Vinogradskii’s Reception in Russian and Soviet Microbiology

Ackert, Lloyd

doi:10.1007/978-94-007-5198-9_10

Lloyd Ackert²

Part of the book series: Archimedes ((ARIM,volume 34))

526 Accesses

Abstract

Vinogradskii was a Russian scientist. The simple restatement of this fact, however, only begins to explain the wide recognition he enjoyed during the Soviet period—and still enjoys today. In the last decades of Imperial Russia, he had gained a reputation as a leading figure in world science through his novel scientific discoveries, and by contributing significantly to the institutional and disciplinary development of Russian science. During his second, French career, he never returned to Russia, yet Soviet scientists continued to cite his publications. Even during the Soviet period, when émigrés like Vinogradskii could be dangerous contacts, a significant number of Soviet scientists maintained correspondence with him and visited his laboratory in Brie-Comte-Robert.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

eBook: USD 16.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Softcover Book: USD 109.00; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Hardcover Book: USD 109.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

1.
It is somewhat telling to compare three Russian scientists of the same generation—Vinogradskii, Vernadsky and Ivan Pavlov. Vernadsky returned to Russia in 1926, and became a great organizer of Soviet science in the areas of biogeochemistry and related disciplines. Had he decided to remain in Paris in 1926, he may have experienced Vinogradskii’s fate—a somewhat accepted émigré scientist. Ivan Pavlov was also of the same generation and, having weathered the changes to a Soviet state and scientific system within the country, he experienced a quite different situation from both Vernadsky and Vinogradskii.
2.
The list of praktikanty and visitors to Department of General Microbiology at the IIEM was not as long as for other departments. At this time, Pavlov, for example, could count on the assistance of dozens of praktikanty. Yet the several that worked there went on to prominent positions in Russian science. Omelianskii, for example, directed the work of M. N. Rubel’ on the question of nitrification in biological filters (1913), E. I. Nikolaevna in her investigations of actinomycetes, S. N. Bukhbinder on pigment formation in colorless bacteria, N. M. Perepelitsina on the use of triptophan reactions in bacteriology, I. A. Makrinov on the aerobic ferments of nicotinic materials, O. M. Bogoliubov on the bacteriology of lactobacillus, L. D. Shturm on sapropel (an aquatic sludge rich in organic matter), Germanov on methods for investigating the soil microflora, and V. P. Neelov on the chemistry of the nitrification process (1922). On the history of the Department of General Microbiology at the IEM, see: B. L. Isachenko, “Otdel Obshchei Mikrobiologii,” Material k Istorii V.I.E.M. (Moskva, 1941), 87–103; See 96.
3.
Z. G. Razumovskaia, “Zhizn’ i nauchnaia deiatel’nost’ Vasiliia Leonaidovicha Omelianskogo,” Russkie Mikrobiologi S. N. Vinogradskii i V. L. Omelianskii (Moskva: Izadatel’stvo Ministerstva Sel’skogo Xoziaistva SSSR, 1960), 17–25, see 17. Omelianskii studied with N. A. Menschutkin—the influential Russian chemist—and conducted a laboratory investigation on “the question of the influence of the dilution on the speed of chemical reactions.” Ibid.
4.
In 1891, Omelianskii took copious notes on two important Russian agrochemical works: Grando’s, “Novaia mineral’no-gumusovaia teoria pitaniia rastenii (A new mineral-humus theory for plant nutrition),” published in Sel’skoe Xosiastvo i Lesovodstvo (Agriculture and Forestry), (1872, 1873); and G. G. Gustavson’s, “20 Lektsii Agronomicheskoi Khimii (20 Lectures on Agricultural Chemistry).” Gustavson worked at the Moscow Agricultural Institute at the end of the nineteenth century, where he developed chemical investigations related to V. V. Dokuchaev’s “concept of the soil as a natural body.” For a recent history of Russian soil science see, I. V. Ivanov, Istoriia Otechestvennogo Pochvovedeniia: Kniga Pervaia, 1870–1947 (Moskva: Nauka, 2003); on Gustavson at the Moscow Agricultural Institute, see 137. In addition, Omelianskii had read the works of the founding fathers of Russian soil science including numerous articles and books by V. V. Dokuchaev, such as his “Kratkaia programma dlia izsledovaniia pochva (A short program for the investigation of the soil), in which Dokuchaev proposed methods for investigating soils as organisms; and P. A. Kostychev’s, “Pochvy chernosemnoi oblasti Rossii, ix proiskhozhdenie, sostav i svoistva (The soils of Russia’s black earth region, their origin, make-up, and characteristics),” (St. Petersburg, 1886). See Omelianskii’s notebooks, St. Peterburgskii Archiv Russkoi Akademii Nauk, fond 892, opis’ 1, delo 13, listy 1–62 oborot.
5.
Ibid.
6.
S. N. Vinogradskii, “Pamiati V. L. Omelianskogo: Lichnye Vospominaniia,” Rasskazy o Velikom Bakteriologe S. N. Vinogradskom (St. Petersburg: OOO “Izdatel’stvo “Rostok””, 2002), IU. A. Mazing, T. V. Andriushkevich, IU. P. Golikov eds.; 306–309; see 306 for quote.
7.
The early soil science literature largely ignored the biological components of the soil and only very rarely discussed any investigations into it. Most of these works cited the work of Pasteur and Charles Darwin on the formation of soil.
8.
Ibid.
9.
Ibid., 18.
10.
S. N. Vinogradskii, “Ob usvoenii svobodnogo azota atmosfery mikrobami,” Arkhiv Biologicheskikh Nauk, 1895, Vol. 3. No. 4, 293–351.
11.
V. Omelianski, “Ueber die Isolierung der Nitrifikationsmikroben aus dem Erdboden,” Centralblatt fur Bakteriologie, Parasitenkunde und Infektionskrankheiten, 2nd Abteilung, Bd. V., No. 15, 31 Juli 1899, 537–549; Idem., “Ueber die Nitrifikation des organischen Stickstoffes,” Bd. V, No. 13, 15 Juni 1899, 473–490; S. Winogradsky und V. Omelianski, “Ueber den Einfluss der organischen Substanzen auf die Arbeit der nitrifizierenden Mikrobien,” Centralblatt für Bakteriologie, Parasitenkunde und Infektionskrankheiten, Bd. V, No. 10, 329–343; Idem., No. 11, 377–387; Idem., 429–440.
12.
In 1898–99, Vinogradskii developed kidney disease (nephritis) after a severe case of the flu. He began to avoid St. Petersburg’s climate—which he had always found to be harsh—for the more comfortable climate of his Ukrainian estate. Selman Waksman, “Sergei Nikolaevich Winogradsky, September 1, 1856-August 31, 1946: The Story of a Great Bacteriologist,” Soil Science, Vol. 62, No. 3, September, 1946, 196–226; See esp. 209–210.
13.
V. L. Omelianskii, Osnovy Mikrobiologii (S-Peterburg, Tipografia Imperatorskoi Akademii Nauk, 1909), see esp. chapter 25, “Krugovorot’ veshchestv v prirode,” 188–195.
14.
For information on the frequency of Vinogradskii’s absences from the IEM, see the Departmental reports for this period: Leningradskii Gosudarstvennyi Istoricheskii Arkhiv, St. Peterburg, fond 2282 “Imperaterskoi Institut Eksperimental’noi Meditsiny,” opis’ 1 “Delovye Otchety,” in several dela.
15.
Z. G. Razumovskaia, “Zhizn’ i nauchnaia deiatel’nost’ Vasiliia Leonaidovicha Omelianskogo,” 18, 24. In 1909, for example, Omelianskii taught the Vinogradskii approach to Nikolai Kholodnyi.
16.
Ibid., 24.
17.
Letter from Omelianskii to Vinogradskii, 21 September 1911; Arkhiv Russiiskoi Akademii Nauk, Peterburgskoi Filial, fond 1601, opis’ 1, delo 158, listy 13–14 oborot. See List 13 oborot for quote.
18.
Ibid.
19.
In a letter to Omelianskii in 1922, Vinogradskii characterized his decade outside science as “la vie latente d’un savant.” V. L. Omelianskii, “Sergei Nikolaevich Vinogradskii: Po povodu 70-letiia so dnia rozhdeniia,” Arkhiv Biologicheskikh Nauk, 1927, Tom. XXVII, Nos. 1–3, 11–36; See 24 for quote.
20.
In 1916 he was selected corresponding member of the Russian Academy of Sciences, in 1917 St. Petersburg University awarded him an honorary doctorate in botany, and that same year he was elected full member of the RSFSR Academy of Sciences. Z. G. Razumovskaia, “Zhizn’ i nauchnaia deiatel’nost’ Vasiliia Leonaidovicha Omelianskogo,” 18.
21.
B. L. Isachenko, “Otdel Obshchei Mikrobiologii,” Material k Istorii V.I.E.M. (Moskva, 1941), 97.
22.
V. L. Omelianskii, “Puti Razvitiia Mikrobiologii v Rossii,” Izbrannye Trudy,” (Moskva: Izdatel’stvo Akademii Nauk SSSR, 1953), Tom II, 38–46.
23.
Ibid., 43.
24.
V. L. Omelianskii, “Noveishie Techeniia v Oblasti Issledovaniia Mikrobnykh Sil Pochvy,” Izbrannye Trudy,” Tom II, 47–51; See 50–51 on the direct method.
25.
Ibid., 50.
26.
Ibid.
27.
Ibid.
28.
Although relatively short, this work greatly influenced all the subsequent biographies on Vinogradskii—including this one. V. L. Omelianskii, “Sergei Nikolaevich Vinogradskii: Po povodu 70-letiia so dnia rozhdeniia,” Arkhiv Biologicheskikh Nauk, 1927, Tom. XXVII, Nos. 1–3, 11–36.
29.
S. N. Vinogradskii, “Pamiati V. L. Omelianskogo: Lichnye Vospominaniia,” in Iu. A. Mazing, T. V. Andriushkevich, Iu. P. Golikov eds., Rasskazy o Velikom Bakteriologe S. N. Vinogradskom (St. Petersburg: Rostok, 2002), 306–309.
30.
S. N. Vinogradskii, Mikrobiologiia Pochvy: Problemy i Metody, Piat’desiat Let Issledovanii (Moskva: Izdatel’stvo Akademii Nauk, 1952), and V. L. Omelianskii, “Noveishie Techeniia v Oblasti Issledovaniia Mikrobnykh Sil Pochvy,” Izbrannye Trudy,” (Moskva: Izdatel’stvo Akademii Nauk SSSR, 1953).
31.
In a letter of March 8, 1910, Arkhiv Rossiiskoi Akademii Nauk, Petersburgskoi Filial, fond 1601, delo 140, listy 1–2. My italics. The letter was signed also by several other important scientific workers in Russian microbiology and bacteriology.
32.
On Kholodnyi, see A. A. Imshenetskii, “N. G. Kholodnyi i ego Mikrobiologicheskie Issledovaniia,” forward to N. G. Kholodnyi, Zhelezobakterii (Moskva: Izdatel’stvo Akademii Nauk SSSR, 1953), 3–16.
33.
Ibid., 5. On Purievich see “Konstantin Adrianovich Purievich, (1866–1916),” Biologi: Biograficheskii Spravochnik (Kiev: Naukova Dumka, 1984), 519.
34.
Ibid.
35.
Imshenetskii, “N. G. Kholodnyi i ego Mikrobiologicheskie Issledovaniia,” 5.
36.
Ibid.
37.
Ibid., 6.
38.
Ibid., 8.
39.
Here Imshenetskii evaluated Kholodnyi’s research as a continuation and validation of Vinogradskii’s theory of chemosynthesis. Moreover, writing in 1953, Imshenetskii still considered chemosynthesis to be a viable line of investigation with unanswered questions. For example, it still remained to determine “the mechanism of oxidation of inorganic compounds, in particular, the ferment systems... the vague fact of the discovery of such classic autotrophs as Nitrosomonas in the silt on the bottom of the ocean, or in environments very rich in organic matter... and the physiology of pure iron bacteria cultures.” Ibid., 9.
40.
For a description of the “Red Terror” in Kiev and how some scientists escaped it see: Theodosius Dobzhansky, The Reminiscences of Theodosius Dobzhansky, (Oral History Research Office, Columbia University, 1962), 65–72.
41.
On Vernadsky’s experiences during this period see Kendall E. Bailes, Science and Russian Culture in an Age of Revolutions: V. I. Vernadsky and His Scientific School, 1863–1945 (Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 1990), 141–148.
42.
Ibid., 144.
43.
Theodosius Dobzhansky, The Reminiscences of Theodosius Dobzhansky, 65–72. Dobzhansky, who worked as Vernadsky’s research assistant, made weekly trips carrying mail and other supplies to the station.
44.
Bailes, Science and Russian Culture in an Age of Revolutions, 145–146.
45.
Ibid., 145.
46.
Kholodnyi dedicated the reprinting of his monograph, Zhelezobakterii (1952 to his close friend Vladimir Vernadsky, who had first stressed the importance of the topic to him. Kholodnyi first published Zhelezobakterii in 1926.
47.
N. G. Kholodnyi, “Kak Nabliudat’ Zhizn’ Mikroorganismov Pochvy,” in Sredi Prirodi i v Laboratorii (Moskva: Izdatel’stvo Moskovskogo Obshchestva Ispytatelei Prirody, 1949), 101–121.
48.
For some examples of this see S. P. Kostychev, Kovda, and Krasil’nikov. In 1927, while on an official trip, Sergei Kostychev visited Vinogradskii in Brie-Compte-Robert. The primary purpose of Kostychev’s trip was to obtain scientific instruments ordered from companies in Berlin. There was also a scientific dimension to his expedition—after visiting Bertrand and Fernbach at the Pasteur Institute in Paris to discuss fermentation, Kostychev made his way out to Vinogradskii’s laboratory where he discussed soil microbiology. Kostychev reported to superiors that his conversations with Vinogradskii “were related to methods for the quantitative calculation of soil fertility factors, developed on the fundamentals Vinogradskii had established for soil microbiology.” (For a description of Kostychev’s activities on this trip see, “Otchet o deiatel’nosti S. P. Kostycheva i komandirovka za granitsu v 1927 g.,” fond 159, opis 1, dela 70, listy 5–6; See list 5 for quote.) Kostychev had high hopes for Vinogradskii’s research and expected “several new methods (priemy) would be introduced into this method (metodika) on the basis of the results received.” Ibid., 5.
49.
For a discussion of Vinogradskii’s cellulose decomposition research at the IEM, see Chap. 3.
50.
He first published his views of the biosphere in Vladimir Vernadsky
51.
Vernadsky was not the first to use the term biosphere. Lamarck had defined it as any place life existed and the geologist Eduard Suess defined it as the geological strata produced by living organisms.
52.
Vladimir I. Vernadsky, Trudy po Geokhimii, ed. A. A. Iaroshevskii (Moskva: Nauka, 1994), 98–101.
53.
Vladimir I. Vernadsky, Zhivoe Vechestvo (Moskva: Gosizdat, 1930), 88.
54.
Ibid., 89.
55.
G. L. Seliber, ed., Russkie Mikrobiologi S. N. Vinogradskii i V. L. Omelianskii (Moskva: Izadatel’stvo Ministerstva Sel’skogo Xoziaistva SSSR, 1960). The authors of these collected articles attempted to draw connections between the work of Vinogradskii and Omelianskii and contemporary developments in their own disciplines.
56.
V. N. Bylinkina, “Metody pochvenno-mikrobiologicheskikh issledovanii v rabotakh S. N. Vinogradskogo i ikh dal’neishee razvitie,” in Idem., 31–37; see 37.
57.
Ibid.
58.
Ibid.
59.
Ibid.
60.
Ibid.
61.
V. P. Vushinkii, “Rol’ V. R. Vil’iamsa v razvitii sel’skokhoziastvennykh i biologicheskikh nauk,” in V. R. Viliams, Sobrannye Sochinenii, Tom 1, Raboty po Pochvovedeniiu (1888–1902) (Moskva: Sel’xozgiz, 1948), 7–38, esp. 17. For Vushinskii, the most significant aspect of their work was “the role of microorganisms in the decomposition of animal remains, which are located in and on the soil.” Ibid.
62.
G. L. Seliber, ed., Russkie Mikrobiologi S. N. Vinogradskii i V. L. Omelianskii.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Department of History and Politics, Drexel University, Philadelphia, USA
Lloyd Ackert

Authors

Lloyd Ackert
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lloyd Ackert .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Ackert, L. (2012). Vinogradskii’s Reception in Russian and Soviet Microbiology. In: Sergei Vinogradskii and the Cycle of Life. Archimedes, vol 34. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-5198-9_10

Download citation

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-5198-9_10
Published: 08 August 2012
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-007-5197-2
Online ISBN: 978-94-007-5198-9
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawHistory (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics