Nikolai Ivanovich Vavilov - Agricultural Geneticist

By Dennis Colburn

In the course of science making progress sometimes people discover new ways of doing things without understanding how and/or why it works. At the beginning of the twentieth century, genetics was a field with many exciting and breakthrough discoveries being made by the likes of Morgan, and Muller.

In the 1910’s at Saratov University a brilliant young professor was beginning his research career with the goal of studying the world’s plants. Nikolai Vavilov amassed the largest collection of seeds, some 250,000 collections from more than fifty countries spanning all over the world. He traveled the world to prove his argument and collect genetic stock, which was taken home to Russia. Included were the greatest collections of potatoes (South America), tomatoes (Central America), and sunflowers (North America). Can you see where he went with this? Well, as a result the Soviet Union has the best tomatoes for cold climate, and sunflowers. Today North America gets its commercial sunflowers from the Soviet Union. Remember, sunflowers originated in North America! What Vavilov did was to take these plants and hybridize them to get the desired traits from these stocks.

The concept of biodiversity was the result and his work transformed not only genetics, but also botany, agronomy, geography, and anthropology. He pioneered what now seems like an obvious theory: in order to breed better crops we need to study and use the total genetic diversity of the crops themselves. Vavilov reasoned, to improve the seeds to plant our crops that we use in agriculture, as an example, we look for certain traits. Unfortunately they don’t always exist in one species. Solution – breed the two species to make an improved hybrid. He introduced the idea that important crop plants originated in those regions in which the largest number of varieties can be found in the wild. He predicted these regions would be the hills between mountains and nearby deserts. He identified eight probable areas, went to them, and found the varieties. This resulted in his works The Law of Homologous Series in Variation (1920) and The Theory of the Centers of Origin of Cultivated Plants (1926). 

It is important to note the occurrence of the Russian Revolution from 1917 on into the early 1920’s. Even after Lenin and the Bolsheviks had been in power for several years, Russia was still suffering a civil war and from famine.  Funding for science related work was just as scarce as food and thus, the climate for research was poor.  Fortune changed when Lenin while sick with illness, it is reported, read a book of popular science entitled The New Earth, by American author, William Sumner Harwood. This book described the great achievements of agricultural science in the United States, wonderful new varieties of cultivated plants, and the success of practical farming based on scientific knowledge.

As the leader of a nation suffering as Russia was, Lenin quickly ordered the establishment of a science institute much like that in Washington, D.C. The director? Nikolai Vavilov. Why? Vavilov was recognized as the foremost plant geographer and geneticist at that time in Russia. By 1925, only fourteen years after graduating from university his accomplishments were many despite the difficult years of the Russian Revolution. Vavilov ‘s responsibility was to collect / identify world plant diversity for the purposes of plant breeding.

Towards the late 1930’s, despite his achievements, his scientific programs were being deprived of governmental support. During the time of Joseph Stalin, a fellow Russian scientist, Trofim Lysenko, rose to prominence due to his theories supporting Marxist philosophy. Opponents of Lysenko were denounced and pressure applied to silence them. Lysenko believed that acquired characteristics could be inherited. For example, he maintained that he could produce a resistance that would affect genetic structure and would be passed on to the next generation such as cold resistance. In other words, exposure to very cold conditions could lead to hardier wheat.  

This went counter to everything that the field of genetics had just discovered through Morgan and Muller. During the 1930’s Vavilov worked with Lysenko, and in fact, supported him because he thought he worked hard and had some good ideas. He continually gave Lysenko the benefit of the doubt and waited for him to finally make
some scientific progress himself. 

By the fall of 1937, Vavilov, the apolitical scientist, had become labeled a political enemy of the Soviet regime. It was now only a matter of time before his Institute of Plant Breeding began to fall apart as infighting, and changing loyalties began to take their toll. Vavilov’s criticism and refusal to accept Lysenko’s "discoveries," though
scientifically correct and ethical, was politically on the wrong side of the fence. Lysenko had garnered Stalin’s favor and was politically well entrenched despite his obvious lack of scientific credibility. In August 1940 Vavilov was arrested and imprisoned. He died in prison from starvation in January 1943. Since the mid-1950’s Vavilov’s accomplishments have been recognized once again in the Soviet Union.

Questions for Discussion

1. How does this story illustrate the importance of a supportive environment for scientific research? Conversely, how does this story demonstrate science can be adversely affected by outside influences?

2. What does this event reveal about the nature of science with respect to the personalities of scientists? Are they always honest and objective or might other motivations prevail?

3. How is it possible that other Russian scientists would denounce Vavilov despite the strength of his research and reputation? Was this based on scientific principles?

4. Do you feel that Vavilov’s approach to his research/work represent good science? Why?

5. Define the role and responsibility of a scientist employed by government with respect to research, particularly in areas of great economic and political importance?

6. Can you give an example of a potential conflict that might arise between government and science? Hint: think of technological advances associated with military applications and the desire of government to control the science related to it. It is unlikely such treatment of scientists as that seen in the Soviet Union under the rule of Stalin would ever occur again; how might a government be able to direct/control science today?

References

Popovsky, Mark (1984). The Vavilov Affair. Hamden, CT. The Shoe String Press, Inc.

Ritter, Bob et al. (1993). Nelson Biology. Scarborough: Nelson Canada

http://gnome.agrenv.mcgill.ca/breeding/

http://www.dainet.de/genres/vir/vavilov/vavilov.htm

http://encyclopedia.com/articles/13374.html

http://www.hemp-cyberfarm.com/htms/research_orgzs/Vavilov/Vavilovindex.html

http://ucs.byu.edu/bioag/aghort/aghort100/vavilovs.htm

Curriculum Fit

Applicability to the following science courses: Biology 20 – Unit 3, Concept 2, STS connection (effect of single-crop monoculture, p.29); Unit 3, Concept 3, skills (inherited variation p. 31). Biology 30 – Unit 2, STS connections, p.47, Unit 3, Concept 3, p.61