tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post1534285633195272031..comments2023-08-07T16:41:49.660+02:00Comments on Die Klimazwiebel: Nils Roll-Hansen: A lesson from Lysenkoism?eduardohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17725131974182980651noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-8445629257569586842010-06-07T15:48:37.254+02:002010-06-07T15:48:37.254+02:00"The Soviet suppression of genetics in 1948 ...."The Soviet suppression of genetics in 1948 ... "<br /><br />There was no "Soviet" suppression of "genetics", but of "Genetics", i.e. "Eugenic". When the DNA molecule was described, the Soviets promptly dropped Lysenkoism. Before that there was no more proof that the colored blob in the middle of the cell was involved in heredity than there was proof that acquired traits got transmitted to offspring.<br /><br />"This was the big scientific scandal of the 20th century." ... no, really ? Wasn't that, the big scientific scandal, the extermination or mutilation of millions based on an unjustified extrapolation of horse-breeding techniques to the management of human populations ?Emil Perhinschihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10710579823013077273noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-81808547619106882692010-06-07T10:16:35.974+02:002010-06-07T10:16:35.974+02:00Hans-
these are important questions and we need de...Hans-<br />these are important questions and we need detailed historical and comparative studies. In a forthcoming book which I wrote with Nico Stehr we will present the cases of Eugenics, Keynesianism and climate change. With regard to eugenics, it is certainly not the case that a political regime corrupted science. Eugenics (or 'racial hygiene' as it was also called)was a respected academic field with firm roots in Darwinian theory.@ReinerGrundmannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12759452975366986236noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-81909978601042517352010-06-07T09:24:18.076+02:002010-06-07T09:24:18.076+02:00Jonathan Gilligan says "waiting for everyone ...Jonathan Gilligan says "waiting for everyone else to read the book would delay discussion too long, in the pace of internet time."<br />And<br />"This lesson might be particularly apt at a time when science by amateur blog post is considered by many in the public, the press, and public office to be on a par with publication in peer-reviewed journals by established scientists."<br /><br />Might 'science by internet' be part of the problem?Dennis Brayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05002342529932352744noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-4912776049770083092010-06-07T01:50:45.536+02:002010-06-07T01:50:45.536+02:00A clarification of two places where my sloppy typi...A clarification of two places where my sloppy typing garbled my comment:<br /><br />Where I wrote, "He suggests that the problems of Lysenkoism were less a question of who is a legitimate scientist" reverses my meaning: I meant to say, "He suggests that the problems of Lysenkoism were less a question of the ideology of the science than the ideology of who is a legitimate scientist"<br /><br />Second, where I wrote, "Lysenkoism can arise when outsiders' ideological attacks on the credibility mainstream science," I meant to write "Lysenkoism can arise when outsiders' ideological attacks on the credibility of mainstream science"Jonathan Gilliganhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09065480842704814847noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-41276512334582958842010-06-06T20:33:45.932+02:002010-06-06T20:33:45.932+02:00Thank you for your reply. But I'm still dissat...Thank you for your reply. But I'm still dissatisfied. The two lessons you offer - it makes sense to think; and that science has to reflect upon its closeness with policies - are banal. And (I say) there is no need and indeed it is no help to drag Lysenkoism into the picture to help understand these lessons.William M. Connolleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05836299130680534926noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-45358188798736132832010-06-06T19:51:39.480+02:002010-06-06T19:51:39.480+02:00Hans: First, I don't think it's reasonable...Hans: First, I don't think it's reasonable to say, as you do in #2, that someone must read a 335 page book before replying to a blog post. Roll-Hansen's post should stand on its own; restricting discussion to those who had already read the book would limit discussion too much and waiting for everyone else to read the book would delay discussion too long, in the pace of internet time.<br /><br />I'd like to address a few interesting points that Roll-Hansen raises: He suggests that the problems of Lysenkoism were less a question of who is a legitimate scientist: "The Soviet suppression of genetics ... was not ... the result of a simple ideological distinction between good socialist and bad bourgeois science. Stalin systematically removed from Lysenko’s 1948 speech the references to 'bourgeois science.' In his mind it was the general validity of scientific claims, beyond political ideologies, that was at stake." <br /><br />Might Stalin's use of ideology not have been so much about the capitalist/individualist ideology Lysenko ascribed to Darwin than Stalin's belief that ideological outsiders without proper scientific training were more authoritative than trained scientists within the (bourgeois) mainstream? "Lysenko was a dedicated researcher of peasant origin and weak scientific training. ... Vavilov ... saw a valuable scientific potential in the energetic young peasant scientist...." The emphasis on Lysenko's peasant origin fits well with the Bolshevik ideological commitment to the dictatorship of the proletariat. He is qualified by dint of his outsider status, not his training or track record of success at research.<br /><br />Where science was dominated by properly trained scientists (e.g., in nuclear physics) rigor won out and the Soviets developed a very successful bomb program despite the ideological factors; but in agriculture, where poorly trained outsiders to the scientific establishment were able to gain firm footholds, junk science overcame true science, ideology defeated pragmatism, and this defeat contributed to famine and starvation.<br /><br />I oversimplify, of course, and magnify a small thread in Roll-Hansen's essay in isolation from its larger context in this blog post, to say nothing of Roll-Hansen's book, which I do intend to read in the future. Despite these limitations, I think this thought is worth further study: one lesson one might take from this account is that Lysenkoism can arise when outsiders' ideological attacks on the credibility mainstream science are allowed to derail the traditional scientific process of rationally and empirically testing hypotheses and the trust the public and policymakers have in that process.<br /><br />This lesson might be particularly apt at a time when science by amateur blog post is considered by many in the public, the press, and public office to be on a par with publication in peer-reviewed journals by established scientists.Jonathan Gilliganhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09065480842704814847noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-10077343417691637322010-06-06T19:04:20.784+02:002010-06-06T19:04:20.784+02:00Belette - which lesson? Not that crude one that GW...Belette - which lesson? Not that crude one that GW denialists would follow a Lysenkoist path. The first lesson is - it makes sense to think, and to examine cases in some detail. The suggestion that the alarmists would be on that path, is of equal crude quality as yours and not helpful.<br><br />One lesson, for me, is that science has to reflect upon its closeness with policies (and politics), and that responding to populist and opportunistic calls may be tempting but is not sustainable. The other question is: how to avoid such a situation, how to excape when once caught?Hans von Storchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08778028673130006646noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-74665574681872846772010-06-06T18:51:41.804+02:002010-06-06T18:51:41.804+02:00A potentially interesting post, but rather marred ...A potentially interesting post, but rather marred by your careful avoidance of what the "lessons" to be learnt might be. Perhaps you are too subtle for us: could you be more explicit?<br /><br />For example, do you see any parallels between Lysenkoism and, say, the GW denialist movement, so blind to reason and funded by fossil fuel interests? Or did you have any other parallels in mind?<br /><br />I comment here: http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2010/06/lessons_of_lysenkoism.phpWilliam M. Connolleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05836299130680534926noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-16153679817684719212010-06-06T16:40:59.514+02:002010-06-06T16:40:59.514+02:00Toby, may I ask you to read the book before making...Toby, may I ask you to read the book before making categorical statements? Or maybe Soyfer's book on the same issue? Maybe, the situation was really a bit different, and that's what may make Nils Roll-Hansen's analysis so valuable? Or have you done your own research of this interesting field? -- HansHans von Storchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08778028673130006646noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-31421407512291554302010-06-06T16:22:58.878+02:002010-06-06T16:22:58.878+02:00The post makes no allowance for the fact that the ...The post makes no allowance for the fact that the Soviet Union was a closed, terrorised society. In the 1930s, many of its most prominent scientists, engineers and intellectuals were sent to labour camps, from which some never returned. This surely affected the views of all those who fell in behind Lysenko's pseudo-science, which had no adherents outside the Soviet Union. Lysenko made sure that his relationahip with Stalin was well known to everybody.<br /><br />So to state the Lysenko case as a "normal" scientific debate that got out of hand is to misread it significantly. It took place in abnormal circumstances. Lysenko sold a brand of science not to other scientists but to the party elite, who forced his theories onto Lysenko's colleagues. <br /><br />Lysenko told the politicians what they wanted to hear - a "short cut" to socialism. Which side of the current "debate" is telling politicians what they want to hear? The ones arguing that money must be spent and sacrifices made? Or the ones advocating that nothing be done?<br /><br />TobyAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com