KOLTSOV, NIKOLAY KONSTANTINOVICH(1872–1940), Russian biologist, author of the idea of ​​matrix synthesis of “hereditary molecules.” Born on July 15 (8), 1872 in Moscow in the family of an accountant for a large fur company. At the age of eight he entered the Moscow gymnasium, from which he graduated with a gold medal. In his youth, he collected plants, collected seeds and insects, walked throughout the Moscow province, and later throughout the Crimea. In 1890 he entered the natural sciences department of the Faculty of Physics and Mathematics of Moscow University, where he specialized in comparative anatomy and comparative embryology. Koltsov’s leader during this period was the head of the school of Russian zoologists M.A. Menzbir. In 1894 he took part in the IX Congress of Russian Naturalists and Doctors, where he made a report The importance of cartilaginous centers in the development of the vertebrate pelvis, and then performed basic research Hind limb girdle and hind limbs of vertebrates, for which he was awarded a gold medal.

After graduating from the university (1894), Koltsov was left there to prepare for a professorship, and after three years of studies and successfully passing six master's exams, he was sent abroad for two years. He worked in laboratories in Germany and at marine biological stations in Italy. The collected material served as the basis for a master's thesis, which Koltsov defended in 1901.

Even during his studies, Koltsov's interests began to turn from comparative anatomy to cytology. Having received the right to a privatdocent course after returning from a business trip abroad, he begins to lecture precisely on this subject. In 1902, Koltsov was again sent abroad, where for two years he worked in the largest biological laboratories and at marine stations. These years coincided with a period when in biology there was a decline in interest in purely descriptive morphological sciences and new trends began to emerge - experimental cytology, biological chemistry, developmental mechanics, genetics, which opened up completely new approaches to understanding the organic world. Koltsov’s communication with the largest cytologists in Europe (W. Fleming, O. Büchli), as well as with R. Goldschmidt and M. Hartmann, finally confirmed his decision to “move from the study of morphology on dead preparations to the study of life processes on living objects.” While on his second trip abroad, he performed the first part of his classical Research on cell shape – A study on the sperm of decapods in connection with general considerations regarding cell organization(1905), intended for a doctoral dissertation. This work together with the second part Research on cell shape, published in 1908, was established in science as the “Koltsov principle” of shape-determining cellular skeletons (cytoskeletons).

Returning to Russia in 1903, Koltsov, without stopping scientific research, began intensive pedagogical and scientific-organizational work. The course of cytology, which began back in 1899, grew into a hitherto unknown course of general biology. The second course taught by Koltsov, “Systematic Zoology,” was extremely popular among students. The “Big Zoological Workshop” created by Koltsov, where students were accepted by competition, formed a single whole with the lectures.

Koltsov was an active member of the circle headed by the Bolshevik P.K. Sternberg. During the days of the 1905 revolution, the center of the circle’s work was moved from the observatory where Sternberg worked to Koltsov’s office. Collective protests and petitions were drawn up here, appeals from the student committee were printed on an underground mimeograph, and leaflets were stored. Koltsov’s state of mind during this period is best characterized by his book In memory of the fallen. Victims from among Moscow students in October and December days(1906). Published on the opening day of the first Duma, the book was confiscated on the same day, but more than half of the circulation had already been sold out. Soon after the suppression of the revolution, Koltsov’s doctoral dissertation was supposed to be defended, but he refused to defend it “on such days behind closed doors.” In 1909, for participation in political activities, Koltsov was suspended from classes, and in 1911, together with other leading teachers of Moscow University, he resigned and until 1918 he taught at the Higher Women's Courses and at the Moscow People's University Shanyavsky. In the latter, he created an excellent laboratory and trained a galaxy of famous biologists (M.M. Zavadovsky, A.S. Serebrovsky, S.N. Skadovsky, G.I. Roskin, etc.).

From the study of the supporting skeletal elements of the cell, Koltsov moves on to the study of contractile structures. The third part of it appears Research on cell shape – Studies on the contractility of the stalk of Zoothamnium alternans(1911), and then works on the influence of cations (1912) and hydrogen ions (1915) on physiological processes in the cell. These studies were important for establishing the so-called physiological ion series, and also attracted the attention of Russian biologists to the most important problem of the active role of the environment and marked the beginning of a whole period in the development of physicochemical biology in Russia. In 1916, for the contribution to science made by Koltsov by this time, he was elected a corresponding member of the Russian Academy of Sciences.

In 1917, with funds from the Moscow Society of Scientific Institutes, the Institute of Experimental Biology was created for Koltsov, which for a long time remained the only biological research institution in the country not associated with teaching. Here Koltsov had the opportunity to “combine a number of the latest trends in modern experimental biology in order to study certain problems from different points of view and, if possible, using different methods.” We talked about developmental physiology, genetics, biochemistry and cytology. The scientific team of the Institute initially consisted of Koltsov’s students, and then was replenished with prominent biologists from other scientific schools. At different times, A.S. Serebrovsky, N.V. Timofeev-Resovsky, S.S. Chetverikov, G.V. Epstein, N.P. Dubinin, G.V. Lopashov, I.A. Rapoport, P F. Rokitsky, B. N. Sidorov, V. P. Efroimson and others. In the post-revolutionary years, many employees worked for free or shared one rate between two. In 1920, with the active participation of Koltsov, the Russian Eugenics Society arose, at the same time a eugenics department was organized at the Institute of Experimental Biology, which launched research on human medical genetics (the first work on the study of blood groups, the content of catalase in it, etc.), as well as on such issues of anthropogenetics as the inheritance of hair and eye color, variability and heredity of complex traits in identical twins, etc. The department had its first medical genetic consultation. The Institute began the first theoretical studies in the USSR on the genetics of Drosophila.

In 1927, at the 3rd Congress of Zoologists, Anatomists and Histologists, Koltsov made a report Physico-chemical basis of morphology, in which he expanded the general biological principles “Omne vinum ex ovo” and “Omnis cellula ex cellula”, proclaiming the paradoxical principle at that time “Omnis molecule ex molecule” - “Every molecule from a molecule.” In this case, not just any molecules were meant - we were talking about those “hereditary molecules”, on the reproduction of which, according to the idea first expressed by Koltsov, the morphophysiological continuity of the organization of living beings rests. Koltsov imagined these “hereditary molecules” in the form of giant protein macromolecules that make up the axial genetically active structure of the chromosomes, or, in Koltsov’s terminology, the genoneme. Genetic information was represented as encoded not by the alternation of DNA nucleotides, but by a sequence of amino acids in a highly polymeric protein chain. Koltsov associated the transcription process with the replication of the protein part of the nucleoprotein basis of chromosomes. He was misled by the visual disappearance of thymonucleic acid (i.e. DNA) in late oogenesis and in giant chromosomes.

In December 1936, a special session of the All-Russian Academy of Agricultural Sciences was convened to combat “bourgeois genetics.” N.I. Vavilov, A.S. Serebrovsky, G.J. Möller, N.K. Koltsov, M.M. Zavadovsky, G.D. Karpechenko, G.A. Levitsky, N.P. spoke in defense of genetics. Dubinin. Against “bourgeois genetics” - T.D. Lysenko, N.V. Tsitsin, I.I. Present. Koltsov, not sharing Vavilov’s optimism that “the building of genetics remained unshaken,” addressed a letter to the President of VASKhNIL A.I. Muralov, where he wrote about the responsibility of all scientists for the state of science in the country. The answer was made on March 26, 1937 at the general meeting of the VASKhNIL activists, dedicated to the results of the plenum of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks. Muralov attacked Koltsov’s “politically harmful” theories on genetics and eugenics. Work on eugenics served as the main pretext for the persecution of Koltsov. On March 4, 1939, the Presidium of the USSR Academy of Sciences considered the issue “On strengthening the fight against existing pseudoscientific perversions” and created a commission to familiarize itself with the work of the Koltsov Institute. Koltsov was demanded that in a “generally accepted form” he “give... an analysis of his false teachings in... a scientific journal or, better yet, in all journals... having fulfilled his elementary duty to the party.” But Koltsov did not do this, and he was fired from his post as director.

The scientist’s archive contains many unfinished works. First of all, this is part four Research on cell shape, on which Koltsov worked intermittently for 20 years and which is devoted to experimental studies of the physicochemical foundations of morpho-physiological phenomena that are observed in the cells of effector organs. The keynote speech “Chemistry and Morphology”, dedicated to a new interpretation of cellular structures in their statics and dynamics, remained unfinished.

In 1976, the Institute of Developmental Biology of the USSR Academy of Sciences was named after Koltsov.

Valery Soifer It is one hundred years since the establishment of the Institute of Experimental Biology in Moscow, headed by N.K. Koltsov.

The experiments of this researcher led to discoveries on a global scale. Before him, scientists believed that cells take their shape depending on the osmotic pressure of the substances they contain. Koltsov in 1903 came to the conclusion that the shape of the most delicate cells is supported by a solid cellular framework, and proposed the term “cytoskeleton”. The more powerful and branched the various framework structures, the more the cell shape deviates from the spherical one. He studied intracellular strands in many types of cells, examined their branching, and used chemical methods to identify the conditions for cytoskeleton stability.

In 1910, specialists from the University of Heidelberg applied the “Koltsov rule” to single-celled organisms. In 1911, an expanded edition of Koltsov’s book on the cytoskeleton was published in German. In those same years, Richard Goldschmidt used Koltsov's principle of cytoskeleton to explain the unusual shape of nerve and muscle cells, Darcy Thompson described Koltsov's principle in detail in the book “On Form and Growth,” and Max Hertwig, who devoted the first two chapters of his book to Koltsov’s ideas, put it in first place among biologists.

But the Iron Curtain erected in Soviet times by Lenin and Stalin made it almost impossible for scientists to travel abroad and speak at international forums; It was difficult even to send an article to a Western publication. Gradually, Koltsov's principle was forgotten, and in 1931 the Frenchman Paul Wintrebert reintroduced the term “cytosquelette”. Biologists of our time are convinced that the concept of the cytoskeleton emerged quite recently.
N.K. Koltsov (1939) In January 1906, Koltsov had to defend his doctoral dissertation. However, in December 1905, after a wave of workers' protests, by decision of the government, Moscow University was actually occupied by troops. As Nikolai Konstantinovich later recalled, the defense was appointed literally “a few days after the bloody suppression of the December revolution.” “I refused to defend my dissertation on such days behind closed doors—the students were on strike—and decided that I did not need a doctorate,” he wrote. “Later, with my speeches during the revolutionary months, I completely upset my relationship with the official professors, and the thought of defending my dissertation no longer entered my head.”.

In 1906, Koltsov published a brochure, the purpose and direction of which is perfectly revealed by the explanation printed on the cover: “In memory of the fallen. Victims from among Moscow students in October and December. Income from the publication goes to the Committee for Assistance to Prisoners and Amnestied Persons. Price 50 kopecks. Moscow. 1906". The brochure was ordered to be confiscated, and the author was fired from Moscow University. He began to look for a new place of work.

Back in 1903, Koltsov taught the course “Cell Organization” at the Higher Women’s Courses of Professor V.I. Guerrier, and on April 28, 1909, he began teaching at the Moscow City People’s University, which was more often called Shanyavsky’s Private University.

In 1915, the St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences invited Koltsov to move to the Northern capital, where they were going to elect him as an academician and create a biological laboratory. However, Koltsov refused to leave Moscow and had to be content with the title of corresponding member of the Academy of Sciences.

In 1916, Koltsov was involved in the creation of a number of research institutes, independent of the state, with money from patrons. In the summer of 1917, a few months before the Bolshevik coup, the Institute of Experimental Biology (IEB) was opened in Moscow, headed by N.K.

For decades, Russian intellectuals fought against the gendarmerie attitude of tsarism towards the human person. Many of them welcomed the king's abdication of power. But with its first actions, the Leninist government alienated the best people in Russia. Dissent fell into the category of state crimes. Naturally, supporters of democracy thought about how to free the country from the dominance of the insane Robespierres and bloodthirsty Maratians. Groups of people emerged who were looking for feasible and legal ways to liberate Russia from the rule of the Bolsheviks. In one of them, Koltsov found himself in the leading position. The “National Center,” as the security officers called this organization in their reports, was discovered in 1920. N.K. was responsible for the financial side of the work (which means his friends in the organization trusted him). In 1920, all the identified conspirators - 28 people, including Koltsov - were arrested. The fact that they gathered at his apartment was also blamed on the professor.

Koltsov was sentenced to death. Fortunately, his close friend Maxim Gorky stood up for him, turning directly to Lenin. Thanks to his intercession, the sentence was first commuted to five years in prison, and soon Koltsov was released completely, and he returned to run his institute.

He was committed to helping the work of scientists throughout the country. He established laboratories at the Commission for the Study of Productive Forces (KEPS), at the All-Union Institute of Animal Husbandry, a biological station in Bakuriani in Georgia, he also helped develop the Kropotov Biological Station, then his students, with his participation, created new research centers in Uzbekistan and Tajikistan.

The Institute of Experimental Biology has acquired a high reputation in the world. In January 1930, Richard Goldschmidt wrote: “I am amazed and still cannot understand my impressions. I saw such a huge number of young people interested in genetics that we cannot imagine in Germany. And many of these young geneticists understand the most complex scientific issues in a way that only a few fully established specialists do in our country.”

In 1927, Koltsov published a paper in which he reported that each chromosome contains a gigantic hereditary molecule carrying genetic records, and drew conclusions about how it could be structured. He took into account that genes are arranged in a linear order on genetic maps, took into account chemical evidence for the existence of high-molecular structures such as cellulose or proteins, and physical descriptions of crystal growth. Rice. 1. Drawing by N.K. Koltsov (1928), illustrating his hypothesis of the structure of giant hereditary molecules, according to which each chromosome of somatic cells carries two molecules with hereditary records in the form of genes. Each such molecule consists of two mirror threads. They contain genes (shown as individual paired symbols). The arrow indicates a gene in which one of the two alleles in paired strands is changed by mutation. Nikolai Konstantinovich suggested that hereditary molecules should contain two mirror parts and that genes are parts of these molecules (Fig. 1). Thus, the hero of our story developed a new principle of chemistry - the complementarity of strands in double-stranded structures, maintained through contacts between the side chemical groups in the two strands.

He explained the mechanism for preserving the chemical structure of hereditary molecules during chromosome division, formulating the matrix principle for the reproduction of hereditary molecules. “I formulated this idea in the thesis: Omnis molecule e molevula, i.e., every (of course, complex organic) molecule arises from the surrounding solution only in the presence of a ready-made molecule, and the corresponding radicals are placed by opposition (van der Waals forces of attraction or forces of crystallization) to those points of the existing and serving as a seed molecule where the same radicals lie". Rice. 2. Drawing by N.K. Koltsov (1935), illustrating the possibility of sequentially combining many protein molecules into a giant hereditary molecule. In those years when Koltsov was developing these hypotheses, polymer chemistry was in its infancy. It seemed to N.K. that proteins could be the most suitable for hereditary molecules. The connection of amino acids through -NH-COOH- bonds into polymer structures made it possible to think that it was proteins that could reach gigantic lengths; As an example, Koltsov gave a picture of fibroin proteins (Fig. 2).

He discussed the possibility of constructing hereditary molecules from nucleic acids, but rejected this idea because Phoebus Levene had published at that time the tetranucleotide theory of DNA structure, according to which four nucleotides were monotonically repeated in a molecule (AGT). Koltsov concluded that in this case, nucleic acids cannot carry genetic records, since they are “too primitively structured” and do not satisfy “linguistic requirements.” The tetranucleotide theory was later disproven.

In general, N.K.’s thoughts on hereditary molecules contained the following provisions.

1. Chromosomes contain giant molecules that carry genetic records.
2. Genes are segments of hereditary molecules.
3. Each hereditary molecule contains two strands.
4. Each thread carries identical sequences of records, making them complementary.
5. As a result of chemical changes in hereditary molecules, gene mutations occur.
6. Single molecules are used as seeds (templates) for the synthesis of molecules with identical sequences (records), which ensures the continuity of the structure of genetic material over generations.

In 1928, Koltsov’s article was published in German with further elaboration of the model, in 1935 and 1936 - two in Russian, and a more detailed description was given in his French book in 1939.

The Koltsov hypothesis attracted the attention of specialists. K. Mayer and G. Mark (one of the founders of polymer chemistry) gave Kolkov's ideas a prominent place in their 1930 book. Hermann Staudinger (who received the Nobel Prize in 1953 for the development of macromolecular chemistry) mentioned Koltsov’s ideas more than once. In 1934, Dorothy Uhrinch published an article in Nature in which she considered ideas similar to Koltsov’s.

The American geneticist Milislav Demerec (James Watson's predecessor as director of the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) sent Koltsov a letter on August 27, 1934, which I discovered in the archives of the American Philosophical Society in Philadelphia. In it he wrote: “Your idea that the whole chromosome is a large organic molecule and that genes are just radicals of this molecule is very interesting... In a lecture that will be published soon, I discuss your assumption.”. But Demerets rejected the central part of Koltsev's hypothesis that genes are segments of a giant hereditary molecule. He preferred to think that genes should exist as individual structures: “I doubt, however, that the experimental evidence which suggests that genes have a significant degree of individuality is comparable to your view. It is known that genes can be transferred from one homologous chromosome to another by crossing over, that their position within a chromosome can be changed by inversion, and that their position in the chromosomal complex can be changed by translocation. It is also known that all these changes do not affect the genes involved themselves.".

However, in 1946, Joshua Lederberg discovered that genes, as parts of one giant molecule, undergo recombination, that is, they can be transferred from one site to another place in the same molecule. In 1963, G. L. K. Whitehouse developed a structural theory of the recombination of DNA molecules. Thus, Koltsov’s pioneering anticipations were completely confirmed.

In the book “What is Life?” Erwin Schrödinger agreed with the thesis that giant hereditary molecules exist (without mentioning Koltsov's name) and that they could be protein molecules. However, John Burdon Sanderson Haldane, to whom Schrödinger attributed this explanation, restored the historical importance of Koltsov's predictions in a review of Schrödinger's book in Nature. Haldane pointed out that it was Nikolai Konstantinovich who was the first to "introduced... the idea... that a chromosome is a giant molecule... possessing the properties of a crystal, including the ability to reproduce itself and thus a highly complex structure that carries „encoded recording“ for the development of the body".
Rice. 3. Drawing by N.K. Koltsov, showing the structure of multi-stranded polytene chromosomes found in the salivary glands of dipterans. First published in 1934 in the journal Science In 1934, Koltsov made another important discovery: T. S. Painter discovered chromosomes of enormous size in the salivary glands of dipteran insects, and N. K. explained the mechanism of their occurrence: during multiple doublings of hereditary molecules they do not disperse to daughter cells, and the chromosomes thicken (Fig. 3).

The Russian biologist called such chromosomes polytene (multi-stranded), this term has been strengthened and still exists in science. At the same time, the length of the chromosomes does not increase, but the thickness, due to non-disjunction of newly formed hereditary molecules, increases, reaching a gigantic size. Koltsov described this mechanism in an article published in the American magazine Science in the same year. He wrote: “I have seen hundreds of preparations of the salivary glands of various Diptera obtained in the genetic and cytological departments of my Institute of Experimental Biology. Professor H. J. Moeller of the University of Texas also showed me a series of very good preparations of Drosophila which had various unusual shapes of the X chromosomes."

The scientist had another area of ​​interest. At the beginning of the century, he became acquainted with the first works on the inheritance of mental abilities in humans and wanted to establish a department of human genetics at his institute. In 1920, N.K. Koltsov was elected chairman of the Russian Eugenics Society and remained so until 1929, when, on his initiative, the society ceased its work. Since 1922, he became the editor (from 1924 - co-editor) of the Russian Eugenics Journal, in which he published his speech “Improving the Human Race,” delivered on October 20, 1921 at the annual meeting of the Russian Eugenics Society, and the study “Pedigrees of our nominees” .

Later, the political ideologists of Stalinism used Koltsov’s interest in human genetics against him, calling this trend misanthropy, even fascism. However, human genetics is rapidly developing, and on its basis, new effective methods for treating diseases are being developed.

Nikolai Konstantinovich’s contribution to the development of Russian science as a whole would be incompletely outlined if his humanitarian activities remained in the shadows. He did a lot not only for women's education in Russia. He more than once stood up for the honor and dignity of Russian scientists who were unfairly offended, slandered, or arrested. And in Soviet times, he did not change his principles.

Koltsov wrote vividly and a lot. To this day, the journal Nature, of which he was editor-in-chief from 1912 to 1930, plays an important role in the dissemination of scientific knowledge; As a supplement, he founded the “Classics of Natural History” series. Since 1916, Koltsov edited the “Proceedings of the Biological Laboratory”, then organized the journals “News of Experimental Biology” (1921), “Advances in Experimental Biology” (began publishing in 1922), “Biological Journal” and a number of other publications.

Koltsov’s independent position not only in science, but also in social activities irritated the authorities. The first to launch malicious attacks on N.K. were figures from the Society of Marxist Biologists in March 1931. Koltsov was subjected to especially angry public attacks after a discussion about genetics and selection in December 1936. Nikolai Konstantinovich behaved irreconcilably towards the Lysenkoites who attacked genetics. Understanding what the organizers of the discussion were getting at, after the session closed in January 1937, he sent a letter to the President of the All-Russian Academy of Agricultural Sciences (copies to the heads of departments of the Central Committee: agriculture - Ya. A. Yakovlev, science - K. Ya. Bauman, press and publishing - B. M. Talyu), in which he directly stated that to organize such discussion means patronizing liars and demagogues, and this will not bring any benefit to either science or the country.

He pointed out the unacceptable situation with the teaching of genetics in universities, predicting what a decrease in the level of knowledge in the Land of the Soviets this would lead to, and then declared sedition that was generally unthinkable in Soviet conditions, saying in plain text that the Pravda newspaper printed lies about the speeches at the session: “Newspapers published biased and often completely illiterate reports about the sessions. What does a report cost, for example? „Truth“ dated December 27... What would you call this „the truth“? Will it really remain unrefuted? We need to correct the mistakes made. After all, perhaps more than one graduating class of agronomists will suffer from the resulting destruction of genetics from the session... History will first of all ask us why we did not protest against an attack on science that was unworthy of the Soviet Union... Ignorance in the coming graduating classes of agronomists will cost the country millions of tons of bread. But we love our country no less than the party Bolsheviks and are proud of the successes of social construction. That’s why I don’t want and can’t remain silent.”

Demands to stop Koltsov and reject his criticism were made on March 26-29 and April 1, 1937 at meetings of the Presidium of the All-Union Academy of Agricultural Sciences. But N.K. was not afraid and, having listened to the repeated accusations against him, asked to speak and without hesitation rejected the unfair attacks, repeating that “The newspapers incorrectly reported the essence of the discussion that was taking place. From them it is impossible to form a clear idea of ​​what was said at the session.”.

At the end of the meetings at VASKhNIL, he concluded his speech this way: “I do not renounce what I said and wrote, and I will not renounce, and you will not intimidate me with any threats. You can deprive me of the title of academician, but I am not afraid, I am not one of the timid. I conclude with the words of Alexei Tolstoy, who wrote them on an occasion very close to this case - in response to the censor who tried to ban the publication of Darwin's book:

Give up, comrade, intimidation,
Science is not timid.
You can't stop her flow
No traffic jam!”.

A week and a half later, an article by Ya. A. Yakovlev was published, in which, in harsh terms, genetics was called fascist, and Koltsov “a fascist obscurantist... trying to turn genetics into a weapon of reactionary political struggle,” and it is said that genetics "for their own political purposes" supposedly "carry out fascist use „laws“ this science".

These kinds of attacks were not accidental. The assertions of geneticists that the external environment can change heredity only by inducing mutations in hereditary records were categorically at odds with the views of Stalin. Rarely occurring mutations could not satisfy him, since he was convinced that the correct - Stalinist - upbringing would change the heredity of the entire Soviet people and subsequent generations would behave according to his, Stalinist standards, that it was necessary to purposefully change the conditions for growing plants and animals and create high-speed at the pace of plant varieties and animal breeds. And here these geneticists talk about the conservatism of heredity and the notorious genes, which do not exist at all.

In 1938, the election of the best scientists as members of the USSR Academy of Sciences was announced. In January 1939, in Pravda, A. N. Bakh, B. A. Keller and six young scientists who joined them made a statement that Koltsov and L. S. Berg, an outstanding zoogeographer, could not be elected academicians. The letter was entitled: “False scientists have no place in the Academy of Sciences.” After such an article, neither Koltsov nor Berg became academicians (the latter was elected in 1946), and the Presidium of the USSR Academy of Sciences appointed a special commission to examine cases at the Koltsov Institute.

Members of the commission, including Lysenko, began visiting the institute and talking with employees. In the end, a general meeting of the institute’s staff was scheduled, at which the commission was going to listen to the employees and read out its decision. The scientists of the institute, however, turned out to be faithful to their director, and almost no one said a word of condemnation towards him. Only two spoke out against Koltsov: the head of the institute’s genetics department, N.P. Dubinin, who was eager to become the director, and an outsider who had the same goals, Kh.S. Koshtoyants (animal physiologist who preferred to advance along the party-social line).

The meeting fully supported Koltsov, which was a completely surprising fact for those days: according to the existing rules of the game, the collective should have condemned N.K., but there were no traitors or weak-willed people in it. And if the team did not do this, then the NKVD did not have any formal grounds to prosecute Koltsov for sabotage at that moment. Nikolai Konstantinovich himself, and this time not retreating from his courageous position, spoke at the meeting calmly and without trembling in his voice said what in those days no one dared to say in such situations.

He did not agree with any of the accusations, did not plead guilty to anything and did not repent: “I made mistakes twice in my life,” he said. “Once, due to my youth and inexperience, I incorrectly identified one spider. Another time, the same story happened with another representative of invertebrates. Until I was 14 years old, I believed in God, and then I realized that there is no God, and I began to relate to religious prejudices, like every competent biologist. But can I say that I was wrong before I was 14? This was my life, my path, and I will not deny myself.”

On April 16, 1939, the Presidium of the USSR Academy of Sciences removed Koltsov from the post of director of the institute, but left him as head of the laboratory.

At the end of November 1940, Koltsov and his wife went to Leningrad for a scientific conference. Suddenly, without any symptoms that would have appeared before, he suffered a myocardial infarction, and three days later, on December 2, he died in a hotel.

His wife wrote: “Now a big, beautiful, integral life has ended. During his illness, one night he clearly told me: “How I wished for everyone to wake up, for everyone to wake up.” Even on the day of the attack, he worked a lot in the library and was happy. We told him that we were “happy, happy, happy.”

With this note, Koltsov’s wife ended her stay on earth. Without her husband, she saw no point in existing and ended her life that same day. Academician of the USSR Academy of Medical Sciences I.B. Zbarsky in the book “Object No. 1” stated that Koltsov was apparently poisoned by the security officers with heart poison sprinkled into a sandwich.

Three quarters of a century after the death of N.K. Koltsov, scientists came to his principle of the cytoskeleton for the second time. Christian de Duve, Albert Claude and Georg Palade were awarded the Nobel Prize in 1974 for their work on the structure of cells. The idea of ​​the double structure of hereditary molecules was proposed by N.K. a quarter of a century earlier than the DNA double helix model of James Watson and Francis Crick, which earned a Nobel Prize in 1962 (and although Watson assured me several times in 1988-2000 that he and Crick were nothing knew about Koltsov’s model, I have doubts about this).

Arthur Kornberg's ideas about the mechanisms of DNA copying during the process of doubling (replication) and his isolation of DNA polymerase 1, coinciding with Koltsev's, were awarded the Nobel Prize in 1959. Russia lost its priority in science in these areas precisely because the communists interfered with Koltsov’s work, banned him from contacts with the West during his lifetime, and crossed out his name in their country after his sudden death.

But nature does not tolerate a vacuum. Without the continuation of the work of Koltsov’s school, without the appearance of articles in foreign literature in which researchers would mention the name of the author of the original ideas, not only the ideas, but also his name remained known only to historians of biology.

There is still no monument to Nikolai Konstantinovich Koltsov in Moscow.

American biophysicist and historian of science, Dr. physical and mathematical sciences,
Honorary Professor of Moscow State University, Kazan and Rostov Universities

Nikolai Konstantinovich Koltsov(July 3 (15), 1872, Moscow - December 2, 1940, Leningrad) - Russian biologist, founder of the Russian Soviet school of experimental biology, author of the fundamental idea of ​​matrix synthesis of chromosomes. Corresponding member of the St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences since 1916 (USSR Academy of Sciences - since 1925), academician of the All-Russian Academy of Agricultural Sciences (1935). Honored Scientist of the RSFSR (1934).

Biography

Born into a Moscow family of an accountant for a large fur company.

In 1890, he graduated from the 6th Moscow Gymnasium with a gold medal and entered the natural sciences department of the Faculty of Physics and Mathematics of Moscow University, where he initially specialized in the field of comparative anatomy and comparative embryology. Koltsov’s scientific supervisor during this period was one of the leading Russian zoologists M. A. Menzbier.

After graduating (in 1895) from the university with a 1st degree diploma and a gold medal for the essay “The Girdle of the Hind Limbs and the Hind Limbs of Animals” (1894), he was recommended by Menzbier to remain “to prepare for a professorship” in the department of comparative anatomy.

Since the autumn of 1897, he studied abroad: in Flemming's histological laboratory in Kiel and at various zoological stations - in Naples, Villafranca, Roskov.

Since 1899, Koltsov has been a private assistant professor at Moscow University. In 1901 he defended his master's thesis “Development of the head of the lamprey.” This work outlined the outlines of a completely new direction in biology - a physical and chemical explanation of the form of living formations. In 1902-1903, Koltsov again worked abroad: in laboratories in Germany (with Büchli and Flemming) and at marine biological stations in Naples and Villafranca. While engaged in physical and chemical studies of intracellular structures, he developed the so-called “Koltsov principle”, according to which the shape of the cell depends on the shape of the colloidal particles that form the cellular skeleton (cytoskeleton). The work “Research on the sperm of decapods in connection with general considerations regarding the organization of the cell” (1905), begun on his second trip abroad, was intended for a doctoral dissertation.

At the beginning of 1906, Koltsov refused to defend his doctoral dissertation, supporting the strike of Moscow University students that began at that time. On the opening day of the first Duma, he published a brochure “In Memory of the Fallen. Victims from among Moscow students in October and December days"; the book was confiscated on the same day, although more than half of the circulation had already sold out. All this caused the displeasure and anger of his supervisor, and later the displeasure of the university rector; during 1906-1909, through the efforts of M. A. Menzbier, he was limited in teaching and scientific activities, as a result of which he was forced to actually transfer his scientific and pedagogical activities from the walls of Moscow University: already from 1903 he was a professor at the Higher Women's Courses, and from 1908 he became a professor at the Shanyavsky People's University, where in 1912 he organized the first educational and research laboratory of experimental biology and taught until 1918. Speaking for university freedoms in 1911, as a sign of disagreement with the policies of the Minister of Public Education L.A. Kasso, he left the university along with a large group of professors and associate professors (the Kasso case). Koltsov returned to Moscow University only after February 1917 and taught there until 1929.

In 1916, he was elected a corresponding member of the St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences in the biological category of the department of physical and mathematical sciences (Russian - since 1917, USSR Academy of Sciences - since 1925); Academician of VASKhNIL (1935).

Since the inception of the journal Nature in 1912, he has been its co-editor, and since 1914 - editor.

In the summer of 1917, with funds from the Moscow Society of Scientific Institutes, the Institute of Experimental Biology was created, headed by N.K. Koltsov. All of its main scientific achievements of the post-revolutionary period are associated with work at this institute. It was the first multidisciplinary institute, independent of higher educational institutions, which united biologists of various specialties - geneticists, physiologists, cytologists, etc. By the 1930s, it had become a recognized world-class scientific center. The persecution of genetics, naturally, could not but affect the institute. In 1938, the institute was transferred from the People's Commissariat of Health of the RSFSR to the USSR Academy of Sciences, reorganized and renamed the Institute of Cytology, Histology and Embryology, and the following year Koltsov was removed from the post of director.

Biologist, zoologist, geneticist.

He graduated from high school with a gold medal.

In 1890 he entered the natural sciences department of the Faculty of Physics and Mathematics Moscow University, who graduated in 1894 with a First Class diploma and a Gold Medal for the essay “The Belt of the Hind Limbs of Vertebrates.” He was left at the university to prepare for a professorship. He specialized under the professor of embryology and histology V. N. Lvov. It was Lvov who introduced Koltsov to the famous work of A. Weisman “On the rudimentary path,” which determined Koltsov’s scientific path.

In 1896, having passed his master's exams, Koltsov went on a business trip abroad. In Kiel (Germany) he worked in the laboratory of Professor W. Flemming. The topic of Koltsov’s work, “The Germ Path in the Development of Amphibians,” was of little interest to him. “...In any case, Flemming’s laboratory,” Koltsov later wrote, “was little suitable for posing such problems. Flemming himself hardly worked in the laboratory at this time; Apparently, signs of a serious illness had already appeared, which a few years later brought him to the grave.

He also lectured on human anatomy and was interested in his butterfly collections; but he took very little interest in my preparations, leaving me to his young assistant F. Meves. The latter was a little older than me, and we became very good friends. He was very strong in microscopic technology; by this time he had already published excellent works on salamander spermatogenesis. A very subtle observer, he specialized in the study of such intracellular formations that lie on the border of visibility. Thanks to his skillful microscopic technique, he was able to see clearly what other microscopists could not see. Meves’ excellent drawings are so accurate that they still do not raise doubts.”

After Kiel, Koltsov worked at biological stations in Italy - in Naples and Villafranca. There he began the study “Development of the head of the lamprey,” which, upon returning to Russia, he defended as a master’s thesis.

While working abroad, Koltsov met many of the greatest biologists of his time - I. Delage, K. Herbst, E. Wilson, G. Driesch, M. Hartmann. He quickly entered their circle, many of them became his friends. Many years later, Max Hartmann recalled the Italian biological stations: “...There was the brilliant Nikolai Koltsov, perhaps the best zoologist of our generation, a benevolent, incredibly educated, clear-thinking scientist, adored by everyone who knew him. He often visited Western European laboratories, and we were friends from our student days.”

In 1902, Koltsov continued his research at the biological station in Villafranca, and then at the German universities of Heidelberg, Giessen, Strasbourg, Kiel, Rostock, Berlin, and Leipzig. By the way, in Heidelberg, Koltsov, in the laboratory of the famous cytologist Büchli, began the first part of his outstanding “Research on the Form of the Cell.”

Returning to Russia, Koltsov lectured at the Higher Women's Courses and taught a course in invertebrate zoology at Moscow University.

In 1905, he submitted a dissertation to the university for the degree of Doctor of Zoology - “Research on the sperm of decapods.” However, the defense scheduled for January 1906 did not take place. Shocked by the bloody December events that played out in Moscow, Koltsov, who always took everything that happened to his country close to his heart, published a book - “In Memory of the Fallen. Victims from among Moscow students in October and December days.” On the first pages, Koltsov cited a speech by Emperor Nicholas II addressed to the Life Guards of the Semenovsky Regiment, and after the speech, a long list of killed students. The book went on sale on the opening day of the State Duma and was immediately confiscated. However, a small part of the circulation was sold. All proceeds from the sale went to help imprisoned students.

“...I refused to defend my dissertation on such days behind closed doors,” Koltsov later wrote. “The students were on strike, and I decided I didn’t need a doctorate.” Later, with my speeches during the revolutionary months, I completely upset my relationship with the professional professors, and the thought of defending my dissertation no longer occurred to me.”

As a result of the conflict that began, Koltsov’s supervisor, Professor Menzbier, removed his student from conducting all practical classes, and in 1909 he completely deprived him of the opportunity to teach at Moscow University.

At the same time, Koltsov experienced unrequited love, which greatly affected him. Only intense work at the Naples and Villafranca biological stations distracted him from his worries.

In Italy he continued his “Research on the Form of the Cell”.

He worked on this multi-volume study almost all his life.

Naturally adjacent to it were such works as “On the Question of Cellular Form” (1912), “Physiological Series of Cations” (1912), “The Influence of Hydrogen Ions on Phagocytosis in Freshwater Suvoei” (1915), “Physical and Chemical Bases of Pigmented Irritability, muscle and glandular cells" (1929), "Artificial partogenesis in the silkworm" (1932).

Koltsov approached “Research on the Form of the Cell” with a clear understanding that the physical mass of any living cell consists mainly of semi-liquid cytoplasm. This means, he believed, that the very shape of the cell should be determined by the presence of some elastic threads or hard hoops. In the famous experiments of Plato, an extraordinary professor at the University of Ghent, a drop of oil in a liquid always took the shape of a ball, which means that if you tighten the balls of cells with some kind of “hoops”, you can get a wide variety of shapes. Based on the experiments of Professor Plato and using physical and chemical influences on the cell, Koltsov actually revealed a lot of complex structures that determine the shape of the cells being studied. In his work “On the shape-determining elastic formations in cells,” he formulated a principle that was later called the “Koltsov principle”: the more powerful and durable the various elastic formations inside the cell are, the more the cells move away from the spherical shape.

Returning to Russia, Koltsov received a teaching position at the Shanyavsky Moscow People's University. At the same university there were various laboratories, including biological ones. Koltsov led the latter from 1913 to 1917. By that time, Koltsov’s work had brought him fame in scientific circles. Koltsov's candidacy was nominated as a full member of the Russian Academy of Sciences. But since the conditions of admission required a mandatory move to the capital, Koltsov withdrew his candidacy. In Moscow, he taught at the Higher Women's Courses, worked in a biological laboratory, and his students and like-minded people also worked here. As a result, he was elected a corresponding member of the Academy of Sciences and remained in Moscow.

The turbulent revolutionary years did not pass Koltsov by.

One day he was arrested by Cheka officers. The scientist spent several days in a cell, awaiting execution, but did not become despondent at all. The reflections to which he indulged later resulted in a small work - “On the physiology of emaciation.”

Koltsov understood perfectly well that the hungry, cold country lying in ruins was in dire need of knowledge. He took every opportunity to convey knowledge to the widest part of the population. In one of his radio speeches he said:

“...There is a fairly widespread belief that science is opposed to life. Life with its everyday concerns and interests flows by itself, and science, which separates the human mind from these small demands of the current day, stands somewhere above life, outside of it. The scientist’s thought is occupied with some complex, lofty tasks that are inaccessible to the understanding of every ordinary person, and in everyday matters he is completely helpless and lost. Folk humor picked up this isolation of the scientist from life and evil, and sometimes quite aptly emphasized it in artistic images. Our Russian Petrushka and his own older brother, the hero of the Italian folk comedy Pulcinella, mock the learned doctor and always know how to make him a fool. In folk fables, the scientist speaks in stilted language about incomprehensible subjects, and only when he gets into trouble - falls into a hole - does he remember that he must speak like a human being, as everyone else does, in order to be understood and rescued from trouble. Lev Nikolayevich Tolstoy, during the period of his simplification, mocked the learned slackers, whom a man should feed and water, so that they would do things that no one needs. During this period of his life, Tolstoy was inclined to recognize only hard physical work with a hump and hands as real work. To ridicule mental work, in one fairy tale he brought out such a smart guy who tried to work with his head, banging it against the wall. And, of course, nothing came of such work. He mocked scientists who collect all sorts of flies and cockroaches or look at cells and all sorts of things in cells through a microscope, instead of plowing the land, collecting bread and doing good to people. All this was said and written many years before our revolution, which produced a sharp revolution in the consciousness of the masses. They say that there are different sciences: practical or applied sciences, necessary for practical life, and abstract sciences, which you can do without. No one will laugh at an engineer building a factory. But why not laugh at an astronomer counting stars, or an absent-minded mathematician always calculating something incomprehensible, or a biologist examining some cells or boogers through a microscope?

But there are no theoretical and applied sciences.

There is only one science and its application in practical life.”

In another article devoted to very specific issues of agricultural development, Koltsov wrote:

“...Every peasant must know the basics of metabolism in plants, because otherwise he will not understand why it is necessary to throw phosphorites, lime or saltpeter into the ground, and the advice of an agronomist will have the same meaning for him as the spells of a healer. Every peasant should know how a person and his domestic animals become infected with echinococcus, otherwise he, still refusing to eat the nasty, blistered liver of the cow he killed, will feed it to dogs and thereby spread a serious disease. He must know the beginnings of microbiology in order to be convinced of the need to sterilize the seeds with formaldehyde, which increases the yield by several percent. He must be able to distinguish at least some harmful insects and know their biology, since in his field he alone can notice their first appearance. We are fighting for the electrification and chemicalization of the country, but for the vast masses of our peasant population we need biologization first of all.”

Even before the revolution, in 1916, on the initiative of Koltsov, the Institute of Experimental Biology was created in Moscow.

In 1917, Koltsov was elected its director.

Starting in an era when biology was mainly descriptive, Koltsov keenly felt the need for an experimental, evidence-based approach to biological problems. In the early years, the Institute of Experimental Biology occupied only three rooms, but in 1920, with its inclusion in the system of Soviet research institutions, the territory of the institute and its staff were dramatically expanded. By the way, Koltsov lived right next to the institute. The door from his apartment led directly to his office and laboratory.

In 1918, Koltsov was elected professor of the Second Moscow University, and a little later - of the First. Since 1919, he has been the director of the Central Station for the Genetics of Farm Animals of the People's Commissariat of Agriculture of the RSFSR. Since 1920 - Chairman of the Russian Eugenics Society.

Koltsov became interested in eugenics back in the pre-revolutionary years.

He considered the main task of eugenics to be the study of human heredity.

“...It is important for us to understand,” he wrote, “where the psychic abilities that an outstanding person exhibits during his lifetime originated. We are easily convinced that the environment in which he developed and worked, the upbringing and education he received, as well as economic conditions are very different: under the same external conditions, thousands of his contemporaries developed and worked simultaneously with the genius, but the vast majority of them did nothing or showed itself in almost nothing and left no memory of itself to posterity. The reason for this is, of course, the variety of mental inclinations with which different people are born, obviously as different in innate abilities as in hair color, height, health and other physical characteristics. Gone are the days when not only naive ordinary people, but also deep thinkers expressed confidence that the genius of individual individuals represents some kind of mystical property that sharply distinguishes them from all other people - the “holy spirit”, mysteriously descending on the chosen few and prophets Genius owes its origin to a happy and rare combination of hereditary mental inclinations.”

In the Russian Eugenics Society, of which Koltsov was elected chairman, such prominent scientists as anthropologist V.V. Bunak, doctors A.I. Abrikosov, G.I. Rossolimo, D.D. Pletnev, biologists A.S. took an active part. Serebrovsky, Yu. A. Filipchenko. The People's Commissar of Health N.A. Semashko and the writer M. Gorky showed great interest in the Society, which undoubtedly contributed, if not to the prosperity, then to the development of the Society. Koltsov’s deep passion for the subject from time to time prompted him to make statements, which his opponents immediately interpreted in the most undesirable way:

“... It is enough to assume that Mendel’s laws would have been discovered a century earlier: Russian landowners and American slave owners, who had power over the marriages of their serfs and slaves, could have achieved, using the doctrine of heredity, very significant results in breeding special desirable breeds of people.”

“...Thanks to the rise of culture and the spread of the idea of ​​equality, the struggle for existence in human society lost its severity and beneficial natural selection almost ceased.”

“...the preservation of representatives of the active type has absolute genetic value, regardless of their temporary phenotypic way of thinking.”

“...After a revolution, especially a long one, the race is poorer in active elements.”

However, in articles of that time, Koltsov more than once emphasized that, although man is subject to the same laws of heredity as other organisms, techniques and methods that are quite suitable for experiments with animals are not applicable to him. “...Modern man will not give up the most precious freedom - the right to choose a spouse of his own choice,” Koltsov wrote in the article “Improving the Human Race,” “and even where there was serfdom between man and man, this freedom was returned to slaves before anyone else.” other violations of personal freedom. From this basic difference between the development of the human race and the breeding of domestic animals flow all the other differences between eugenics and animal science.”

In 1921, Koltsov published the famous article “Genealogies of our nominees,” in which he showed the origin and development of the talents of M. Gorky, L. Leonov, F. Chaliapin, S. Yesenin, V. Ivanov and many others. The scientist’s conclusion was optimistic: “The genealogies of the nominees we examined clearly characterize the wealth of the Russian people with valuable genes.”

Due to the same passion, Koltsov considered it quite possible to consider eugenics as a kind of religion.

“...The ideals of socialism,” he wrote, “are closely connected with our earthly life: the dream of creating a perfect order in relations between people is the same religious idea, because of which people go to their death. Eugenics set itself a high ideal, which is also worthy of giving meaning to life and pushing a person to sacrifice and self-restraint: to create, through the conscious work of many generations, a higher type of person, a powerful king of nature and creator of life.”

Unfortunately, the assessment of Koltsov’s own views was also influenced by some illegibility of the Russian Eugenics Journal, which often published translated articles without any comments at all or with such comments that in those years could only cause a negative attitude. For example, in a note to the program of the Council of the English Eugenics Society published in the journal, it was said that benefits for each child should be added to the salary in proportion to the wages of the parents - “... to promote the reproduction of higher types of the population.” And in a brief note to the “Guidelines of the German Society of Racial Hygiene”, published in 1924, Yu. A. Filipchenko wrote: “Their translation is given in full. Moreover, we will refrain from making any comments.” But from these “Guiding Notes” the roots of the philosophy of German fascism grew.

“...When summing up N.K. Koltsov’s views on human genetics and eugenics, it becomes obvious that they have evolved greatly,” noted Koltsov’s students B.L. Astaurov and P.F. Rokitsky in 1975. – Starting with the acceptance of the ideas of bourgeois eugenicists, he ultimately came to recognize the role of the external environment, including the social one, in the development of human characteristics and the need to study human genetics. But being far from methodological issues, Koltsov could not give a critical assessment of the provisions of bourgeois eugenics. Himself a sincere and humane person, he did not see their inhumane essence and therefore made a number of mistakes. Eugenics had no scientific basis and was reduced to a series of proposals for external intervention in the phenomena of human life and society under the guise of supposed concern for the heredity of future generations. But when eugenic provisions began to be used for openly reactionary and even fascist purposes, Koltsov showed a sense of civic duty and himself went to liquidate the eugenics society and close the Russian Eugenics Journal.

His contribution to human genetics is undeniable.”

Since 1922, Koltsov was the editor of the book series “Classics of Natural Science” and “Modern Problems of Natural Science.” He also edited “Advances in Experimental Biology” and “Russian Eugenics Journal”. The biological series “Freshwater Fauna of European Russia” and the “Bulletin of the Moscow Society of Natural Scientists” were published under his editorship.

In 1927, in a report “Physico-chemical foundations of morphology”, read at the III Congress of Zoologists, Anatomists and Histologists in Leningrad, Koltsov expressed the idea of ​​​​the molecular basis of heredity. According to this idea of ​​his, new complex micelle molecules could be formed only on the basis of old ones, serving as seeds for them.

That is, Koltsov was the first to hypothesize the principle of matrix synthesis.

Koltsov also attributed this principle to the chromosomes responsible for the process of hereditary transmission. He wrote: “...If we recognize that the most essential part of the chromosome are long protein molecules consisting of several tens or hundreds of groups of radicals, then Morgan’s concept of the chromosome as a linear series of genes will receive a clear concrete basis. The radicals of the chromosomal molecule - genes - occupy a very specific place in it. And the slightest chemical changes in these radicals, for example, the removal of certain atoms and replacing them with others (for example, replacing hydrogen with methyl), should be a source of new mutations.”

At the end of the twenties, Koltsov thought a lot about the essence of life and its origin. He considered the well-known hypothesis of Arrhenius about the introduction of life to Earth from other worlds to be completely unconvincing. He was inclined to believe that the first living carbonaceous organisms could have arisen on Earth from some “proto-organisms” unknown to us, which lacked any specific characteristics in order to identify them with real living organisms. Such ancestral organisms could be, Koltsov wrote, “... micelles of hydrophilic colloids.” Since, he believed, these micelles differed in the degree of stability, while simultaneously possessing the ability to exchange substances, between them there should have been “... a clearly expressed struggle for existence.” Growing through crystallization to a certain size, they could divide and multiply. “... Such micelles - winners in the struggle for existence - have a chance to survive and become the starting point for further evolution, periodically entering into new, rare and rare combinations.”

Koltsov believed that the appearance of micelles occurs in our time. True, they have no chance to survive, since their competitors in our time are bacteria.

Since 1929, Koltsov has been editor of the departments of biology, zoology, protistology, botany, evolutionary studies, genetics and mechanics of development of the Great Medical Encyclopedia. Since 1930, he has been in charge of the genetics and selection sector, as well as the laboratory of experimental cytology and hematology of the All-Union Institute of Animal Husbandry of the All-Union Academy of Agricultural Sciences.

His work related to the study of mutations dates back to the same time.

In 1930 in Kyiv, at the opening of the IV All-Union Congress of Zoologists, Anatomists and Histologists, Koltsov said: “... It is necessary, by strong shaking of the rudimentary cells, to change their hereditary organization and, among the various, mostly probably ugly, but hereditarily persistent forms that arise, select viable ones and strengthen their existence by careful selection. And I believe that we are not far from waiting for the time when man, by his powerful will, will create new life forms. This is the most significant task of experimental biology, which it can now set for itself, without postponing it to the distant future.”

In studying mutations, Koltsov used a variety of approaches.

On his instructions, fruit flies were raised to a height of twenty kilometers on the “1-bis USSR” stratospheric balloon. There was no noticeable difference in mutation rates between fruit flies raised into the stratosphere and fruit flies observed in the laboratory, but the approach certainly looked promising.

At the same time, in the article “The Problem of Progressive Evolution”, Koltsov noted that the concepts of “higher” and “lower”, “progressive” and “regressive”, used in biology, are too anthropomorphic. With the undeniably high development of the brain, capable of forming an infinite number of conditioned reflexes (which, in fact, is what distinguishes the species Homo sapiens from other animal species), humans experience underdevelopment of a number of physical characteristics, and also retain in adulthood some structural features characteristic of the embryo . In other words, in the process of development of living organisms, progress is always combined with regression. Therefore, Koltsov believed, the pedigree of the living world should be depicted not in the form of a tree or horsetail, but rather in the form of branched mangroves, both going up and spreading in breadth.

Koltsov’s foresight on evolutionary issues can be called amazing. In 1932, he wrote: “...It would be wrong to think that exclusively expedient features played a role in the evolution of species. On the contrary, Darwin already noted that the vast majority of characters by which closely related species differ from each other have no adaptive significance. Recently, in connection with the successes of genetics, the problem of the accumulation of a mass of useless, but also harmless mutations has been subjected to interesting mathematical analysis. S.S. Chetverikov and his students here, Fisher and Wright in America are studying the mathematical probability of the accumulation of genes that randomly (i.e., for example, under the influence of radioactivity) arose in populations. With isolation and subsequent inbreeding (“blood marriages”), thanks to the periodic “waves of life” that cause uneven reproduction, such genes can become attached to a race and lead, even without the participation of natural selection, to the emergence of new subspecies and species that differ from each other in useless traits.”

“It is currently generally accepted that modern evolutionary teaching is a synthesis of classical Darwinism with data from genetics, cytology and other experimental sciences of the 20th century,” wrote B. L. Astaurov and P. F. Rokitsky in 1975. – The authors of the synthetic theory of evolution are usually called J. Huxley, E. Mayr and other foreign scientists. And it’s a shame that Koltsov’s work on this issue remained unknown outside the Soviet Union, because the main ideas of such a synthesis were formulated by N.K. Koltsov and his student S.S. Chetverikov.”

“The last years of N.K. Koltsov’s life,” wrote Astaurov and Rokitsky, “were overshadowed by attacks on some fundamental principles of modern biology and a number of its fields, such as genetics, cytology, etc., which began in the 30s. Even during his lifetime Koltsov began to deny the role of chromosomes in heredity, those chromosomes to the study of which N.K. Koltsov devoted a significant part of his scientific activity. Genes, the material nature of which was substantiated by the work of the Morgan school and which, according to Koltsov, were located in the genonemes of chromosomes, were considered non-existent, and the doctrine of the gene itself was considered idealistic. The role of natural selection - the main Darwinian factor of evolution - was denied, and instead the direct adaptation of organisms to the environment was put forward, i.e. Lamarck’s principle, or even the sudden “generation of species”. This resulted in the recognition of the inheritance of acquired characteristics - a philistine prejudice against which N.K. Koltsov always rebelled so much. Naturally, being the largest figure in the field of genetics and cytology in the USSR, N.K. Koltsov, along with N.I. Vavilov, found himself in the mid-30s in the face of a growing wave of antigenetic and anti-Darwinian dogmatism and, together with N.I. Vavilov took the brunt of her blow. However, these blows fell on the heads of a number of students of N. I. Vavilov and N. K. Koltsov, although many of them, such as A. S. Serebrovsky and M. M. Zavadovsky, had not worked with N. for a long time. K. Koltsov, but created independent scientific schools and in a number of cases followed their own paths in science. But N.K. Koltsov was a leader, and he was made responsible for everything, including the mistakes of other geneticists - real and imaginary.

In addition to criticism of experimental biology in general, there were a number of attacks addressed directly to N.K. Koltsov. Thus, regarding the idea of ​​genoneme as a hereditary molecule and the matrix principle of its formation, which was a brilliant foresight, the significance of which can only be appreciated today, Koltsov was reproached for placing chromosomes and genoneme outside of metabolism. In general, a certain almost mystical role in characterizing the phenomena of life was attributed to metabolism. In fact, Koltsov quite clearly substantiated the role of metabolism in relation to the chromosome in an article entitled “The structure of chromosomes and metabolism in them”...

It was completely wrong to accuse N.K. Koltsov of separating theory from practice. (However, the same accusation was thrown at N.I. Vavilov, whose entire brilliant activity was aimed at increasing the productivity of our fields, A.S. Serebrovsky, who laid the foundations for the scientific selection of animals in the USSR, and other scientists from the camp of the so-called “Mendelists” -Morganists.”) In fact, none other than N.K. Koltsov, being a theoretical zoologist by training and in the first years of scientific activity, was keenly and deeply interested in various areas of animal husbandry and medicine. He studied them himself and oriented his students towards the development of the genetic foundations of animal selection, private genetics and the selection of individual species. N.K. Koltsov created a genetic station and directed it for a number of years. He worked at the All-Russian Academy of Agricultural Sciences, developed the doctrine of blood groups and chemical properties, dealt with issues of rejuvenation and organ transplantation, and introduced into practice methods of culture of human tissues and cells.

...Already in the decline of his life, Koltsov, without hesitation, chose the path of struggle against falsehood and obscurantism and, sacrificing the post of head of the institute, to which he devoted 22 years of his life, went with his life partner M. P. Sadovnikova-Koltsova into the silence of his small laboratory .

This was in 1938."

Somewhat earlier, in 1934, Koltsov was awarded the title of Honored Scientist of the RSFSR, and in 1935 he was elected a full member of the All-Union Academy of Agricultural Sciences. At the same time, Koltsov was finally awarded the degree of Doctor of Zoology.

In 1940, Koltsov went on a business trip to Leningrad. There, at the European Hotel, he suffered a heart attack.

N.K. Koltsov in 1922. Portrait by sculptor N.A. Andreeva.
(Photo by E.V. Ramensky)

In 2003, the world will celebrate the fiftieth anniversary of the publication of J. Watson and F. Crick's article on the structure of DNA. However, the hypothesis about the matrix organization of the “substance of heredity” is the largest biological idea of ​​the 20th century. She was born not in the USA and Great Britain, but in Russia. More precisely, in the Soviet Union. Its author was Nikolai Konstantinovich Koltsov. However, in the USSR the name of one of the greatest biologists of the 20th century. was erased from the history of science for many years.

One hundred and twenty years ago, F. Dostoevsky complained that Russia did not yet have a science equal to its famous literature. But by that time our country had already become a powerful stronghold of Darwinism. By the end of the nineteenth century. Russian biology has already counted more than one major discovery. These were the works of I. Mechnikov, I. Sechenov and I. Pavlov, the discovery of double fertilization in flowering plants by S. Navashin, chemosynthesis by S. Vinogradsky, viruses by D. Ivanovsky, the invention of the chromatography method by the botanist M. Tsvet, K. Merezhkovsky’s hypothesis about the origin of cellular organelles from symbiont bacteria and much more. Russia became the birthplace of a new science - soil science (V. Dokuchaev). At the very beginning of the twentieth century. among the first laureates of the newly established Nobel Prize were already Pavlov and Mechnikov.

When Dostoevsky was publishing “A Writer’s Diary,” Kolya Koltsov had just entered the gymnasium. He was born in 1872 in Moscow into a family with average income and strong moral foundations. Lost his father early. His mother, a merchant's daughter, was an educated woman, and his maternal grandfather was known as a famous polyglot. The Russian merchants were by no means represented only by the “Tit Titychs Wild”. Among the merchants there were a sufficient number of smart, educated people who generously donated to charity, to support education, science and art.

Nikolai Koltsov taught himself to read at the age of 4, was interested in plants and animals, and, after graduating from high school, in 1890 he entered the natural sciences department of the Faculty of Physics and Mathematics of Moscow University. There his teacher was a zoologist, Professor M. Menzbier. Koltsov, while still a student, received a gold medal for his work on the development of the girdle of the hind limbs of vertebrates.

After completing a university course in Moscow, Koltsov spent 1896–1897. at foreign universities and at hydrobiological (then called zoological) stations near the warm seas in France and Italy. He prepared his master's thesis (which he defended in 1901) on the development of the lamprey's head. The opportunity to work with living objects, personal communication with famous scientists from Europe and America, friendship and disputes with young researchers - all this led to a sharp turn in Koltsov’s scientific interests. From comparative anatomy he moves on to the study of the cell, defining this direction as “substance and form”, and in his last, unfinished work (late 1940) – as “chemistry and morphology”. Koltsov was convinced: it was necessary to create a new, holistic picture of biology, relying on the achievements of chemistry, physics and mathematics. The scientist asks the question: “Has our generation put forward an idea that is not inferior to Darwin’s?” Both he and his students largely succeeded in defining the face of biological science in the 20th century. It remains for the present century.

Koltsov’s first publication in a new direction: “On the shape-determining elastic formations in cells” (1903), was carried out on the sperm of decapod crustaceans Inachus scorpio. He developed this direction on various objects in a large work, published in several parts, “Research on the Form of Cells” (1905–1929). This work included morphological, physiological and biophysical directions. I had never before encountered in works about Koltsov the realization that he was the first in the world to show the existence of the cytoskeleton as a special structure. Only in the 60–70s. XX century Using an electron microscope, they were able to identify the types of cytoskeletal proteins that form microtubules, microfilaments and intermediate filaments, which determine the shape of cells and their motility. Now no one remembers Koltsov, although his foreign colleagues before the First World War called these ideas “Koltsov’s principle of cell organization,” and this principle was included in textbooks, monographs and lecture courses. And in Russia, a scientist who was formally only a master’s degree was “disgraced” because of his political views and participation in the 1905 revolution; for these works in the 1910s. was nominated for nomination as a full member of the Imperial St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences. The condition was Koltsov’s move to the capital and occupation of the department created “for him.” But the scientist refused to leave Moscow, where his school of experimental biologists had already developed, and became “just” a corresponding member (i.e., a nonresident member) of the Academy of Sciences.

Diagram of a chromosome before cell division, according to Koltsov. Four identical (2+2) polymer molecules are visible - genonemes

Koltsov was the first to realize and clearly express that the infinite variety of biological forms appears to be based on a limited set of macromolecules. For years he worked towards the idea of ​​matrix reproduction of hereditary molecules. Koltsov understood that hereditary structures are stable and linear. They have vector properties (in modern terms - a strictly defined sequence of alternation of monomers in a polymer molecule). In his lectures in 1903, a scheme for the crossing of chromosomes with subsequent gene exchange was already predicted - what was later called crossing over and was included in textbooks as the most important pattern of transmission of genetic information.

Seventy-five years ago, in December 1927, at the III All-Union Congress of Zoologists, Anatomists and Histologists in Leningrad, the idea of ​​matrix reproduction was made public for the first time. In 1928, she also appeared in the magazine Biologisches Zentralblatt. It contained such main provisions as the concept of giant polymer molecules and the matrix method of doubling them. Small nuclear sap molecules assemble complementarily on an existing template and are then “stitched” into a polymeric protein molecule, a copy of the template. At that time, nothing was known about nucleic acids as polymers. It is important that the same double helix that would be discovered in 1953 by Watson and Crick was being drawn. Genes, according to Koltsov, constitute autonomous parts of this molecule. They are represented by different side radicals of a monotonous giant chain, which Koltsov, an excellent teacher, briefly and biologically called genoneme- a thread of genes. The term is incomparably better than the modern one - “deoxyribonucleic acid macromolecule”. A constant, conservative inherited matrix is ​​not destroyed and does not arise anew, it passes from parents to descendants. Of course, the scientist believed, it is capable of undergoing abrupt changes and mutating. The mutation can be caused, for example, by the alkylation reaction of the side radical, i.e. replacing hydrogen with methyl (–CH3). 20 years later, Koltsov’s student I. Rapoport will demonstrate the super-mutagenic properties of alkylating agents. But even world science in the 50s did not suspect the alkylation of nucleic acids and methylase enzymes, and Koltsov, almost 35 years before their discovery, had already foreseen this reaction in his hypothesis! It can be considered that the development of molecular biology began with his speech in 1927. Or maybe it would be more correct to consider 1903 as the year of her birth, when the scientist showed the existence in cells of an internal protein skeleton that is variable, depending on environmental conditions?

The history of the study of hereditary molecules continued in Germany, where in 1925 Koltsova’s employee N.V. Timofeev-Resovsky was sent to “teach the Germans” genetics. And this despite the fact that in 1913, at the First International Genetic Congress, Russia was represented by one geneticist - Finn Federley. Twelve years later, our country has already become, along with the United States, a powerful center of world genetics. In 1935 N.V. Timofeev-Resovsky with German physicist co-authors, K.G. Zimmer and M. Delbrück, created a target theory, and, using reverse X-ray mutations in Drosophila, were able to estimate the physical, molecular dimensions of the gene. But there was still no data on the chemical nature of the genes. The development of the idea continued after World War II. Several names should be mentioned: E. Chargaff, who used the chromatographic method of M. Tsvet to analyze the four nitrogenous bases in nucleic acids, Rosalind Franklin, who was the first to obtain an X-ray diffraction pattern of a DNA crystal, as well as our former compatriot, physicist Georgiy Gamow, who did a lot in the USA to decipher the coding method proteins in the structure of nucleic acids. But the main prize, the Nobel Prize, for these many years of work was “thwarted” in 1962 by D. Watson, F. Crick and M. Wilkinson, the leader of Franklin, who died early. But in our country, the Lysenkoites cursed the concept of “gene,” and biologists could only joke darkly: “guess an indecent three-letter word.”

The golden age of Russian biology, which began in the 19th century, continued into the 20s. XX century It was a time of remarkable discoveries: homological series and centers of origin of cultivated plants by N. Vavilov, nomogenesis by L. Berg, the work of I. Pavlov, V. Vernadsky, A. Chizhevsky, microbiologists G. Nadson, V. Omelyansky, ecologist V. Sukachev and many others.

It is difficult, sometimes impossible, to separate what Koltsov created from what his students did. Architect K. Melnikov defined creativity as “it’s mine.” This was not the case with Koltsov. And yet it is clear that many years of research on the shape and mobility of cells (cytoskeleton) and the matrix hypothesis are his and only his achievements. And besides, there was brilliant teaching at the Moscow and People's (Shanyavsky) universities, as well as at the Higher Women's (Bestuzhev) courses. Until the end of his days, his students remembered how the professor read his lectures (he prepared them anew every year), how under Koltsov’s hands images of organisms, cells and structures created with the help of colored crayons appeared, as if alive. He established departments, laboratories, experimental stations, several journals, scientific societies and, of course, the Institute of Experimental Biology (IEB).

The building on Vorontsovo Pole, 6, where the Institute of Experimental Biology was located for 30 years (since 1925). (Photo by E.V. Ramensky)

IEB was created in 1917 with money from the publisher and philanthropist A.F. Marx on Sivtsev Vrazhek, 41. At first, he had 3 employees on his staff. His main task was to spread genetics in Russia.

In 1925, thanks to the support of N. Semashko and M. Gorky, the IEB received a new building and new staff. And although, in comparison with the St. Petersburg institutes of those years - the All-Union Institute of Plant Growing N.I. Vavilov and Koltushami I.P. Pavlov - Koltsov’s institute was small, the famous German biologist R. Goldschmidt called Koltsov’s brainchild “brilliant”.

One of the most important directions of this institution was education - dissemination in our country, incl. among agronomists, veterinarians, doctors, ideas of modern biology.

The merits of Koltsov and his students in the fight against Lysenko’s pseudoscience are enormous. In 1938, Lysenko's offensive against the IEB began. N.K. Koltsov was removed from the post of director, but, having taken the blow upon himself, he managed to preserve his favorite brainchild - the Institute.

The Koltsov Institute can be likened to a choir, the conductor of which ensures that every unique voice can be heard. The teacher determined the direction of the throw and often made the first powerful jerk himself, then passing the baton to the students. The formulation of the tasks was distinguished by its novelty and unprecedented breadth of coverage. But Koltsov refused to put his name on his collaborators’ publications, although it was often he who conceived, thought through and finalized their work.

Back in 1916, Koltsov included experimental research into the evolution of organisms—modeling speciation—in the future directions of work of the IEB. He planned to test the effect of strong physical and chemical factors. First of all, X-ray radiation was tested (in the experiments of D. Romashov and N. Timofeev-Resovsky). In Russia at that time there were no genetically verified lines of Drosophila with certain signaling genes. There was a civil war going on. We were hungry, there was no firewood or our own X-ray machine. The Koltsovites received positive results, but, insuring themselves against Lamarckian errors, did not make their data public. In 1922, J. Möller arrived from the USA, the first to break through the scientific blockade of the USSR. He brought standard lines Drosophila melanogaster from New York and plunged into the idea-rich, open environment of the Koltso circle. Returning to the USA, he quickly did a paper on mutations in Drosophila under the influence of X-rays and published it in 1927, beating the Moscow Koltsovo team and Timofeev-Resovsky, who was establishing work in Germany. For this work in 1946 Möller received his Nobel Prize. I have never heard or read any reproaches about this from Koltsovo residents. Soviet geneticists loved Möller, he spent more than one year here, but the facts are stubborn.

But the Koltsevites did not relinquish their primacy in the study of mutations under the influence of chemical compounds - starting with the work of V.V. Sakharov in 1932, and, mainly, thanks to the brilliant completion in the classical works of I.A. Rapoport, awarded the Lenin Prize in 1984.

How does species formation occur in natural conditions? The theory of speciation was also created within the walls of the IEB - by the group of S. Chetverikov. Natural populations of Drosophila from the Caucasus to Germany were examined - and the facts obtained allowed us to say that new species arise due to spontaneous mutations that accumulate in any population. Population genetics made it possible to bridge the gap between the laboratory science of genetics and evolutionary theory, built by Darwin only on data on macroevolution, i.e. on the study of fossil remains of organisms of past eras.

In the 30s, the Koltsovo team (A. Serebrovsky, N. Dubinin) were the first in the world to discover the complexity of gene structure. The IEB began work on human congenital diseases. In addition to genetics and cytogenetics, they successfully studied cell structure, developmental biology, sex regulation, hormone therapy, zoopsychology, the biological effect of cosmic rays (with the help of stratospheric balloons), and were engaged in scientific microcinematography...

Koltsov saw decades ahead. From him you can read about the great future of X-ray diffraction analysis of the structure of biomolecules, find a prediction of protein synthesis in vitro using appropriate seed matrices, foresee the decisive role of genomics in constructing the natural phylogenetic tree of organisms...

Koltsov and his scientific descendants greatly influenced the fields of applied research in the USSR, from the creation of therapeutic drugs (the anticancer crucin and a whole range of producers of various antibiotics for the pharmaceutical industry) to ecology, soil science and pedagogy. From productive varieties and breeds for agriculture to medical (genetic) counseling, which grew out of the ideas of eugenics, the passion for which Koltsov was blamed for even many years after his death. At the Koltsov Institute, the now living G.V. Lopashov performed nuclear transplantation back in the 1940s - a micro-operation on which the cloning of organisms is based. The Lysenkoites banned the publication of this work! In 2000, the international Human Genome Project was recognized as the highest scientific achievement. Isn't this a triumph of Koltsov's ideas?

Among Koltsov’s students there are hundreds of famous researchers, academicians and laureates. Among them were those nominated for the Nobel Prize: N. Timofeev-Resovsky (1950) and I. Rapoport (1962). Foreign “Nobel laureates” are also indebted to Koltsov’s genius: J. Möller (1946), M. Delbrück, Timofeev’s German student (1969), and Delbrück’s student J. Watson (1962). It is significant that after the trampling down of Soviet biology in 1948, it was Koltsov’s scientific descendants who managed to rise to the world level: in chemical mutagenesis - I. Rapoport, in the regulation of sex - B. Astaurov and V. Strunnikov, in new areas of molecular genetics and “jumping genes” » – R. Khesin, G. Georgiev and V. Gvozdev.

The matrix hypothesis, experimental mutagenesis and population genetics - this is the classic, main contribution to biology by Koltsov and his students. According to N.V. Timofeev-Resovsky, this triad is the second, after Darwinian selection, general fundamental natural-historical principle. The synthetic theory of evolution—Darwinism of the 20th century—rests on it.

“A thought not inferior to Darwin’s” was put forward and experimentally proven by Koltsov, over the years it was universally recognized and largely determined the face of twentieth-century biology.