Nature of Science, Nikolai Vavilov

Full text

Cohen and Loskutov SpringerPlus (2016) 5:1159
DOI 10.1186/s40064-016-2795-z
CASE STUDY
Exploring the nature ofscience
throughcourage andpurpose: a case study
ofNikolai Vavilov andplant biodiversity
Joel I. Cohen1,2,3* and Igor G. Loskutov4
Abstract
Introduction: Historical biographies facilitate teaching the ‘nature of science’. This case study focuses on how Nikolai
Vavilov’s unrelenting sense of purpose, courage, and charismatic personality was maintained during violent revolu-
tionary change in Russia.
Case description: The rediscovery of Gregor Mendel’s laws of inheritance provided Vavilov with a scientific founda-
tion for crop improvement, this foundation was later bolstered by Vavilov’s personal drive to conserve plant biodi-
versity. As he advanced theories and pragmatic approaches for genetic improvement and conservation of plants,
political leaders in Russian came to reject Mendel’s principles and eventually Vavilov’s work.
Discussion and evaluation: This rejection occurred because Joseph Stalin was desperate for a quick remedy to the
famine and suffering from forced collective agriculture. Vavilov’s work continued, modernizing Russian crop research
while inspiring other scientists to save seeds stored in the world’s first gene bank. Three themes illustrating the nature
of science help examine Vavilov’s life: explaining natural phenomena, uncompromising human endeavor, and revising
scientific knowledge.
Conclusions: The case study concludes with four questions to stimulate student inquiry and self-guided research.
They also deepen student understanding of Vavilov’s personal sacrifices to ensure use and conservation of plant
biodiversity.
© 2016 The Author(s). This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,
provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license,
and indicate if changes were made.
Background
is case study examines the pioneering work in crop
plant improvement and conservation undertaken by
Nikolai Ivanovich Vavilov and how he succeeded in
doing so against overwhelming odds. To accomplish this,
Vavilov relied on his unrelenting purpose and internal
drive, combined with an infectious personality that moti-
vated and inspired others to stake their very lives on such
a man. Incorporating a “nature of science” approach to
Vavilov’s life and work offers a unique way to examine his
accomplishments and his visionary leadership.
e three themes explaining the nature of science in
this case study were identified and explained by the Next
Generation Science Standards (NGSS Lead States 2013,
McComas 2015). ese include: eme 1: Science as a
human endeavor, eme 2: Science models, laws and the-
ories explain natural phenomena, and eme 3: Scientific
knowledge is open to revision in light of new evidence.
Using biography to amplify relevance and meaning
of scientific discovery in the classroom is possible (i.e.,
Clough 2016). However, such materials are rare and not
suited for immediate classroom use. When they are avail-
able, they often cannot be used in deference to ensuring
full coverage of a prescribed curriculum. us, it is easier
to omit teaching of the perilous events scientists often
face, and their courage to do so, in order to advance the
very theories students must learn to graduate. A second
topic of importance, now recognized by the NGSS and of
growing instructional importance, includes biodiversity,
although educators wishing to elaborate or extend upon
textbook-based lessons find few options (Navaro-Perez
Open Access
*Correspondence: cohenji@comcast.net; http://www.joelcohen.org
1 Montgomery County Public Schools, Rockville, MD, USA
Full list of author information is available at the end of the article

Page 2 of 9
Cohen and Loskutov SpringerPlus (2016) 5:1159
and Tidball 2012). One brief example is offered for con-
servation methods (Hawtin and Cherfas 2003).
e Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS 2013)
influence what is taught and assessed in science cur-
ricula, and its focus on biodiversity is included in Core
Idea LS2, Ecosystems: Interactions, Energy, and Dynam-
ics. Using case studies allows topics such as biodiversity
to be taught in relation to the nature of science and by
emphasizing the human elements of science (McComas
2015). is way, human dimensions invoking “individual
struggle, creativity, and adventure” are incorporated into
science teaching (Eldridge 2009). is case study fulfills
this need specifically for secondary and undergraduate
education.
e case study is also directed towards students and
academicians, for as noted, Vavilov, “has largely passed
under the radar in terms of wider public and scientific
appreciation. Not only have his scientific contributions
failed to be given the wider acknowledgement they so
readily deserve, but his premature death was shameful”
(Ling 2015). is case study, by being classroom ready,
can advance this overdue acknowledgement by introduc-
ing Vavilov to the coming generations of students.
Theme 1: Science models, laws andtheories explain
natural phenomena
Explaining natural phenomena: part 1—Vavilov’s ‘Centers
ofOrigin’
e year was 1924 and Nikolai Vavilov was ready to usher
in a concept new to science. In that year, Vavilov reorgan-
ized the Bureau of Applied Botany to become the All-
Union Institute of Plant Industry,1 for which he was
Director, located in what is now St. Petersburg. His direc-
torship duties multiplied, and by 1934 Vavilov had
founded over 400 research institutes, with staffing
requirements of 20,000 (Janick 2015).
Building upon studies, explorations, research and
his travels abroad, Vavilov was now sure that scattered
across the globe existed geographical “centers of origin
and diversity” for our major food crops, and that these
did not occur at random. With this pronouncement and
its publication, he had simultaneously built on and tran-
scended the earlier, pivotal works of Darwin (2008, 1868)
and De Candolle (1914). Within these centers, lay a caul-
dron of genetic interplay stretching back thousands of
years, sometimes intersecting with humanity and other
times, left to itself.
Vavilov (1932) came to recognize that, “One of the most
essential factors in understanding the process of evolu-
tion in living organisms is the geographical distribution
1 In 1968 this institute was renamed as the N.I. Vavilov All-Russian Scien-
tific Research Institute of Plant Industry, in honor of its 75th Anniversary.
VIR will be used for this institute in the following pages of this paper.
of species and varieties at the present time and the past.”
Vavilov always recognized the contributions of others,
such as for Darwin, he said: “Darwin’s theory of evolution
is a cornerstone, being the basic and unique theory that
has been standing solidly for more than 80years. In their
professional activities, botanists, zoologists, geneticists,
plant breeders and ecologists as well as plant geographers
are influenced by this universal theory, and it is only due
to this fact that understanding the process of evolution
and the functioning of organisms becomes possible,”
(Lostokov 1999, p. 17).
Vavilov went further than just explaining the diversi-
fication and evolution surrounding food crops. He used
this concept as a “scope” along which he could system-
atically direct plant collection and exploration, especially
in his centers of origin. What are now called “Vavilovian
Centers of Origin” underwent four major revisions. He
initially postulated three centers in 1924, then five, end-
ing with eight in 1934, and eventually reducing to a final
number of seven in 1940. With this interpretation and
revision of his first work on centers, we see a man of
vision, working a theory until it made sense with his own
observations and with his understanding of development
from diversity. Each revision represented the product of
detailed analysis of all the new information coming in
from his studies and travels.
As summarized by Harlan (1992), Vavilov believed that
“the geographic region in which one found the great-
est genetic diversity was the region of origin.” Within
each of these centers lay not only the origins of our food
crops, but other sources of diversity that included plant
species not cultivated but related to a certain crop, and
other species that were far more distant in their genetic
makeup. To say this idea and recognition were new, or to
say they were a breakthrough would be gross understate-
ments. Instead, these theories were genius, coming from
Vavilov’s tireless curiosity and bravery, never being afraid
to question himself, always searching the corners of the
globe for insight and evidence.
Reaching back in time to explain where and how a crop
entered this world becomes complex all too soon, as
seen when reading Evolution of Crop Plants (Simmonds
1976). is book presents the evolution of plants one
crop at a time, including factors as the geography of the
site where agriculture arose and if an indigenous civiliza-
tion was present, such that “the geography of crop varia-
tion depends a lot upon the geography of human history,”
(Harlan 1992).
Vavilov postulated that to find his centers, one had to
look “in those few regions where primitive agriculture
was still practiced, especially in the mountains, where
from earliest times people have tilled the soil,” (Popovsky
1984). Vavilov concluded that these centers stretched

Page 3 of 9
Cohen and Loskutov SpringerPlus (2016) 5:1159
across several mountain ranges, from which he was able
to discover the original home of many food crops, some-
thing no one else had done.
Once such understandings became clear to Vavilov,
they guided collecting missions for all who worked at
VIR. Vavilov altered and revised his final views on the
number and detail of the centers, but the systematic
method it provided the collection is what made his next
theory just as unique and visionary.
Explaining natural phenomena: part 2—loss ofgenetic
variation
Vavilov now understood that crop plants could also be
improved by using diversity taken from non-cultivated
plant species. By sampling a crop’s biodiversity, and
focusing on the wild and related species, Vavilov saw
their potential use for disease and pest control and for
breeding tolerance to harsh growing conditions (Pluck-
nett etal. 1987). From this, the fundamental importance
of plant improvement programs was realized, as scien-
tists could take advantage of resistant genes derived from
a wild population. Corn for example, can benefit from
introduction of traits from its wild and related species
(Cohen and Galinat 1984).
But to improve plants in this manner meant conserving
the relative and wild species most closely related to our
food crops. However, what if this diversity had already
started to disappear? Vavilov had seen such disappear-
ance due to the modernization of agriculture. Here
again, Vavilov recognized something decades ahead of its
time, and that was “genetic erosion.” Whether caused by
humans or nature, the loss of diversity meant the erosion
of the genetic base of a crop plant’s diversity (Hummer
2015).
Only once this theory and the geography of the cent-
ers of origins were understood, did Vavilov consider suf-
ficiently prepared to launch a “vigorous, worldwide plant
exploration program… and for the first time a really sys-
tematic plan for genetic resource management was estab-
lished (Harlan 1992, p. 49).
Even if the centers of origin do not always correlate
with areas of greatest biodiversity, the areas that Vavilov
identified remain important collecting areas. Many cent-
ers are explored today and still hold diversity of wild and
natural relatives of domesticated crops, and thus hold
promise for future investigations of crop biodiversity
(Allard 1960).
But as his work, explorations, and theories were com-
ing together an image haunted Vavilov. He realized that
the very thing he and his colleagues collected could dis-
appear just as fast. A final challenge stood in front of him.
What if he and his colleagues collected all these seeds,
but could not protect them? How could they ensure that
the seeds they collected would survive? How could they
serve as “trusted bankers” for collections across so many
crops and countries?
A daring moment, once again, Vavilov faced. Foresee-
ing the need to counter-act genetic erosion meant that
he must somehow secure long-term protection for the
diversity held inside each seed deposited country by
county, trip by trip, seed by seed, into a bank such as no
one had seen before.
Explaining natural phenomena: part 3—Vavilov—a pioneer
ofthe genebank (1924–1944)
Why speak of banks when discussing biodiversity? Today,
we take banks for granted, we deposit things of value in
their safety deposit drawers, we expect it to be safe and
secure there, we place our money in savings accounts,
and our personal valuables in their vaults. From day to
day, barring financial collapse, we expect to reclaim what
we deposit as we remembered it, at whatever time in the
future such needs arise.
erefore, should it be with the diversity of life. We
need such a bank for seeds, as seeds contain unique
combinations of genetic diversity. Preventing the loss of
seeds, being the reproductive product of plants, fore-
stalls the loss of biodiversity surrounding our food crops.
What makes such a bank possible? Banks established for
agricultural biodiversity are called ‘genebanks,’ meaning
a repository or storage center for many forms of plant
genetic material, including seed and other reproductive
tissues. Just as a normal bank keeps our personal valu-
ables safe, a genebank keeps deposits of biodiversity that
may provide valuable genes for our food crops (IPGRI
2004).
ere are three overriding requirements of a gen-
ebank needed to maintain seed viability: temperature,
seed moisture, and the original vitality of the seed being
deposited (Plucknett etal. 1987, p. 77). While these pose
considerable challenges, improvements to meet these
challenges have advanced as well, leading to the longer-
term storage conditions of modern genebanks. Forty
years after Vavilov initiated seed conservation, the intro-
duction of modern varieties in tropical countries raised
anew concerns regarding loss or displacement of local
crops and seeds. Russia, the United Kingdom, and crop
specific genebanks supported by the Rockefeller Foun-
dation together provided a platform for the expansion
of genebanks that began in the 1950s (Pistorius 1997).
is led to the development of numerous national and
international genebanks that ushered in the era of mod-
ern conservation (Hawtin and Cherfas 2003; Cohen etal.
1991; Plucknett etal. 1987).
e idea would emerge in someone’s mind, com-
ing foremost to one who travelled in search of the rare

Page 4 of 9
Cohen and Loskutov SpringerPlus (2016) 5:1159
and disappearing. It was Vavilov who took this impera-
tive of conservation and translated it into one of the first
genebanks in modern times (Janick 2015), at once pro-
viding a means for saving seeds for perpetuity. Vavilov,
ever the pioneer, would never know that what followed
his efforts at Leningrad would eventually lead to hun-
dreds of other genebanks around the world.
When Vavilov reorganized the Bureau of Applied Bot-
any, the first major genebank in the world was also estab-
lished. Even though Vavilov gave the construction and
operation of this center high priority, the facility was only
able to store seeds at room or ambient temperatures, as
cold storage refrigeration was not yet available. us, to
keep these deposits viable, that is not to lose their ability
to germinate and grow, they had to be planted out each
year (Plucknett et al. 1987). e harvested seeds were
returned to the seedbank for deposit.
By the 1940s, VIR scientists began experimenting on
genebank operations to improve long-term storage to
ensure that the deposits in the genebank, and at 40 satellite
collections and breeding stations, would stay viable longer
than year to year. Eventually, VIR scientists determined
optimal conditions for storing seed and other planting
material (Loskutov 1999). However, genebank deposits
were not only to be conserved, but used. Once stored in
the Leningrad genebank, Vavilov trusted that other scien-
tists would see his deposits as a “genetic insurance policy”
for future crop improvement. As such, Vavilov insisted
that the seed being collected enter into evaluation, screen-
ing and crop improvement programs as soon as possible.
rough these efforts, Vavilov established plant breeding2
programs and over 100 experimental stations across Rus-
sia, based on principles of Mendelian genetics and on the
type of seed collections VIR.
Results from plant breeding take several years to see
and to be confident of the advantages of the new crops. It
is the genetic backbone of crop improvement and Vavilov
saw that each of his research institutes was involved. It
was in this manner that he hoped to avert worsening
food shortages and increase farmer output. However,
Joseph Stalin grew impatient with this timeframe, and
labelled Vavilov a failure because results were promised
only years into the future.
Just as the imposed reality of Stalinism closed in on those
who had disposed of the tsar and ushered in the Russian
revolution, so did Stalin close in upon those who no longer
met with his expectations. is eventually included Vavilov,
whose persecution seems such an incongruous and point-
less attack. However, to the Russian dictator, nothing was
further from the truth, even though his case against the
2 Plant breeding refers to changing the traits of plants genetically, in order
to produce more desired characteristics.
seed collector was built on false hopes and Stalin’s grow-
ing misguided favoritism towards another Soviet scientist
named Trofin Lysenko, as will be seen next.
Theme 2: Vavilov’s contributions toscience arose
fromhuman endeavor
Nikolai Vavilov seems a contemporary in theory and
practice rather than someone of a century past. Yet,
Vavilov’s story and sacrifices remain unknown in the
world of secondary and undergraduate science educa-
tion. What Vavilov accomplished came from human
endeavor, put forward under some of the most arduous
conditions imaginable. As presented by the NGSS (2013),
scientists, “rely on human qualities such as persistence,
precision, reasoning, logic, imagination and creativ-
ity, and are guided by habits of mind such as intellectual
honesty, tolerance of ambiguity, skepticism and open-
ness to new ideas.” To discuss Vavilov’s endeavors, per-
sistence, and contemporary relevance, this theme begins
with Vavilov’s efforts in conserving plant biodiversity (as
it would be called today).
Human endeavors: Part 1—Vavilov andbiodiversity
e genebank that Vavilov had conceived opened its
doors in 1920s Petrograd (as the city was called then,
replacing its original name of St. Petersburg, only
later to become Leningrad). e All Union Institute of
Plant Breeding (VIR), with Nikolai Vavilov serving as
its Director, now had a bank different from all others.
Its value rested not in gold or silver, but in the plant
seeds stored within. By 1941, seed from more than
187,000 varieties of plants was held inside (Alexanyan
and Krivchenko 1991). e dreams and prescience of
Nikolai Vavilov were becoming reality. By 1975, over
230,000 deposits had been made; helping his bank to
become the largest depository of seeds worldwide (Los-
kutov 1999).
While many have contributed valuable lessons,
research and theory to the science of gene banks and
crop biodiversity (i.e., Frankel and Bennett 1970), it was
Vavilov who almost 100years ago envisioned the need for
and persisted to activate his vision by building the world’s
first gene bank that is still operating today.
Human endeavors: part 2—biodiversity makes an entrance
Long after Vavilov’s genebank opened, the science of
“biodiversity” was announced in September 1986 under
the auspices of the National Academy of Sciences and
Smithsonian Institution (NRC 1988). Since then, the
term “biodiversity” continues to draw attention to the
loss of species in the wild, especially those living within
the great tracts of nature, places harboring the rare and
endangered, and often, species not yet known to science.

Page 5 of 9
Cohen and Loskutov SpringerPlus (2016) 5:1159
When students and teachers consider biodiversity
today, they often focus on animals living in wilderness,
savannahs, or rainforests. When asked to think of specific
species, students readily select endangered megafauna,
a group of animals which captures not only their atten-
tion (Cohen 2014, 2016), but that of organizations seek-
ing “flagship species” for conservation (Leader-Williams
and Dublin 2000). What is practically unknown to stu-
dents, but of great importance to Vavilov, is that the same
concerns of loss and endangerment surround the preser-
vation and conservation of our remaining food crop bio-
diversity. ese concerns were not presented in the 1986
Academy meeting.
Why not? One reason may have been that many ecolo-
gists, environmentalists, and naturalists maintained that
adoption of modern crop plants replaces rather than
sustains diversity. Of those who study choices available
to farmers, there is a concern that farmers will choose
seed offered through institutions or public research,
rather than from his or her own local seeds. If the new
seeds are chosen, then it is believed that monocultures
of these varieties will take over farms that otherwise
would have significant amounts of plant biodiversity.
If and as this occurs, the “cultivation of a small number
of fast-growing varieties of crops condemn ever-larger
areas of the Earth’s surface to low biodiversity,” leading
to over-extraction of resources and a decline in ecosys-
tem services provided by a more diverse habitat (Mac-
kay 2009, p. 90).
Secondly, resources provided for agriculturally related
seed conservation have had a long history of financial
and curatorial support (Cohen etal. 1991), while emerg-
ing biodiversity action plans were just developing in the
1990s. erefore, biodiversity priorities did not focus
on plants having agricultural-economic value or use
(Pistorius 1997). Seeds were viewed as a storehouse
for agricultural diversity, not for the conservation of
biodiversity.
irdly, the conservation of crop plant biodiversity dif-
fers from conserving organisms and habitats featured in
that 1986 conference. Seeds are stored in off-site conser-
vation collections, often far from their natural centers of
origin and diversity, removed from farmers’ fields. How-
ever, this is not the only way that crop plant biodiversity
can be conserved and maintained.
Subsequent work by many (Brush 2004; Nabhan 1989;
Potter etal. 1993) has documented the significance of
crop conservation in natural settings, mostly managed
by farmers themselves. e struggle to feed the world
sustainably continues. Recognizing the benefits of indig-
enous, local cropping systems along with the global and
commercial demand for food staples guarantees a reli-
ance on both options for famers.
Go back some 60 years before the 1986 conference,
before science had distinguished on farm and off farm
conservation. Here, Vavilov is seeking to resolve that
difference, ensuring that conservation of local plant
biodiversity had a purpose: to enhance diversity avail-
able immediately for crop improvement. is is just one
legacy of Vavilov’s endeavors, as commemorated in a
reprinted photograph taken in the Director’s office at
Vavilov’s institute (Fig.1).
Human endeavors: part 3—Vavilov’s expeditions from1922
to1940
Over the past several decades, plant explorers have set
off on dangerous journeys to study, observe and col-
lect food plant biodiversity. Besides Vavilov, other such
adventurers are highlighted in Plant Explorers (2016)
(https://www.plantexplorers.com/explorers/index.html),
although these names alone do not do justice to collec-
tors from the tropical and developing counties or to
international institutes.
Perhaps what makes Vavilov unique among these collec-
tors is not just the sizable number of plant deposits contrib-
uted, but also the sheer number of locations from which he
collected. ese stories are recalled in detail in Five Conti-
nents (Vavilov 1997). is book gives evidence of the care
Vavilov took in documenting each site. His methodology, as
summarized by Loskutov (1999), was to not only pay atten-
tion to the type of seeds collected, but for “… site ecology,
and studies of cultivation technique, but also a geographical
description of these countries and provinces and their vari-
ous natural and meteorological conditions,” to name a few.
ese expeditions were expedited by Vavilov’s com-
mand of several European and some Asian languages. He
patiently recorded the details of each of over 100 explora-
tions that he led across fifty countries between 1915 and
1930, covering Asia, Africa, Central and South America
(Loskutov 1999; Table1). In Vavilov’s time as Director,
the total number of deposits in the bank reached 250,000.
Vavilov immediately saw to it that these new sources of
plant biodiversity were “thoroughly studied at different
experiment stations in different geographical zones of the
country,” (Loskutov 1999).
Each of Vavilov’s expeditions produced new results
which were published, and garnered great attention
among scientists in the West, leading to his publication
of e Geographic Origins of Cultivated Plants in 1926.
According to Popovsky (1984), “From then on, Vavilov
became one of the most respected leaders of world biol-
ogy.” Vavilov’s constant revision and synthesis of what
he learned from these travels gradually led to visionary
insights identifying specific locations where our food
plants originated and diversified, as discussed in the pre-
vious theme.

Page 6 of 9
Cohen and Loskutov SpringerPlus (2016) 5:1159
Human endeavors: part 4—saving the seed—to the death
September 8, 1941. German troops encircled the city of
Leningrad. Hitler tried to bypass it but he did not spare
the city from aerial assaults and the starvation of its pop-
ulation. e siege lasted 900days, ending in January 1944.
By the time of the battle, the VIR genebank had accumu-
lated seeds from 187,000 varieties of plants. roughout
the siege, the scientists at VIR sought to maintain and
protect all of the crop plant biodiversity collected thus
far. Because more advanced long-term storage was not
yet available, the material needed periodic replanting and
harvesting to ensure it remained fresh and viable. is
became very risky to the scientists, and yet they managed
to carry it out secretly every year.
Over one million people died because of the siege and
the prolonged starvation. With no other food in sight, the
VIR genebank scientists refused to eat a single seed so
carefully placed inside their bank. Two of these officials,
S. M. Alexanyan and V. I. Krivchenko, told of the extreme
conditions they faced: “It became increasingly difficult to
work in the institute. e building was unheated, as there
was neither firewood nor coal. Because of unrelenting fir-
ing on the city’s center, the building’s windows were bro-
ken and had to be boarded up. e institute was “cold,
damp and dark,” (Alexanyan and Krivchenko 1991). Nine
of the scientists died from starvation during the siege.
By doing so, they had protected perhaps the most
important contribution resulting from Vavilov’s
Fig. 1 Nikolai Vavilov commemorated in a bilingual poster by the international board for plant genetic resources

Page 7 of 9
Cohen and Loskutov SpringerPlus (2016) 5:1159
endeavor—the most important collection of crop plant
biodiversity in the world.
Theme 3: Scientic knowledge is open torevision inlight
ofnew evidence
All scientific discoveries, theories, and data are subject
to scrutiny and revision; this is a hallmark of the nature
of science and the scientific method. As noted by NGSS
(2013, Appendix H), “Indeed, the only consistent char-
acteristic of scientific knowledge across the disciplines is
that scientific knowledge itself is open to revision in light
of new evidence.” While best done by the scientific com-
munity, it was Stalin’s impatience with the time required
for Vavilov’s plant breeders that brought almost a com-
plete turn-around in Vavilov’s standing.
From the time Vavilov was appointed Head of the
Department of Applied Botany and Plant Breeding in
1820, he was in a race against time. Vavilov reached his
station in Petrograd in 1921, just in time to witness that
year’s catastrophic drought. Vavilov’s approach was for
the long-term; he believed that there was no reason to
worry about institutional time horizons, as his posi-
tion was secure, and his research methods appreciated
by those working under his direction. e following
excerpt provides a vision of what his institute would
become, if given a strong organization and adequate
time:
I would like the Department to be a necessary insti-
tution, as useful to everybody as possible. I’d like to
gather the varietal diversity from all over the world,
bring it to order, turn the Department into the treas-
ury of all crops and other floras, and launch the
publishing of “Flora Culta”, the botanical and geo-
graphical study of all cultivated plants. e outcome
is uncertain, especially considering the surrounding
hunger and cold, (Loskutov 1999, p. 18).
Secondly, Vavilov would have liked nothing more than
to stave off famine and starvation by improving essen-
tial food crops. is urgency was internal, fueling his
desire to immediately begin thefight to endfamine and
poor crop yields. But, as any plant breeder can attest,
such improvements are bettermeasured in yearsrather
than months. However, with the political rise ofTrofin
Lysenko, the son of a peasant, came a person promis-
ingimmediate improvements based on accelerating the
growth of plants by treating seeds with low temperatures
and moisture. Following his work on plants in 1928, he
called this process “vernalization.” us began the politi-
cization of science, with Lysenko the peasant scientist on
one extreme rejecting Mendelian science, and Vavilov,
the progressive higly educated scientist on the other
extreme, bringingmodern science to his home country.
With the rise of Lysenko,Vavilov could sense a politi-
cal shift coming and prepared for a purge in his institute.
In the 1930s, Vavilov’s enemies took advantage of a com-
bination of poor harvests and unclear government sig-
nals for improving agricultural production to strengthen
Lysenko’s position in the Soviet State. In 1936, Lysenko
had Vavilov dismissed as head of agriculture in Petrograd,
giving Lysenko more freedom to profess the concept of
vernalization. As time progressed however, vernaliza-
tion did not contribute to increased yields that could
meet such high expectations (Loskutov 1999). However,
it was Vavilov, under orders from Stalin, who was eventu-
ally imprisoned in 1940 for not agreeing with Lysenko’s
pronouncements, while Lysenko’s final fall from power
would not occur until the 1960s, after Nikita Khrushchev
served as the First Secretary of the Communist Party of
the Soviet Union.
Vavilov’s commitment to gathering and using plant
diversity beyond Russia’s borders was cast off by Stalin
by documents and pronouncements favoring Lysenko’s
seemingly immediate approach to increasing food pro-
duction through vernalization. Mendelian inheritance
and subsequent discoveries by Vavilov were banned in
favor of a “science” that would give immediate famine
relief. Vavilov and his ideas became a scientific scapegoat
for the massive starvation do in part to a failing agricul-
tural system. e scientist and his scientific research,
once so proudly hailed and honored by Lenin, became
contemptable to the Stalinist system. Its revision and
demise led to a decline in Soviet science and agriculture
that lasted for decades.
Propelled by science, Vavilov pushed on, as if all of the
zeal captured in his scientific pursuits was enough to
hold off the darkness that stormed around him. As noted
by Zakharov (2005), “e whole life of Nikolai Ivanovich
Vavilov is a remarkable example of wholehearted devo-
tion to science, to his homeland and to humanity.”
Vavilov speaks further on the centrality of his scientific
pursuits by saying that, “I really have a profound faith in
science, in which I find both purpose and life. And I am
quite ready to give my life for the smallest thing in sci-
ence,” (Pringle 2008).
Questions toextend the case study
Educators and students can extend their studies through
the following questions:
1. Using Vavilov’s ‘center of origin’ concept, create
a simulation that might mitigate adverse impacts
of human activity on biodiversity in and around
Vavilov’s centers.
2. Compare the life of Vavilov with other scientists
showing courage in defending their ideas to a hostile

Page 8 of 9
Cohen and Loskutov SpringerPlus (2016) 5:1159
government, church, or society. ink here of Gali-
leo, Darwin or Rachel Carson as examples. Compare
and contrast the outcomes of each as to how they
made their way in the face of such formidable oppo-
sition, often subject to prison or death.
3. Human activity is having adverse impacts on bio-
diversity through overpopulation, overexploitation,
habitat destruction, pollution, introduction of inva-
sive species, and climate change. How might biodiver-
sity in our genebanks counter these adverse impacts?
4. How did Vavilov’s explorations form his conception
of centers of origin and diversity?
Conclusion
In a scientist’s life there is opportunity, and what is done
with that opportunity. In Vavilov’s case, it would be hard
to imagine more being done with the time and oppor-
tunities afforded him. As one example, it now takes a
global effort to surpass the initial efforts by Vavilov in
genebanking. ese activities are carried out through
a network of global, national, regional and institutional
genebanks that together account for vast numbers of
collected, catalogued, and conserved seeds. Without
Vavilov’s systematic collecting during his explorations
and his insistence on a functioning genebank, who
knows how many seed deposits would have been lost
forever.
What Vavilov began with one gene bank, currently
totals approximately 2.7 million plant deposits in 449
institute genebanks around the world (Genesys 2016).
From this seed, subsequent crop improvements are
made routinely, especially in the area of disease and pest
resistance, and local area environmental adaptations. In
addition, molecular approaches for tapping into a gene
bank’s biodiversity offer additional means for addressing
the needs of future global food production for the future
(McCouch 2013).
Not only was Vavilov willing to tackle the painstaking
job of constructing and organizing his institute’s gen-
ebank, he was also an unfaltering mentor, motivating his
staff to the highest level of performance and personal sac-
rifice. Finally, of lasting importance, is Vavilov’s treatise
on the ‘center of origin’ of our crop plants. is is why
those interested in the origin and diversity surrounding
our food crops still begin their studies from Vavilov’s the-
ories on the origin and diversity of plants.
e crop seeds, wild species and crop relatives col-
lected by Vavilov so long ago can now be viewed as part
of modern-day concerns regarding biodiversity. “Con-
serving biodiversity” was not an idea during Vavilov’s
time. However, it certainly goes to the heart of what
he achieved during his collecting trips. Vavilov sought
out the theory and practice of collecting to guide the
systematic deposits of seed in a genebank. Nabhan (2009)
recognized the importance of these deposits, including
them within “agricultural biodiversity.” also, as noted by
Nabhan (2009, p. 15), “Vavilov and Harlan were among
the first to articulate the concept of loss of agricultural
biodiversity through … genetic erosion.”
Vavilov’s personal endeavors and unwavering consist-
ency, equal to his theoretical contributions, was the focus
of this case study. Admittedly it is somewhat artificial to
categorize the life of a scientist into the NOS Matrix and
its basic understandings as identified by the NGSS (2013,
Appendix H). However, by using the NOS framework,
it makes it possible to study Vavilov’s life in a secondary
science curriculum. If this is done, studies will introduce
to a new generation Vavilov’s contributions, his singular
endeavors that made these possible, and the profession-
alism he maintained through years of demeaning perse-
cution, his imprisonment by Stalin, and finally, his death
from starvation in January 1943.
Authors’ contributions
JIC initiated the paper and re-wrote it in agreement with the NOS matrix.
IL prepared text, citations, and edits on the factual nature of Vavilov ’s life,
provided references and details on his work as VIR. The manuscript was shared
jointly, with JIC answering the reviewer’s comments. JIC provided the educa-
tional context while IL provided context on genebanks and centers of origin.
Both authors read and approved final copy.
Author details
1 Montgomery County Public Schools, Rockville, MD, USA. 2 Graduate School
USA, Washington DC, USA. 3 Audubon Naturalist Society, Chevy Chase, MD,
USA. 4 Department of Genetic Resources of Oat, Barley, Rye, N. I. Vavilov Insti-
tute of Plant Genetic Resources (VIR), 44, Bolshaya Morskaya Str., St-Petersburg,
Russia 190000.
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank reviews provided by Drs. Calvin Qualset, Profes-
sor Emeritus and founding Director of the Genetic Resources Conservation
Program, University of California, and Michael T. Jackson, former Head of the
Genetic Resources Center at the International Rice Research Institute for
providing initial insights, corrections, comments and suggestions. In addition,
suggestions and critique provided by anonymous reviewers for Springer were
very helpful in clarifying structure and purpose of this paper.
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Received: 28 February 2016 Accepted: 7 July 2016
References
Alexanyan SM, Krivchenko VJ (1991) Vavilov institute scientists heroically
preserve world plant genetic resources during World War II siege of
Leningrad. Diversity 7(4):10–13
Allard RW (1960) Principles of plant breeding. Wiley, New York, p 485
Brush SB (2004) Farmer’s bounty—locating crop diversity in the contemporary
world. Yale University Press, New Haven, p 327
Clough MP (2016) The story behind the science. Bring science and scientists to
life. https://www.storybehindthescience.org/team.html
Cohen JI (2014) Ethical values and biological diversity: a preliminary assess-
ment approach. J Microbiol Biol Educ 15(12):224–226

Page 9 of 9
Cohen and Loskutov SpringerPlus (2016) 5:1159
Cohen JI (2016) Biodiversity education and the anthropocene: an indicator of
extinction or recovery. Am Biol Teach 78(4):293–299
Cohen JI, Galinat WC (1984) Potential use of alien germplasm for maize
improvement. Crop Sci 24:1011–1015
Cohen JI, Williams JT, Plucknett DL, Shands H (1991) Ex situ conservation of
plant genetic resources: global development and environmental con-
cerns. Science 253:866–872
Darwin C (1868) The variation of animals and plants under domestication.
Murray, London
Darwin CR (2008) On the origin of species. The illustrated edition. Sterling
Publishing Company, New York
De Candolle A (1914) Origin of cultivated plants. Translation of 1882 French
revision of 1855 original. D. Appleton and Company, New York
Eldridge N (2009) To teach science, tell stories. Issues Sci Technol 25(4):1–5
Frankel OH, Bennett E (eds) (1970) Genetic resources in plants: their explora-
tion and conservation. Blackwell, Oxford
Genesys PGR (2016) https://www.genesys-pgr.org/welcome
Harlan JR (1992) Crops and man, 2nd edn. American Society of Agronomy,
Madison, p 284
Hawtin GC, Cherfas J (2003) Plant genebanks: food security. American Institute
of Biological Sciences. http://www.actionbioscience.org/biodiversity/
hawtin_cherfas.html
Hummer KE (2015) In the footsteps of Vavilov: plant diversity then and now.
HortScience 50(6):784–788
IPGRI (2004) Why genetic diversity matters. IPGRI, Rome, p 20
Janick J (2015) Nikolai Ivanovich Vavilov: plant geographer, geneticist, martyr
of science. HortScience 50(6):772–776
Leader-Williams N, Dublin HT (2000) Charismatic megafauna as ‘flagship spe-
cies’. In: Entwistle A, Dunstone N (eds) Priorities for the conservation of
mammalian diversity: has the panda had its day?. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, pp 53–81
Ling V (2015) Pioneer Nikolai Vavilov. Forty two evolution. http://
www.42evolution.org/nikolai-vavilov-1887-1943/
Loskutov I (1999) Vavilov and his institute. A history of the world collection of
plant genetic resources in Russia. International Plant Genetic Resources
Institute, Rome
Mackay R (2009) The Atlas of endangered species. University of California Press,
Berkeley, p 128
McComas WF (2015) The nature of science and the next generation of biology
education. Am Biol Teach 77(7):485–491
McCouch S (2013) Feeding the future. Nature 499:23–24
Nabhan GP (1989) Enduring seeds: native American agriculture and wild plant
conservation. South Point Press, San Francisco, CA, p 225
Nabhan GP (2009) Where our food comes from retracing Nikolay Vavilov’s
quest to end famine. Island Press, Washington, p 223
National Research Council (1988) Biodiversity—the current state of biological
diversity. The National Academies Press, Washington
Navaro-Perez M, Tidball KG (2012) Challenges of biodiversity education: a
review of educational strategies for biodiversity education. Int Electron J
Environ Educ 2(1):13–30
NGSS Lead States (2013) Next generation science standards: for states, by
states. The National Academies Press, Washington
Pistorius R (1997) Scientists, plants and politics—a history of the plant genetic
resources movement. IPGRI, Rome
Plant Explorers (2016) Plant explorers of the 20th century. PlantExplorers.Com.
https://www.plantexplorers.com/explorers/the-20th-century.htm
Plucknett DL, Smith NJH, Williams JT, Murthi Anishetty N (1987) Gene banks
and the world’s food. Princeton University Press, Princeton, p 247
Popovsky MA (1984) The Vavilov affair. Archon Books, Connecticut, p 216
Potter CS, Cohen JI, Janczewski D (eds) (1993) Perspectives in biodiversity: case
studies in genetic resource conservation and development. AAAS Press,
Maryland
Pringle P (2008) The murder of Nikolai Vavilov. Simon and Schuster, New York,
USA
Simmonds NW (1976) Evolution of crop plants. Longman, London
Vavilov NI (1926) Centers of origin of cultivated plants. Bull Appl Bot Genet
Plant Breed 16:1–248
Vavilov N (1932) The process of evolution in cultivated plants. In: Proceed-
ings of the sixth international congress of genetics, vol I. Transactions
and general addresses. Web site edited by Donald F. Jones; Elec-
tronic Scholarly Publishing. 1968, pp 331–342. http://www.esp.org/
books/6th-congress/facsimile/
Vavilov NI (1997) Five continents. In: Rodin LE (ed) Translated from the Russian
by Doris Love. International Plant Genetics Resources Institute, Rome, and
VIR, St. Petersburg
Zakharov IA (2005) Nikolai I Vavilov (1887–1943). J Biosci 30:299–301