8 ms·

A Blight on Soviet Science

73 points by ca98am79 6y ago

ph0rque 6y ago
"... they tried to mutate science to fit into a Marxist mold." The same thing is starting to happen today in the US, except the goal is the Woke mold.
ajcp 6y ago
This is damn interesting but the podcast narration is damn boring. Great writing though.
adolph 6y ago
Instead of Mendelism, Lysenko adhered to Lamarck’s —now widely rejected —theory of the ‘inheritance of acquired characteristics’, which suggests that individuals have the ability to modify their features during their lifetime and bestow these features onto their offspring. If giraffes need to feed on tall trees, they would simply grow a longer neck and, rather conveniently, give birth to long-necked youngsters. According to Lamarckism, nurture, rather than nature, was the driving force for evolution.
- ampdepolymerase 6y ago
  - Giraffes use their neck to attack other giraffes. - Epigenetics is a thing, but it is completely different from what Lamarck/Lysenko believed.
raphlinus 6y ago
I found this story interesting, largely because of the parallels to today. Scott Atlas to me is clearly cut from the same clothe as Trofim Lysenko, and the use of hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin for Covid are the modern-day equivalent of Lysenkoism. I always wonder if these people are smart and know what they're spouting is bullshit, or just too stupid to realize it. In the end, it probably doesn't matter, the outcome is the same.
- nradov 6y ago
  That is a mischaracterization. There are multiple clinical studies which indicate that Ivermectin may be somewhat helpful for treating COVID-19. Other studies have shown no effect. It's too early to declare a firm conclusion and research continues. https://covid19criticalcare.com/medical-evidence/ivermectin/ https://covid19criticalcare.com/medical-evidence/ivermectin/
  - raphlinus 6y ago
    Ok, I'll grant the evidence is not yet in on ivermectin, but that hasn't stopped many of the same folks as were advocating HCQ from pushing it. The paper to be published in Frontiers of Pharmacology was pulled because it didn't meet the scientific standards of the journal. Or perhaps because the editorial board has an anti-ivermectin agenda and censored the maverick scientists. https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/frontiers-removes-controversial-ivermectin-paper-pre-publication-68505 https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/frontiers-removes... Another story on this I found fairly credible: https://www.medpagetoday.com/infectiousdisease/covid19/90552 https://www.medpagetoday.com/infectiousdisease/covid19/90552 And here's an authoritative source (the NIH): https://www.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/antiviral-therapy/ivermectin/ https://www.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/antiviral-the... They conclude that the evidence is not yet strong enough to recommend for or against the use of ivermectin. My accusation of Lysenkoism is for the people prescribing it without solid evidence. Obviously if the drug shows promise it should be investigated in real trials, as was done for HCQ. I'm not going to edit my original post but I think it would have been stronger if I had stuck to HCQ and not gotten into the ivermectin controversy - there's definitely still a chance it will turn out to be useful.
- Guthur 6y ago
  This story is an example of the dangers of centralised power and cronyism and less to do with the individuals rights or wrongs. Lysenko had the support of Stalin even when he was proven wrong time and again.
  - raphlinus 6y ago
vmurthy 6y ago
Vavilov dying of hunger in a prison :( Many of his friends persecuted. I like to print out articles like this and wonder what *led* to such extreme situations. Gradual slippery slope? Big bang bad decisions? All said, the big takeaway has been that science can't be subservient to politics. It's a tragic lesson on what happens if this becomes true.
- naringas 6y ago
  > what led to such extreme situations I think it's more plausibly a gradual slippery slope. the kind of slope you don't notice
  - google234123 6y ago
    How could you describe that part of russian history as anything like a gradual slippery slope? It start with a revolution followed by another more radical revolutions and went one from there. Nothing gradual about it.
    - lostlogin 6y ago
      The revolution was a reaction to the terrible leaders in Russia. The start wasn’t the revolution. Where do you pick as the beginning? I’m not sure, but the revolution was a reaction.
      - TeeMassive 6y ago
        You need to drop your Communist Manifesto and actually read what has been really going on in Russia at the time. Lenin and his cronies were revolutionaries well before the calamities of the Great War. The leaders of Russian revolutions were were mostly upper middle class intellectuals and were radicalized in relatively comfortable social circumstances at universities and in various intellectual circles. Lenin often bragged that he actively pushed people against one another so he could harness more revolutionary momentum, which led to even more calamities. And that's not even mentioning that he was implanted as an ideological virus to destroy the Russian Empire by the German agents. The revolution wasn't some romantic reaction lead by the proletariat against the oppressor. It was led by power hungry fanatics who manipulated the people's grievances to remove those who were in their way and then installed themselves into power.
trhway 6y ago
while the article is great - saying it as a Russian who finds many writings about USSR/Russia by foreign writers seriously lacking to say the least - it does miss important piece of the historical context - Michurin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivan_Vladimirovich_Michurin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivan_Vladimirovich_Michurin. Michurin was great Russian agrobiologist of pre-Vavilov generation. He had great experimental success in selection/breeding of plants. It was the time when Lamarckism and genetics were actively developed, and Michurin was naturally developing a theories of his own which also bear a dose of Lamarckism in it. Lysenko exploited the great experimental success of Michurin while using the wrong side of his theories as a foundation for his own. One can say that Lysenko used Michurin as a rootstock on which he grafted himself as seedling. So going against Lysenko, one was looking like going against Michurin's proven success and legacy. It was framed as "Michurin teaching" vs. genetics. https://www.jstor.org/stable/4441886?seq=1 https://www.jstor.org/stable/4441886?seq=1 Btw, cybernetics was also a prohibited "bourgeois pseudoscience" in USSR at those times https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suppressed_research_in_the_Soviet_Union#Cybernetics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suppressed_research_in_the_Sov... - the "formal scientific" grounds were that it goes against teaching of another great Russian scientist - Ivan Pavlov (at pop-science level known for "Pavlov's dogs")
- jbay808 6y ago
  > cybernetics was also a prohibited "bourgeois pseudoscience" in USSR at those times Huh! This surprised me, because the USSR made pretty major controbutions to cybernetics and control theory. I guess that happened after they changed their stance?
  - trhway 6y ago
    It was for relatively short period of a few years, and many of related work at that time was done just as applied math, like Pontryagin principle developed at the time. The country needed its missiles and planes after all - similarly to why the "Jewish Physics" mentioned by another commenter was allowed.
KirbyTetro 6y ago
"Soviet Science" is a contradiction in terms. The scientific method was effectively illegal in the Soviet Union. If the science showed something the ruling party didn't agree with then the scientists would have the sense to cover it up or they'd find themselves in a gulag.

73 points by ca98am79 6y ago

"... they tried to mutate science to fit into a Marxist mold." The same thing is starting to happen today in the US, except the goal is the Woke mold.

ajcp 6y ago

This is damn interesting but the podcast narration is damn boring. Great writing though.

adolph 6y ago

Instead of Mendelism, Lysenko adhered to Lamarck’s —now widely rejected —theory of the ‘inheritance of acquired characteristics’, which suggests that individuals have the ability to modify their features during their lifetime and bestow these features onto their offspring. If giraffes need to feed on tall trees, they would simply grow a longer neck and, rather conveniently, give birth to long-necked youngsters. According to Lamarckism, nurture, rather than nature, was the driving force for evolution.

ampdepolymerase 6y ago
- Giraffes use their neck to attack other giraffes. - Epigenetics is a thing, but it is completely different from what Lamarck/Lysenko believed.

raphlinus 6y ago

I found this story interesting, largely because of the parallels to today. Scott Atlas to me is clearly cut from the same clothe as Trofim Lysenko, and the use of hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin for Covid are the modern-day equivalent of Lysenkoism. I always wonder if these people are smart and know what they're spouting is bullshit, or just too stupid to realize it. In the end, it probably doesn't matter, the outcome is the same.

nradov 6y ago
That is a mischaracterization. There are multiple clinical studies which indicate that Ivermectin may be somewhat helpful for treating COVID-19. Other studies have shown no effect. It's too early to declare a firm conclusion and research continues. https://covid19criticalcare.com/medical-evidence/ivermectin/ https://covid19criticalcare.com/medical-evidence/ivermectin/
- raphlinus 6y ago
  Ok, I'll grant the evidence is not yet in on ivermectin, but that hasn't stopped many of the same folks as were advocating HCQ from pushing it. The paper to be published in Frontiers of Pharmacology was pulled because it didn't meet the scientific standards of the journal. Or perhaps because the editorial board has an anti-ivermectin agenda and censored the maverick scientists. https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/frontiers-removes-controversial-ivermectin-paper-pre-publication-68505 https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/frontiers-removes... Another story on this I found fairly credible: https://www.medpagetoday.com/infectiousdisease/covid19/90552 https://www.medpagetoday.com/infectiousdisease/covid19/90552 And here's an authoritative source (the NIH): https://www.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/antiviral-therapy/ivermectin/ https://www.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/antiviral-the... They conclude that the evidence is not yet strong enough to recommend for or against the use of ivermectin. My accusation of Lysenkoism is for the people prescribing it without solid evidence. Obviously if the drug shows promise it should be investigated in real trials, as was done for HCQ. I'm not going to edit my original post but I think it would have been stronger if I had stuck to HCQ and not gotten into the ivermectin controversy - there's definitely still a chance it will turn out to be useful.
Guthur 6y ago
This story is an example of the dangers of centralised power and cronyism and less to do with the individuals rights or wrongs. Lysenko had the support of Stalin even when he was proven wrong time and again.
- raphlinus 6y ago

vmurthy 6y ago

Vavilov dying of hunger in a prison :( Many of his friends persecuted. I like to print out articles like this and wonder what *led* to such extreme situations. Gradual slippery slope? Big bang bad decisions? All said, the big takeaway has been that science can't be subservient to politics. It's a tragic lesson on what happens if this becomes true.

naringas 6y ago
> what led to such extreme situations I think it's more plausibly a gradual slippery slope. the kind of slope you don't notice
- google234123 6y ago
  How could you describe that part of russian history as anything like a gradual slippery slope? It start with a revolution followed by another more radical revolutions and went one from there. Nothing gradual about it.
  - lostlogin 6y ago
    The revolution was a reaction to the terrible leaders in Russia. The start wasn’t the revolution. Where do you pick as the beginning? I’m not sure, but the revolution was a reaction.
    - TeeMassive 6y ago
      You need to drop your Communist Manifesto and actually read what has been really going on in Russia at the time. Lenin and his cronies were revolutionaries well before the calamities of the Great War. The leaders of Russian revolutions were were mostly upper middle class intellectuals and were radicalized in relatively comfortable social circumstances at universities and in various intellectual circles. Lenin often bragged that he actively pushed people against one another so he could harness more revolutionary momentum, which led to even more calamities. And that's not even mentioning that he was implanted as an ideological virus to destroy the Russian Empire by the German agents. The revolution wasn't some romantic reaction lead by the proletariat against the oppressor. It was led by power hungry fanatics who manipulated the people's grievances to remove those who were in their way and then installed themselves into power.

trhway 6y ago

while the article is great - saying it as a Russian who finds many writings about USSR/Russia by foreign writers seriously lacking to say the least - it does miss important piece of the historical context - Michurin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivan_Vladimirovich_Michurin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivan_Vladimirovich_Michurin. Michurin was great Russian agrobiologist of pre-Vavilov generation. He had great experimental success in selection/breeding of plants. It was the time when Lamarckism and genetics were actively developed, and Michurin was naturally developing a theories of his own which also bear a dose of Lamarckism in it. Lysenko exploited the great experimental success of Michurin while using the wrong side of his theories as a foundation for his own. One can say that Lysenko used Michurin as a rootstock on which he grafted himself as seedling. So going against Lysenko, one was looking like going against Michurin's proven success and legacy. It was framed as "Michurin teaching" vs. genetics. https://www.jstor.org/stable/4441886?seq=1 https://www.jstor.org/stable/4441886?seq=1 Btw, cybernetics was also a prohibited "bourgeois pseudoscience" in USSR at those times https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suppressed_research_in_the_Soviet_Union#Cybernetics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suppressed_research_in_the_Sov... - the "formal scientific" grounds were that it goes against teaching of another great Russian scientist - Ivan Pavlov (at pop-science level known for "Pavlov's dogs")

jbay808 6y ago
> cybernetics was also a prohibited "bourgeois pseudoscience" in USSR at those times Huh! This surprised me, because the USSR made pretty major controbutions to cybernetics and control theory. I guess that happened after they changed their stance?
- trhway 6y ago
  It was for relatively short period of a few years, and many of related work at that time was done just as applied math, like Pontryagin principle developed at the time. The country needed its missiles and planes after all - similarly to why the "Jewish Physics" mentioned by another commenter was allowed.

KirbyTetro 6y ago

"Soviet Science" is a contradiction in terms. The scientific method was effectively illegal in the Soviet Union. If the science showed something the ruling party didn't agree with then the scientists would have the sense to cover it up or they'd find themselves in a gulag.