Lysenkoism

@article{doi101038scientificamerican116241,
    author = "Joravsky, David",
    title = "The Lysenko Affair",
    year = "1962",
    journal = "Scientific American",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.1038/scientificamerican1162-41",
    doi = "10.1038/scientificamerican1162-41",
    openalex = "W3134957112"
}

@article{doi1023074441886,
    author = "Lehman, David L.",
    title = "The Lysenko Affair: Implications for the Teaching of High School Biology",
    year = "1967",
    journal = "The American Biology Teacher",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.2307/4441886",
    doi = "10.2307/4441886",
    openalex = "W2399193636",
    references = "doi101038scientificamerican116241"
}

Presents the story of the Soviets from 1937-1964 in three ways; historically, by the author as a witness, and by the author as an active participant to the final stages of Lysenkoism, which he helped to topple.

@book{doi107312medv92664,
    author = "Medvedev, Zhores A.",
    title = "The Rise and Fall of T. D. Lysenko",
    year = "1969",
    booktitle = "Columbia University Press eBooks",
    abstract = "Presents the story of the Soviets from 1937-1964 in three ways; historically, by the author as a witness, and by the author as an active participant to the final stages of Lysenkoism, which he helped to topple.",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.7312/medv92664",
    doi = "10.7312/medv92664",
    openalex = "W2024383190"
}

@article{doi101086350627,
    author = "Graham, L.",
    title = "Sowing and Reaping",
    year = "1970",
    journal = "Isis",
    url = "https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/66153f75b52a817dba47bc833988d954ee53a4b5",
    doi = "10.1086/350627",
    is_oa = "true",
    number = "2",
    pages = "261-263",
    semanticscholar_id = "66153f75b52a817dba47bc833988d954ee53a4b5",
    volume = "61"
}

@article{doi1023071852361,
    author = "Walsh, Warren B. and Medvedev, Zhores A. and Lerner, I. Michael and Lawrence, Lucy G.",
    title = "The Rise and Fall of T. D. Lysenko",
    year = "1970",
    journal = "The American Historical Review",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.2307/1852361",
    doi = "10.2307/1852361",
    openalex = "W2569106941"
}

@book{joravsky1970the1,
    author = "Joravsky, D",
    title = "The Lysenko Affair",
    year = "1970",
    publisher = "Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Press",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Joravsky, D., 1970, The Lysenko Affair: Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Press.}"
}

The Lysenko affair was perhaps the most bizarre chapter in the history of modern science. For thirty years, until 1965, Soviet genetics was dominated by a fanatical agronomist who achieved dictatorial power over genetics and plant science as well as agronomy. A standard source both for Soviet specialists and for sociologists of science.-American Journal of Sociology Joravsky has produced... the most detailed and authoritative treatment of Lysenko and his view on genetics.-New York Times Book Review

@book{openalexw1986615600,
    author = "Joravsky, David",
    title = "The Lysenko affair",
    year = "1970",
    abstract = "The Lysenko affair was perhaps the most bizarre chapter in the history of modern science. For thirty years, until 1965, Soviet genetics was dominated by a fanatical agronomist who achieved dictatorial power over genetics and plant science as well as agronomy. A standard source both for Soviet specialists and for sociologists of science.-American Journal of Sociology Joravsky has produced... the most detailed and authoritative treatment of Lysenko and his view on genetics.-New York Times Book Review",
    openalex = "W1986615600"
}

@article{doi1023071870447,
    author = "Toma, Peter A. and Joravsky, David",
    title = "The Lysenko Affair",
    year = "1972",
    journal = "The American Historical Review",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.2307/1870447",
    doi = "10.2307/1870447",
    openalex = "W2068725741"
}

@article{doi10100797813498614532,
    author = "Lewontin, R. and Levins, R.",
    title = "The Problem of Lysenkoism",
    year = "1976",
    booktitle = "The Radicalisation of Science",
    url = "https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/c7a67b1f050495f7808acfb2a5e9bddf0aeea6f9",
    doi = "10.1007/978-1-349-86145-3\_2",
    is_oa = "true",
    pages = "32-64",
    semanticscholar_citation_count = "54",
    semanticscholar_id = "c7a67b1f050495f7808acfb2a5e9bddf0aeea6f9"
}

@article{doi1023071855810,
    author = "Kuchment, Mark and Lecourt, Dominique and Brewster, Ben",
    title = "Proletarian Science? The Case of Lysenko",
    year = "1979",
    journal = "The American Historical Review",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.2307/1855810",
    doi = "10.2307/1855810",
    openalex = "W2001374344"
}

Summary Zhores Medvedev and Mark Popovsky have both drawn attention to the positive response on the part of the scientific community to the early work of Lysenko on the phasic development of plants. This aspect of the Lysenko Affair is explored more fully in this paper. Vavilov's sponsorship of Lysenko is set in the intellectual context of plant physiology circa 1930, and in the political climate of the pressing needs of Russian agriculture at that time. Lysenko's rise was also favoured by the Marxist philosophy of science then current in which the traditional distinction between basic and applied science was discarded and an opposition between proletarian and bourgeois science introduced. It is claimed that an understanding of the intellectual history must lie at the core of a social history of the Lysenko Affair if it is to prove adequate.

@article{doi10108000033798500200201,
    author = "Roll‐Hansen, Nils",
    title = "A new perspective on Lysenko?",
    year = "1985",
    journal = "Annals of Science",
    abstract = "Summary Zhores Medvedev and Mark Popovsky have both drawn attention to the positive response on the part of the scientific community to the early work of Lysenko on the phasic development of plants. This aspect of the Lysenko Affair is explored more fully in this paper. Vavilov's sponsorship of Lysenko is set in the intellectual context of plant physiology circa 1930, and in the political climate of the pressing needs of Russian agriculture at that time. Lysenko's rise was also favoured by the Marxist philosophy of science then current in which the traditional distinction between basic and applied science was discarded and an opposition between proletarian and bourgeois science introduced. It is claimed that an understanding of the intellectual history must lie at the core of a social history of the Lysenko Affair if it is to prove adequate.",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.1080/00033798500200201",
    doi = "10.1080/00033798500200201",
    openalex = "W2069826795",
    references = "doi101038scientificamerican116241"
}

@book{doi107208chicago97802264103260010001,
    author = "Joravsky, David",
    title = "The Lysenko Affair",
    year = "1986",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226410326.001.0001",
    doi = "10.7208/chicago/9780226410326.001.0001",
    openalex = "W4229871964"
}

Trofim Lysenko's campaign against genetics and biology during the era of Stalin and Khrushchev is one of the great tragedies of modern science. In the purges that Lysenko (1898-1976) instigated, even the greatest of Soviet scientists were not safe. Only in 1964, when Khrushchev fell from power and when massive crop failures revealed the emptiness of the peasant-scientist's theories, did Lysenko lose favor. Even now, his long shadow stretches over the countries of the former Soviet Union as they deal with the disastrous consequences of Lysenkoist policies on science, agriculture, medicine, and the environment. As a young student in the 1950s, Valery N. Soyfer saw Lysenko's power - and charismatic charm - at first hand. In the 1970s, when Soyfer found himself stripped of his scientific degrees and positions because he had supported physicist Andre Sakharov and joined the dissident movement in the USSR, he used his time to find out all he could about the man who had destroyed Soviet science. This is the fullest account yet of Lysenko's life and times. It draws on extensive interviews, archives long inaccessible to scholars, and Soyfer's own memories. With the passion of a novelist and the precision of a scientist, Soyfer re-creates this terrible episode in twentieth-century history. The original Russian manuscript of this unique biography circulated as an underground samizdat book and was to the West for publication. When Dr. Soyfer was unexpectedly allowed to leave the USSR in 1988, Rutgers University Press greeted him with a contract for the work.

@article{doi105860choice322705,
    title = "Lysenko and the tragedy of Soviet science",
    year = "1995",
    journal = "Choice Reviews Online",
    abstract = "Trofim Lysenko's campaign against genetics and biology during the era of Stalin and Khrushchev is one of the great tragedies of modern science. In the purges that Lysenko (1898-1976) instigated, even the greatest of Soviet scientists were not safe. Only in 1964, when Khrushchev fell from power and when massive crop failures revealed the emptiness of the peasant-scientist's theories, did Lysenko lose favor. Even now, his long shadow stretches over the countries of the former Soviet Union as they deal with the disastrous consequences of Lysenkoist policies on science, agriculture, medicine, and the environment. As a young student in the 1950s, Valery N. Soyfer saw Lysenko's power - and charismatic charm - at first hand. In the 1970s, when Soyfer found himself stripped of his scientific degrees and positions because he had supported physicist Andre Sakharov and joined the dissident movement in the USSR, he used his time to find out all he could about the man who had destroyed Soviet science. This is the fullest account yet of Lysenko's life and times. It draws on extensive interviews, archives long inaccessible to scholars, and Soyfer's own memories. With the passion of a novelist and the precision of a scientist, Soyfer re-creates this terrible episode in twentieth-century history. The original Russian manuscript of this unique biography circulated as an underground samizdat book and was to the West for publication. When Dr. Soyfer was unexpectedly allowed to leave the USSR in 1988, Rutgers University Press greeted him with a contract for the work.",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.5860/choice.32-2705",
    doi = "10.5860/choice.32-2705",
    openalex = "W2137876644"
}

The doctrines of the Lamarckian Trofim Lysenko became official dogma in the Soviet Union, putting an end to a very promising development in Soviet genetics and evolutionary biology. The influence of Lysenkoism on the scientific development in the German Democratic Republic (GDR) remained minimal, despite efforts to promote it. This essay by Hossfeld and Olsson tells the story of one of the leading Lysenkoists in the GDR, Georg Schneider, and of the resistance against this form of pseudoscience.

@article{doi101126science1068355,
    author = "Hoßfeld, Uwe and Olsson, Lennart",
    title = "From the Modern Synthesis to Lysenkoism, and Back?",
    year = "2002",
    journal = "Science",
    abstract = "The doctrines of the Lamarckian Trofim Lysenko became official dogma in the Soviet Union, putting an end to a very promising development in Soviet genetics and evolutionary biology. The influence of Lysenkoism on the scientific development in the German Democratic Republic (GDR) remained minimal, despite efforts to promote it. This essay by Hossfeld and Olsson tells the story of one of the leading Lysenkoists in the GDR, Georg Schneider, and of the resistance against this form of pseudoscience.",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1068355",
    doi = "10.1126/science.1068355",
    openalex = "W1590576336"
}

@article{doi105860choice425848,
    title = "The Lysenko effect: the politics of science",
    year = "2005",
    journal = "Choice Reviews Online",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.5860/choice.42-5848",
    doi = "10.5860/choice.42-5848",
    openalex = "W2799037112"
}

@article{doi101007s1073900791259,
    author = "Teich, M.",
    title = "Haldane and Lysenko Revisited",
    year = "2007",
    journal = "Journal of the History of Biology",
    url = "https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/e63cdafce88d27418f7cbf06a1fdab07004f205f",
    doi = "10.1007/S10739-007-9125-9",
    is_oa = "true",
    number = "3",
    pages = "557-563",
    semanticscholar_citation_count = "4",
    semanticscholar_id = "e63cdafce88d27418f7cbf06a1fdab07004f205f",
    volume = "40"
}

The history of genetics offers abundant material for the study of the influence of social factors in the development of science. Several of these factors are listed and briefly touched upon. Especial attention is paid to the interference of political power in the business of science, exemplified and analyzed in the tragic case of the Lysenko affair, which lead to the death of the best geneticists of Russia and the destruction of a whole and fruitful scientific community.

@incollection{doi1011639789401206037010,
    author = "Mosterín, Jesús",
    title = "SOCIAL FACTORS IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF GENETICS AND THE LYSENKO AFFAIR",
    year = "2008",
    abstract = "The history of genetics offers abundant material for the study of the influence of social factors in the development of science. Several of these factors are listed and briefly touched upon. Especial attention is paid to the interference of political power in the business of science, exemplified and analyzed in the tragic case of the Lysenko affair, which lead to the death of the best geneticists of Russia and the destruction of a whole and fruitful scientific community.",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.1163/9789401206037\_010",
    doi = "10.1163/9789401206037\_010",
    openalex = "W1139794176"
}

This article analyses the attitudes of three major French authors of the mid twentieth century with respect to the evolutionary theories of the notorious Soviet agronomist, Trofim Denisovich Lysenko. In spite of a lack of any real scientific credibility, Lysenko’s ideas found favour during Stalin’s reign of power and were briefly influential in French communist circles following the Lysenko affair of 1948 in the USSR. In this piece, the attitudes towards Lysenkoism expressed in selected works of Louis Aragon, Albert Camus and Vercors are evaluated as an indicator of the authors’ respective attitudes towards Stalinism and French communism, while the extent to which the views expressed are characteristic of French modes of evolutionary thought is also considered. This article therefore aims to show that the authors’ engagement with Lysenkoism is revealing not only in respect of the moral and intellectual struggles facing the French left during the early Cold War period, but also has much to tell us about the characteristically French preconceptions concerning evolutionism that made such conflicts possible.

@article{doi1018573newreadings61,
    author = "Lyle, Louise",
    title = "Science Bourgeoise et Science Prolétarienne: French Literary Responses to the Lysenko Affair",
    year = "2008",
    journal = "New Readings",
    abstract = "This article analyses the attitudes of three major French authors of the mid twentieth century with respect to the evolutionary theories of the notorious Soviet agronomist, Trofim Denisovich Lysenko. In spite of a lack of any real scientific credibility, Lysenko’s ideas found favour during Stalin’s reign of power and were briefly influential in French communist circles following the Lysenko affair of 1948 in the USSR. In this piece, the attitudes towards Lysenkoism expressed in selected works of Louis Aragon, Albert Camus and Vercors are evaluated as an indicator of the authors’ respective attitudes towards Stalinism and French communism, while the extent to which the views expressed are characteristic of French modes of evolutionary thought is also considered. This article therefore aims to show that the authors’ engagement with Lysenkoism is revealing not only in respect of the moral and intellectual struggles facing the French left during the early Cold War period, but also has much to tell us about the characteristically French preconceptions concerning evolutionism that made such conflicts possible.",
    url = "http://newreadings.cardiffuniversitypress.org/articles/10.18573/newreadings.61/galley/59/download/",
    doi = "10.18573/NEWREADINGS.61",
    is_oa = "true",
    number = "0",
    pages = "1",
    semanticscholar_citation_count = "2",
    semanticscholar_id = "84f9850acbbf736e026cc3ee07ff73e3e9dbee6d",
    volume = "9"
}

@article{s2558543fd102b6bbcf6529a2f1e10dc0d7d8e0398,
    author = "deJong-Lambert, William",
    title = "The New Biology",
    year = "2008",
    url = "https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/558543fd102b6bbcf6529a2f1e10dc0d7d8e0398",
    is_oa = "true",
    semanticscholar_id = "558543fd102b6bbcf6529a2f1e10dc0d7d8e0398"
}

Stalin's support for Trofim Lysenko in the late 1940s has come to exemplify Stalinist science and the deleterious effects of gross political intervention in scientific affairs. In this article, Ethan Pollock turns our attention to the harsh criticism of Lysenko that occurred in the Central Committee in the last years of Stalin's life and situates that criticism within a broader move in Soviet ideology toward nauchnost' or scientific truthfulness. In the later 1950s nauchnost' grew even stronger in nearly every other field of science. Still, Lysenko prolonged his hold on power in Soviet agricultural science as Nikita Khrushchev attempted to reassert the importance of partiinost’ or partymindedness. Lysenko's promises of great agricultural rewards and plans to radically transform nature were only fully rejected by the party when Khrushchev himself was removed from office.

@article{doi101017s0037677900000103,
    author = "Pollock, Ethan",
    title = "From Partiinost' to Nauchnost' and Not Quite Back Again: Revisiting the Lessons of the Lysenko Affair",
    year = "2009",
    journal = "Slavic Review",
    abstract = "Stalin's support for Trofim Lysenko in the late 1940s has come to exemplify Stalinist science and the deleterious effects of gross political intervention in scientific affairs. In this article, Ethan Pollock turns our attention to the harsh criticism of Lysenko that occurred in the Central Committee in the last years of Stalin's life and situates that criticism within a broader move in Soviet ideology toward nauchnost' or scientific truthfulness. In the later 1950s nauchnost' grew even stronger in nearly every other field of science. Still, Lysenko prolonged his hold on power in Soviet agricultural science as Nikita Khrushchev attempted to reassert the importance of partiinost’ or partymindedness. Lysenko's promises of great agricultural rewards and plans to radically transform nature were only fully rejected by the party when Khrushchev himself was removed from office.",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.1017/s0037677900000103",
    doi = "10.1017/s0037677900000103",
    openalex = "W2586838579",
    references = "doi101142p307, doi1015159781400843756, doi1015159781400849109, doi1015159781503616639, doi1015259780520928114, doi101525aa200610849271, doi1023071855810, doi105860choice274810, doi105860choice370307, doi105860choice375924, doi105860choice425848"
}

A classic instance of the baleful effect of political interference in science is provided by the Lysenko Affair. There are, unfortunately, close parallels between that example and the modern politics of Global Warming. Significantly, Trofim Lysenko introduced his ideas first through politics. Some think his ideas had Marxist backing because biology could be then modified in the way that Soviet communists wanted – in order to control people's behaviour. Furthermore, Lysenko demonised conventional genetics, which again suited his masters - who believed this to be the basis behind Fascist eugenics.

@article{doi101260095830509787689259,
    author = "Ollier, C.",
    title = "Lysenkoism and Global Warming",
    year = "2009",
    journal = "Energy \& Environment",
    abstract = "A classic instance of the baleful effect of political interference in science is provided by the Lysenko Affair. There are, unfortunately, close parallels between that example and the modern politics of Global Warming. Significantly, Trofim Lysenko introduced his ideas first through politics. Some think his ideas had Marxist backing because biology could be then modified in the way that Soviet communists wanted – in order to control people's behaviour. Furthermore, Lysenko demonised conventional genetics, which again suited his masters - who believed this to be the basis behind Fascist eugenics.",
    url = "https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/f08cc6064aad87347ec425e4e31dfa9c08b27857",
    doi = "10.1260/095830509787689259",
    is_oa = "true",
    number = "1",
    pages = "197-200",
    semanticscholar_citation_count = "5",
    semanticscholar_id = "f08cc6064aad87347ec425e4e31dfa9c08b27857",
    volume = "20"
}

@article{doi101007s1073901092384,
    author = "Köhler, Piotr",
    title = "Lysenko Affair and Polish Botany",
    year = "2010",
    journal = "Journal of the History of Biology",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.1007/s10739-010-9238-4",
    doi = "10.1007/s10739-010-9238-4",
    openalex = "W1971870058",
    references = "doi1023071852361, doi1023071855810, doi10230720032115, doi1023072407065, doi1023073102482, doi105860choice265280, doi105860choice322705, doi105860choice425848, openalexw1986615600, openalexw1998725998"
}

@article{doi101016jcub201009009,
    author = "Maderspacher, Florian",
    title = "Lysenko rising",
    year = "2010",
    journal = "Current Biology",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2010.09.009",
    doi = "10.1016/j.cub.2010.09.009",
    openalex = "W4232949234"
}

The American response to Lysenkoism took place at a crucial moment in the evolving relationship between science and the public. Like many professional scientific organizations in the early Cold War, the Genetics Society of America (GSA) resisted involvement in political issues. In contrast to similar societies in the physical sciences, however, the geneticists' silence cannot be explained solely by the fear of financial or political repercussions. Rather, the GSA's reluctance to engage in political discussion reflected an ongoing debate within the scientific community on the proper role for professional societies in political controversy. Those geneticists who did become embroiled in the controversy did so as individuals rather than as emissaries of the profession. Geneticists H.J. Muller, L.C. Dunn, and Theodosius Dobzhansky attempted to reach the public through a variety of outlets, including books, magazines, newspapers, and the radio, but their interventions were shaped by their individual personal and political commitments. The GSA, in contrast, attempted to combat the spread of Lysenkoism with the help of a public relations firm and a Golden Jubilee celebration of the rediscovery of Mendel's laws. The messy story of the American response to the Lysenko crisis demonstrates the limits of scientists' political involvement during the early Cold War.

@article{doi101525hsns201040148,
    author = "Wolfe, Audra J.",
    title = "What Does It Mean to Go Public? The American Response to Lysenkoism, Reconsidered",
    year = "2010",
    journal = "Historical Studies in the Natural Sciences",
    abstract = "The American response to Lysenkoism took place at a crucial moment in the evolving relationship between science and the public. Like many professional scientific organizations in the early Cold War, the Genetics Society of America (GSA) resisted involvement in political issues. In contrast to similar societies in the physical sciences, however, the geneticists' silence cannot be explained solely by the fear of financial or political repercussions. Rather, the GSA's reluctance to engage in political discussion reflected an ongoing debate within the scientific community on the proper role for professional societies in political controversy. Those geneticists who did become embroiled in the controversy did so as individuals rather than as emissaries of the profession. Geneticists H.J. Muller, L.C. Dunn, and Theodosius Dobzhansky attempted to reach the public through a variety of outlets, including books, magazines, newspapers, and the radio, but their interventions were shaped by their individual personal and political commitments. The GSA, in contrast, attempted to combat the spread of Lysenkoism with the help of a public relations firm and a Golden Jubilee celebration of the rediscovery of Mendel's laws. The messy story of the American response to the Lysenko crisis demonstrates the limits of scientists' political involvement during the early Cold War.",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.1525/hsns.2010.40.1.48",
    doi = "10.1525/hsns.2010.40.1.48",
    openalex = "W2005505772"
}

@article{doi101007s1073901192864,
    author = "Cassata, Francesco",
    title = "The Italian Communist Party and the “Lysenko Affair” (1948–1955)",
    year = "2011",
    journal = "Journal of the History of Biology",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.1007/s10739-011-9286-4",
    doi = "10.1007/s10739-011-9286-4",
    openalex = "W2087926840",
    references = "doi1010160968000488902381, doi101017s0025727300013739, doi1012159780822380344, doi101525hsns201040148, doi1023072163763, doi105860choice335176, doi105860choice390570, doi107551mitpress12300010001, doi1078299789639776838, openalexw610592046"
}

@article{doi101007s1073901192882,
    author = "Selya, Rena",
    title = "Defending Scientific Freedom and Democracy: The Genetics Society of America’s Response to Lysenko",
    year = "2011",
    journal = "Journal of the History of Biology",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.1007/s10739-011-9288-2",
    doi = "10.1007/s10739-011-9288-2",
    openalex = "W2107781368",
    references = "doi1023071852361"
}

@article{doi101007s1073901192926,
    author = "deJong‐Lambert, William and Krementsov, Nikolai",
    title = "On Labels and Issues: The Lysenko Controversy and the Cold War",
    year = "2011",
    journal = "Journal of the History of Biology",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.1007/s10739-011-9292-6",
    doi = "10.1007/s10739-011-9292-6",
    openalex = "W1985929941",
    references = "doi107208chicago97802264103260010001"
}

The scientific controversy surrounding Lysenkoism is both unparalleled and well known amongst historians and philosophers of science (Joravsky 1970, McMullin 1987, Pollock 2009, Wolfe 2010). Yet, while this may be true for scholars and students a generation ago, I argue that the controversy of Lysenkoism is not widely known today. Particularly in political science, this historical period and phenomenon in the Soviet Union remains irrelevant or at least, inconsequential to the scientific study of politics.

@article{openalexw2122430101,
    author = "Ferguson, Mark A.",
    title = "The Myth of Progress in Science: Dialectics, Distortion and Lysenkoism in the Soviet Union",
    year = "2011",
    journal = "ScholarWorks - WMU (Western Michigan University)",
    abstract = "The scientific controversy surrounding Lysenkoism is both unparalleled and well known amongst historians and philosophers of science (Joravsky 1970, McMullin 1987, Pollock 2009, Wolfe 2010). Yet, while this may be true for scholars and students a generation ago, I argue that the controversy of Lysenkoism is not widely known today. Particularly in political science, this historical period and phenomenon in the Soviet Union remains irrelevant or at least, inconsequential to the scientific study of politics.",
    openalex = "W2122430101",
    references = "doi101017s0037677900000103"
}

@book{doi1010079789400728400,
    author = "deJong‐Lambert, William",
    title = "The Cold War Politics of Genetic Research: An Introduction to the Lysenko Affair",
    year = "2012",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2840-0",
    doi = "10.1007/978-94-007-2840-0",
    openalex = "W354545280"
}

This article looks at the highly influential scientific work of François Jacob and Jacques Monod in the context of the Lysenko affair. It argues that Lysenkoism provided a stimulus to understand and interpret the science they were doing in the field of molecular biology in a particular way, leading to a crucial terminological shift from adaptation to induction in 1953. At a time when new geopolitical borders and barriers were being constructed, molecular biology claimed to have identified a rigidly policed border between the genetic material in the cell nucleus and the rest of the cell. Molecular biology was, in this sense, drawn into a form of intellectual Cold War.

@article{doi101353esp20120020,
    author = "Marks, John",
    title = "Jacques Monod, François Jacob, and the Lysenko Affair: Boundary Work",
    year = "2012",
    journal = "L'Esprit Créateur",
    abstract = "This article looks at the highly influential scientific work of François Jacob and Jacques Monod in the context of the Lysenko affair. It argues that Lysenkoism provided a stimulus to understand and interpret the science they were doing in the field of molecular biology in a particular way, leading to a crucial terminological shift from adaptation to induction in 1953. At a time when new geopolitical borders and barriers were being constructed, molecular biology claimed to have identified a rigidly policed border between the genetic material in the cell nucleus and the rest of the cell. Molecular biology was, in this sense, drawn into a form of intellectual Cold War.",
    url = "https://nottingham-repository.worktribe.com/preview/710120/pdf.pdf",
    doi = "10.1353/ESP.2012.0020",
    is_oa = "true",
    number = "2",
    pages = "75-88",
    semanticscholar_citation_count = "1",
    semanticscholar_id = "c0107cf04698499dafcf802aa2d1ee19d894ff10",
    volume = "52"
}

@article{doi101007s110160139797z,
    author = "Roll-Hansen, N.",
    title = "The current relevance of Lysenkoism",
    year = "2013",
    journal = "Metascience",
    url = "https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/42e5bda7b9e56399dfb913a1c9529194a171dca4",
    doi = "10.1007/s11016-013-9797-z",
    is_oa = "true",
    number = "3",
    pages = "621-624",
    semanticscholar_id = "42e5bda7b9e56399dfb913a1c9529194a171dca4",
    volume = "22"
}

@article{doi101007s1119101396675,
    author = "Peacock, Margaret",
    title = "Mendel Lives: The Survival of Mendelian Genetics in the Lysenkoist Classroom, 1937–1964",
    year = "2013",
    journal = "Science \& Education",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-013-9667-5",
    doi = "10.1007/s11191-013-9667-5",
    openalex = "W2077640941",
    references = "doi101017s0037677900000103"
}

As part of a growing engagement with science studies, political ecologists have worked to theorize environmental science. They have situated science by juxtaposing it with other types of knowledge and have attended not only to science's application but also to its production and circulation. Despite these efforts, science is portrayed in most political ecology as brought to the field site already finished, rather than constructed there through embodied practices designed for use in live scientific debates. I argue that scientists doing science transform the sites in which they work, that political ecologists have not adequately theorized field-based examples of this process, and that help can be found in the geography of science. To this end, I present a historical geography of the Lysenkoist and field-based heredity science that informed a program of forest modification in Soviet Central Asia in the mid-twentieth century. This program, which used horticultural techniques to construct forest-orchards (lesosady) in the walnut–fruit forests of Soviet Kirgizia, entered the landscape into scientific controversies, with ramifications for human–forest interactions in Kyrgyzstan today. Field sciences, like Lysenkoist heredity, have geographies that immerse them in and transform the world. By telling them, political ecologists can better illuminate where and how the doing of science has shaped encounters between people and their environments.

@article{doi101080000456082014941733,
    author = "Fleming, Jake",
    title = "Political Ecology and the Geography of Science: Lesosady, Lysenkoism, and Soviet Science in Kyrgyzstan's Walnut–Fruit Forest",
    year = "2014",
    journal = "Annals of the Association of American Geographers",
    abstract = "As part of a growing engagement with science studies, political ecologists have worked to theorize environmental science. They have situated science by juxtaposing it with other types of knowledge and have attended not only to science's application but also to its production and circulation. Despite these efforts, science is portrayed in most political ecology as brought to the field site already finished, rather than constructed there through embodied practices designed for use in live scientific debates. I argue that scientists doing science transform the sites in which they work, that political ecologists have not adequately theorized field-based examples of this process, and that help can be found in the geography of science. To this end, I present a historical geography of the Lysenkoist and field-based heredity science that informed a program of forest modification in Soviet Central Asia in the mid-twentieth century. This program, which used horticultural techniques to construct forest-orchards (lesosady) in the walnut–fruit forests of Soviet Kirgizia, entered the landscape into scientific controversies, with ramifications for human–forest interactions in Kyrgyzstan today. Field sciences, like Lysenkoist heredity, have geographies that immerse them in and transform the world. By telling them, political ecologists can better illuminate where and how the doing of science has shaped encounters between people and their environments.",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.1080/00045608.2014.941733",
    doi = "10.1080/00045608.2014.941733",
    openalex = "W2009246126",
    references = "doi1010079789400728400, doi101111j146776601995tb00560x, doi101353con19940041, doi101525pol1998212127, doi10230720048980, doi1023072655272, doi1041359781446219713, doi105860choice286234, doi105860choice314888, doi105860choice425341, doi107208chicago97802264103260010001, doi107208chicago97802266682080010001"
}

@article{doi101007s1121201592318,
    author = "Roll‐Hansen, Nils",
    title = "On the philosophical roots of today’s science policy: Any lessons from the “Lysenko affair”?",
    year = "2015",
    journal = "Studies in East European Thought",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.1007/s11212-015-9231-8",
    doi = "10.1007/s11212-015-9231-8",
    openalex = "W592548894",
    references = "doi10109301951458360010001, doi10129879780300252989, doi10230720048980, doi1023072076669, doi102307220888, doi1043249781315855608, doi105860choice324463, doi105860choice361224, openalexw1766331230, openalexw3186861947"
}

The Japanese discussion of the theory of Soviet agronomist Trofim D. Lysenko began in the postwar years under the American occupation. Leftists introduced Lysenko's theory immediately after the war as part of a postwar scientists' movement. Unlike many American geneticists, who sharply criticized the theory, Japanese geneticists initially participated in the discussion in an even-handed way; their scientific interests in the roles of cytoplasm and the environment in heredity shaped their initial sympathetic reaction. As the Cold War divide deepened, however, Japanese scientists began expressing sharp anti-Lysenko criticisms that resembled the American criticisms. Interestingly, throughout the period, Japanese geneticists' overall aim in the discussion remained largely unchanged: to effectively reconstruct their discipline and maintain its proper image and authority. However, the shift in their reaction occurred due to an evolving sociopolitical context, especially the shift in the meaning of 'democratic' science from a science that employed democratic processes to a science of a liberal-democratic state. Regarding Lysenko's idea as a cultural resource could help to explain how and why it was treated differently in different places, and why a controversy emerged in certain contexts but not in others.

@article{doi1011770306312715596460,
    author = "Iida, Kaori",
    title = "A controversial idea as a cultural resource: The Lysenko controversy and discussions of genetics as a ‘democratic’ science in postwar Japan",
    year = "2015",
    journal = "Social Studies of Science",
    abstract = "The Japanese discussion of the theory of Soviet agronomist Trofim D. Lysenko began in the postwar years under the American occupation. Leftists introduced Lysenko's theory immediately after the war as part of a postwar scientists' movement. Unlike many American geneticists, who sharply criticized the theory, Japanese geneticists initially participated in the discussion in an even-handed way; their scientific interests in the roles of cytoplasm and the environment in heredity shaped their initial sympathetic reaction. As the Cold War divide deepened, however, Japanese scientists began expressing sharp anti-Lysenko criticisms that resembled the American criticisms. Interestingly, throughout the period, Japanese geneticists' overall aim in the discussion remained largely unchanged: to effectively reconstruct their discipline and maintain its proper image and authority. However, the shift in their reaction occurred due to an evolving sociopolitical context, especially the shift in the meaning of 'democratic' science from a science that employed democratic processes to a science of a liberal-democratic state. Regarding Lysenko's idea as a cultural resource could help to explain how and why it was treated differently in different places, and why a controversy emerged in certain contexts but not in others.",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312715596460",
    doi = "10.1177/0306312715596460",
    openalex = "W2151195021",
    references = "doi101007s1073901192864, doi101038143262a0, doi10108014682740903135421, doi101086649368, doi1023072668391, doi1023987sts55173, doi1041359781412990127n22, doi1041599780674045170, doi105860choice326201, doi105860choice425848, glass1946heredity, goldschmidt1946heredity, openalexw208598535"
}

Lysenko became one of the most notorious figures in twentieth-century science after his genetic theories were discredited decades ago. Yet some scientists now claim that discoveries in epigenetics prove that he was right after all. Loren Graham reopens the case, to determine whether new developments in molecular biology validate Lysenko's claims.

@book{doi1041599780674969025,
    author = "Graham, Loren R.",
    title = "Lysenko's Ghost",
    year = "2016",
    booktitle = "Harvard University Press eBooks",
    abstract = "Lysenko became one of the most notorious figures in twentieth-century science after his genetic theories were discredited decades ago. Yet some scientists now claim that discoveries in epigenetics prove that he was right after all. Loren Graham reopens the case, to determine whether new developments in molecular biology validate Lysenko's claims.",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.4159/9780674969025",
    doi = "10.4159/9780674969025",
    openalex = "W3199484753"
}

@article{doi101016jcub201707045,
    author = "Kolchinsky, Eduard I. and Kutschera, U. and Hoßfeld, Uwe and Levit, Georgy S.",
    title = "Russia’s new Lysenkoism",
    year = "2017",
    journal = "Current Biology",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2017.07.045",
    doi = "10.1016/j.cub.2017.07.045",
    openalex = "W2762500648",
    references = "doi1010079789400728400, doi101007s0004800502333, doi101007s0070901610677, doi101007s1206401101388, doi101016jcell201402045, doi101016jcub201009009, doi101016jpbi201208004, doi101126science1068355, doi101126scienceaad6253, doi1041599780674969025, doi105860choice425848"
}

The purpose of this article is to outline the evolution of biology education in Soviet schools in the 1920s and 1930s. After some introductory consideration of the ideological changes taking place in the field of genetics that impacted on the teaching of science and led to botany being favoured over biology in schools, the first part outlines the development of the natural sciences curriculum in the context of the Soviet reform of the school, which, after the October Revolution, abolished traditional teaching methods in favour of the active methods of American schools. The second part reconstructs the evolution of the teaching of biology through analysis of the biological station for young naturalists, ‘K. A. Timiriazev’, a centre created in 1919 by the famous biologist Boris V. Vsesviatskii (1887–1969). The third part illustrates the characteristics of botany education in schools of the 1930s, with a focus on the dissemination of the new scientific anti-genetic conception (known as Lysenkoism) and teaching practices in city and rural schools after the publication of Vsesviatskii’s textbook. The fourth demonstrates a progressive assimilation of the anti-genetic doctrine of Lysenkoism by teachers, with particular attention to the question of the natural sciences school curriculum and teacher training in the field of botany.

@article{doi1010800046760x20181529252,
    author = "Caroli, Dorena",
    title = "‘And all our classes turned into a flower garden again’ – science education in Soviet schools in the 1920s and 1930s: the case of biology from Darwinism to Lysenkoism",
    year = "2018",
    journal = "History of Education",
    abstract = "The purpose of this article is to outline the evolution of biology education in Soviet schools in the 1920s and 1930s. After some introductory consideration of the ideological changes taking place in the field of genetics that impacted on the teaching of science and led to botany being favoured over biology in schools, the first part outlines the development of the natural sciences curriculum in the context of the Soviet reform of the school, which, after the October Revolution, abolished traditional teaching methods in favour of the active methods of American schools. The second part reconstructs the evolution of the teaching of biology through analysis of the biological station for young naturalists, ‘K. A. Timiriazev’, a centre created in 1919 by the famous biologist Boris V. Vsesviatskii (1887–1969). The third part illustrates the characteristics of botany education in schools of the 1930s, with a focus on the dissemination of the new scientific anti-genetic conception (known as Lysenkoism) and teaching practices in city and rural schools after the publication of Vsesviatskii’s textbook. The fourth demonstrates a progressive assimilation of the anti-genetic doctrine of Lysenkoism by teachers, with particular attention to the question of the natural sciences school curriculum and teacher training in the field of botany.",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.1080/0046760x.2018.1529252",
    doi = "10.1080/0046760x.2018.1529252",
    openalex = "W2898433394",
    references = "doi1010079789400728400, doi10142209783737003858, doi1023071223104, doi102307130884, doi1043249780203005675, doi105860choice274810, doi105860choice384043, doi105860choice414204, doi105860choice496453, openalexw2078782101"
}

Progress in genetics and evolutionary biology in the young Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) was hindered in the 1930s by the agronomist Trofim Lysenko, who believed that acquired traits are inherited, claimed that heredity can be changed by "educating" plants, and denied the existence of genes. Lysenko was supported by Communist Party elites. Lysenko termed his set of ideas and agricultural techniques "Michurinism," after the name of the plant breeder Ivan Michurin, but they are currently known as Lysenkoism. Although Michurinism opposed biological science, Lysenko took up one academic position after another. In 1929, Nikolai Vavilov founded the Lenin All-Union Academy of Agricultural Sciences and became its head; it directed the development of sciences underpinning plant and animal breeding in the Soviet Union. Vavilov was dismissed in 1935 and later died in prison, while Lysenko occupied his position. The triumph of Lysenkoism became complete and genetics was fully defeated in August 1948 at a session of the academy headed by Lysenko. The session was personally directed by Joseph Stalin and marked the USSR's commitment to developing a national science, separated from the global scientific community. As a result, substantial losses occurred in Soviet agriculture, genetics, evolutionary theory, and molecular biology, and the transmission of scientific values and traditions between generations was interrupted. This article reviews the ideological, political, economic, social, cultural, personal, moral, and ethical factors that influenced the August 1948 session, and its immediate and later consequences. We also outline current attempts to revise the role of the August session and whitewash Lysenko.

@article{doi101534genetics118301413,
    author = "Borinskaya, S. A. and Ermolaev, Andrei I and Kolchinsky, Eduard I.",
    title = "Lysenkoism Against Genetics: The Meeting of the Lenin All-Union Academy of Agricultural Sciences of August 1948, Its Background, Causes, and Aftermath",
    year = "2019",
    journal = "Genetics",
    abstract = {Progress in genetics and evolutionary biology in the young Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) was hindered in the 1930s by the agronomist Trofim Lysenko, who believed that acquired traits are inherited, claimed that heredity can be changed by "educating" plants, and denied the existence of genes. Lysenko was supported by Communist Party elites. Lysenko termed his set of ideas and agricultural techniques "Michurinism," after the name of the plant breeder Ivan Michurin, but they are currently known as Lysenkoism. Although Michurinism opposed biological science, Lysenko took up one academic position after another. In 1929, Nikolai Vavilov founded the Lenin All-Union Academy of Agricultural Sciences and became its head; it directed the development of sciences underpinning plant and animal breeding in the Soviet Union. Vavilov was dismissed in 1935 and later died in prison, while Lysenko occupied his position. The triumph of Lysenkoism became complete and genetics was fully defeated in August 1948 at a session of the academy headed by Lysenko. The session was personally directed by Joseph Stalin and marked the USSR's commitment to developing a national science, separated from the global scientific community. As a result, substantial losses occurred in Soviet agriculture, genetics, evolutionary theory, and molecular biology, and the transmission of scientific values and traditions between generations was interrupted. This article reviews the ideological, political, economic, social, cultural, personal, moral, and ethical factors that influenced the August 1948 session, and its immediate and later consequences. We also outline current attempts to revise the role of the August session and whitewash Lysenko.},
    url = "https://doi.org/10.1534/genetics.118.301413",
    doi = "10.1534/genetics.118.301413",
    openalex = "W2943637553",
    references = "doi101007s1073901192873, doi101016jcub201707045, doi1011770306312715596460, doi1023072407065, doi1041599780674969025, doi105860choice425848"
}

The present study analyzes specific traits of Lysenkoism dogmas as they were reflected in Soviet hydrobiology. As a case study, I use the now-forgotten productivity theory of bodies of water developed in 1940 by the Soviet hydrobiologist Vladimir I. Zhadin (1896-1974). Zhadin's views on production relied on his observations of changes in the communities of riverine faunas caused by the construction of water reservoirs. The theory is of particular interest because it attempts to address the unresolved problems of that period. Some of these unsettled problems provided the foundation for the ideological debates during the dialectization period in Soviet biology of the early 1920s to mid-1930s and were influenced by Lysenkoism. Zhadin's theory thus serves as a suitable model for identifying cognitive and ideological components in science and for the analysis of the influence of ideology on science. The analysis of Zhadin's works shows that an attempt to separate ideologically imposed perceptions and the author's own scientific views presents a challenging task. This can be explained by a highly efficient behavioral pattern of "protective coloration" employed by the scientist and by Zhadin's sincere acceptance of some Lysenkoist ideas. Furthermore, I argue that the system of Lysenkoist dogmas concerning the association between an organism and its environment are in fact entirely sensible scientific principles which were taken to an extreme. The results of the study suggest a need for more careful and deeper evaluation of scientific works published during the period of the personality cult in the USSR. The "Lysenko affair" in branches of biology other than genetics is more complicated and needs further examination.

@article{doi101007s10739019095905,
    author = "Rizhinashvili, Alexandra",
    title = "Production Hydrobiology in the USSR Under the Pressure of Lysenkoism: Vladimir I. Zhadin's Forgotten Theory of Biological Productivity (1940).",
    year = "2020",
    journal = "Journal of the history of biology",
    abstract = {The present study analyzes specific traits of Lysenkoism dogmas as they were reflected in Soviet hydrobiology. As a case study, I use the now-forgotten productivity theory of bodies of water developed in 1940 by the Soviet hydrobiologist Vladimir I. Zhadin (1896-1974). Zhadin's views on production relied on his observations of changes in the communities of riverine faunas caused by the construction of water reservoirs. The theory is of particular interest because it attempts to address the unresolved problems of that period. Some of these unsettled problems provided the foundation for the ideological debates during the dialectization period in Soviet biology of the early 1920s to mid-1930s and were influenced by Lysenkoism. Zhadin's theory thus serves as a suitable model for identifying cognitive and ideological components in science and for the analysis of the influence of ideology on science. The analysis of Zhadin's works shows that an attempt to separate ideologically imposed perceptions and the author's own scientific views presents a challenging task. This can be explained by a highly efficient behavioral pattern of "protective coloration" employed by the scientist and by Zhadin's sincere acceptance of some Lysenkoist ideas. Furthermore, I argue that the system of Lysenkoist dogmas concerning the association between an organism and its environment are in fact entirely sensible scientific principles which were taken to an extreme. The results of the study suggest a need for more careful and deeper evaluation of scientific works published during the period of the personality cult in the USSR. The "Lysenko affair" in branches of biology other than genetics is more complicated and needs further examination.},
    url = "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31776753/",
    doi = "10.1007/s10739-019-09590-5",
    openalex = "W2990267838",
    pmid = "31776753",
    references = "doi101007bf00146987, doi101007s107390139363y, doi101139f80017, doi1023071854927, doi1023071930126, doi10230720043432, doi1041599780674969025, doi105860choice370307, doi107326000348199622635"
}

@article{doi101007s10739020095982,
    author = "Duančić, Vedran",
    title = "Lysenko in Yugoslavia, 1945–1950s: How to De-Stalinize Stalinist Science",
    year = "2020",
    journal = "Journal of the History of Biology",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.1007/s10739-020-09598-2",
    doi = "10.1007/s10739-020-09598-2",
    openalex = "W3011366846",
    references = "doi1010079789400728400, doi101353book99572, doi1023073102482, doi107312medv92664, doi107326000348199622635, doi1075919781501720833, openalexw1986615600, openalexw1998725998, openalexw2432544623, openalexw3011149805"
}

@article{doi101007s10739021096527,
    author = "Yi, Jongsik Christian",
    title = "Dialectical Materialism Serves Voluntarist Productivism: The Epistemic Foundation of Lysenkoism in Socialist China and North Vietnam",
    year = "2021",
    journal = "Journal of the History of Biology",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.1007/s10739-021-09652-7",
    doi = "10.1007/s10739-021-09652-7",
    openalex = "W3203781948",
    references = "doi101007s1073901092384, doi101007s1073901192864, doi101007s10739019095905, doi101007s10739020095982, doi1010160305750x91902224, doi101093actrade97801987929870010001, doi101126science1563775611, doi1011770306312715596460, doi101215220119193615934, doi1012159780822391692, doi1015159780822391692, doi1023071368785, doi1023072757584, openalexw1538243852, openalexw2129971494"
}

@incollection{doi10100797830309968028,
    author = "Strządała, Agata",
    title = "Lysenkoism: A Fine Line Between Formation of Scientific News and Disinformation",
    year = "2022",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-99680-2\_8",
    doi = "10.1007/978-3-030-99680-2\_8",
    openalex = "W4312320309",
    references = "doi101007s1073901192864, doi1011770306312715596460"
}

The article is devoted to foreign propaganda of T. D. Lysenko’s views on the nature of heredity and variability. Articles from French communist periodicals are used as an example. The article?s relevance is determined by understudied issue of the Lysenkoism promotion in France, although it is known that his doctrine, which was close to Lamarckism, was being implanted after 1948 in the countries of the socialist camp and criticized by the British and American biologists. The historical picture of purposeful promotion of anti-scientific views criticizing fundamental genetics has been reconstructed in materials of French periodicals and documents deposited in the T. D. Lysenko fond in the Archive of the Russian Academy of Sciences (fond 1521). To determine the political factors that influenced international scientific relations between Soviet and French scientists, the documents from the Political Bureau of the Central Committee fond of the Russian State Archive of Contemporary History (fond 3) have been used. When describing popularization of Lysenkoism in France, an integrated approach has been chosen, as it takes into account various factors (political, ideological, cognitive) that determined penetration and reception of scientific ideas. Using newspapers and magazines as historical source have permitted to detail the phenomenon, to supplement the available information with new facts, and to revise established notions. It is shown that T.D. Lysenko’s figure came into the spotlight in the French press as early as the late 1930s, when a campaign began in the Soviet Union against Mendelism-Morganism, called metaphysical-idealistic bourgeois science by the party elite. In those years, such scientists as N. I. Vavilov, G. D. Karpechenko, S. G. Levit, I. I. Agol were arrested and repressed. In 1948, with J. V. Stalin support, Lysenko organized the August session of the All-Union Academy of Agricultural Sciences, where representatives of classical genetics were accused of sabotage. Lysenko claimed that his experiments were aimed at increasing productivity of agricultural crops and solving food security issues. The Soviet bureaucracy saw innovation and bold struggle against old scientific dogmas in populist statements of the “People's Academician.” The fight against genetics was not limited the territory of the USSR, almost all socialist countries were involved. However, the leading scientific powers (the USA and Great Britain) actively resisted penetration of the works of Soviet Lysenkoists into scientific and popular publications. The exception was France, which had long-standing scientific contacts with the Soviet Union. Information on the “victory” of Michurin Biology over genetics at the 1948 Agricultural Sciences Session was widely presented on the pages of French liberal publications. It is shown that the French scientific community was not categorically opposed to Lysenkoism for a number of reasons, among them spread of communist ideas in the country, stability of Lamarckian traditions, cooling diplomatic relations between the USSR and the USA, desire of the Soviet leadership to make France its political ally.

@article{doi1028995207301012023411851198,
    author = "Фандо, Роман А.",
    title = "Propaganda of T. D. Lysenko’s Anti-Scientific Views on the Pages of French Periodicals of the 1930s?40s",
    year = "2023",
    journal = "Herald of an Archivist",
    abstract = "The article is devoted to foreign propaganda of T. D. Lysenko’s views on the nature of heredity and variability. Articles from French communist periodicals are used as an example. The article?s relevance is determined by understudied issue of the Lysenkoism promotion in France, although it is known that his doctrine, which was close to Lamarckism, was being implanted after 1948 in the countries of the socialist camp and criticized by the British and American biologists. The historical picture of purposeful promotion of anti-scientific views criticizing fundamental genetics has been reconstructed in materials of French periodicals and documents deposited in the T. D. Lysenko fond in the Archive of the Russian Academy of Sciences (fond 1521). To determine the political factors that influenced international scientific relations between Soviet and French scientists, the documents from the Political Bureau of the Central Committee fond of the Russian State Archive of Contemporary History (fond 3) have been used. When describing popularization of Lysenkoism in France, an integrated approach has been chosen, as it takes into account various factors (political, ideological, cognitive) that determined penetration and reception of scientific ideas. Using newspapers and magazines as historical source have permitted to detail the phenomenon, to supplement the available information with new facts, and to revise established notions. It is shown that T.D. Lysenko’s figure came into the spotlight in the French press as early as the late 1930s, when a campaign began in the Soviet Union against Mendelism-Morganism, called metaphysical-idealistic bourgeois science by the party elite. In those years, such scientists as N. I. Vavilov, G. D. Karpechenko, S. G. Levit, I. I. Agol were arrested and repressed. In 1948, with J. V. Stalin support, Lysenko organized the August session of the All-Union Academy of Agricultural Sciences, where representatives of classical genetics were accused of sabotage. Lysenko claimed that his experiments were aimed at increasing productivity of agricultural crops and solving food security issues. The Soviet bureaucracy saw innovation and bold struggle against old scientific dogmas in populist statements of the “People's Academician.” The fight against genetics was not limited the territory of the USSR, almost all socialist countries were involved. However, the leading scientific powers (the USA and Great Britain) actively resisted penetration of the works of Soviet Lysenkoists into scientific and popular publications. The exception was France, which had long-standing scientific contacts with the Soviet Union. Information on the “victory” of Michurin Biology over genetics at the 1948 Agricultural Sciences Session was widely presented on the pages of French liberal publications. It is shown that the French scientific community was not categorically opposed to Lysenkoism for a number of reasons, among them spread of communist ideas in the country, stability of Lamarckian traditions, cooling diplomatic relations between the USSR and the USA, desire of the Soviet leadership to make France its political ally.",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.28995/2073-0101-2023-4-1185-1198",
    doi = "10.28995/2073-0101-2023-4-1185-1198",
    openalex = "W4390017701",
    references = "doi101007s10739021096527"
}