the lysenko effect

TRENDS in Genetics Vol.18 No.6 June 2002320 ForumForum

Lysenkoism gained favour in the SovietUnion during the 1930s and 1940s, replacingmendelian genetics. Opponents of Lysenkowere dismissed from their jobs, imprisonedand, not infrequently, died. After World War IIin some of the East European Soviet satellitestates, Lysenkoism became the officialgenetics supported by the communistauthorities, and thus, genetics and biologywere set back many years. Yet the uptake ofLysenkoism was not uniform in the EasternBloc. The former East Germany (GDR) mostly escaped its influence, owing to thecontribution of a few brave individuals andthe fact that the country had an open borderwith the West (West Berlin).

In the 1920s1930s, Soviet genetics waspart of the mainstream, and Russiangeneticists were well known and respectedinternationally. However, at about thesame time a newgenetics gained politicalinfluence in the USSR. Lysenko togetherwith the marxist philosopher Prezent developed a theory contradictingmendelian genetics [1,2].

A central tenet of this MichurinistBiology (Box 1) was the inheritance ofacquired characters an idea believed to be

in agreement with the communist ideology.This theory received official support fromStalin in 1936. Many distinguishedgeneticists who did not follow the politicaltheories of stalinism and did not supportLysenkoism (e.g. Vavilov, Karpechenko,Levitsky, Agol, Levit, Nadson and Meiser)were caught by waves of arrests, oftenending in their death [3,4].

After the war, Lysenko gave a notoriouslecture on The Situation in the BiologicalScience [5] during a conference of theLenin Academy of Agricultural Sciences of the USSR (31 July to 7 August 1948,Moscow). At the closing session, Lysenkoannounced that the Central Committee ofthe Communist Party had examined andapproved his lecture (Box 2). This markedthe political victory of Lysenkoism and the beginning of the (almost) completedestruction of normalgenetics in theSoviet Union. Genetic institutes andlaboratories were closed, geneticists weredismissed from their academic positions[3,4], and the whole school and universitysystem was brought into line withLysenkoistic concepts.

Lysenkoism reached its summit (and the beginning of its decline), when

Lysenko presented his theoryof theregular sudden transformation of speciesin 19491951 (Box 1).

The penetration of Lysenkoism into theGDR (East Germany)It has to be remembered that during theStalin era, the policies in the Eastern Blocwere dictated from Moscow, and so the1948 Moscow conference and Lysenkosapproval by Stalin signalled the transferof these concepts into all other communistcountries. The influence of LysenkosMichurinist Biologywas strong inBulgaria, Rumania, Hungary andCzechoslovakia in both schools anduniversities. In these countries, thedamage done by Lysenkoism to teachingand research in genetics and biology wassevere and long lasting. However, thesituation in other East Europeancountries was rather different.

The authorities of GDR, under pressurefrom Moscow, actively distributedLysenkoistic publications, and severalscientists and propagandists acceptedthese concepts and promoted them inpublic. However, in the GDR, the Lysenkodiscussion was mainly political, not a

http://tig.trends.com 0168-9525/02/$ see front matter 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. PII: S0168-9525(02)02677-X

Science Chronicle

How did East German genetics avoid Lysenkoism?Rudolf Hagemann

19351948(1) Inheritance is an attribute of the whole organism, not of discrete

hereditary factors. Genes do not exist.(2) Changing the environment gives rise to new characters that are

inherited (inheritance of acquired characters). The type of thehereditary changes induced depends on the environmental influences.

(3) Winter varieties of cereal (e.g. wheat), which normally require aperiod of cold treatment (of the imbibed kernels or seedlings), canbe changed into spring forms without any cold treatment as aconsequence of the changed environment.

(4) Hybridization within (rather than between) varieties of cultivatedplants leads to an increase of yield.

(5) Plants can be heritably altered by grafting. Graft hybridization isanalogous to sexual hybridization.

(6) There is no difference in principle between sexual and grafthybridization.

(7) By grafting, it is possible to cause a vegetative convergence of the grafting partners. Therefore, it is possible to make crossesbetween grafted partners that could not by crossed sexually (the Mentor method).

(8) After grafting of F1 hybrids as scions (stems), the segregation ratios in their progeny will be changed under the influence of the(root) stock, on which they had been grafted.

(9) Classical genetics dismissively calledMendelismMorganismWeismannism by Lysenkoists

is inconsistent with the philosophy of dialectical materialism (a cornerstone of Marxist theory). The title of a widely distributedbook of Lysenkoistic authors was Against the ReactionaryMendelismMorganism.

(10) Mendel-Morgan genetics advocates the monopoly of the nucleusfor heredity (see point 1) [ac].

19491951Lysenkos concept reached its summit (and the beginning of its decline)with the Theory of sudden species transformation. This stated thatwithin cereals, a cultivated plant species is able to change suddenly into another cultivated species or into a related weed. Lysenko reportedto have found a single rye grain in an ear of wheat, and claimed thatplants of barley (Hordeum vulgare) suddenly form grains of the weedHordeum spontaneum. His followers extended this theory to otherspecies.

Referencesa Siemens, J. (1997) Lysenkoismus in Deutschland (19451965). Biologie in

unserer Zeit 27, 255262b Stubbe, H. (1982) Geschichte des Institutes fr Kulturpflanzenforschung

Gatersleben der Deutschen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin19431968, Akademie-Verlag

c Hudson, P.S. and Richens, R.H. (1946) The New Genetics in the SovietUnion, p. 88, Imperial Bureau of Plant Breeding and Geneticsd

Box 1. Theses of Lysenkos Michurinist biology

TRENDS in Genetics Vol.18 No.6 June 2002

http://tig.trends.com

321ForumForum

genuine scientific debate. Lysenkoisticconcepts never really took hold at all levelsof society, nor did it damage East Germangenetics. The reasons for this are thesubject of this article.

Before going into details, an importantfact should be emphasized: from 1945 to1961, the GDR had an open border withWest Berlin. One could travel freely fromEast Berlin (Soviet sector) to West Berlinon the metro (subway), until the BerlinWall was built in 1961. The supportersand the opponents of Lysenko, as well asthe political authorities, realized thatgeneticists who were persecuted couldsimply leave.

Influence on schoolsThe Ministry for the Socialist EducationalSystem was under strict political controlof the communist authorities. Between19521959, Lysenkoism was introducedinto the school textbooks, and biologyteachers received orders to deal with thesetopics in their lessons.

But the Lysenkoistic influence onlylasted a few years. In 1954, Lysenko wascriticized for dogmatism by the newSoviet communist party leader, NikitaChrustchev. This reduced Lysenkoisticinfluences in the GDR, and meant thatLysenkoistic ideas in school textbooks couldbe criticized by East German geneticists.

After the dismissal of Chrustchev in1964, Lysenkoism suddenly disappearedfrom East German school textbooks; soontextbooks were published that presentedmendelian genetics [6].

The situation in East German universitiesThe influence of Lysenkoism in theuniversities was not uniform anddepended on the local situation (for details,see Ref. [7]). Of course, the Ministry forHigher Education of the GDR tried toprovide supporters of Lysenko with greaterinfluence. However, in general theseefforts were met with limited success.

The German Lysenkoists when theywere party members often got directionsfrom the party (in German: Parteiauftrag)to support Lysenkoism. Some did this byconviction, because they believed in theold LamarckianDarwinian idea ofinheritance of acquired characters (whichwas rather popular among biologists inGermany in the 1930s). Others had beenin opposition to the Nazi racist ideologyand expected Lysenkoism to provide new genetic thinking. And others were

just opportunists who wanted to furthertheir careers.

In many universities, lectures ongenetics were discontinued for severalyears and replaced by lectures on CreativeDarwinism (a synonym of Lysenkoism). In the Friedrich Schiller University, Jena, there were two main proponents ofLysenkoism: Georg Schneider, who workedon developmental processes in amphibia inthe thirties and forties in the Soviet Union,returned to East Germany after WorldWar II and promoted Lysenkoistic concepts[7,8]. Schneider was supported by theplant taxonomist Otto Schwarz, who was rector of the University of Jena(19481951, 19581962). However, otherprofessors at Jena (Wartenberg, Gersch,Drawert) held opposing views anddistributed their views among students.

Another advocate of Lysenkoism wasJakob Segal, animal physiologist at theHumboldt University, East Berlin.Curiously, Segal published several of hisarticles as an appendix to the newspaperPress of the Soviet Unionas if hispublications were part of or wererequested by this journal a particularlydubious method.

The Ernst Moritz Arndt University,Greifswald, had a strong Lysenkoisticinfluence [7]. The university had invited aRussian guest lecturer, A.F. Scheremetjev,

who gave regular lectures on Lysenkoism(19531955). Support of the Lysenkoisticideas also came from Werner Rothmaler(nicknamed Rouge Malheur by bothopponents and friends). He was acultured, well-read man and a goodspeaker who was influencial amongstudents and young scientists. Hepromoted the Lysenkoistic ideas oninheritance of acquired characters andcriticized the chromosome theory.However, as an experienced botanist hecould not accept Lysenkos ideas on thesudden transformation of species, andcriticized these ideas (in 19521953).

At some East German universities,Lysenkoists tried to apply pressure on students and young scientists topropagate their ideas. For example, whenI was an undergraduate student at theUniversity of Leipzig, the AssociateProfessor of Zoology, C.F. Werner, said in one of his lectures on zoology (1951),I have the impression that some studentsin this lecture hall believe that it is their decision whether they accept theMichurinist Biology of Lysenko or ratherhold onto MendelismMorganism. Thosewho are not willing to accept Lysenkostheories will have no scientific futurehere.One university in which there waspractically no Lysenkoism was the MartinLuther University in Halle, because of the

In the USSR1936 T.D. Lysenko presents, supported by I.I. Present, the first version of the theses of

his Michurinist Biology.1936 Official support of Lysenkos concept by J.V. Stalin.19361943 A wave of arrests of many distinguished geneticists, ending with their death

(e.g. Vavilov, Karpechenko, Levitsky, Agol, Levit, Nadson, Meiser [7]).31 July 1948 Lysenkos lecture on The Situation in the Biological Science at the Conference of the

Lenin Academy of Agricultural Sciences of the USSR in Moscow. Full political victoryof Lysenkoism in the USSR following the announcement, The Central Committee ofthe Communist Party has examined Lysenkos lecture and has approved it. [6]

1948 Beginning of the almost complete destruction of normal genetics in the SovietUnion and start of the transmission of Lysenkoism to other communist countries.

5 March 1953 Death of J.V. Stalin; N.S. Chrustchev becomes the new First Secretary of theCommunist Party of USSR.

1964 Dismissal of N.S. Chrustchev; L.I. Brezhnev becomes the new General Secretary ofthe Communist party of USSR.

In East Germany19451949 Eastern part of Germany and East sector of Berlin are the Soviet Occupied Zone.October 7 1949 Foundation of the German Democratic Republic (GDR; or in German:

Deutsche Demokratische Republik, DDR).19451961 There was an open border between East Berlin (the Soviet sector) and

West Berlin (the American, British and French sectors), including a metro servicebetween the two parts of Berlin that was continued throughout this period.

13 August 1961 Building of the Berlin Wall; interruption of all uncontrolled traffic connectionsbetween the two parts of Berlin, and between East Germany (GDR) and WestGermany (Bundesrepublik). The only exceptions were Western military trafficbetween West Germany and West Berlin, and air traffic between West Germanyand West Berlin).

Box 2. Important events



322 ForumForum

influence of three individuals, HansStubbe, Gustav Becker and Kurt Mothes.Consequently, I contacted Stubbe andchanged to the University in Halle, finallyjoining Stubbes institute in Gatersleben.

Thus, at some universities, there wassome pressure in favour of Lysenkoism; itcould result in freezing of students andyoung scientists out of an institute or a university, or in slowing down theirscientific career. But, in the GDR therewere no charges, trials or sentencesagainst established scientists who wereopponents of Lysenko.

Opposition of Lysenkoism by GermangeneticistsOpponents of Lysenkoism whoseinstitutes were in West Berlin (American,British, French sectors) could expresstheir opinion without any risk (e.g. HansKappert, Hans Nachtsheim, ElisabethSchiemann and co-workers) [911]. Thesituation was different in the Soviet sectorof Berlin. Several scientists who hadinitially been working in researchinstitutes at Berlin-Buch or at theHumboldt University in East Berlinmoved to West Berlin after the foundationof the Free University in West Berlin(American sector); for example,Hans Nachtsheim and Herbert Lers.

There were many opponents ofLysenkoism who remained at institutes inthe former GDR, but three distinguishedscientists Hans Stubbe, Gustav Beckerand Kurt Mothes, working in institutes atGatersleben resp. Quedlinburg and theMartin Luther University in Halle had aparticularly important role.

The role of Professor Hans StubbeThe leading figure of the resistanceagainst Lysenkoism in the GDR wasHans Stubbe (Fig. 1). In 1936, he wasdismissed from the Mncheberg Instituteby the Nazi authorities for politicalreasons (leftist convictions). Because ofthese anti-Nazi credentials, Stubbe wastrusted by the East German authorities(although he never became a member ofthe communist party).

He became Director of the Crop PlantResearch Institute in Gatersleben andProfessor of Genetics in Halle, and waselected to the German Academy ofSciences at Berlin. In addition, in 1951, hewas appointed as President of the newlyfounded German Academy of AgriculturalSciences in East Berlin. Thus, at an

official level he was the counterpart ofLysenko, who was president of the parallelSoviet institution in Moscow [1215].

Stubbe criticized Lysenko from theoutset. He expressed his doubts on thescientific validity of Lysenkoism inmeetings with political authorities [16],and when the attacks of GermanLysenkoists on him and his institutebecame too vigourous, he protested to thepolitical authorities, including the GeneralSecretary of the East German Communistparty (SED) and the Prime Minister [12].

He and his co-workers tested Lysenkoshypotheses (especially the graftingexperiments and the Mentor method) inhis institute at Gatersleben. In a letter tome on 1 August 1984 Stubbe said, It wasclear to us that Lysenko was a forger and acriminal. But it was not sufficient that weknew this. We had to demonstrate that hisresults were wrong. The Russians couldnot produce this evidence. We had to do it,and furthermore while Stalin was still inpower. [14]. All of these experiments gaveclearcut negative results. None of theLysenkoistic assertions could be sustained,as reported in several publications [1724].

These publications were of greatimportance. First, they showed that

Lysenkos theories had been tested withabsolutely negative results, and this wasrecognized by the political authorities.Second, these papers encouraged thegrowing opposition against of Lysenko in the Soviet Union and in other Eastern Bloccountries. They clearly demonstrated that,in an institute in East Germany, led by afamous geneticist and President of theAcademy of Agricultural Sciences, Lysenkosassertions had been tested and disproved.

At Gatersleben, there were both pro- andanti-Lysenkoists. Stubbe was fair to PhDstudents who held Lysenkoistic views.However, he asked them to repeat Lysenkosgrafting experiments, using proper genetictechniques (pure genetic material,including appropriate controls of scions andstocks, etc.). In this way, he was able to showthese PhD students that Lysenkoism hadno experimental basis [1922].

When I came to his office in 1955 todiscuss a topic for my PhD thesis, I toldhim directly: I am fully convinced that theLysenkoistic ideas are wrong; therefore,I do not wish to perform any additionalwork to test these Lysenkoisticassertations. Stubbe answered, Fine.Among my tomato mutants, which wereinduced after X-ray treatment, there aretwo mutant lines with a very unusualgreen-yellow variegation. Find out thegenetic basis of these variegations!That iswhat I did. One of these tomato mutantsshowed paramutation (1958); the othermutant line contained a chromosomefragment (1967) whose loss causedyellow-green variegation [24].

At Halle, Stubbe lectureduninterruptedly through the years whenLysenkoists were trying to obtain influencein East German universities. So, he wasable to pass on genetic knowledge tostudents of agriculture and biology, and torecruit young scientists for his Gaterslebeninstitute. Many of them went on to domodern genetic research and teach geneticsin universities before and after Stubbesretirement [14]. Stubbe was also very activeproducing books in German, makingmodern genetic literature available for EastGerman students and scientists, especiallythe series Genetics. Basis, Results andProblems in single Monographs, whichtotalled 13 volumes [25,26]. Remarkably, allthis happened in East Germany during atime when, in other Eastern Bloc countries,genetic research institutions were ruinedand genetic teaching was forced topropagate Lysenkoistic views.

Fig. 1. Hans Stubbe (19021989). Stubbe was PhDstudent and co-worker of the famous geneticist ErwinBaur (18751933), the founder of the Kaiser WilhelmInstitute for Breeding Research in Mncheberg (a smalltown 30 miles east of Berlin). In 1936, he was dismissedby the Nazi authorities for political reasons (leftistconvictions). After World War II, he was director of theCrop Plant Research Institute in Gatersleben. In 1946,Stubbe became Professor of Genetics at the MartinLuther University in Halle, and was elected as a memberof the German Academy of Sciences at Berlin. Inaddition, he became President of the German Academyof Agricultural Sciences at Berlin (19511968) [1215].



323ForumForum

The role of Professor Gustav BeckerAfter World War II, Becker (Fig. 2) becamedirector of the Quedlinburg Institute ofPlant Breeding and Professor of PlantBreeding at the University of Halle. He was a close friend of Stubbe andinfluenced the choice of Gatersleben as theplace for Stubbes institute (19451946).Together with Stubbe and Rudolf Schick(another scientist with anti-Nazicredentials), he proposed the creation of aGerman Academy of Agricultural Scienceswith the aim of coordinating activities inbreeding and breeding research in EastGermany. This proposal was accepted, andBecker became its Vice President (andStubbe its President). Becker and Stubbetook part in many discussions aboutLysenkoism, and prevented any harm toEast German breeding institutes [27,28].

The role of Professor Kurt MothesMothes (Fig. 3) was a plant physiologist andplant biochemist. From 1949 to 1957, he wasHead of the Department of Biochemistry ofthe Gatersleben Institute, and he took anactive part in the discussions about Lysenko.In 1957, he became professor at Halle. Hewas a gifted lecturer and frequently gavetalks in other East German universities,where he openly criticized Lysenkoism.Mothes enjoyed debating with theaudience and usually got the better ofLysenkoists because of his breadth ofknowledge and talent for repartee.

In 1954, Mothes was elected President ofthe German Academy of Natural ScientistsLeopoldina in Halle, and initiated thecreation of a Darwin Medal of the AcademyLeopoldina (1959). This medal wasawarded to distinguished research workersin the field of genetics and evolution,among them were internationally well-known scientists from many countries,including opponents of Lysenkoism from theSoviet Union (N.V. Timofeev-Ressovskij,I.I. Schmalhausen, S.S. Chetverikov andN.P. Dubinin), but not a single follower of Lysenko.

This gesture was well understood both in the West and East, signalling infavour of normalgenetics and againstLysenkoism. Official representatives ofscience and policy in the Eastern Blocwere piqued. Mothes tried to present these medals to the Russian scientists inMoscow. After long negotiations, he wasallowed to give the medal just to one ofthem (Schmalhausen); the others wereclaimed to be ill or too busy [29,30].

Of course, other scientists were alsoopponents of Lysenkoism, but they did nothave the same opportunity, influence andsteadfastness for an open confrontationwith Lysenkoists as Stubbe, Becker andMothes. For instance, Professor HermannKuckuck, an anti-Nazi who became directorof the Central Research Institute for PlantBreeding Mncheberg in 1948 and whosupervised the translation and editing ofLysenkos book Agrobiology. He criticizedLysenkoism in public lectures and, as aresult of confrontations with authorities, hissituation in Mncheberg became untenablein 1950. He went to West Berlin, finallybecoming professor of Applied Genetics atthe University of Hannover [9,31].

The decline of LysenkoismThe GDR government and the communistparty, led by Walter Ulbricht, weresomewhat hesitant about promotingLysenkoism. They were aware thatscientists like Stubbe, Becker and Motheshad a great scientific reputation both inthe country and internationally. Also, theywatched the development of Lysenkoism inthe USSR (after Stalins death in 1953) andthe reactions of the international scientificcommunity. Furthermore, the governmentwas well aware of the open border to WestBerlin and could foresee the consequences ofa political pressure in favour of Lysenkoism.They did not wish to lose any more

distinguished scientists; there had alreadybeen too many who left East Germany forWest Berlin and West Germany.

In contrast to other European socialist countries, the distinct oppositionagainst Lysenkoistic ideas in theinstitutes of the Deutsche Akademie derWissenschaften (Academy of Sciences)and the Deutsche Akademie derLandwirtschaftswissenschaften (Academyof Agricultural Sciences), and the growingopposition within the universities led to arelatively early decline of Lysenkoism inEast Germany and prevented damage ofresearch work.

However, an open and free criticaldebate on Lysenkoism, its proponents andsupporting scientists as well as its politicalsupporters (in the background) never tookplace in public in the GDR (neither onradio and television, nor in newspapers orgeneral journals). This was in line with theofficial policy of the government and theruling party and frequently was expressedwith the slogan: We do not want anydiscussion of previous mistakes! (inGerman: Keine Fehler-Diskussion!).

Lysenkoism came to its final end withthe political downfall of Chrustchev in theSoviet Union (Box 2). With the assumptionof power by Brezhnev in 1964, the Lysenko

Fig. 2. Gustav Becker (19051970). Becker trained underFritz von Wettstein, studying polyploids, and thenentered the field of plant breeding, becoming Director ofBreeding Research in the breeding firm Gebrder Dippein Quedlinburg. After World War II, in 1947, he becameProfessor and Director of the Institute of Plant Breedingin Quedlinburg, and, in 1951, in addition Professor ofPlant Breeding in the Faculty of Agriculture of theMartin Luther University in Halle [27,28].

Fig. 3. Kurt Mothes (19001983). Mothes was a plantphysiologist and plant biochemist. From 1949 to 1957, he was Head of the Department of Biochemistry at theGatersleben Institute, and actively took part in thediscussions about Lysenko. In 1957, he becameProfessor at the Martin Luther University, and later heDirector of the Institute of Biochemistry of Plants, Halle,of the German Academy of Sciences at Berlin. From 1954to 1974, he was President of the Deutsche Akademie derNaturforscher Leopoldina in Halle [29].



324 ForumForum

period was over. A main reason forChrustchevs downfall was severe failuresin agricultural productivity and this was connected with Lysenkos activities.Parallel to his theoretical ideas, Lysenkohad given his promise (to Stalin andChrustchev) that the application of hisnew theorywould lead to an increase ofagricultural yields. However, in the latefifties and sixties it became more and moreplain that these practical proposals did notactually produce more crops.

In summary, Stubbe, Becker andMothes, backed by many colleagues, wereable to avoid any influence of Lysenkoismon their work in genetics and breeding inthe research institutes of the Academy ofSciences and the Academy of AgriculturalSciences of the GDR until the breakdownof Lysenkoism in the USSR in 1964.

References1 Soyfer, V.N. (1994) Lysenko and the Tragedy of

Soviet Science, Rutgers University Press2 Medvedjev, Z.A. (1969) The Rise and Fall of

T. D. Lysenko, Columbia University Press3 Soyfer, V.N. (2001) The consequences of political

dictatorship for Russian science. Nat. Rev. Genet.2, 723729

4 Popovsky, M. (1984) The Vavilov Affair,Shoe String Press

5 Lysenko, T.D., ed. (1949) ber den Stand derBiologischen Wissenschaft. StenographischerBericht ber die Tagung der W.I.Lenin-Akademieder Landwirtschaftswissenschaften der UdSSR(31 Juli7 August 1948), Verlag frFremdsprachige Literatur Moskau

6 Zacharias, M. (1964, 1965) Lehrbuch der Biologie,12. Klasse.; 10. Klasse, 12. Klasse, Verlag Volkund Wissen

7 Hxtermann, E. (2000) KlasssenbiologenundFormalgenetiker Zur Rezeption Lyssenkosunter den Biologen in der DDR, Acta HistoricaLeopoldina (Halle/S.) 36, 273300

8 Hossfeld, U. and Olsson, L. (2001) Between

science and politics: Axolotl research at JenaUniversity, Germany, during the Lysenko era(1950s1960s). Axolotl News 29, 1215

9 Siemens, J. (1997) Lysenkoismus in Deutschland(19451965). Biologie in unserer Zeit 27, 255262

10 Brix, K. (1952) Untersuchungen ber den Einfluder Pfropfung auf Reis und Unterlage und dieMglichkeit einer bertragung eventuellerVernderungen auf die Nachkommen. Ztschr.f.Pflanzenzchtung 31, 285288

11 Schiemann, E. (1948) Review on Hudson, P.S.,Richens, R.H.: The new genetics in the SovietUnion, 1946. Naturwissenschaften 35, 6264

12 Kding, E. (1999) Engagement undVerantwortung. Hans Stubbe, Genetiker undZchtungsforscher, ZALF-Bericht Nr. 36

13 Hagemann, R. (1985) EinigeHauptentwicklungslinien der Genetik seit 1985, InBeitrge zur Wissenschaftsgeschichte (Wendel,G., ed.),pp. 93110 Wissenschaftsentwicklung von 1945 biszur Gegenwart. Deutscher Verlag der Wissenschaften

14 Hagemann, R. (1999) Hans Stubbe Genetiker,Forscher, Wissenschaftsorganisator, Mensch.Biospektrum 5, 306309

15 Bhme, H. (1998) Hans Stubbe (19021989).Mutationsforschung und Pflanzenzchtung.In Sachsen-Anhalt eine Wiege derPflanzenzchtung. Vortrge fr Pflanzenzchtung(Stein, M., ed.) Heft 40, 6168

16 Stubbe, H. (1952) ber einige Fragen derGenetik. In Die sowjetische Agrarwissenschaftund unsere Landwirtschaft. Protokoll der Tagungdes ZK der SED mit fhrendenAgrarwissenschaftlern am 25./26.5.1951in Berlin, pp. 96112, Dietz Verlag

17 Stubbe, H. (1954) ber die vegetativeHybridisierung von Pflanzen. Versuche anTomatenmutanten. Kulturpflanze 2, 185236

18 Stubbe, H. (1955) ber die Umwandlung vonWinterweizen in Sommerweizen. Zchter(now Theor. Appl. Genet.) 25, 321330

19 Bhme, H. (1954) Untersuchungen zum Problemder genetischen Bedeutung von Pfropfungenzwischen genotypisch verschiedenen Pflanzen.Ztschr. f. Pflanzenzchtung 33, 367418

20 Bhme, H. (1957) Weitere Untersuchungen zumProblem der genetischen Bedeutung vonPfropfungen zwischen genotypisch verschiedenenPflanzen. Ztschr. f. Pflanzenzchtung 38, 3750

21 Zacharias, M. (1956) Ein Versuch zurBeeinflussung der F2-Spaltungen von Bastardenaus der Gattung Antirrhinum durch Pfropfungvon F1-Bastarden auf ihre Ausgangseltern.Kulturpflanze 4, 277295

22 Zacharias, M. (1957) ber die Anwendbarkeit derMethode der vegetativen Annherung zurErhhung der Kreuzbarkeit einigerWildkartoffelarten mit der Kulturkartoffel.Kulturpflanze 5, 240252

23 Bhme, H. (2000) Genetik in der Klammer vonPolitik und Ideologie - PersnlicheErinnerungen. Acta Historica Leopoldina(Halle/S.) 36, 111136

24 Stubbe, H. (1982) Geschichte des Institutes frKulturpflanzenforschung Gatersleben derDeutschen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin19431968, Akademie-Verlag

25 Stubbe, H. (1963) Kurze Geschichte der Genetik bis zur Wiederentdeckung derVererbungsregeln Gregor Mendels.(Beitrag 1 von Genetik. Grundlagen, Ergebnisse undProbleme in Einzeldarstellungen), p. 232,Gustav Fischer Verlag

26 Brandsch, H. (1983) Genetische Grundlagen der Tierzchtung (Beitrag 13), p. 406,Gustav Fischer Verlag

27 Hoffmann, W. (1971) Nachruf auf Gustav Becker.Zeitschr. f. Pflanzenzchtung 65, 8994

28 Unger, K. et al. (2001) Prof. Dr. Dr.h.c. GustavBecker und die Zchtungsforschung inQuedlinburg. Quedlinburger Annalen 4, 7886

29 Parthier, B. (2001) Kurt Mothes (19001983).Gelehrter, Prsident, Persnlichkeit, ActaHistorica Leopoldina (Halle/S.) 17, 150

30 Gerstengarbe, S. (2000) Die Leopoldina in denkonfliktreichen Jahren 19581962. Acta HistoricaLeopoldina (Halle/S.) 36, 63100

31 Kuckuck, H. (1988) Wandel und Bestndigkeitim Leben eines Pflanzenzchters,Verlag Paul Parey

Rudolf HagemannInstitut fr Genetik, Universitt, Zentrale Postelle Kaulenberg 8, D-06099 Halle/S., Germany.e-mail: [email protected]

Book Review

How population andquantitative geneticsbegan

The Origins ofTheoretical PopulationGeneticsby William B. ProvineThe University ofChicago Press, 2001.$17.00 pbk (211 pages) ISBN 0 226 68464 6

The genetic analysis of quantitative traits,formerly somewhat of a backwater, is nowbig business, because of the new prospectsfor exploiting it for medical and agriculturalpurposes. Population geneticists, having longbeen treated as largely irrelevant to moderngenetics, were described as being in shortsupply in a recent issue of Nature [1], in thelight of the need to analyse large quantitiesof data on human molecular variation. Thisreissue of Will Provines outstanding 1971book on the early history of these fields isthus very timely, because much of thematerial might be unfamiliar to geneticistswho were trained after the early 1960s.

Provine shows how Darwins view ofgradual evolution by natural selection facedmany criticisms by his contemporaries,owing to the lack of understanding ofinheritance. In response to this situation,Francis Galton developed the concept ofregression, in which the deviation from thepopulation mean of a group of individualswas related to that of their relatives by anempirical coefficient. This was the origin ofthe statistical methods for describing theresemblances between relatives, greatlyelaborated by Karl Pearson. Galtonbelieved that the phenomenon of regressionmeant that selection could not produce any

the lysenko effect

Documents