This site requires Javascript to be turned on. Please enable Javascript and reload the page.

Malamud at Oregon State: A Digital Humanities Project

Strand vs. Spitzer (4 of 4)

PUBLISHED IN: Chemical and Engineering News | ARTICLE TITLE: “Strand and Spitzer Issue Statement on Spitzer’s Dismissal” | CONTENTS: Strand continues by writing that there are three critical barriers that one must be conquered when discussing Russia, which are 1) reliable information on what Russia has done 2) reliable information on the Communist Party Policy 3) what is the actual truth of what is being discussed. Strand believes it is easy to discern the truth from science as opposed to the social sciences and he argues that support of a theory that has been discredited such as the Lysenko theory has justifies the constraints placed on academic freedom. He concludes his rebuttal by affirming his belief that science must not be subjugated for use as a political weapon. Spitzer then responds by affirming he does not and never did support the Lysenko theory and explains he was trying to argue for examining the controversy instead of just dismissing it. He argues that Strand’s stance is a threat to the advancement of scientists because it restricts the hypotheses that scientists are able to analyze.

This page has paths:

Contents of this path:
1. The Justification for Dismissal: Thoughts on the Lysenko Theory (1 of 2) LETTERS TO THE EDITOR ~ LET TIME TELL • WRITER: John K. Jacobs | LOCATION: Cheltenham, PA | CONTENTS: Jacobs accuses the editor of being biased against the Soviet Union, which is “unfair to Soviet science” and argues that the timing of the article is poor because Americans are currently being accused of communist sympathies and subjected to loyalty tests. Jacobs concedes that “Soviet science is planned science” but he argues that that does not necessarily equate to no freedom within science and is even justified as funds are finite. • FREE SCIENCE | WRITER: E.J. Crane | LOCATION: Columbus, OH | CONTENTS: Crane commends the periodical for its article “State Science”, which he liked because of its views on freedom within science. • SOURCE OF CONTROVERSY | WRITER: Ralph Spitzer | LOCATION: Corvallis, OR | CONTENTS: In his letter, Spitzer responds to Dr. Muller’s claim that the Soviet Union is destroying science and argues that scientists need to uphold an objective view. He argues Lysenko’s theory (heredity can be changed by the environment) should be read by scientists in light of the indictments that are currently going on in society.
2. The Justification for Dismissal: Thoughts on the Lysenko Theory (2 of 2) LETTERS TO THE EDITOR ~ SOURCE OF CONTROVERSY (continued) | WRITER: Ralph Spitzer | LOCATION: Corvallis, OR | CONTENTS: Spitzer continues to argue about the importance of trying “to understand the problems of the Soviet Union and the methods used to solve them”. He then goes on to explain how the Soviet Union allocates its funds for projects and talks about “the value of controversy in Soviet thought”. • AREN’T CHEMISTS PEOPLE? | WRITER: R. M. Deanesly | LOCATION: Hinsdale, IL | CONTENTS: Deanesly observes that chemists are increasingly expressing their religion, race and politics and expresses his belief that chemists should not allow their personal beliefs to bleed into their professional life. • BACK TO STAMPS | WRITER: J.F. Dudley | LOCATION: Terre Hauta, IN | CONTENTS: Dudley responds to the article “Chemistry on Stamps” by providing additional information. KEEN! • WRITER: G.G. Sward • LOCATION: Washington, D.C. • CONTENTS: Sward conveys his support for A.R. Patton “in the matter of pronouncing such words as zein”.
3. Strand vs. Spitzer (1 of 4) PUBLISHED IN: Chemical and Engineering News | ARTICLE TITLE: “Strand and Spitzer Issue Statement on Spitzer’s Dismissal” | CONTENTS: An article was published in C&E News with Strand and Spitzer’s responses to the case on February 23rd. In his statement, Strand begins by reaffirming his decision to fire Spitzer and LaVallee and then details his issues with the Lysenko theory. Strand talks about Soviet Russia’s stance on heredity and how the people who perpetuated this ideals were “losers [that] have ben liquidated”. He then argues about the threat to Mendelian genetics and talks about the birth of the Lenin Academy of Agricultural Sciences.
4. Strand vs. Spitzer (2 of 4) PUBLISHED IN: Chemical and Engineering News | ARTICLE TITLE: “Strand and Spitzer Issue Statement on Spitzer’s Dismissal” | CONTENTS: Strand chronicles the birth of the Lysenko theory, which is essentially the idea that you can change your heredity. Lysenko presented this theory as an alternative to western genetics and was promoted as the president of the Lenin Academy. His theory pays homage to Ivan Vladimirovich Michurin, whose motto was “we can not wait for nature to grant us favors: it is our business to take them from her”. Strand then discredits the Lysenko theory by pointing to a book review that tears apart the theory. Strand also insinuates that Spitzer is a Soviet Union agent as a part of “the state of Soviet control of science in the ‘satellite countries’”. Strand’s statement then concludes and Spitzer’s begins by commenting on a response to a letter from a professor named Dr. Muller, who suggests that science was being destroyed in the Soviet Union.
5. Strand vs. Spitzer (3 of 4) PUBLISHED IN: Chemical and Engineering News | ARTICLE TITLE: “Strand and Spitzer Issue Statement on Spitzer’s Dismissal” | CONTENTS: Spitzer continues to argue that in the context of the present international situation, it is critical to understand the problems and methods of the Soviet Union, especially since all enterprises within that country, including science, are socially planned and financed. After Spitzer’s comments, Strand offers his rebuttal that Spitzer is not arguing about supporting a general theory to better understand a country but Spitzer actually supports the Lysenko theory. Featured on the same page are comments denoted with the heading Moscow Press, which argues that Spitzer should be forgiven for his “attack” on Dr. Muller’s take down of the Lysenko theory.
6. Strand vs. Spitzer (4 of 4) PUBLISHED IN: Chemical and Engineering News | ARTICLE TITLE: “Strand and Spitzer Issue Statement on Spitzer’s Dismissal” | CONTENTS: Strand continues by writing that there are three critical barriers that one must be conquered when discussing Russia, which are 1) reliable information on what Russia has done 2) reliable information on the Communist Party Policy 3) what is the actual truth of what is being discussed. Strand believes it is easy to discern the truth from science as opposed to the social sciences and he argues that support of a theory that has been discredited such as the Lysenko theory has justifies the constraints placed on academic freedom. He concludes his rebuttal by affirming his belief that science must not be subjugated for use as a political weapon. Spitzer then responds by affirming he does not and never did support the Lysenko theory and explains he was trying to argue for examining the controversy instead of just dismissing it. He argues that Strand’s stance is a threat to the advancement of scientists because it restricts the hypotheses that scientists are able to analyze.
7. Strand vs. Spitzer: Taking Sides (1 of 3) LETTERS TO THE EDITOR ~ WRITER: Linus Pauling | LOCATION: Pasadena, CA | CONTENTS: Pauling explains the actions he took after learning about Spitzer’s dismissal. He wrote two letters that he requested be published in Oregon State’s Daily Barometer, but only one was published. He encloses both those letters for publication within Chemical and Engineering News. • LETTER ONE: Pauling outlines his credentials and his relationship with Spitzer. He argues that Spitzer’s dismissal violates academic freedom and asks Strand to reconsider his position on the case. As an alumnus of the college, Pauling warns Strand about the impact the dismissal could have on OSC’s reputation. • LETTER TWO: Pauling accuses Strand of dismissing Spitzer and LaValle because he believes them to be members of the communist party. Pauling also argues that Strand misinterpreted Spitzer’s letter to the editor (the letter that led him to be fired) because Spitzer was trying to articulate the need to understand Russian affairs and not supporting the Lysenko theory.
8. Strand vs. Spitzer: Taking Sides (2 of 3) LETTERS TO THE EDITOR ~ WRITER: President Strand | LOCATION: Corvallis, OR | CONTENTS: Strand responds to Pauling’s letters by informing Pauling that Spitzer’s letter about the Lysenko theory was merely the straw that broke the camel’s back and he had long believed that Spitzer was a communist. Strand argues that there are boundaries to how far academic freedom will go. • WRITER: W.E. Thrun | LOCATION: Valparaiso, IN | CONTENTS: Thrun writes in response to John K. Jacob’s defense of Soviet science. Thrun points out that the Soviet government dictates what the standards of science are and force their scientists to support these theories, which negates the freedom of science. • WRITER: A.H. Sturtevant | LOCATION: Pasadena, CA | CONTENTS: Sturtevant’s letter addresses both Jacobs and Spitzer’s letters by arguing that their letters raise two issues, which are: “(1) the scientific standing of Lysenko’s views regarding heredity, and (2) academic tenure and the support of scientific work both in Russia and the United States”. Sturtevant believes that Lysenko’s theories are only being entertained because the theory originated from Russia. He ends the letter by decrying Spitzer’s dismissal because the action encourages conformity within the American universities.
9. Strand vs. Spitzer: Taking Sides (3 of 3) LETTERS TO THE EDITOR ~ WRITER: C. J. Cavallito | LOCATION: Ravena, NY | CONTENTS: In his letter, Cavallito points to the irony and hypocrisy of Spitzer’s dismissal because he was fired in a way that would be condemned by the United States if the same action happened in another country. He warns that the firing could create a slippery slope and condemns the merging of science and politics because the two should be kept separate.