Comrade Haldane Is Too Busy to Go on Holiday

by Gavan Tredoux

  The path forward had been shown by Lysenko. In particular, “physiological treatment of the organism (graft hybridisation, partial vernalisation, distant hybridisation etc.)” is crucial for deliberately creating useful variation on which selection could operate. “Marxist theory correctly rejects a dominating role for chance in any process,” we are assured. Doing so banishes “philosophical idealism, the ideology of reaction.” All this is proved by the well-known advances in Soviet agriculture achieved by Lysenko.

  Haldane’s marked-up copy of this document shows that he found some of it hard to swallow. His scattered annotations include sporadic “evidence?,” “nonsense,” and similar exclamations. He added footnotes that give references to literature contradicting some of the assertions made, or ask for proof, for example, “Evidence for yield per acre or per cow > England or Denmark” (later, a comrade would point out to him that official Soviet production figures demonstrated precisely that). He was not convinced that mutations are rare—they happen all the time. He disputed the correctness of the Marxist exegesis. “As a Leninist I don’t believe real development can be imposed on animals or plants from outside. Can do so by introducing internal contradictions or making them more important. Ignorant, sectarian.” Bateman’s document seems to have stalled after this cold reception.

  Next, the Party called a meeting of its members concerned with genetics, at which one of its senior leaders, Maurice Cornforth, was present. Some attendees were upset that the Daily Worker had published an account of the BBC debate that implied Haldane was fully in agreement with Lysenko. Cornforth supposed, amiably, that there must have been a typo. Haldane suggested that the Party might use the controversy to establish an independent line from Moscow, a deviation that was coldly received by Cornforth. Once it became clear that the geneticists would not pass a resolution definitely in favor of Lysenko, the meeting ended inconclusively. This did not prevent the Daily Worker from issuing an “educational” pamphlet on its own, fully supporting Lysenko, which was directly based on Angus Bateman’s document.

  One of the truculent geneticists in the orbit of the Party (almost certainly Lionel Sharples Penrose54) later recalled that Haldane had responded by privately distributing a reply to the Daily Worker pamphlet. In fact, this response was written up as a mildly conciliatory article by Haldane, “In Defence of Genetics,” in the Summer 1949 issue of The Modern Quarterly.55 The gist of this was that the faults attributed by Lysenkoists to geneticists were greatly exaggerated. Genes were neither immortal nor unalterable, since they could and did evolve by mutation, but were stable enough for heredity to operate. Geneticists didn’t limit themselves to statistical distributions but also studied the biochemistry of heredity. They did not claim that all inheritance is chromosomal, but Soviet claims to show otherwise needed experimental verification. He conceded that Mendel may have used language that suggested idealism, and that British genetics needed more practical experience with farmers. “We are not infallible, but we certainly do not hold many of the opinions which are attributed to us.” In the meantime, a meeting of the Engels Society at Marx House had been called in February 1949 to adjudicate the dispute, with thirty to forty scientists attending, including Haldane. But no consensus emerged from this debate, either.

  An analyst at MI5 summarized the impasse as it stood. “It is known that HALDANE has refused to accept the Lysenko theory in toto on the grounds that such an acceptance would not only ruin his own scientific reputation but would also do irreparable damage to Communist Party recruitment amongst scientists. The Party appears to have decided that HALDANE is too valuable a Party member to be lost on a theoretical issue.” However it had “censured” him, and, moreover:

  Further information from Top Secret sources shows that Maurice CORNFORTH had an interview with Harry POLLITT on 10.1.49, at which they discussed a report that HALDANE might be going to Czechoslovakia in February 1949. CORNFORTH had mentioned the matter to the Soviet people, who took a serious view of the proposed visit, as they thought it would do a great deal of harm in Czechoslovakia, where there is an ideological struggle in progress, should it become apparent that HALDANE, a Communist, disagreed on any point with the accepted Soviet line. It is not clear whether the British Communist Party is making any definite attempt to deter HALDANE from his trip to Czechoslovakia, but CORNFORTH suggested that if it proved impossible to stop HALDANE, a note of explanation should be sent to the Czech Party to explain the matter, in an attempt to minimize any possible harm HALDANE might do.56

  As it happened, Haldane did not go on that planned tour of Czechoslovakia. But more trouble was on the way. Haldane’s reluctance to sign up for the full Lysenkoist program did not please his fellow party members, or his leader, Harry Pollitt. The growing tensions within the Party interested MI5. In March 1949, an analyst there noted

  That J.B.S. HALDANE has been under a cloud in the Communist party was demonstrated at the St. Pancras bye election, when MAHON57 invited him to occupy the platform at one of his meetings. HALDANE replied that he would like to have done this but as he was under criticism from certain members of the Party and was under orders from Harry POLLITT to undertake no Party work with the exception of his articles to the Daily Worker, he was unable to accept MAHON’s invitation.58

  In July 1949, Harry Pollitt made the invitation to visit Russia that began our story. Haldane was deft enough not to accept, suggesting that he knew exactly what might await him if he accepted. But if Comrade Haldane was too busy to go on holiday, others were happy to have the chance.

  Many communist scientists were quite prepared to accept the entire party line on Lysenko, including the cheerfully pliant physicist and crystallographer John Desmond Bernal. Bernal was of Irish origin and had studied at Cambridge, spending time in the renowned Cavendish laboratory, and going on to lecture at Birkbeck College in London. Long steeped in Marxist rhetoric, he had helped Haldane to found the Modern Quarterly, frequently contributing articles. He had published a piece that summer alongside Haldane’s, arguing that Lysenko merely had rough edges because he was a practical rather than a theoretical scientist. Socialism wanted practical men who were not afraid to break with tradition.59 Lysenko’s other virtue was his holistic view of the problem, integrating theory where appropriate. All of this was vindicated by his successes in vernalization and massively improving grain yields, which Bernal compared to the successes of the Red Army in the war. Reports about persecution of scientists were, he was confident, unfounded. These were flimsy arguments, to be sure, but critics would have to prove otherwise.

  Along with J. G. Crowther, Hewlett Johnson, and Haldane’s old friend Ivor Montagu—perceptively described by Bernal as “the greatest expert on the minor rodents of Eastern Europe”—Bernal visited the USSR in August 1949, where he spoke at yet another “Peace Conference,” and specifically visited Lysenko. Relating his experiences to the Society for Cultural Relations with the USSR back home in London,60 Bernal said that Lysenko’s methods reminded him of Darwin. He found Lysenko’s demonstrations of graft hybridization convincing; he could not say what the mechanism was that enabled it, though it reminded him of animal embryology. Bernal was quite prepared to believe in the inheritance of acquired characters. Vernalization was especially convincing. The work showed “real genius” by a man who “got results” because he worked quickly. Bernal appreciated this all the more because he too had grown up on a farm, in Ireland. Lysenko also told him that he did not believe chromosomes were very important, and wasn’t exactly sure what their functions were; opinions delicately relayed by Bernal in order to sound measured and reasonable.

  Bernal went on to remark that criticism of Soviet science in the West was likely just prejudice and that he thought “planned science” far superior. When an audience member asked if Bernal could clear up what had happened to the colleagues of Lysenko who happened to disagree with him, he was assured that they were now tilling different fields—Dubinin, for example, was now working on insect pests. Crowthe
r hastened to add that this only meant that, whereas Dubinin previously had something like twelve important jobs, he now had eleven.

  By now Haldane and Bernal had fallen out dramatically—at least, for the moment—over a review that Bernal wrote for the Daily Worker.61 A journalist, John Langdon Davies, had written a sharp account of the Lysenko affair, Russia Puts the Clock Back, which pursued Haldane’s BBC evasions vigorously.62 On October 6, Bernal sent a draft review to Haldane, laced with invective: “cheap journalism”; “hypocritical nonsense”; “dirty and low”; “old stories” which are “dressed up in lurid colours” about the “disappearance, execution and even imprisonment” of scientists, for which “there is no proof whatsoever”; and so on. Bernal also pledged unconditional endorsement of Lysenko’s achievements.63

  MI5 monitored a phone call on October 8, 1949, from Bernal to his own secretary, Anita Rimel, complaining that “he had just been rung up by HALDANE who was in a most violent fury that if his (BERNAL’s) review appears he would resign from the Daily Worker and so on. Apparently because BERNAL had said something—he could not find what BERNAL had said because he hadn’t got it with him. BERNAL said that he was in a very bad temper saying things like he wouldn’t tolerate things of that sort. RIMEL inquired—what sort of thing. Bernal had asked him that, after which he got wilder and so BERNAL begged him not to be so childish about it, so he rung off.”64

  Bernal’s secretary tried to contact the Party functionary Johnny Campbell for help, but failed, causing Bernal to conclude, “Well, after what we’ve heard you know, the whole situation may collapse I’m afraid.”65 Haldane resigned from the Daily Worker the same day, as he had done a great many times before over other disputes, but Harry Pollitt was able to change his mind over lunch. By the end of the month, better persuasion would be available in the form of Lysenko’s deputy Ivan Yevdokimovich Glushchenko (1907–1987), who had been dispatched abroad to graft the new Michurinism onto old stock.

  On October 27, 1949, Glushchenko addressed the British public through the always-obliging Society for Cultural Relations at Beaver Hall. An MI5 source reported that the audience became restive—Glushchenko spoke through an interpreter. Written questions were submitted, one of which asked if Glushchenko “took any account of the work of Professor HALDANE.” Glushchenko replied that “he had adopted a correct position in many questions.”66 Julian Huxley was in the audience and reported in the Spectator that it was all “a flow of tendentious and unscientific nonsense.”67 But his old colleague from New College Oxford and fellow Etonian was not there.

  The previous day Haldane had phoned the Soviet Embassy to arrange a private lunch with Glushchenko, which seems to have been held in Haldane’s office at UCL. Haldane’s colleague, the medical geneticist Lionel Sharples Penrose (1898–1972),68 was also present at this meeting. According to MI5, “at this lunch considerable argument developed, and GLUSHCHENKO was left with the firm opinion that HALDANE was unconvinced and uncompromising on the subject of Lysenko.”69 Many years later, the evolutionary theorist John Maynard Smith—who at the time was a student under Haldane and a long-standing Communist Party member—remembered haltingly that “the Russians sent to Western Europe a hatchet man of Lysenko’s, called Glushchenko, who called, among other people, on Haldane, to—he arrived with a couple of goons, it was awful. He arrived in the department. And he and the goons, I can’t remember, I think and the goons, were actually closeted in Haldane’s office for about three hours, trying to persuade Haldane how right Lysenko was. And Haldane was absolutely unapproachable for two or three days afterwards. He was clearly pretty shaken by what I take to be Glushchenko’s ignorance.”70 Penrose found Glushchenko “curiously unsatisfactory,” and asked him if there was any research in the USSR on medical genetics at that time. Glushchenko replied that as far as he knew there was none, but that he was a plant geneticist himself. Penrose was therefore astounded when Glushchenko openly attacked orthodox human genetics in public at Beaver Hall, with “a great diatribe” implying that he understood the field. All this impressed Penrose that Lysenkoism was no more than a “kind of mysticism.”71

  Valery Soyfer was told a suggestive story by Glushchenko himself, many years later in 1976. In the 1930s, when Glushchenko was preparing his dissertation, he wrote a letter to the U.S. Department of Agriculture to ask them about the characteristics of the Russian wheat that had been used to develop American varieties. He then inserted a Russian translation of their detailed reply into his thesis, as his own work. Seeing the technical summary, Lysenko exclaimed, “When did you become so smart?” Glushchenko confessed that he had simply copied the material from the USDA report. Lysenko was impressed by his resourcefulness.72

  The Party was, in the end, unable to cow its reputable geneticists into unambiguous fealty to Lysenko’s line, despite Angus Bateman’s discussion group and Glushchenko’s bullying. This left the physicist J. D. Bernal to take the lead, supported by lesser lights such as the botanist Alan Morton, via his Soviet Genetics,73 and the plant-breeder James Fyfe, who assured the world that Lysenko Is Right.74

  Bernal had no qualms about doing that sort of work. On the death of Stalin in 1953 he would write “Stalin as Scientist” for the Modern Quarterly, eulogizing Stalin as one of the very greatest scientists of the twentieth century. “The true greatness of Stalin as a leader was his wonderful combination of a deeply scientific approach to all problems with his capacity for feeling and expressing himself in simple and direct human terms. His grasp of theory never left him without clear direction, his humanity always prevented him from becoming doctrinaire.”75 Bernal found Stalin worth reading “many times over” as a “master of Marxism,” expert at “learning with the people,” though his very simplicity was sometimes deceptive. Critics who accused Stalin of a love of power were deluded, for they had overlooked his “concern for the advancement of oppressed people and nationalities.” Stalin had made great contributions in his own right to linguistics, using his practical common sense. It went on and on like this. Bernal was awarded the Stalin Peace Prize for 1953. By then he and JBS were back on friendly terms—though they might have made up right away, for all we know.76

  Haldane was expressly forbidden by the Party to continue with his tepid defense of Lysenko in public. With elections coming up in February 1950, the Party was worried that he might defect as a result of this rough treatment. Incentives seem to have been offered. MI5 monitored a phone call between Harry Pollitt and John Gollan, who said that he had “done the negotiations with Haldane’s secretary.” Pollitt replied, “beg him to do nothing until he has seen me, be fatal if anything came out during this General Election.”77 There is no further clue as to the arrangement made. The Communist Party went on to lose both their seats in the election, forfeiting their deposits in each contest they entered, and commanding a mere 0.3 percent of the vote. But in April Haldane was still itching.

  Part of the trouble was that Haldane was short of money now that he wasn’t being paid for his regular Daily Worker articles. His father had left him a legacy in 1936, in joint trust with his then-wife Charlotte. They had divorced on grounds of desertion in 1945; but Charlotte, a defector from the Party, was no longer cooperating. Haldane could not draw capital from the trust. The microphones were live in the King Street offices when inducements were again on offer, and souls were bared. Harry Pollitt, Johnny Campbell, and Haldane were grappling.78

  There also appeared to be a question of Daily Worker articles. HALDANE mentioned that the Daily Worker he knew considered him hopeless and out of date, and probably reactionary in his outlook, but he said these were his views and he was making them show to the contrary.

  At this point JOHNNY CAMPBELL’s voice heard, although had had no indication of his presence before—regret that voice distorted and very difficult to follow—he appeared to be giving his opinion of HALDANE’s articles.

  HALDANE wanted them to get someone else to do a leading article.

  HARRY pointed out that they co
uld not as HALDANE’s articles were unique; he then spoke of an article they required which would strike a counter-blow (think this may be something in connection with CREECH-JONES79). . . .

  HALDANE seemed not to want to carry on as things were.

  HARRY next appeared to read from a letter (presumably written by HALDANE) which read—“Dear HARRY—I am in fundamental disagreement with the political line of the Party; it’s not the slightest use you trying to make me change my mind and I hereby send in my resignation. . . .” HARRY pointed out how difficult HALDANE made things by writing like this. He again said that if he could get hold of the Yankee he would, but he could not get hold of him.

  JOHNNY CAMPBELL heard again, but regret voice too distorted to get gist.

  HALDANE argued that he would not be an efficient Party member if he stayed on; he wanted to express his opinions freely, and could see he would not be allowed to do this. He would not say that the Party angle was wrong, but he would say that he thought the tactics wrong, especially in the last few years. The Party was not getting anywhere because propaganda was not being put over in the right way, especially with intellectuals. He thought results showed this, and they did not seem to be much better than the bandits.

  HARRY then asked what he had in mind, because it was a difficult point, and perhaps they could attend to what he considered a weakness.

  HALDANE then referred to the considerable amount of American propaganda, which was being put over here at the present time and which was very effective; he did not think the Party treatment in regard to this correct. It was no good thinking everything in the garden was lovely when it wasn’t.

  HARRY said “what do you think I must feel like then”—and proceeded to state that he had received a letter last week which told him that he was the worst leader the Party had ever had, and the results were those after 20 years of his leadership. HARRY continued that there were many things they had “got to take on the chin”, and there were many things they would like to protest against, but the thing to remember was that they were moving; it might not be moving here as much as they would like it but “by ___80 it was moving a lot in other places”.