Bush-League Lysenkoism (Scientific Publication)

Scientific American ^ | 4-26-2004 | The Editors

[blam]

April 26, 2004

Bush-League Lysenkoism

The White House bends science to its will
By The Editors

Image: J.SCOTT APPLEWHITE AP Photo

STANDING UP for science--or stepping on it? Starting in the 1930s, the Soviets spurned genetics in favor of Lysenkoism, a fraudulent theory of heredity inspired by Communist ideology. Doing so crippled agriculture in the U.S.S.R. for decades. You would think that bad precedent would have taught President George W. Bush something. But perhaps he is no better at history than at science. In February his White House received failing marks in a statement signed by 62 leading scientists, including 20 Nobel laureates, 19 recipients of the National Medal of Science, and advisers to the Eisenhower and Nixon administrations. It begins, "Successful application of science has played a large part in the policies that have made the United States of America the world's most powerful nation and its citizens increasingly prosperous and healthy. Although scientific input to the government is rarely the only factor in public policy decisions, this input should always be weighed from an objective and impartial perspective to avoid perilous consequences.... The administration of George W. Bush has, however, disregarded this principle."

Doubters of that judgment should read the report from the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) that accompanies the statement, "Restoring Scientific Integrity in Policy Making" (available at www.ucsusa.org). Among the affronts that it details: The administration misrepresented the findings of the National Academy of Sciences and other experts on climate change. It meddled with the discussion of climate change in an Environmental Protection Agency report until the EPA eliminated that section. It suppressed another EPA study that showed that the administration's proposed Clear Skies Act would do less than current law to reduce air pollution and mercury contamination of fish. It even dropped independent scientists from advisory committees on lead poisoning and drug abuse in favor of ones with ties to industry.

Let us offer more examples of our own. The Department of Health and Human Services deleted information from its Web sites that runs contrary to the president's preference for "abstinence only" sex education programs. The Office of Foreign Assets Control made it much more difficult for anyone from "hostile nations" to be published in the U.S., so some scientific journals will no longer consider submissions from them. The Office of Management and Budget has proposed overhauling peer review for funding of science that bears on environmental and health regulations--in effect, industry scientists would get to approve what research is conducted by the EPA.

None of those criticisms fazes the president, though. Less than two weeks after the UCS statement was released, Bush unceremoniously replaced two advocates of human embryonic stem cell research on his advisory Council on Bioethics with individuals more likely to give him a hallelujah chorus of opposition to it. Blind loyalists to the president will dismiss the UCS report because that organization often tilts left--never mind that some of those signatories are conservatives. They may brush off this magazine's reproofs the same way, as well as the regular salvos launched by California Representative Henry A. Waxman of the House Government Reform Committee [see Insights] and maybe even Arizona Senator John McCain's scrutiny for the Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation. But it is increasingly impossible to ignore that this White House disdains research that inconveniences it.

[blam]

I cancelled my subscription to Scientific American today.

[blam]

Ping. I've been threatning to cancel for months now, today I did!

[muawiyah]

Why did you wait so long? They were sold to a German outfit years ago, and more recently ended up in the hands of a publishing house better known for it's pornography than anything else. They have since been sold to yet others.

Political opinions by anyone affiliated with SA should be taken with a grain of salt.

[eclectic]

I was thoroughly disgusted by this editorial too. I wanted to send them a letter and express my opinion, but then I realized that this piece like so much of junk science is simply unworthy of discussion

[Southack]

Outrageous. This sort of psuedo-academic/research abuse...to dabble in pure politics...is a prime example of how science has been corrupted.

Not by the White House...but by those who ridicule and attack anyone who dares criticize pro-life or pro-industry or even (in the case of the great global warming hoax) real science itself.

[Southack]

uh oh... should be: Not by the White House...but by those who ridicule and attack anyone who dares NOT criticize pro-life or pro-industry or even (in the case of the great global warming hoax) real science itself

[lepton]

You know...this parade of non-sequitors isn't even consistent within itself.

[Prospero]

Very glad I was not alone. I read this nasty editorial, and nearly puked at the glorification they gave on a full article about Henry Waxman. He may indeed be a scientific wonder, but this was beyond the rhelm.

Being a digital subscriber, unsubscribing was SO easy...

The magazine's pandering to junque science and Grant pimpsters finally reached the end today.

Since we were both alone, probability indicates many more must have had the same reaction.

[genefromjersey]

Goodness ! Trofim Lysenko !

I read about him when I was a sophomore in HS -over 50 years ago. The American Communist party was all a-twitter,because Lysenko's drivel had been endorsed by The Party,and the Party could not be wrong,but Lysenko surely was,and (sob !) What is the correct Dialectic to apply ?

[blam]

"Since we were both alone, probability indicates many more must have had the same reaction."

I expect and hope so. LOL. I don't know how to handle the gift subscription to my son. I'll probably just let it expire.

[RightWingAtheist]

I flipped through this issue at a newsstand, and both this asinine editorial-a collection of ad homneim comments which violates just about every rule of rational discourse- and the fawning profile of the reprehensible Henry Waxman made want to buy a parakeet just so I could use the magazine to line its cage.

[RightWingAtheist]

It's much worse than your instructor probably even described. There were many reasons for the Ukrainian famine, but the application of Lysenko's idiotic theories played no small part. Moreover, hundreds of scientists were sent into the death camps because of their denunciations of Lysenko. When you consider all this, the headline of this editorial is all the more misleading and tasteless.

[Hostage]

Hopefully no one will confuse Scientific American with the prestigious journal "Science".

Bush's policy is very much pro science and encourages peer reviews that disdain politics. As a scientist I find this refreshing. I have seen my share of politically biased scientific studies. Often the funding behind such publications has driven a party-line conclusion. I find these incidents disgusting.

To compare Bush's science policy with Lysenkoism is absurd. To call a scientist a Lysenkoist is analogous to calling a political activist a nazi. We have heard the President called 'nazi', 'stupid cowboy', 'lapdog of the evil oil companies' and so on.

The 'scientists' who wrote this so-called science policy critique have cheapened themselves to a lower category of persons that resort to name calling and hyperbole. Whatever their motivation they do not deserve to be revered with the title of 'scientist'.

[RightWingAtheist]

It could have been worse. They could have compared him to Phillip Lenard.

[corkoman]

SA used to be great. I cancelled about 2 years ago when they smeared the Swede who challenged the global warming morons.

[RightWhale]

SA is agenda driven. There is next to no science in it. Waste of money.

[NewHampshireDuo]

Scientific American was the first magazine I ever subscribed to (first year of high school around 1963). I also subscribed to it longer than any other magazine but in the mid 90s I'd had enough. It's now a piece of trash.

[Hostage]

Although Lenard was completely misguided in his opposition to Einstein's relativity, we should not compare his work to Lysenko's, which was completely bereft of any scientific discovery or utility.

Physics in Germany and other countries was considered a lowly vocation and disproportionately populated by people who were Jewish because it was accessible to them (few others wanted that type of work). Thus grew an association of Physics and Jewishness. The result was a politicization of the discipline.

Lenard was a recipient of the Nobel prize in 1905 for a significant work in cathode rays. He was older and likely senile at the time of his association with the Nazi science policy (an antisemitic policy).

Keep in mind also that Einstein's relativity was viewed skeptically by all physic societies for a long time, and there are still skeptics. In fact there is evidence that Einstien's theories are not completely general. I am not a physicist but I have colleagues that are and it is interesting to hear them discuss problems of relativity in the context of singularities and blackholes.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

A more apt analogy to Lysenkoism is the notion of global warming, for which there is absolutely no scientific evidence, adhered to with religious fervor by Scientific American and other Liberal propaganda rags for purposes of advancing a collectivist social agenda.

[Salman]

Scientific American is no more of a scientific publication than Popular Mechanics. It is and always has been a mass market magazine for science "fans".

Now with a political agenda, I see.