3 ms·

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 conce

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.

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.