P. K. Anokhin’s answer to E. A. Asratyan’s review of “Biology and neurophysiology of conditioned reflex” monograph. Echo of Pavlovian session

The article presents previously unpublished documents, comments, and materials that were directly related to significant events in the life and performance of a Russian scientist and academician P. K. Anokhin, such as the Lenin Prize award and the Pavlovian session. The text of P. K. Anokhin's answer to the review of a corresponding member of the USSR Academy of Sciences E. A. Asratyan of P. K. Anokhin's monograph “Biology and Neurophysiology of Conditioned Reflex” submitted to the competition for the Lenin Prize, was published. In 1972, P. K. Anokhin was awarded the Lenin Prize for the monograph “Biology and Neurophysiology of Conditioned Reflex”. P. K. Anokhin answered the accusatory statements of the reviewer concerning the “danger” of the functional system for the Pavlovian doctrine and the analytical nature of the scientific method of I. P. Pavlov and answered critical questions about the “synthetic” and “systemic” approach and the priority in the development of the theory of systems and feedback. The work presented literature facts that the statements and questions of Asratyan were consistent with his accusatory comments about P. K. Anokhin at the Pavlovian session — the scientific session of the USSR Academy of Sciences and of the USSR Academy of Medical Sciences, dedicated to the physiological doctrine of academician I. P. Pavlov, which was held in Moscow in July–August 1950. At the session, P. K. Anokhin was accused of “revision” of the ideological foundations of Pavlov's teachings and of detraction of the significance of Pavlov's theory of the higher nervous activity. After the Pavlovian session, P. K. Anokhin was dismissed from the post of the director of Institute of Physiology of the USSR Academy of Medical Sciences, dismissed from the Presidium of the USSR Academy of Medical Sciences, and appointed Professor of the Department of Physiology of Ryazan Medical Institute. Over the years, E. A. Asratyan persistently criticized P. K. Anokhin as the “opponent of I. PPavlov's teaching” and actively rejected the theory of functional systems. CONCLUSION: The presented documents have not lost their significance even now. These documents are important for understanding the ideological essence of the systemic approach and of the theory of functional systems and are interesting for the history of Russian physiological science and medicine.