburg , and Pyotr Kapitsa , presented a case againstLysenko, proclaiming his work as false science. They alsodenounced Lysenko's application of political power to silence opposition andeliminate his opponents within the scientific community. These denunciationsoccurred during a period of structural upheaval in Soviet government, duringwhich the major institutions were purged of the strictly ideological andpolitical machinations which had controlled the work of the Soviet Union'sscientific community for several decades under Stalin. In 1964, physicist AndreiSakharov spoke out against Lysenko in the General Assembly of the Academyof Sciences: He is responsible for theshameful backwardness of Soviet biology and of genetics in particular, for thedissemination of pseudo-scientific views, for adventurism, for the degradationof learning, and for the defamation, firing, arrest, even death, of manygenuine scientists. The Soviet press was soon filledwith anti-Lysenkoite articles and appeals for the restoration of scientificmethods to all fields of biology and agricultural science. In 1965 Lysenko was removed from his post asdirector of the Institute of Genetics at the Academy of Sciences and restrictedto an experimental farm in Moscow 's Lenin Hills (the Institute itself was soon dissolved).After Khrushchev's dismissal in 1964, the president of the Academy of Sciencesdeclared that Lysenko's immunity to criticism had officially ended. An expertcommission was sent to investigate records kept at Lysenko's experimental farm.A few months later, a devastating critique of Lysenko was made public. As a result,Lysenko was immediately disgraced in the Soviet Union. Lysenko died in 1976. See also Jean-Baptiste Lamarck Gregor Mendel VASKhNIL Notes Jumpup ^ Sterling,Bruce (June 2004). Suicide bypseudoscience . Wired (12.06). Jumpup ^ Walker, Bruce (30 November 2009). The Ghost of Lysenko . AmericanThinker . Jumpup ^ Gordin, Michael D. (2012). How Lysenkoism became pseudoscience:Dobzhansky to Velikovsky. Journal of the History of Biology 45 (3): 443–68. doi : 10.1007/s10739-011-9287-3 . PMID 21698424 . Jumpup ^ Enstrom, James E. (2007). Defendinglegitimate epidemiologic research: Combating Lysenko pseudoscience . Epidemiologic Perspectives Innovations 4 (11). doi : 10.1186/1742-5573-4-11 . PMC 2164936 . PMID 17927827 . Jumpup ^ Lysenko, Trofim Denisovich.] . Encyclopdia Britannica Online .16 August 2013 . Retrieved 26 January2014 . Jumpup ^ Roll-Hansen, Nils (1985). A new perspective on Lysenko? . Annalsof Science 42 (3): 261–78. doi : 10.1080/00033798500200201 . PMID 11620694 . Retrieved 25 January 2011 . First, it wasLysenko's work in plant physiology which started him on his scientific career,not the work in genetics for which he became notorious. Jumpup ^ Chouard, P. (1960). Vernalization and its relations to dormancy . AnnualReview of Plant Physiology ( Annual Reviews ) 11 : 191–238. doi : 10.1146/annurev.pp.11.060160.001203 . Retrieved 25 January 2011 . In temperatecountries, the seed of winter cereals must be planted before the end of winterin order to fruit within 12 months of sowing. Jumpup ^ Richard Amasino (October 2004). Vernalization, Competence, and the Epigenetic Memoryof Winter . Plant Cell ( American Society of PlantBiologists ) 16 (10): 2553–2559. doi : 10.1105/tpc.104.161070 . PMC 520954 . PMID 15466409 .Vernalization is the process by which prolonged exposure to coldtemperatures promotes flowering. Jumpup ^ Li, X.; Liu, Y. (2010). The conversion of spring wheat into winterwheat and vice versa: False claim or Lamarckian inheritance?. Journal of Biosciences 35 (2):321–5. Jumpup ^ Joravsky, David (1986). The Lysenko Affair . University OfChicago Press . Jumpup ^ Cresswell, J.E.; Hagen, C.; Woolnough, J.M. (2001). Attributes of individual flowers of Brassica napus L.are affected by defoliation but not by intraspecific competition . Annals of Botany 88 (1): 111–7. doi : 10.1006/anbo.2001.1431 . ^ Jumpup to: a b c Liu, Yongsheng (2004). Lysenko’scontributions to biology and his tragedies . Biology Forum 97 : 483–8. Jumpup ^ Soviet Biology . marxists.org . ^ Jumpup to: a b Krementsov, Nikolai(1997). Stalinist Science . Princeton University Press . ^ Jumpup to: a b Graham,Loren R. (1972). Science and Philosophy in the Soviet Union . Knopf .p. 208. Jumpup ^ Fitzpatrick, Sheila (1994). Stalin'sPeasants: Resistance and Survival in the Russian Village after Collectivization . Oxford University Press . pp. 4–5 . Jumpup ^ Biography of Andrei Sakharov, dissent period ,Norman L., Qing Ni Li, Yuan Jian Li, The Seevak Website Competition Jumpup ^ Cohen, B.M. (1965). The descent of lysenko . TheJournal of Heredity 56 (5): 229–233. Jumpup ^ Cohen, B.M. (1977). The demise of Lysenko . The Journalof Heredity 68 (1): 57. References Graham, Loren , Science inRussia and the Soviet Union , (New York: CambridgeUniversity Press , 1993). Graham, Loren, What Have We Learned About Science and Technology from the Russian Experience? , (Palo Alto: Stanford University Press , 1998). Joravsky, David, The Lysenko Affair , (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1970). Lecourt, Dominique , Proletarian Science ? : The Case of Lysenko , (London: NLB; Atlantic Highlands, N.J. : Humanities Press , 1977). (A Marxist , though anti-Stalinist , history of Lysenkoism) Lysenko, Trofim, The Science of Biology Today , (New York: International Publishers , 1948). Text of an address evoked by the international discussion of the subject of inheritance of acquired characteristics , according to an introductory note. Delivered before a session of a meeting of the V.I. Lenin Academy of Agricultural Sciences on 31 July 1948, when Lysenko, its president, was at the apex of his power. Medvedev, Zhores , The Rise and Fall of T.D. Lysenko , (New York: Columbia University Press , 1969) Soyfer, Valery N., Lysenko and the Tragedy of Soviet Science , New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press , 1994. Gardner, Martin : Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science (1957) (Revised and expanded edition of the work originally published in 1952 under the title In the Name of Science ). Dover Publications , New York. See Chapter 12 (Lysenkoism). Ronald Fisher (1948) What Sort of Man is Lysenko? Listener , 40 : 874–875 — contemporary commentary by a British evolutionary biologist ( pdf format ) Letter from Lysenko's parents to Stalin , Pravda , 3 January 1936. Report by Lysenko to the Lenin Academy of Agricultural Sciences, 1948 New Developments in the Science of Biological Species by Lysenko, 1950 Heredity and Its Variability by Lysenko, 1951 Lecourt, Dominique, Proletarian Science? The Case of Lysenko (1977), Atlantic Highlands, Humanities Press, London, this digital edition first published 2003 (A Marxist , though anti-Stalinist, history of Lysenkoism) BBC program (In Our Time) on Lysenko ----------------------------- Trofim Lysenko 李森科 李森科 http://baike.baidu.com/view/1061888.htm?fromtitle=%E6%9D%8E%E6%A3%AE%E7%A7%91fromid=2642083type=syn 特罗菲姆 · 邓尼索维奇 · 李森科 (1898.9.29 － 1976.11.20 ）苏联生物学家，农学家，乌克兰人。 1925 年毕业于基辅农学院后，在一个育种站工作。他坚持生物的获得性遗传，否定孟德尔的基于基因的遗传学。 他得到斯大林的支持，使用政治迫害的手段打击学术上的反对者，使他的学说成了苏联生物遗传学的主流。 1935 年，李森科获得乌克兰科学院院士、全苏列宁农业科学院院士的称号，任敖德萨植物遗传育种研究所所长。 1953 年赫鲁晓夫否定斯大林的路线，但继续支持李森科。 1964.10 赫鲁晓夫下台，苏联的生物界得以清除李森科的学说 。 人物简 介 特 罗菲姆 · 邓尼索维奇 · 李森科（ ТрофимДенисович Лысенко ， 1898 年 -1976 年） 苏联生物学家，农学家，乌克兰人 。 李森科出生于 乌克兰一个农民家庭， 1925 年 毕业于基辅农学院后，在一个育种站工作。乌克兰和阿塞拜疆虽然地处较偏南方，但是冬季农作物 也偶 尔 会受到霜 冻天气的威胁。 1929 年，李的父 亲偶然发现在雪地里过冬的小麦种子，在春天播种可以提早在霜降前成熟。李森科在此基础上，发展了一种称为 “ 春化 处理 ” 的育种法，即在种植前使种子湿 润和冷冻，以加速其生长。李森科夸大自己的发现是解决霜冻威胁的灵丹妙药，为此，乌克兰农业部决定在敖德萨植物育种遗传研究所里，设立专门研究春化作用的部门，并任命李森科负责。 “ 春化 处理 ” 在俄国的 农业史上曾经有过，李森科对此给予了理论上的解释。技术和理论，在指导农业生产上的价值与作用，需要由实践来检验，而李森科推广这种技术，不是依靠严 格的科学 实验，却是借助于浮夸和弄虚作假。他理所当然地受到了正直科学家的批评 。 与对手斗 争 李森科出于政治与其他方面的考 虑，坚持生物进化中的获得性遗传观念，否定基因的存在性，用拉马克（ Lamarck ， 1744-1829 ）和米丘林 (I ． V ． Michurin) 的 遗传学抵制主流的孟德尔 — 摩 尔根 (G ． Mendel-T ． H ． Morgan) 遗传学，并把西方遗传学家称为苏维埃人民的敌人。李森科最初面临的主要反对者是来自美国遗传学家、诱发突变的发现者穆勒，后者认为经典的孟德尔遗传学完全符合辩证唯物主义。苏联农业科学研究院前任院长 N·I· 瓦 维洛夫支持穆勒的观点并成为李森科的头号对手 。 李森科从 1920 年代后期 绕开学术借助政治手段把批评者打倒。 1935 年 2 月 14 日，李森科利用斯大林参加全 苏第二次集体农庄突击队员代表大会的机会，在会上做了 “ 春化 处理是增产措施 ” 的 发言。李森科在他的演说中谈到，生物学的争论就像对 “ 集体化 ” 的争 论，是在和企图阻挠苏联发展的阶级敌人作斗争。他声称反对春化法的科学家： “ 不管他是在学 术界，还是不在学术界，一个阶级敌人总是一个阶级敌人 ……” 。李森科用自我否定的 检讨，来改头换面地对学术界知识分子进行攻击，这一手段得到了斯大 林的首肯，李森科把学 术问题上升为政治问题。尽管在乌克兰 50 多个地点 进行了 5 年 (1931—1936) 的 连续实验，表明经春化处理的小麦并没有提高产量，但这动摇不了李森科已经取得的胜利 。 李森科的反 对者开始面临噩运。穆勒逃脱了秘密警察的追捕，而瓦维洛夫则于 1940 年被捕，先是被判极刑，后又改判 为 20 年 监禁， 1943 年因 营养不良在监狱中死去。 1935 年，李森科 获得乌克兰科学院院士、全苏列宁农业科学院院士的称号，并当上了敖德萨植物遗传育种研究所所长 。 -------------- 经验教 训 教 训 1964 年 10 月，赫 鲁晓夫下台。李森科主义在苏维埃科学院被投票否决。至此，李森科丧失了在苏联生物学界的垄断地位。李森科主义没有实现苏联人 “ 面包会有的 ” 的理想，反而使他 们的分子生物学和遗传工程学遭到了不可救药的落伍，苏联失去了两代现代生物学家 。 科学不等于圣 洁。科学家不等于道德高尚。这样的教训古今都有。公元前 500 年，古希腊 毕达哥拉斯 (Pythagoras) 学派的希帕索斯 (Hippasus) 发现无理数，却被老师处死 。 历史的教训在于给人类以教益。科学完全走出政治强权的阴影，完全走出李森科之流的阴影，这在今天仍 然是人 类的一项艰巨的任务。控制论的创立者诺伯特 · 维纳的话提供了这一事件的反思： “ 科学是一种生活方式，它只在人 们具有信仰自由的时候才能繁荣起来。基于外界的命令而被迫去遵从的信仰并不是什么信仰，基于这种假信仰而建立起来的社会必然会由于瘫痪而导致灭亡，因为在这样的社会里，科学没有健康生长的基础。 ” ..........
标签: 批判精神
