The Perils of Politicising Science: The Ethical Crime of Lysenkoism

The 20th century was arguably the most productive century in the entire course of the human history. From penicillin to the atom bomb, from the theory of relativity (my favorite) to Freud’s controversial takes on cognitive neuroscience, to Sputnik. It was a glorious era for scientific advances.

Although scientific adventures were highly encouraged by states and federal authorities all over the world, this enthusiasm also facilitated authoritarian enterprises to insidiously gain control of the scientific progress and steer it toward their political agenda. We all know the infamous stories of the Nazis trying to exploit brilliant minds to fulfil their evil ambitions, figuratively and sometimes literally at gunpoint. Nazi eugenics and the Tuskegee syphilis study fit perfectly into this category.

While science majorly relies on empirical evidence, there were people who weaponised it to fulfil their desire to control the masses (putting science lipstick on an authoritarianism pig, if you will)

Lysenkoism is one such example, where scientific interpretations were twisted to fit the malicious policy slate of Stalin’s Soviet Marxist – Leninist state.

In the Soviet context, science was approached in a utilitarian rather than a veracious purpose. It was used as a tool to mask a carefully curated political posture.

So, what is Lysenkoism really?

Lysenkoism was a pseudoscientific, state-sponsored movement in the Soviet Union during the 1930s, led by an agronomist named Trofim Denisovich Lysenko. It majorly rejected Mendelian genetics, which is rooted in genes and inheritance. According to Lysenko, Mendelian genetics was a capitalist, “bourgeois” doctrine. He instead promoted a now obsolete “use disuse” theory derived from Lamarckism.

This stance was driven more by his sycophantic political alignment than by genuine concern for societal welfare.

There is another name you would never expect to associate with Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels

 Darwin!

Yes! Charles Darwin!

Darwinism’s Influence

Engels praised Darwin for providing a materialistic explanation for the development of life, which directly undermined creationist ideologies and conveniently supported the Soviet state’s atheistic policies. Their teleological flirtation with evolution, however, deepened the complexity of their paradoxical positions.

The Soviet state adopted Darwinism to advance its anti-religion agenda, yet simultaneously rejected the Mendelian genetics that underpins Darwin’s theory of natural selection.

This raises an another question 

Why not Mendelian genetics?

Within the Marxist–Leninist framework, Mendelian genetics  was interpreted as a far left trajectory which did not align with their collectivistic policies.

The core ideas of Mendelian genetics include:

1. Traits are inherited via discrete genes
2. Acquired traits are not inherited
3. Random mutation and recombination (in sexual reproduction) generate variation

This directly contradicts Lamarck’s theory, which proposed that organisms actively shape their evolution through interaction with the environment.

Why were they inclined towards Lamarckism?

According to Jean-Baptiste Lamarck, traits acquired during an organism’s lifetime are inheritable. His most famous example was the giraffe’s long neck, which he argued developed due to generations of giraffes stretching to reach higher branches of tall trees for food. 

By this logic, if you go to the gym, work out, and develop six-pack abs, your descendants should ideally inherit those abs.

This idea aligned very well with Marxist–Leninist beliefs in human and environmental malleability (Social change follows immutable laws)

The Soviet Union rejected Mendelian genetics because a modified Lamarckian view better supported the illusion that nature could be centrally planned and controlled just like their society. 

The rise of Lysenkoism

By 1930, Soviet agriculture started collapsing and Stalin’s forced collectivisation and elimination of kulak farmers led to the catastrophic famine of 1932–33, resulting in the deaths of millions.

Instead of addressing the root causes, the state searched for a technical “fix”, a deflective tactic designed to preserve its unreasonable authority. 

This set the stage for Lysenkoism leading to a tyrannical suppression of scientific dissent, enforced with zero tolerance for criticism.

Many well-informed scientists who opposed these views, were ousted by the state. A notable example was Nikolai Vavilov (not to be confused with his brother Physicist Sergei Vavilov, associated with Cherenkov radiation).

Parallels to Lysenkoism in the modern era

Political interference continues to fracture the conceptual foundations of science. A relatable example is the COVID-19 pandemic. Scientific findings were often used as political ammunition, vaccine effectiveness was downplayed due to diplomatic considerations, and public discourse was polarised by pro- and anti-vaccination narratives. The list goes on and on

The consequences of Lysenkoism

Due to the efforts of Stalin and Lysenko, genetics became widely discredited and frowned upon across the Eastern Bloc. Scientists who opposed this view were imprisoned, exiled, publicly shamed, and in some cases executed.

Empirical research was replaced with ideological dogma that favoured the state narratives. This severely crippled scientific progress and eroded ethical standards, as fear of dissent stifled one of the core mechanisms of scientific advancement which is to question the theories and debate the conclusions.

To be fair, Trofim Lysenko did make genuine contributions to science, His works on vernalisation (a good thing, by the way) is appreciated by many. However, his legacy remains inseparably tied to absolutist policy-driven movement.

This brings to mind a Thirukkural 

ஒன்றானும் தீச்சொல் பொருட்டாயின் நல்ல
பண்பினும் தீமை விளையும்

(Even a small wrongdoing can completely spoil a lifetime of good deeds)

When science is subordinated to ideology and dissent is silenced, both knowledge and human lives are placed at risk and often destroyed.