Criticisms ?

The second authority, Timiryazev, was a Russian scientist with a world-wide reputation. In the early 1900's when genetics was wobbling on unsteady, unfamiliar legs, he expressed doubt as to the validity of certain of the early theories on heredity. This opinion was perfectly valid criticism and he was certainly not the only biologist to do so on the subject at this time. Lysenko has however made use of this opinion as further evidence against formal [unclear: genetics.]

The other two, Michurin and Burbank are in a separate class. Both were exceptionally competent horticulturists and very successful. Both, through their products, became famous and the subjects of popular acclaim. Their success tended to give them a false authority on biological subjects in everwidening fields in which they had no background other than their own specialised experience. Michurin went further than Burbank and developed several subjects which now form the practical basis for Lysenko's "new Genetics" along with the theoretical background gleamed from Darwin.

This then, rather sketchily outlines the background of the genetics picture. There is, however, a much more prominent foreground which is the situation as usually considered by the layman when referring to the "Lysenko controversy." This latter aspect wil be elaborated in a later article.