中華人民共和國 건설 초기 과학계의 사상투쟁-樂天宇의 미추린학설 수용을 중심으로-

Abstract

In the Yan''an(延安) period, during the natural science movement and mass production movement initiated by the Communist Party of China in 1941, agricultural and forestry biologists led by Le Tianyu(樂天宇) actively accepted the Michurin(米丘林) theory. In the development of the Nanniwan(南泥灣) and the large-scale agricultural production movement, Le Tianyu actively used the breeding method of Michurin and the vernalization treatment method of Lysenko(李森科). In addition, he also took the lead in combining the agricultural experience of the farmers in the border area(邊區) with the genetics of Michurin to popularize it to the public. Therefore, Michurin''s theory has attracted much attention because of its "seeking truth from facts(實事求是)" method of combining theory with practice. Based on this experience, Le Tianyu organized the Michurin society(米丘林學會) on February 19, 1949. The Michurin society has formed a trinity relationship with the College of agriculture, North China University(華北大學農學院) and its agricultural biological science research room(農業生物科學硏究室), combining education, experiment and research. The Michurin society has compiled the farmer''s experience in the agricultural field and crop mating methods into a book and popularized them to farmers. More importantly, Michurin society focuses on agricultural field experiments and direct exchanges with farmers, taking the lead in knowledge production and popularization based on farmers'' and rural experience. Through this, the Communist Party of China formulated a "practical" and "popularity" agricultural policy, which also made a certain contribution to the increase of agricultural productivity in the early period of the people''s Republic of China. However, in September 1949, with the establishment of Beijing Agricultural University(北京農業大學), the opposition between the Michurin school led by Le Tianyu and the genetics of Mendel-Morgan school led by Li Jingjun(李景均) was officially launched. As Le Tianyu reorganized the University''s curriculum to focus on new genetics, and reorganize disciplines centered on "production disciplines"，the discontent in the University spread. The Communist Party of China demoted Le Tianyu, the culprit of the Agricultural University incident, to the Chinese Academy of Sciences(中國科學院), and command of the Michurin society led by him was transferred to the All China Federation of Natural Sciences(中華全國自然科學專門學會聯合會). The Communist Party of China denied the connection between Le Tianyu and Michurin''s theory, and regarded the "Nongda incident(農大事件)" as a problem of Le Tianyu''s personal thoughts and attitudes. In addition, the Communist Party of China held a symposium on biological science work(生物科學工作座談會) in 1952, and published the argument of "fighting for the Michurin direction of biological science(爲堅持生物科學的米丘林方向而鬥爭)", branded Le Tianyu as a "sectarian" and a "narrow empiricist". If we reflect on the relationship between science and politics or between science and the socialist revolution, then the influence of Michurin''s theory on the Chinese scientific community should be negatively evaluated. Because Le Tianyu used the Michur in theory to overthrow the Mendel-Morgan school, the Communist Party of China has ideologized science and turned science into a political maidservant. But "what way does science work and what role does it play in socialist construction?", this is an issue that transcends the political level and requires in-depth study. From this perspective, Le Tianyu''s acceptance of Michurin''s theory triggered a revolution, in the production structure of scientific knowledge in China, attach importance to the "experience" of rural areas and the "practical" value of production sites, in the production and popularization of scientific knowledge, it established the line of "Populism". Therefore, by examining the role and significance of Michurin''s theory in the history of Chinese Science in the early 1950s, we should get rid of the way of explaining the relationship between science and politics from the perspective of the dichotomy of affirmation and negation. We should re-examine the multi-layer relationship and interaction between science and the socialist revolution.