Emboidened by their numerical superiority and fortified by the knowledge that they stand four-square with the status quo the staff of the Biological Departments imagine that they can dispose of the heretical PJA by mere display of strength without discussing the case for "Michurin Genetics." "We do not propose to enter an argument-on the relative merits . . ." say our biologists, while students of geneties wonder why detractors of Lysenko the world over refuse to discuss Lysenko's actual claims, preferring to villify USSR with statements about "concentration camps" and violent "suppression of supporters of Weismann."

Persistent "reports" of Vavilov's death in prison are refuted by a statement in Journal of Heredity that he died in 1942 at Magadan in the Arctic, breeding frost - resistant wheat." Sincere students of geneties should study the genetics of the "Big lie," material for which may be found in BMJ, Nov. 1948. to Jan. 1919. On Nov. 13 that journal printed Darlington's review of a translation or an address by Lysenko, wherein Darlington, rather than discuss Lysenko's views on a scientific basis, made a propaganda attack on Russian science by deliberately distorting the content of the addresses; the ensuing correspondence amply refutes Darlington's innuendoes against the Russian Academy of Science.

Many Western scientists have themselves come to doubt the validity of Weismann's Theory and its later developments, e.g.. Quarterly Review of Biology. June. 1948. 124. publishes a reassessment of Weismann's original papers which concludes that his observations on Hydroid could not fairly be considered a basis for such a theory. Or consider the implications of a paper to the AAAS (Science. Nov. 26, 1948. 580), which concludes that it is established that "the cytoplasm, as well as the genes, play a decisive role in determining heredity traits": or the conclusion of Dr. Hammond, Reader in Agricultural Physiology, Cambridge, in a recent book: "Thus man can direct not only the evolution of his domestic animals but also his own by creating the environment ... in which he brings up the next generation."

Finally, I suggest that Wadding-ton's remarks during a similar controversy (Lancet. Jan. 1, 1949, 41) are relevant to this discussion: "I heard the broadcasts of the four scientists (Harland. Fisher, Darlington. Haldane) referred to. Three of them put political prejudice before their duty, as scientists, of considering the facts and wasted their time ... in political diatribes and ranting accusations against Russia, for which they had not the slightest grounds of proof,"

If there are any serious students of genetics in Victoria I shall be pleased to supply them with references and/or articles for and against Lysenko which, being a fair cross-section of the current controversy, should enable them to decide for themselves where the truth lies.