Michurinist Biology in the People’s Republic of China, 1948–1956

Journal of the History of Biology 45 (3):525 - 556 (2012)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Michurinist biology was introduced to China in 1948; granted a state supported monopoly in 1952; and reduced to parity with western genetics from 1956. The Soviets exported it through the propaganda agencies Sino Soviet Friendship Association (SSFA) and VOKS (Cultural Relations with Foreign Countries). China's Ministry of Agriculture achieved broad public awareness and acceptance of Michurinist biology through a translation, publication, and Soviet guest speakers campaign – all managed by a team of agriculturalists led by Luo Tianyu, a veteran CCP (Communist Party) cadre. The campaign grew exponentially, but did not affect university or Chinese Academy of Sciences biology. Luo Tianyu's failed attempt to force Michurinist biology on a Beijing university triggered its second stage: monopoly status and a ban on "Mendelist-Morganist" biology in teaching, research, and publication. The CCP Central Committee supported this policy believing that Michurinst biology would increase agricultural production for the forthcoming first Five Year Plan; whereas, western genetics had no practical value. Michurinist biology flourished at all levels of education, research, and science literature; Western genetics was completely shut down. This only began to change when the CCP Central Committee became wary of China's dependency on Soviet technical expertise and failure to fully utilize that of China. Change was further promoted by significant attacks on Michurinist biology by Soviet and East German biologists. Soon, these developments informed China's "genetics question," which became a test case for larger questions about the definition of science and the relationship between scientists and the state. Under the guidance of Lu Dingyi's Central Committee Propaganda Department, the CCP eventually decided that, henceforth, science controversies would only be resolved by the science community; and that monopolies or ideological orthodoxies would not be imposed on science. At the same time, the CCP rescinded Michurinist biology's monopoly and the ban on western genetics. By the mid-1960s western genetics had successfully restored itself, largely due to the leadership of C. C. Tan, a former student of Dobzhansky. Michurinist biology's presence shrank and it became marginalized

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,219

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Soviet philosophy of biology today.Anatoly Partashnikov - 1974 - Studies in East European Thought 14 (1-2):1-25.
Sturtevant and Dobzhansky: Two Scientists at Odds. [REVIEW]Massimo Pigliucci - 2006 - Quarterly Review of Biology 81 (3):265-266.
Mechanism schemas and the relationship between biological theories.Tudor M. Baetu - 2011 - In Phyllis McKay Illari Federica Russo (ed.), Causality in the Sciences. Oxford University Press.
The Italian Communist Party and the "Lysenko Affair" (1948-1955).Francesco Cassata - 2012 - Journal of the History of Biology 45 (3):469 - 498.
Science as Ideology: The Rejection and Reception of Sociobiology in China.Li Jianhui & Hong Fan - 2003 - Journal of the History of Biology 36 (3):567-578.
Is biology a provincial science?Ronald Munson - 1975 - Philosophy of Science 42 (4):428-447.
Genetics, biology and multifactorial diseases.John Stewart - 2002 - Acta Biotheoretica 50 (4):323-329.

Analytics

Added to PP
2013-09-30

Downloads
13 (#978,482)

6 months
2 (#1,157,335)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

References found in this work

The Lysenko Affair.David Joravsky - 1971 - Studies in Soviet Thought 11 (4):301-307.
Biology and Revolution in Twentieth-Century China.Laurence Schneider - 2004 - Journal of the History of Biology 37 (2):404-406.

Add more references