The revolution of 1917 was a breeze of relief that put an end to the pallid Tsarist servitude. Little did anyone know about the servitude yet to come. Scientists were not the first of the Russians to succumb to the new regime, but their day had to come. It was inevitable. But, why do we need to remember this? This is 2020. Amidst the rise of climate-change denial and flat-earth theories, with an occasional rejection of the theory of evolution, it is indeed a perfect time to look ninety years back. 1928, the year a crackpot scientist presented his theory which, by Stalin’s grace, ascended to the peak of Soviet science.
In 1934, octogenarian physiologist Ivan Pavlov wrote a letter to the Sovnarkom (The Council of People’s Commissars), criticizing the Bolsheviks. Instead of setting the stage for a “world revolution”, complained Pavlov, the Bolsheviks had instigated the rise of fascism. Having been a recipient of the Nobel Prize, Pavlov was somehow immune from the harsh treatment dissidents used to face in the Soviet regime. However, five volumes of reports from the informants were prepared on him, thanks to the mighty OGPU. Sovnarkom chairman Vyacheslav Molotov replied to Pavlov in 1935, in a manner somewhat softer than what one could expect from a Soviet authority, indicating his disapproval of Pavlov’s unsolicited interference in political matters. Further, Molotov assured Pavlov that the political leadership of the Soviet Union would never interfere in the study of science:
“I can only express my surprise that you tried to make categorical conclusions on principal political questions in a scientific area which you, apparently, have no knowledge of. I can only add that the political leaders of the USSR would never allow themselves to use such ardor in questions of physiology, the field in which your scientific authority is without question.”
The promise, however, was false. The authority kept poking its nose into science. Stalin’s tendency of exuding authority in science should not be seen in isolation. It is the very principle of totalitarianism to influence every aspect of life. The exuberant achievements of Soviet science cannot vindicate its authority’s countenance to pseudoscience of the worst kind. For example, the rejection of Mendelian inheritance.
In 1928, Soviet biologist Trofim Lysenko came up with his revolutionary “innovation” in the field of agricultural sciences. Lysenko rejected the concept of genes and held Lamarckism as the gospel truth. Tweaking the method of vernalization, he proposed a theory based on the heritability of acquired traits. His rejection of Mendelian genetics won the favour of Stalin. Soon, Lysenko rose to a position powerful enough to suppress conflicting opinions from other scientists. Mendelian genetics was rejected primarily to reaffirm the view that the human nature is infinitely malleable. Anything not in accordance with the ruling political philosophy was to be rejected. Science, sadly, does not care about ideology.
Lysenkoism was a disaster. Its fabricated nonsense resulted in the deaths of millions.
The August 1948 session of the Agricultural Academy wreaked havoc on true science — genetics in particular. More than 3,000 biologists lost their jobs because of their staunch opposition to Lysenko’s spurious ideas. Academician Orbeli refused to sack geneticists Rose Manzing and Ivan Kanaev from the Institute of Evolutionary Physiology and Pathology of the Highest Nervous Activity within the Medical Academy. Interestingly, posing as an anathema to the regime, he hired another geneticist named Mikhail Lobashov. Mikhail had just been sacked from the Leningrad University. Orbeli could no longer hold his position as the secretary academician. Oparin replaced him.
Long before this, geneticist Nikolai Vavilov’s strong opposition to Lysenkoism ignited a bonfire of criticism in the Stalinist intelligentsia. He was eventually arrested. He starved to death in 1943.
The prosecution of Vavilov, a sad reminder of the fate of Anaxagoras, was only the tip of the iceberg. For many in the Stalinist USSR, voluntary human sacrifice was an honor. People were ready to submit themselves to the government. American journalist Anna Louise Strong, in her book The Stalin Era, gave a particularly sordid and scary account:
“Other Russian friends took an even more ruthless view. I recall one who maintained that if the political police held one hundred suspects and knew that one was a dangerous traitor but could not determine which one, they should execute them all, and the ninety-nine innocent ones should be willing to die rather than let a traitor live.”
Needless to say, no totalitarian regime can prosper without such sclerotic disregard for human life. Under the carapace of moral-sounding intentions, Lysenkoism demolished Soviet genetics. The problem, however, was not Lysenko’s espousal of pseudoscience. Pseudoscientific ideas are to be discarded by rigorous analysis. Pseudoscience runs its course and eventually withers away. But, Lysenkoism was protected by the state because of its supposed adherence to Marxism, not because of its scientific value. Lysenko’s critics, however accurate their scientific methods were, were to be denounced as counter-revolutionaries. Dr. Vadim Birstein’s book The Perversion Of Knowledge: The True Story Of Soviet Science recounts these events in chilling detail.
Soviet government’s relationship with pseudoscience did not stop there. After Stalin’s death in 1953, the effect of Lysenkoism started to minimize. In 1962, Soviet physicists Yakov Zel’dovich, Vitaly Ginzberg, Pytor Kapitsa denounced Lysenko’s ideas. Lysenko was eventually removed from his position. However, the authorities found a new product to market — the ancient astronaut hypothesis. This hypothesis, often called the “ancient astronaut theory”, suggests that our ancient ancestors were visited by extraterrestrials. The primitive humans, unable to understand alien technology, mistook those aliens for gods. However, the proponents of this “theory” have not been able to put forward any conclusive evidence — apart from the ones which have already been debunked.
The Ancient Astronaut hypothesis owes its popularity mostly to Erich von Daniken’s bestseller Chariots of the Gods? (1968). Nearly a decade before its publication, Soviet mathematician Matest Agrest proposed the so-called “theory”. He suggested that the tale of Sodom and Gomorrah might have been the description of a nuclear war. As researcher Jason Colavito rightly points out, Agrest’s conjectures might have influenced Jacques Bergier and Louis Pauwels to write Morning of the Magicians (1960), which later served as Daniken’s (possible) primary reference.
Things did not remain the same. Just after the US participated in the “sky-gods” bandwagon, it became inevitable for the Soviets to abandon the ship. This points to an important feature of totalitarian systems, at least of the USSR kind. They did not embrace pseudoscience like cults usually do. They merely utilized it. This can help us discern the directly-theocratic systems from the ones that are structurally theocratic but ideologically secular. While theocracy mingles with pseudoscience and embraces it as a part of its religious agenda, secular totalitarian governments use it as a tool.
Sociobiologist Edward O. Wilson was heckled multiple times for his difference with the dominant left-wing tendencies. Apart from being accused of propagating racism, Wilson had a pitcher of water thrown at him. The backlash Dr. Wilson received from a section of the “left” exposes how the nascent totalitarian tendencies try to influence science. This is an ominous sign. These signs appear everywhere in the world. All sorts of pseudoscience (airplanes in ancient India, plastic surgery in the ancient times) spring up. Misinterpreting science to fit racist agenda is fairly common, even in today’s world.
So, why do we need to remember the Lysenko episode? The answer can be found in the growing trend of pseudoscientific ideas, fueled by guided mass-delusions and collective persecution-complex (“The Majority Is In Danger!”). It has been more than ninety years since Lysenko presented his mumbo-jumbo. Last year, Lysenko turned 121. To avoid a possible reincarnation of Lysenko (or, his shadow), it is extremely important to remember this particular piece of history — a lesson, a textbook case of institutionalized fake-news.
References:
- The Perversion Of Knowledge: The True Story Of Soviet Science, Vadim J. Birstein
- The Stalin Era, Anna Louise Strong
- The Blank Slate, Steven Pinker
