An Atlas of Human Anatomy

This account of the controversy occasioned by the new Lysenkoist "science" of genetics deserves at least a cursory reading by men in science, who must by and large not fully realize what has happened in Russia to the respectable science of genetics. Although somewhat wordy and repetitious, the book is well documented, providing convincing evidence that genetics in Russia has by state fiat become in fact a dogma. The first chapter outlines the essentials of Neo-Mendelism as distinguished from Michurinism, the Russian system elaborated almost entirely by Lysenko and derived from Lamarckism. An historical account depicts the progressive fall from political favor of Neo-Mendelism and its proponents , dating back to 1932. The succeeding chapter on the "Ideological Issue" bears principally on the point of official Soviet condemnation of scientific results on other than scientific grounds, with a review of the politically weighted words attached to the systems in controversy, e.g., "Soviet, patriotic, materialist" as against "Western, bourgeois, idealist." Following a discussion of the attitudes and methods of Lysenko, including a short description of the vernalization and grafting experiments and of Lysenko the man, there is an outline of modern Neo-Mendelism and Neo-Darwinism, together with important supporting evidence. This latter chapter is written primarily for the layman. The fifth, and central, chapter, entitled "Totalitarian Regimentation of Thought," scans the effects of such regimentation in Soviet Russia in politics, social science, philosophy, law, arts and music, and science, where even relativity is assailed as bourgeois and idealist! Why has the socio-political struggle been transferred into genetics? Among several reasons put forward the most important appear to be: first, a desire for easy intel-ligibility to the masses and quick, practical agricultural results, and secondly, ideological inacceptability of human inability to change nature at will and more specifically of any innate inequalities among human individuals. In his last chapter, in which Professor Huxley discusses what can be done, he understandably falls down. He views the Russian situation as an exaggeration of the general trend toward greater centralization and organization of society. The desideratum is the preservation of scientific autonomy of thought and freedom of communication in the face of inevitably increasing governmental support and direction of scientific programs. His suggested solutions-the adoption of a universal ideological aim, such as "evolutionary humanism," and the issuance of manifestoes by scientific societies stating the rights and responsibilities of scientists-seem hardly adequate. A final point is well …