The Return of Lysenkoism

[JimBowie1958]

Lysenkoism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Lysenkoism (Russian: Лысе́нковщин&#1072, or Lysenko-Michurinism was the centralized political control exercised over genetics and agriculture by Trofim Lysenko and his followers. Lysenko was the director of the Soviet Union's Lenin All-Union Academy of Agricultural Sciences. Lysenkoism began in the late 1920s and formally ended in 1964.

Lysenkoism was built on theories of the heritability of acquired characteristics that Lysenko named "Michurinism".[1] These theories depart from accepted evolutionary theory and Mendelian inheritance.

Lysenkoism is used metaphorically to describe the manipulation or distortion of the scientific process as a way to reach a predetermined conclusion as dictated by an ideological bias, often related to social or political objectives.[2]...

From 1934 to 1940, under Lysenko's admonitions and with Stalin's approval, many geneticists were executed (including Isaak Agol, Solomon Levit, Grigorii Levitskii, Georgii Karpechenko and Georgii Nadson) or sent to labor camps. The famous Soviet geneticist Nikolai Vavilov was arrested in 1940 and died in prison in 1943.[9]

Genetics was stigmatized as a 'bourgeois science' or 'fascist science' (because fascists — particularly the Nazis in Germany — embraced genetics and attempted to use it to justify their theories on eugenics and the master race, which culminated in Action T4).

Despite the ban, some Soviet scientists continued to work in genetics, dangerous as it was.[citation needed]

In 1948, genetics was officially declared "a bourgeois pseudoscience";[10] all geneticists were fired from their jobs (some were also arrested), and all genetic research was discontinued. Nikita Khrushchev, who claimed to be an expert in agricultural science, also valued Lysenko as a great scientist, and the taboo on genetics continued (but all geneticists were released or rehabilitated posthumously). The ban was only waived in the mid-1960s.

Thus, Lysenkoism caused serious, long-term harm to Soviet knowledge of biology. It represented a serious failure of the early Soviet leadership to find real solutions to agricultural problems, throwing their support behind a charlatan at the expense of many human lives.

Now we have this by Judith Curry...

Heresy and the creation of monsters | Climate Etc.

My first such moment was in 2005 in response to the media attention associated with the hurricane wars, which was described in a Q&A with Keith Kloor at collide-a-scape. While I really want to make this blog about the science and not about personalities (and especially not about me), this article deserves a response. (JB: title was 'Climate Heretic: Judith Curry Turns on Her Colleagues' at http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=climate-heretic)

The title of the article itself is rather astonishing. The Wikipedia defines heresy as: “Heresy is a controversial or novel change to a system of beliefs, especially a religion, that conflicts with established dogma.” The definition of dogma is “Dogma is the established belief or doctrine held by a religion, ideology or any kind of organization: it is authoritative and not to be disputed, doubted, or diverged from.” Use of the word “heretic” by Lemonick implies general acceptance by the “insiders” of the IPCC as dogma. If the IPCC is dogma, then count me in as a heretic. The story should not be about me, but about how and why the IPCC became dogma....

When I first started reading the CRU emails, my reaction was a visceral one. While my colleagues seemed focused on protecting the reputations of the scientists involved and assuring people that the “science hadn’t changed,” I immediately realized that this could bring down the IPCC. I became concerned about the integrity of our entire field: both the actual integrity and its public perception. When I saw how the IPCC was responding and began investigating the broader allegations against the IPCC, I became critical of the IPCC and tried to make suggestions for improving the IPCC. As glaring errors were uncovered (especially the Himalayan glaciers) and the IPCC failed to respond, I started to question whether it was possible to salvage the IPCC and whether it should be salvaged. In the meantime, the establishment institutions in the U.S. and elsewhere were mostly silent on the topic.

In Autumn 2005, I had decided that the responsible thing to do in making public statements on the subject of global warming was to adopt the position of the IPCC. My decision was based on two reasons: 1) the subject was very complex and I had personally investigated a relatively small subset of the topic; 2) I bought into the meme of “don’t trust what one scientists says, trust what thousands of IPCC scientists say.” A big part of my visceral reaction to events unfolding after 11/19 was concern that I had been duped into supporting the IPCC, and substituting their judgment for my own in my public statements on the subject. So that is the “dupe” part of all this, perhaps not what Lemonick had in mind....

There are some parallels between the “McIntyre monster” and the “Curry monster.” The monster status derives from our challenges to the IPCC science and the issue of uncertainty. While the McIntyre monster is far more prominent in the public debate, the Curry monster seems far more irksome to community insiders. The CRU emails provide ample evidence of the McIntyre monster, and in the wake of the CRU emails I saw a discussion at RealClimate about the unbridled power of Steve McIntyre. Evidence of the Curry monster is provided by this statement in Lemonick’s article: “What scientists worry is that such exposure means Curry has the power to do damage to a consensus on climate change that has been building for the past 20 years.” This sense of McIntyre and myself as having “power” seems absurd to me (and probably to Steve), but it seems real to some people.....

If you think that I am a big part of the cause of the problems you are facing, I suggest that you think about this more carefully. I am doing my best to return some sanity to this situation and restore science to a higher position than the dogma of consensus. You may not like it, and my actions may turn out to be ineffective, futile, or counterproductive in the short or long run, by whatever standards this whole episode ends up getting judged. But this is my carefully considered choice on what it means to be a scientist and to behave with personal and professional integrity.

Let me ask you this. So how are things going for you lately? A year ago, the climate establishment was on top of the world, masters of the universe. Now we have a situation where there have been major challenges to the reputations of a number of a number of scientists, the IPCC, professional societies, and other institutions of science. The spillover has been a loss of public trust in climate science and some have argued, even more broadly in science. The IPCC and the UNFCCC are regarded by many as impediments to sane and politically viable energy policies. The enviro advocacy groups are abandoning the climate change issue for more promising narratives. In the U.S., the prospect of the Republicans winning the House of Representatives raises the specter of hearings on the integrity of climate science and reductions in federal funding for climate research.

What happened? Did the skeptics and the oil companies and the libertarian think tanks win? No, you lost. All in the name of supporting policies that I don’t think many of you fully understand. What I want is for the climate science community to shift gears and get back to doing science, and return to an environment where debate over the science is the spice of academic life. And because of the high relevance of our field, we need to figure out how to provide the best possible scientific information and assessment of uncertainties. This means abandoning this religious adherence to consensus dogma.

Lysenkoism is not a single period of one nations scientific maladaptation to politics over real science; it is a pattern or prototype of what one gets when the science community at any time or in any nation becomes dominated by people who place anything above the basic concepts of what good science is; objective, methodology based on the Scientific Principle. Not polls. Not surveys. Not consensus.

The same wreckage caused by Lysenkoism in the Soviet union will hit our science in the west hard also with the plausibility of multiple generations of scientists wasted on stupid , ignorant concepts easily disproven but only held together by a chattering group of slanderers and the threat of withdrawn funding by a science establishment that is more concerned with who in the government gets pissed off than they are about acquiring Truth.

When radicals denounce scientific theories as fascist, racist or atheist, these people are not concerned about actual science. A racist, or fascist or atheist can have a valid scientific point that their status as a racists, etc, has no scientific relevance to.

Scientists should be more shocked and offended by such slander directed against scientists than the allegation itself no matter what it may be.

 

[mamooth]

The Global Warming denialists are very similar to the Lysenkoists. Instead of good science, they demand a fantasy science that backs the dogma of their political party. And if any scientist dissents from the party line, they want that scientist sent to a political gulag.

Just look at how screams of "fraud!" are standard among denialists. Being that fraud is a crime, they clearly do want most scientists jailed. They displayed that Lysenkoist trait most proudly when the Virginia Attorney General tried fabricating charges to get Dr. Michael Mann jailed. I haven't seen a single denialist anywhere criticize that stunt. Every single last one of them doubled down on the party line that Dr. Mann was an EnemyOfTheState who needed to be made an example of.

When I see some denialists start denouncing such Stalinist attempts to get dissenting scientists jailed, I'll stop comparing them to Lysenkoists. But I don't think that will happen soon. TheParty has issued its marching orders, and denialists don't dare disobey TheParty.

 

[JimBowie1958]

The Global Warming denialists are very similar to the Lysenkoists. Instead of good science, they demand a fantasy science that backs the dogma of their political party. And if any scientist dissents from the party line, they want that scientist sent to a political gulag.

Just look at how screams of "fraud!" are standard among denialists. Being that fraud is a crime, they clearly do want most scientists jailed. They displayed that Lysenkoist trait most proudly when the Virginia Attorney General tried fabricating charges to get Dr. Michael Mann jailed. I haven't seen a single denialist anywhere criticize that stunt. Every single last one of them doubled down on the party line that Dr. Mann was an EnemyOfTheState who needed to be made an example of.

When I see some denialists start denouncing such Stalinist attempts to get dissenting scientists jailed, I'll stop comparing them to Lysenkoists. But I don't think that will happen soon. TheParty has issued its marching orders, and denialists don't dare disobey TheParty.

So which tax payer scientific institutions are controled by AGW deniers? To be Lysenkoists, they would have to control at least some. And which AGW adherents have been fired? Which have had a slanderous article written in a major science publication like Ms Judith Curry had done to her here?

But we both know the truth of this matter is that you engaged in a form of mockery that simply reverses the claims made by their opponents and postures as though you are sincere, and trying to follow a form of integrity and such.

Hypocrital, fascists who fear their loss on power is about all one can say bout such low-life vermin.

 

[IanC]

The Global Warming denialists are very similar to the Lysenkoists. Instead of good science, they demand a fantasy science that backs the dogma of their political party. And if any scientist dissents from the party line, they want that scientist sent to a political gulag.

Just look at how screams of "fraud!" are standard among denialists. Being that fraud is a crime, they clearly do want most scientists jailed. They displayed that Lysenkoist trait most proudly when the Virginia Attorney General tried fabricating charges to get Dr. Michael Mann jailed. I haven't seen a single denialist anywhere criticize that stunt. Every single last one of them doubled down on the party line that Dr. Mann was an EnemyOfTheState who needed to be made an example of.

When I see some denialists start denouncing such Stalinist attempts to get dissenting scientists jailed, I'll stop comparing them to Lysenkoists. But I don't think that will happen soon. TheParty has issued its marching orders, and denialists don't dare disobey TheParty.

????? what is 'TheParty'? where can I find these 'marching orders'? for that matter, who are the 'Global Warming Denialists'?


you dont seem to have a very good grip on the reality of AGW skepticism. do you ever actually read anything written by skeptics or do you just go to SkepticalScience for their ColesNote version?

Curry and McIntyre were mentioned in the OP. do you read their blogs, do you actually know anything about their positions on the climate change issues? do you disagree with their positions on improving scientific integrity? can you disagree with any specific public position that they have taken? can you give me an example? I dont want a link to a Tamino or SkS hit piece, although you can use their ideas. post a link to a Curry or McIntyre statement, and then say why you think it is wrong, or even just unfair.

as far as Michael Mann goes, do you think it is appropriate that he still uses the upsidedown Tiljander proxies? do you think he lied to the NAS inquiry when he said he had never calculated r^2 correlation values for MBH98 even though his computer program specifically had a sub routine for doing so? do you think he prevaricated to the Penn State inquiry when he said he never deleted AR4 emails, or facilitated anyone else to do so? even though Eugene Wahl testified at a later inquiry that he recieved the famous 'FOIA delete all emails' email from Mann, and did in fact delete them? just what would Mann actually have to do for you to lose faith in him? hahahaha, perhaps printing up a certificate stating he won a Nobel Prize? hahahahaha.

 

[IanC]

The Global Warming denialists are very similar to the Lysenkoists. Instead of good science, they demand a fantasy science that backs the dogma of their political party. And if any scientist dissents from the party line, they want that scientist sent to a political gulag.

Just look at how screams of "fraud!" are standard among denialists. Being that fraud is a crime, they clearly do want most scientists jailed. They displayed that Lysenkoist trait most proudly when the Virginia Attorney General tried fabricating charges to get Dr. Michael Mann jailed. I haven't seen a single denialist anywhere criticize that stunt. Every single last one of them doubled down on the party line that Dr. Mann was an EnemyOfTheState who needed to be made an example of.

When I see some denialists start denouncing such Stalinist attempts to get dissenting scientists jailed, I'll stop comparing them to Lysenkoists. But I don't think that will happen soon. TheParty has issued its marching orders, and denialists don't dare disobey TheParty.

????? what is 'TheParty'? where can I find these 'marching orders'? for that matter, who are the 'Global Warming Denialists'?


you dont seem to have a very good grip on the reality of AGW skepticism. do you ever actually read anything written by skeptics or do you just go to SkepticalScience for their ColesNote version?

Curry and McIntyre were mentioned in the OP. do you read their blogs, do you actually know anything about their positions on the climate change issues? do you disagree with their positions on improving scientific integrity? can you disagree with any specific public position that they have taken? can you give me an example? I dont want a link to a Tamino or SkS hit piece, although you can use their ideas. post a link to a Curry or McIntyre statement, and then say why you think it is wrong, or even just unfair.

as far as Michael Mann goes, do you think it is appropriate that he still uses the upsidedown Tiljander proxies? do you think he lied to the NAS inquiry when he said he had never calculated r^2 correlation values for MBH98 even though his computer program specifically had a sub routine for doing so? do you think he prevaricated to the Penn State inquiry when he said he never deleted AR4 emails, or facilitated anyone else to do so? even though Eugene Wahl testified at a later inquiry that he recieved the famous 'FOIA delete all emails' email from Mann, and did in fact delete them? just what would Mann actually have to do for you to lose faith in him? hahahaha, perhaps printing up a certificate stating he won a Nobel Prize? hahahahaha.

bump for mamooth.

also, why was it wrong for the Virginia A-G to try and get Mann's emails released when Wegman's emails were released in less than a month? is there a double standard as to which scientists deserve privacy?

 

[MaryL]

So you are saying that the misuse of science is bad. I agree. The danger here is perhaps this mentality cuts both ways, those that oppose any facts that global warming may be manmade may be just as guilty of the same misuses out of the same political drive. Science will sort this out. Regardless of politics, it always does.

 

[JimBowie1958]

So you are saying that the misuse of science is bad. I agree. The danger here is perhaps this mentality cuts both ways, those that oppose any facts that global warming may be manmade may be just as guilty of the same misuses out of the same political drive. Science will sort this out. Regardless of politics, it always does.

No, I am saying that science as an institution/community can be cowed down to mere sycophancy if the state pushes hard. But they don't do good science when they do.

And I think you are right to be optimistic that it will be straightened out eventually.

 

[MaryL]

Of course we agree, the truth will always win.

 

[IanC]

Of course we agree, the truth will always win.

how much time and money will have been squandered by the time the general science community wakes up to the improprieties in climate science?