The politics of genetics: how ideology shaped science in the former Soviet Union
Research data bite 15.
Takeaways
The impact of political ideology on research is measurable through publication trends and citation analysis.
The suppression of genetics in the former Soviet Union not only harmed biological sciences but also reshaped Soviet research priorities for decades.
In the 1930s, agronomist Trofim Denisovich Lysenko, rose to prominence in the former Soviet Union, championing the inheritance of acquired characteristics while rejecting modern genetics. In short, he believed that any trait acquired by a parent—such as cutting all the leaves of a plant—would be directly passed to their offspring. A simple experiment debunked this notion: cutting a rat’s tail did not lead to tailless offspring. Yet, despite overwhelming evidence against his theories, Lysenko dismissed both statistics and commonly accepted scientific methods, instead pushing an ideological version of biology that fit within the Soviet political framework (Borinskaya et al., 2019).
Lysenko’s growing influence culminated in the 1948 Meeting of the Lenin All-Union Academy of Agricultural Sciences, where his ideas were officially declared the only correct biological doctrine in the USSR. The former Soviet government not only banned genetics, which they called bourgeois and reactionary, but actively persecuted geneticists—leading to the imprisonment and deaths of prominent researchers—and destroyed samples of Drosophila which were the model organism widely used in genetic studies.
Lysenko’s theories, however, were not just confined to academia. His influence extended deeply into Soviet agricultural policy, where his promises of rapid crop improvement and higher yields were seen as essential to feeding a growing population. By rejecting established genetic principles, he promoted misguided farming techniques, such as vernalisation and densely planted crops, which ultimately led to failed harvests and widespread food shortages.
While the broader consequences of Lysenkoism are well-documented—ranging from agricultural collapse to a major famine (Ptushenko 2021)—its impact extended beyond immediate biological sciences. The suppression of genetics had ripple effects, potentially influencing the scientific trajectories of entire research fields, particularly in the former Soviet Union.
Investigating the broader impact
In this analysis, we investigate whether the restriction of genetics research affected Soviet science more broadly—not just in genetics but across disciplines that relied on genetic advancements. By comparing publication trends and research outputs between the former Soviet Union and top producing countries, we aim to understand whether scientific suppression in one field may have led to attrition in others.
Data
The top 12 countries that published between 1920 and 1989, as indexed in Dimensions, were as follows: Russia, United States, United Kingdom, Germany, Japan, Canada, Australia, India, Sweden, Netherlands, France, and Italy.
Considering the political landscape of the period, we decided to represent Russia by the former Soviet Union, which we defined as today’s Russia, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Georgia, Ukraine, Belarus, Moldova, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, and Kazakhstan. Although this was not true for the entire period, the countries that joined later–Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia–were small enough that their additional contribution during the 1920-1940 period will not be significant.
In this research data bite, we consider Germany as a single entity, without distinguishing between East and West. In next week’s data bite, we will analyse research output in East and West Germany separately from 1920 to 1989. Other countries, such as India, Japan, and Australia, were not fully independent throughout the entire period; however, they still existed as distinct states. The Commonwealth of Australia was formed in 1901, and while Japan maintained sovereignty, it experienced US occupation after World War II (1945–1952), which influenced its research infrastructure. India's research system remained largely shaped by colonial rule until independence in 1947, with institutions like the Indian Institute of Science (IIS) established in 1909.
Note also that Dimensions extracts countries in two different ways: either by identifying the GRID organisation, or by extracting the name of the country from the raw affiliation. Considering we go such a distance in time, 40 to 100 years ago, we can expect issues with non-existing GRID for organisations that were deceased–although organisations that have changed name could still be covered thanks to GRID’s aliases. Therefore our country comparison is likely to be more inclusive than a GRID-based analysis.
Impact on research output volume in the former Soviet Union
We looked at the top 12 countries for the period 1920-1989 for publications indexed in Dimensions. The multiline chart below shows the trend for each country, with the y-axis scaled to highlight trends among the 10 smallest producers–during this period the US indeed dominates academic publishing, by WWII, its pre-war publication volume already far exceeded the output of most countries in 1989.
Most countries experienced a sharp decline in publications during WWII, with less impact observed in India and Canada, and a delayed effect in Australia. By 1950, academic publishing had resumed growth worldwide. However, it took an additional eight years for the former Soviet Union to surpass the 1,000-publication threshold. Between 1939 and 1957, the former Soviet Union published fewer research articles.
When we look at the former Soviet Union output by discipline, we see a shift from Biomedicine/Biology dominance to Chemistry/Engineering dominance which does not appear in the global landscape—see graph below that shows both the former Soviet Union and global proportions. Note that Fields of Research were trained on today’s data, meaning that some classifications may not fully align with 20th-century research. However, since we compare Soviet Union outputs with the rest of the world, both datasets are subject to the same classification biases, ensuring a fair comparison.
Research influence and citation trends in the former Soviet Union
Although the former Soviet Union ranked 11th globally in publication volume between 1920 and 1939, it was 8th in citation impact (considering only publications that received citations). Post-WWII, however, it dropped to 11th place in citation impact, with an average of 15 citations per cited publication, as shown in the table below.
To assess the influence of top publishing countries between 1920 and 1989, we looked at their share of total citations received over time. For all citations received by publications published until today (5th February 2025), we assigned credit based on co-author country affiliations. Our results show that while the former Soviet Union had some degree of scholarly influence pre-WWII, its scientific impact diminished in the post-war era.
Conclusion
The suppression of genetics in the former Soviet Union had profound and lasting effects on the country’s scientific landscape. While Lysenkoism is often viewed in terms of its immediate consequences for agriculture and biological sciences, our analysis highlights its broader impact on Soviet research output and influence. The former Soviet Union’s shift away from genetics toward chemistry and engineering was not mirrored in other leading scientific nations, suggesting a unique and politically driven reorientation of research priorities.
Quantitatively, the former Soviet Union experienced a publication decline between 1939 and 1957, while other countries rebounded more quickly after WWII. Even when research output recovered, its global impact weakened. Pre-WWII, the former Soviet Union had a moderate share of citations, but post-WWII, its relative influence declined, as seen in its lower ranking in citation impact.
These findings reinforce the idea that ideological interventions in science can have long-term repercussions, not only delaying progress in the targeted fields but also reshaping the entire research ecosystem. Despite efforts to adapt through molecular biology and biochemistry, the former Soviet Union never fully regained its pre-WWII standing in global scientific influence.
This study demonstrates that bibliometric analyses can serve as powerful tools for understanding the effects of political decisions on scientific development. By quantifying publication trends and citation impact, we can better assess how historical disruptions continue to shape research landscapes decades later.