Trofim Lysenko, the mid-20th century anti-Mendel scientist and Stalin favorite, is poised for a comeback. Millions of Soviet citizens died as a result of his government-backed pseudoscientific biological ideas. Even though he was eventually dismissed in shame, Russian science tanked for several generations, struggling to catch up with the rest of the world to the present day.
How did so many people, including so many scientists, become so willing to abandon the scientific method and support Lysenko, helping pave the way for catastrophe after catastrophe? Clearly many were scared into accepting his ideas, aligned as they were with Soviet philosophy and policies (and the government’s ruthless enforcement of them). But that still doesn’t fully account for his rapid rise and—coming way too late for many—his dramatic fall.
My recent interest is more than just historical curiosity. When one looks at the incoming administration’s nominees for Health and Human Services, NIH, FDA, NASA, CDC, etc., one could be forgiven for fearing that ideology is again ascendant over scientific reality: The very dynamic that led to Lysenkoism less than a century ago. These possible “science” leaders are indeed a threat, particularly if they get a high level of popular support for “theories” they have publicly announced that defy years of scientific discovery. What is going on in the American public?
What is wrong with us?
It is too easy to place the blame on a poor education system for the deep suspicion of science and scientists in many parts of our country. But asking “what is wrong with them?” should be secondary to the far more important question of “what is wrong with us?” Scientists and their supporters may be about to reap a whirlwind that we have at least partially sown.
It is a tragedy that so many people I talk with have experienced science in their school education as only a set of facts to be memorized and spit back out at test time. I think we can all agree that is not good science, or even science at all. No, the best science is built on the twin pillars of scientific method and scientific language, both of which have tremendous power to enlighten reality and unite or—sadly—to obscure and fragment.
What we say and do matters
Scientific method at its best is an intellectual openness to considering, debating, and testing new findings that enhance or even contradict current understandings. That philosophy is obviously inimical to more dogmatic belief systems, whose proponents simply dismiss scientists and scientific discoveries (e.g., vaccines) as incompatible with deeply held “truths.” The growing out-of-hand dismissal of science at least partially reflects a failure by us scientists to impart in both our communications and our actions just how freeing and even existentially satisfying the scientific method is.
The other pillar, scientific language, evolved out of necessity for scientists to communicate new concepts and discoveries accurately with each other as succinctly as possible. But for the non-scientist (or even the scientist in a different field of expertise), scientific language might as well be Sumerian when used outside the relevant laboratory. Modern day scientists tend to be particularly guilty of relying on professional language even in settings in which they may be the only one fluent, basically rendering concepts and ideas inaccessible to others, and thus more easily dismissed as “just another belief system.”
As a result of our unintentional obscuring of science, all manner of crazy ideas and charlatans can gain political and social ascendancy thanks to the relative accessibility of their mendacious language that offers “insider” knowledge and comfort. Lysenko’s twisting of method and language gave him (initially) great power over the Soviet population and even over many scientists. Those few scientists and science-supporters who opposed him did so initially only from inside the scientific ivory tower, and they were quickly and easily silenced. Others simply fled or hid, hoping he wouldn’t last long, which ended up only prolonging his tenure.
All of us must step up
Are we on the verge of a new American version of Lysenkoism? Maybe not, but there is no question we are facing at the very least a rough few years ahead for science. The temptation is strong to lay low until this madness is over. But that is what most scientists did in the face of Lysenkoism, to their own detriment. If we truly believe science is a critical element of a healthy and just society, scientists and their supporters cannot hide now.
The December 9th letter to the U.S. Senate from 75+ Nobel Laureates requesting that the senators turn down the nomination Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., to head the Department of Health and Human Services was a first step in the right direction. But all of us must push back, individually and collectively, on the emerging anti-scientific forces. Each of us needs to engage a much wider audience—using more accessible language—than our usual comfortable setting. In short, we must model a fearless commitment to good science and undertake a clear unmasking of bad science, no matter the political winds.
An alternate version of this article first appeared on December 11, 2024, in the Boulder Daily Camera under the title “This is no time for scientists and science-supporters to hide.”