Would have Trofim Lysenko have been anti vaccine I know he was into pseudoscience and agriculture he rejected people like Charles Darwin and Gregor Mendel do you think he was a Soviet union equivalent of Robert F Kennedy Junior
>>2269594>Would have Trofim Lysenko have been anti vaccineWhy are you asking us as if vaccines didn't exist in his day? The man lived into the 70s, you can research how he and the USSR navigated vaccinations. The simple answer is "no, he wasn't anti-vaccine".
Lysenko is often slandered and meme'd on but a reality is that many of his criticisms of genetics were and are entirely valid. He didn't reject the idea that there was some kind of encoding mechanism in living things (much of his career was before the discovery of DNA) he correctly rejected the hypotheses of "scientific" racists and eugenicists in the early 20th century who hypothesized the existence of genes to explain the perceived inferiority of some people compared to others. Lysenko's criticism also correctly extends to the modern day, where the successors of those pseudoscientists now habitually insist that one's genes mechanically predetermine their abilities and identity. It should go without saying that this is nonsense, and genuine science now understands that one's genes do change throughout their lives, even in heritable ways at times, and there are myriad non-genetic factors which also significantly affect who we are throughout our lives.
>>2270110Very well said. People clown on Lysenko without understanding that the biggest proponents of genetics at the time were gigaracists which is probably a major reason why Lysenko and the soviets in general were put off by it.
If we suddenly managed to predict cancer by measuring skulls, these idiots would jump to make fun of people who criticized phrenology in the past.
https://stalinism.ru/elektronnaya-biblioteka/akademik-trofim-denisovich-lyisenko.htmlgood stuff on lysenko here google translate works enough
"Discussions between Michurins and Weismanists" especially related. lysenkos big problem was with the "immortality of the germline" its basically genetic determinism and nature vs nurture argument. lysenko being a dialectician of course thought it was a relationship between environment and genes while the opposition thought genes determined everything
>>2270796As it turns out, organisms have so much extra stuff in their genes, that is normally not active but gets enabled in special circumstances, like moving biomes, that it appears that lamarckian genetics are working
But the fun part about it isn't that Lysenko was wrong on those specific things, it's that Mendeloids were adamant about Lysenkoists faking their experiments, when in reality Mendeloids were dismissing real factual evidence in favour of their idealistic position
Unique IPs: 27