Kapronczay Károly szerk.: Orvostörténeti közlemények 222-225. (Budapest, 2013)
TANULMÁNYOK - Müller Miklós: Egy 1952-es Kossuth díj - A dialektikus szovjet sejtbiológia rövid regnálása Magyarországon
52 Comm, de Hist. Artis Med. 222—225 (2013) (Réti, 1956) with the conclusion: „We have to draw conclusions for our propaganda work, too. So far we regarded completely proven fact the doctrine of origin of cells from noncellular living material. Until a final conclusion is reached and the debate is closed, it would be imprudent to present this doctrine on noncellular living matter in an unchanged manner and to expound it for the general lay public. It will be useful, however, if at the meetings of the Society competent scientists present problems related to this topic." (Réti 1956 80.). A discussion meeting was convened the same year to examine the issue (Réti 1956, 1965, Törő 1956a) where New Cell Theory was essentially rejected. Törő was still equivocating: "Thus the origin of new cells outside of cells has not been proven, but we cannot deny its possibility. ” (Törő 1956a 455.). Some years later Lepeshinskaya receives a scathing critique by Törő and his coworkers (Törő, Csaba, Acs 1964). The two textbooks of biology edited by Törő (1956b, 1966) also show the eclipse of Lepeshinskaya from his thinking. In the first one (Törő 1956b), Lepeshinskaya is mentioned cursorily four times but her theory is not explicitely described. She and Lysenko are still listed as noted biologists in a chapter of short biographies at the end of the book. Neokaryogenesis, however, is presented in full with a schematic illustration without any reference to Lepeshinskaya. Mitotic cell division and chromosome structure are also dealt with in great detail. A second version of the textbook was published after the complete disappearance of New Cell Theory from Hungary (Törő 1966). Neither Lepeshinskaya nor neokaryogenesis is mentioned any more. The preface of this book makes it clear why this is so. Törő writes here: „Unfortunately teaching of biology ...had to be introduced in newly independent Medical Universities under difficult circumstances. We wrote our first text for medical students (Törő 1956b) at an inauspicous time when ideological distortion due to works of Lepeshinskaya, Boshyan and Lysenko kept us from presenting modern views .... Therefore we had [now - my comment] to w rite an entirely new text instead of reworking the previous one. We found our first attempt useful because it provided the framework of general biology that has to be taught to freshman students of medicine and pharmacy ” (Törő 1964 14.). After 1956 New Cell Biology and neokaryogenesis gradually disappeared in the dustbin. The first significant overview of the history of Michurin Biology in Hungary does not even mention the New Cell Theory (Igali 2002). The fast disappearance of this discredited aspect of Michurin biology is in striking contrast to the survival of other aspects of it. A number of Hungarian biologists were still attempting a reconciliation of the irreconcili- ables, modern genetics and Michurin biology for years. Some clung to New Cell Biology after its complete demise for ideological reasons. László Farkas, professor of Marxism at the Medical University of Budapest published his monograph, Haeckel and Virchow in 1961 where he defends Michurin biology, Pavlovian nervism and discusses Lepeshinskaya’s work in extenso (Farkas 1961). During his visit to Hungary in 1960, Lysenko repeatedly stressed his support of Lepeshinskaya’s theory stating that he could not explain sudden transformations of species into other species without assuming the generation of cells of the new species from noncellular living substance. It is probably not by chance that contemporary reports did not even mention these details (Müller 2011)." " Lysenko’s lecture at the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, 1960. Russian original: Archives of the Russian Academy of Sciences Fond 1521, Opis’ 1, Dclo 72, Listy 1-164; Hungarian translation: Archives of Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Elnökségi iratok, box 226, folder 4.
