Read on Twitter
A thread on today’s Never Just Science, on Lysenko, Lysenkoism, what it means to call something “Lysenkoist.” https://neverjustscience.substack.com/p/lysenkos-ghosts
I felt I owed you all this post, if nothing else to explain why the logo is a fruit fly (spoiler: Lysenko!). But with the White House withdrawing from WHO, threatening Fauci, & pressuring the CDC, the time seemed right.
There was also a report on Sharpiegate that confirmed that the president tried to get weather forecasters fired. That seemed relevant. https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2020/07/09/sharpiegate-inspector-general-final-report/
Perhaps not surprisingly, lots of people started wondering, out loud, “Is this Lysenkoism?” (Do a Twitter search for Lysenko, you’ll see people you know and respect!) And for once, I thought, “Maybe?”
So let’s back up. The deal with Lysenko is that (I’m oversimplifying here) he basically destroyed mid-century Soviet genetics by cozying up to Stalin. In 1948, Stalin endorsed his crackpot theories, genetics was dismantled, and the USSR had a “party line in science.”
US propagandists combined what happened in 1948 with (true!) reports of geneticists’ deaths in the 30s purges and turned the whole thing into a cautionary tale for science under Communism.
Basically, they told this story, which you may have encountered before if Lysenko’s name is familiar to you:
Communism => State control of science => A party line in science => Murder for thought crimes
Communism => State control of science => A party line in science => Murder for thought crimes
FTR, this is not how science actually worked in the USSR. But it’s usually what people have in mind when they invoke Lysenko’s name. The result is that “Lysenko” has become a phrase to shut down conversations about science and politics.
Those of you who have followed me awhile know this happens ALL THE TIME. I say, “Science is political!” And some yahoo says, “But LYSENKO! Audra, saying ‘science is political’ will get scientists KILLED!”
Reader, would it surprise you to know that these people are not arguing in good faith? 
Another legacy of Lysenko is that even well-meaning people write op-eds that include lines like, “The only valid reason to change released guidelines is new information and new science — not politics.” https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/07/14/cdc-directors-trump-politics/
Or ones that begin, “When you mix science and politics, you get politics.” https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/14/opinion/coronavirus-shutdown.html?referringSource=articleShare
Neither of these op-eds included the word “Lysenko.” One wonders if it appeared in the drafts.
Don’t misunderstand me. There is something *deeply wrong* with the Tr%mp administration’s attitude toward and use of scientific expertise. Deadly wrong. But the new thing is not the “insertion” of “politics” into “science.”
Like many people who write about such things, I struggle to know what, exactly, to call what’s happening. (Flirting with fascism seems...not wrong?) But I don’t like calling it “Lysenkoism.” The phrase still reeks of propaganda and anti-Communism.
I am, however, beginning to think that we might be able to draw some useful lessons from what *actually* happened with science in the Soviet Union, instead of the ghost stories we usually tell about Lysenko’s path to power.
Here we have a situation in which the occupant of the most powerful political office in the country is attempting to punish his political “enemies,” classified as such because they stated scientific findings that contradict beliefs based on nothing but political convenience.
Not quite Lysenkoism. But definitely Lysenko-ish. https://neverjustscience.substack.com/p/lysenkos-ghosts
If you enjoyed this thread or the post, check out FREEDOM'S LAB, where I have a lot more to say on the topic of Lysenko and Lysenkoism as anti-Communist propaganda! Available now in hard copy or ebook, paperback releases 8/4. https://jhupbooks.press.jhu.edu/title/freedoms-laboratory
