Kapronczay Károly szerk.: Orvostörténeti közlemények 222-225. (Budapest, 2013)
TANULMÁNYOK - Müller Miklós: Egy 1952-es Kossuth díj - A dialektikus szovjet sejtbiológia rövid regnálása Magyarországon
MÜLLER, Miklós: A Kossuth Prize in 1952 47 and supported her views. New Cell Biology was placed next to Lysenko’s agrobiology and Pavlov’s materialistic physiology as integral part of of Creative Soviet Darwinism. The „omnis cellula e cellula” doctrine was rejected as alien, capitalistic idea that had to be eliminated from Soviet biology. From that moment Lepeshinskaya’s New Cell Biology became Party doctrine, aand was part of the science propaganda, teaching and research in the Soviet Union, as was in its satellites. A major article described her work in the party theoretical journal, Bolshevik (Zhukov-Verezhnikov et al. 1950). Lepeshinskaya received the Stalin prize and her monograph was republished (Lepeshinskaya 1950c) However, this rule of New Cell Biology lasted only a few years. Soon the experimental studies of Lepeshinskaya and her coworkers were scientifically disproved by other scientists (Zhinkirt, Mikhailov 1955, 1958; Zhudina, Ptokhov 1955; Kozlov, Makarov 1954; Gaisinovich, Muzrukova 1991; Rapoport 1988) and references to them soon disappeared from textbooks and popularisation. Neokaryogenesis The New Cell Theory of Lepeshinskaya played a peculiar role in Hungary. What makes the story poignant is that Imre Törő, a competent Hungarian histologist and cell biologist, exploited the theory, rose to the top of the scientific establishment and then reneged on it while keeping all the benefits he had gathered from propagating the New Cell Theory. He edited the Hungarian translations of Lepeshinskaya’s monograph (Lepeshinskaya, 1951) and the report of the joint meeting (anon 1953), as well as wrote prefaces to these works. In the preface to the monograph Törő expresses sentiments that were de rigeur at that time: „We should not read Lepeshinskaya’s work only as description of an interesting experimental study, but as a work that grew out in all its details from the philosophy of dialectic materialism and as a work that is a striking example of research based on party [partiinost’ - my comment] science...This book will be indispensable reading for all who are interested in biological sciences. It will fertilize their views and experimental work and will direct them on the road of progress.” (Lepeshinskaya 1951 6.). During editing, Törő became intimately familiar with Lepeshinskaya’s ideas. The unique contribution from Hungary to New Cell Theory was neokaryogenesis, a process described by Törő soon after Lepeshinskaya’s ideas became known to him. Törő probably formulated his ideas at that time to explain some phenomena he had observed earlier in thymus glands. His encounters with Lepeshinskaya’s work came at just the right time to provide an, albeit incorrect, explanation for his observations. He was analyzing mammalian thymus glands using modern histological and tissue culture methods. After treatment with X-rays or toxic compounds a large population of cells - small lymphocytes, currently known as thymocytes - disappeared from the gland. Such depleted glands were soon repopulated by small thymocytes without a notable increase in observable cell divisions. From this observation he concluded: „ The essence of the process is the formation of a new cell nucleus in the protoplasm without participation of the nucleus of the mother cell, by chemical transformation of nucleic acids present. The observed new mechanism of cell multiplication is ’cell birth ’ that could be called neokaryogenesis. This phenomenon supports Lepeshisnkaya ’s view that formation of a new cell does not re
