5 ms·

He was. Only he was imprisoned for political reasons of being anti-bolshevik, you can even read this in the quote from his sentence in this cold-warish piece of

He was. Only he was imprisoned for political reasons of being anti-bolshevik, you can even read this in the quote from his sentence in this cold-warish piece of writing in OP. This is biggest scientific myth i know - that soviets/marxism/etc deny science, because they prosecuted Vavilov for it. Like genetics back then was as it is now (search eugenics), and scientific debate about nature vs nurture was settled, and Lysenko was just some boy and didn't get applause in NYC conference on agrobiology. But I'm glad at least in research frontiers people do revisit Lysenko legacy nowadays, in the the light of epigenetic research. For common people it's just another neccesary illusion.

enkid 5y ago
Sorry, the Soviet Union explicitly advocated for science based on ideology instead of the other way around under Stalin. Wikipedia has numerous examples of this [0]. And no, one person getting applause at one conference in the US does not make a scientific hypothesis valid. Your also either fundamentally misunderstanding what the current research on epigenetics says or what Lysenko was advocating. Lysenko claimed to do things well beyond anything current studies of epigenetics would allow, and the SU went all in on these claims to disastrous effects. (Because they preferred Lamarckism instead of Darwinism for purely ideological reasons.) [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suppressed_research_in_the_Soviet_Union https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suppressed_research_in_the_Sov...
- fuf_998 5y ago
  Thanks for your comment, i'm working on heterochromatin formation rn as a phd (not claiming full understanding of full epigenetic field ofc, but have some conceptual touch). >Lysenko claimed to do things well beyond anything current studies of epigenetics would allow You are right, but this is not true for all of his work; look at his earlier works on seed vernalization by heat treatment - he experimentally did what is mechanisticaly described now [0]. Isn't it funny - instead of tweaking crazy plant genome with complicated patented GM tech with minimal improvement as a result, you can dip your seeds in warm water and change the phenotype competely. Worth revisiting? Btw, both your and my comments fairly can go to Vavilov too and his less-known sides of research. But for myth sustaining purposes - Lysenko is totally bad, Vavilov is totally good, thus communism (or whatever "bad" label is tranding rn in capitalism criticism) is anti-science. >they preferred Lamarckism instead of Darwinism for purely ideological reasons I've tried here to add this scientific debate dimension to this preference, which is omitted. Both theories were in their nappies back then, and one (Lamarckism) was more appealing bcs of its alignment with ideology, right. It does not mean that genetics were evidently true back then and SU denied it for ideology' sake - this is how is read in the OP writing. [0] https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ppl.13163 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ppl.13163
  - enkid 5y ago
    Let's separate discussion of the Soviet system from the individuals caught up in that system. I am not ( nor do I think most people) saying that this was a problem purely with Lysenko overstating scientific claims (which he certainly did). It is a problem with a system that looks towards Marxism, says what science fits that best, and embeds it into society. That is in stark contrast to the way science is supposed to be done, where we reserve judgement and endorse a theory only when it has sufficient evidence and no alternative has better judgement.
    - fuf_998 5y ago
      >a problem with a system Short recap: Vavilov was prosecuted for political opposition, not science. Two arguements for this: 1 - read his sentence and biography; 2 - genetics of that day was not an alternative and did not get a more sufficient evidence than agrobiology, that is the real explanation of genetic research being put aside (but never stopped). >the way science is supposed to be done There was a lot of good thinking done last century about how you can not disentangle science and ideology or other cultural biases, starting from defining science. Science is a tool, not a goal. So you can say > It is a problem with a system that looks towards <private gain/God's love/progress for whole humanity/etc>, says what science fits that best, and embeds it into society and it works everytime. Unless you've got an ideology based on science? That's what historical materialism attempted by the way.
adrian_b 5y ago
The Soviet denial of science actually went much more beyond relatively minor details like the prosecution of Vavilov. I have read a large number of school manuals from the sixties, both from the Soviet Union and from a few of the East European countries dominated by the Soviet Union. All these school manuals were extremely ridiculous, because they always included some pseudo-historical sections where for every useful scientific or technical discovery or invention, or even for every innovation in sports, it was claimed that there was some unknown Russian scientist, worker or even peasant, who had discovered or invented that, much earlier than their well-known discoverers or inventors from West-European countries. Additionally, all the biology manuals included a pseudo-historical section containing criticism against the "Mendelo-Morganism", where Gregor Mendel, Thomas Morgan and the other people with well-known contributions to modern biology and genetics were presented as a gang of crooks who belonged somehow to some kind of international conspiracy that promoted some kind of pseudo-science for some unspecified but certainly evil purposes. On the contrary, Lysenko and a few other Russian geneticists were presented as some luminaries who are the only source of truth about biology. Reading any of those Russian school manuals, which tried to poison the minds of many generations of students in Russia and in the countries controlled by them, is enough to make you understand the relationship between the Soviet Union (and communists in general) and the true sciences.
- fuf_998 5y ago
  > as a gang of crooks who belonged somehow to some kind of international conspiracy this is exactly what is being done now, but in the opposite direction. When this should be viewed as a purely normal scientific process of debate. >All these school manuals were extremely ridiculous Did you try to read any other schol manuals in different countries? School education is well-known to be a source of pure objectivity and true enlightment for an individual in its core.

enkid 5y ago

Sorry, the Soviet Union explicitly advocated for science based on ideology instead of the other way around under Stalin. Wikipedia has numerous examples of this [0]. And no, one person getting applause at one conference in the US does not make a scientific hypothesis valid. Your also either fundamentally misunderstanding what the current research on epigenetics says or what Lysenko was advocating. Lysenko claimed to do things well beyond anything current studies of epigenetics would allow, and the SU went all in on these claims to disastrous effects. (Because they preferred Lamarckism instead of Darwinism for purely ideological reasons.) [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suppressed_research_in_the_Soviet_Union https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suppressed_research_in_the_Sov...

fuf_998 5y ago
Thanks for your comment, i'm working on heterochromatin formation rn as a phd (not claiming full understanding of full epigenetic field ofc, but have some conceptual touch). >Lysenko claimed to do things well beyond anything current studies of epigenetics would allow You are right, but this is not true for all of his work; look at his earlier works on seed vernalization by heat treatment - he experimentally did what is mechanisticaly described now [0]. Isn't it funny - instead of tweaking crazy plant genome with complicated patented GM tech with minimal improvement as a result, you can dip your seeds in warm water and change the phenotype competely. Worth revisiting? Btw, both your and my comments fairly can go to Vavilov too and his less-known sides of research. But for myth sustaining purposes - Lysenko is totally bad, Vavilov is totally good, thus communism (or whatever "bad" label is tranding rn in capitalism criticism) is anti-science. >they preferred Lamarckism instead of Darwinism for purely ideological reasons I've tried here to add this scientific debate dimension to this preference, which is omitted. Both theories were in their nappies back then, and one (Lamarckism) was more appealing bcs of its alignment with ideology, right. It does not mean that genetics were evidently true back then and SU denied it for ideology' sake - this is how is read in the OP writing. [0] https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ppl.13163 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ppl.13163
- enkid 5y ago
  Let's separate discussion of the Soviet system from the individuals caught up in that system. I am not ( nor do I think most people) saying that this was a problem purely with Lysenko overstating scientific claims (which he certainly did). It is a problem with a system that looks towards Marxism, says what science fits that best, and embeds it into society. That is in stark contrast to the way science is supposed to be done, where we reserve judgement and endorse a theory only when it has sufficient evidence and no alternative has better judgement.
  - fuf_998 5y ago
    >a problem with a system Short recap: Vavilov was prosecuted for political opposition, not science. Two arguements for this: 1 - read his sentence and biography; 2 - genetics of that day was not an alternative and did not get a more sufficient evidence than agrobiology, that is the real explanation of genetic research being put aside (but never stopped). >the way science is supposed to be done There was a lot of good thinking done last century about how you can not disentangle science and ideology or other cultural biases, starting from defining science. Science is a tool, not a goal. So you can say > It is a problem with a system that looks towards <private gain/God's love/progress for whole humanity/etc>, says what science fits that best, and embeds it into society and it works everytime. Unless you've got an ideology based on science? That's what historical materialism attempted by the way.

adrian_b 5y ago

The Soviet denial of science actually went much more beyond relatively minor details like the prosecution of Vavilov. I have read a large number of school manuals from the sixties, both from the Soviet Union and from a few of the East European countries dominated by the Soviet Union. All these school manuals were extremely ridiculous, because they always included some pseudo-historical sections where for every useful scientific or technical discovery or invention, or even for every innovation in sports, it was claimed that there was some unknown Russian scientist, worker or even peasant, who had discovered or invented that, much earlier than their well-known discoverers or inventors from West-European countries. Additionally, all the biology manuals included a pseudo-historical section containing criticism against the "Mendelo-Morganism", where Gregor Mendel, Thomas Morgan and the other people with well-known contributions to modern biology and genetics were presented as a gang of crooks who belonged somehow to some kind of international conspiracy that promoted some kind of pseudo-science for some unspecified but certainly evil purposes. On the contrary, Lysenko and a few other Russian geneticists were presented as some luminaries who are the only source of truth about biology. Reading any of those Russian school manuals, which tried to poison the minds of many generations of students in Russia and in the countries controlled by them, is enough to make you understand the relationship between the Soviet Union (and communists in general) and the true sciences.

fuf_998 5y ago
> as a gang of crooks who belonged somehow to some kind of international conspiracy this is exactly what is being done now, but in the opposite direction. When this should be viewed as a purely normal scientific process of debate. >All these school manuals were extremely ridiculous Did you try to read any other schol manuals in different countries? School education is well-known to be a source of pure objectivity and true enlightment for an individual in its core.