Other formats

    Adobe Portable Document Format file (facsimile images)   TEI XML file   ePub eBook file  

Connect

    mail icontwitter iconBlogspot iconrss icon

Salient. An Organ of Student Opinion at Victoria College, Wellington N.Z. Vol. 10, No. 5. May, 7, 1947

Politics and Science They Must Mix

Politics and Science They Must Mix

Professor Goldschmidt, geneticist, has come and gone—but the trumpets which heralded his arrival are muted at his departure, and, while here, he added not a micron to his stature I Not that the Professor failed to substantiate his claim to an eminent position in his special field of science—that will never be disputed—but that he used this very eminence from which to propagate his own political and philosophical beliefs and opinions, dressed up in the guise of facts—this is the measure of his failure.

His first salvo was fired soon after his arrival in New Zealand in a published interview with the "Listener." Even allowing for the fact that "journalists don't write to tell the truth but only to make what they call a story." this story, entitled "Science and Politics Won't Mix." was far from being the discourse of a reasoning and well-informed scientist. The latter part of the article degenerated into a splenetic attack on science, especially genetics, in the USSR, and particularly on the person of Lysenko. To quote, "unfortunately this man went in for theories and wild impractical ideas which are based on unrecorded experiments and are worthless to science." Strange, is it not, that although the Vavilov-Lysenko controversy has been fought and re-fought in the scientific (and non-scientific) press of Britain and America over the past eight years there appears to be no record of any attempt by Lysenko's detractors to repeat the experiments and thus settle the matter in the only way open to scientists.

That Lysenko, in his earlier theories, was "guilty" of making claims which went beyond the evidence of his experiments appears quite likely; but this is a failing to which any scientist may fall heir. In fact biologists among us may recall that Dr. Goldschmidt himself once held the rather extreme theory that, as J. B. S. Haldane puts it, "All genes differing from the normal are merely re-arrangements of the standard type of chromosome and it is therefore incorrect to speak of genes in the wild or standard type of a species," and later, "Goldschmidt argues that therefore genes are an illusion." Whatever the fate of this idea there can be no doubt that its effect would be to stimulate further investigation with a consequent clarification of our ideas on the nature of genes. And so with Lysenko! His theories should have had the same effect but most of his opponents outside Russia seem to have contented themselves with mere verbal refutations, "which are worthless to science."

Later he says, "he (Lysenko) got political power and was able to suppress completely applied genetics in the USSR, and so everybody works only according to Lysenko's views." Lest any of his readers accept this at Dr. Goldschmidt's valuation let them refer to "Science," weekly journal of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. January 31, 1947. There they will find a review of the current work of Soviet geneticists from which it is evident that, far from the ideas of Mendel. Vavilov, Morgan, Sturtevant, Wilson and Fisher being suppressed, these men are assigned their correct places in the mosaic of genetical research. Further, nowhere among the names of about fifty Soviet workers in this field win they find that of the "dictator" and "usurper" Lysenko; 'tis more than passing strange that the "boss" of Soviet genetics finds himself overlooked in such a review. Could it be that there is in fact no such "boss"?

Had the Professor contented himself with this public attack the ripple would soon have died down; but in another place, addressing a gathering of scientific workers, he repeated these canards and went on to attack "the planners in science" in his own and other countries. "No real scientist believes that science can be planned," asserted Dr. Goldschmidt. That must be held to include Needham, Hogben, Huxley, Bernal, Haldane, Gowland Hopkins, Gregory and Watson-Watt, all members of the British Association of Scientific Workers, with the avowed objective of planning science; men who need no recommendation here as "real scientists." Even such a doughty opponent of planned science as Professor M. Polanyi finds himself having to say in 1946, "Do we still believe that it is proper for scientists to spend public funds for studies such as the proof of Fermat's theorem or counting the number of electrons in the universe?—No, we do not generally accept, as we did in the 1930's, that it is proper for science to pursue knowledge for its own sake, quite regardless of any advantage to the welfare of society."

It is evident from an appraisal of the results of the Professor's tour that he has contributed little to cement the friendship between the scientists or the people of our respective countries at a time when this is so urgently necessary. This is something which all forward-looking people will regret deeply, for scientists are now in a position to play a more decisive role in the counsels of the world than ever before, if they can but learn to think as clearly on social and political matters as they must in their laboratories and lecture rooms.

—W.O.

... and perhaps politics don't burn you up....

... and perhaps politics don't burn you up....