Piotr Köhler

Publications of Piotr Köhler

• Lysenko affair and Polish botany.

  Authors: Piotr Köhler

  Journal of the history of biology. 01/2011; 44(2):305-43.

  This article describes the slight impact of Lysenkoism upon Polish botany. I begin with an account of the development of plant genetics in Poland, as well as the attitude of scientists and the PolishThis article describes the slight impact of Lysenkoism upon Polish botany. I begin with an account of the development of plant genetics in Poland, as well as the attitude of scientists and the Polish intelligentsia toward Marxist philosophy prior to the World War II. Next I provide a short history of the introduction and demise of Lysenkoism in Polish science, with a focus on events in botany, in context with key events in Polish science from 1939 to 1958. The article outlines the little effects of Lysenkoism upon botanists and their research, as well as how botanists for the most part rejected what was often termed the "new biology." My paper shows that though Lysenko's theories received political support, and were actively promoted by a small circle of scientists and Communist party activists, they were never accepted by most botanists. Once the political climate in Poland altered after the events of 1956, Lysenko's theories were immediately abandoned.

• [History of Polish botanical and mycological researches on sheets of land of Antarctic and Sub-Antarctic in the years 1977-2009].

  Authors: Piotr Köhler, Maria Olech

  Kwartalnik historii nauki i techniki : Kwartal'nyĭ zhurnal istorii nauki i tekhniki -. 01/2011; 56(1):67-113.

  The work includes a description of the period from the moment of setting up Polish Polar Station on King George Island (1977) to the end of International Polar Year IV in 2009. Researches on flowerThe work includes a description of the period from the moment of setting up Polish Polar Station on King George Island (1977) to the end of International Polar Year IV in 2009. Researches on flower plants focused, among others, on plants' morphology, morphological composition of the pollen and anatomical ultra-structure of the leaves. There were also carried out biochemical and other searches for the internal mutability. Within physiological studies one concentrated on the problem of reaction to temperature stress. Biological researches focused mainly on solving taxonomic and bio-geographic problems. Finally, were published several monographs and, among others, the first in history complete description of moss' flora of the whole of Antarctic (2008). Research works over algae included also such issues as floristics, bio-geography, taxonomy and ecology (for instance, the rookery's impact on distribution of algae, or the influence of inanimate factors on dynamics of condensing the Diatoma in different water and soil-bound tanks). Up till now, within mycological investigations has been identified a variety of lichen fungi that for the most part of Antarctic are a novelty. There were scientifically described new for science genera and species of Western Antarctic. Lichenological studies were made in the field of taxonomy, geography, lichenometry, biochemistry of lichens, lichenoindication, ecophysiology and from the point of analysis of base metals' content. There were also described new for science species. Since 1991, were published the results of searches for the base metals' content and vestigial chemical elements in lichens' thallus. Ecophysiological researches concerned both micro-climatic conditions' impact on primary production and lichens' adaptation to a very cold climate. One discovered a mechanism of two-phase hydratization/dehydratization of lichens' thallus. On the ground of palaeobotanical analyzes was reconstructed a development of flora in Western Antarctic from the late Cretaceous period to the beginning of Melville's continental glaciation. One singled out three floristic stages and were reconstructed their peculiarities in the development of flora. There was also described an early Jurassic flora of Hope Bay (Półwysep Antarktyczny - Antarctic Peninsula) that turned out to be the richest Jurassic flora in the world. From that point of view were analyzed new species of mineral plants. Ecological researches concentrated on the problems connected with several issues and, among others, with the processes of settlement and succession, distribution and ecology of land biotopes, changes in their spatial structure, and state of biotopes' biological mass. The second group of issues concerned the anthropogenous impacts. One also analyzed early stages of synanthropization of flora. Another important issue was recognizing an extent of the pollution of the environment, particularly with base metals. In the years 1977-2009 were published, at least, 426 notes, articles and monographs that were a result of botanical and mycological researches on sheets of land of Antarctic and Sub-Antarctic.

• [Lysenkoism in Polish botany]

  Authors: Piotr Köhler

  Kwartalnik historii nauki i techniki : Kwartal'nyĭ zhurnal istorii nauki i tekhniki -. 02/2008; 53(2):83-161.

  Lysenkoism in Poland was never an autonomous phenomenon. The whole array of reasons for which it appeared in Polish science would require a separate study--here it only needs to be pointed out thatLysenkoism in Poland was never an autonomous phenomenon. The whole array of reasons for which it appeared in Polish science would require a separate study--here it only needs to be pointed out that the major reasons included terror on the part of the security service, lawlessness, the ubiquitous atmosphere of intimidation and terror, censorship, the diminishing sphere of civil liberties, political show trials, propaganda and denunciations. An important role in facilitating the introduction of Lysenkoism was played also by the reorganization of science after World War Two, the isolation of Polish science from science in the West, as well as the damage it had suffered during the war. At first, Lysenkoism was promoted in Poland by a small group of enthusiastic and uncritical proponents. A overview of the events connected with the ten years of Lysenkoism in Poland (end of 1948--beginning of 1958) shows a two-tier picture of how the 'idea' was propagated. The first tier consisted in the activities of the Association of Marxist Naturalists [Koło Przyrodników-Marksistów], which it engaged in since the end of 1948. The Association was later transformed into a Union of Marxist Naturalists, and this in turn merged, in 1952, with the Copernican Society of Polish Naturalists [Polskie Towarzystwo Przyrodników im. Kopernika]. It was that society which promoted Lysenkoism longest, until the end of 1956. The propaganda and training activities of the circle and the society prepared ground for analogous activities of the newly formed Polish Academy of Science (PAN), which--since its very establishment in 1952--engaged in promoting Lysenkoism through its Second Division. These activities were aimed at naturalists, initially at those who were prominent scientists (eg. the conference at Kuźnice, 1950/1951), and then at those who were only starting their academic career (including national courses in new biology at Dziwnów, 1952, or Kortowo, 1953 and 1955). The end to promoting Lysenkoism by PAN came with the Sixth General Assembly of its members on June 11-12, 1956. The second tier of propagating Lysenkoism consisted in activities aimed at the general public, including the teaching of creative Darwinism (obligatory for pupils of various levels of education), in the school years 1949/50-1956/57. There were few botanists who published studies in Lysenkoism: only 55 persons did so. Among them, there were only a few botanists who could boast of significant previous scientific achievements--they included Stefan Białobok (1909-1992), Władysław Kunicki-Goldfinger (1916-1995), Edmund Malinowski (1885-1979), Konstanty Moldenhawer (1889-1962), Józef Motyka (1900-1984), Szczepan Pieniazek. A majority of the authors of publication in Lysenkoism were young scientists or people who did publish anything later on. Basing on the available bibliographies, it is possible to ascertain that there were ca. 140 Lysenkoist botanical publications (out of the total of 3410), i.e. 4.1% (fig. 1) of all the botanist publications in Poland in that period. Their number in the years 1949-1953 was higher than in the next period, and oscillated between 15 and 24 publications annually (fig. 2). The percentage of Lysenkoist studies among all publications in botany published each year was highest in 1949 (11.5%), and decreased systematically in the following years (fig. 3). Lysenkoism was a marginal phenomenon in Polish botany. Among the Lysenkoist publications, most summarized papers delivered at successive conferences, or consisted in reprints of Soviet studies. A significant group was made up of publications popularizing the principles and achievements of Lysenkoism (on the basis of Soviet publications). There were relatively studies presenting the results of research conducted in Poland on the basis of Lysenko's theory. Botanists who remember those times recollect that topics connected with Michurinian-Lysenkoist biology were avoided. It is symptomatic that not a single Lysenkoist study was published in Acta Societatis Botanicorum Poloniae, the scientific journal of the Polish Botanical Society (out of the total of 359 articles published in the years 1948-1958). The attitudes of Polish botanists towards Lysenkoism varied. A great majority, i.e. ca. 96% of all botanists, dealt with research topics that did not require direct references to Lysenkoism and did not publish any Lysenkoist studies. A few botanists did publish studies based on the tenets of Lysenkoism. Some did so in a sincere belief in the validity of the theory (e.g. Aniela Makarewicz (1905-1990) or Szczepan Pieniazek). A number of botanists, who did not want to be exposed to harassment, avoided explicit endorsements of the theory or, whenever possible, used the "shield" of Soviet science. This consisted in using quotations from the classics of Marxism and Lysenkoism , both in papers delivered at conferences and in written publications. These references were a kind of levy paid in order to put vigilance of the censorship to sleep or to avoid non-substantive criticism. Other botanists (very few in number) took a hostile stand on Lysenkoism, which was a thing that required courage. The consequences for a university professor included being deprived of one's chair and being banned from publishing (this was, for instance, the case Prof. Wacław Gajewski (1911-1997)). The role of censorship should not be underestimated--it may be due to its activities that only isolated studies engaging in polemic with Lysenkoism, or trying to show the fallaciousness of its tenets, appeared in the first half of the 1950s. The content of publications was also affected by editors and editorial boards: as a result of their intervention, authors were forced to include obligatory quotations from the classics of Marxism and Lysenkoism in their articles. Since the current paper is based predominantly on publications, the strength of the opposition to Lysenkoism may be undervalued. It is well-known, not only from oral testimony, that the times of Lysenkoism were a terrible period in Polish botany, with all kinds of pressures exerted on botanists who did not adopt it. Fortunately, no Polish botanists lost their lives. The Lysenkoist period in Polish botany retarded the development of many of its branches. In the last fifty years many of the setbacks have been made up for, but it is in the biological education of the general public that Lysenkoism has had a more serious effect. Several generations of young people failed to be introduced to genetics, or at least its foundations, at any level of schooling. Instead they were inculcated with the erroneous belief of man's limitless possibilities in transforming nature, including the view that species can be shaped freely in line with economic needs. The view of Lysenkoism in Polish botany presented in the current paper is almost certainly far from being completely true. Any future archival queries may contribute very significantly to our knowledge of Lysenkoist botany, and the participation in or opposition to it by particular botanists.