In 1948, the science of genetics and evolutionary biology came to an abrupt halt in the Soviet Union. Speaking at a meeting of the Lenin All-Union Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin announced that the pseudo-scientific theories of agronomist Trofim Lysenko, which denied the existence of genes, would become official state policy. Dissenting scientists were later arrested, imprisoned and in some cases executed.
Rejecting the basic tenets of evolutionary science, Lysenko argued that crop yields could be improved from one generation to another simply by exposing plants to different environments where they would acquire new characteristics that would subsequently be passed on to the next generation. The implementation of “Lysenkoism” was disastrous, directly contributing to the famines that killed millions in the USSR and later in China where Lysenko’s theories were also adopted.
It's a powerful and tragic lesson about the perils of permitting political dogma to dictate science and research. Yet, nearly 80 years after the ill-fated adoption of Lysenkoism, blatant political acts to repudiate, steer and control science are again on the rise.
In the United States, an Associated Press investigation last year documented more than 420 anti-science bills introduced in state legislatures. Collectively, the bills would sweep away a host of scientifically proven public health protections such as vaccines, milk pasteurization and fluoridated drinking water.
Closer to home, dozens of Alberta scientists, doctors and researchers called on the provincial government to reject the recommendations contained in its pandemic response report released last year. The task force broke with scientific consensus in recommending that healthy children and teens not receive COVID-19 shots and that vaccinations for the rest of the population proceed only with "full disclosure" of alleged but unproven risks. Premier Danielle Smith defended the unscientific claims in the report, saying she was pleased to see “diverse perspectives” being expressed. But perspectives aren't necessarily facts.
Why is anti-science becoming more mainstream and openly embraced by governments around the world? Part of the answer likely lies in the broader rise of authoritarian populism fuelled by economic insecurity, obscene levels of income and wealth inequality, and a subsequent distrust of and hostility toward established liberal institutions — including universities and colleges. It is no secret that authoritarians draw strength from casting doubt on expertise.
Another reason is an old one: powerful interests — whether religious, political or economic — seek to suppress knowledge that is inconvenient or threatening to their power. Those who, like the current U.S. President, call climate change a “hoax” are simply and unapologetically parroting the talking points of fossil fuel companies and petro-states.
Pushing back against anti-science is no easy task. There are deep economic and political factors at play that we desperately need to address. Still, there are some immediate things that can be done. First and foremost, we need to build stronger mechanisms to protect science from political interference. At the federal level in Canada, explicitly prohibiting political interference in the granting agencies would be a good start.
At the institutional level, strong academic freedom protections are vital. Universities and colleges should recognize they have a positive obligation to protect academic freedom, including actively and publicly supporting scientists and researchers who are being pressured and harassed politically.
Finally, we need better public funding for research and stronger, better enforced conflict of interest rules. The sad reality is that academic science has sometimes been captured by industry interests and other forms of corruption that has only fuelled public distrust.
The stakes couldn’t be higher. As the Lysenko affair teaches us, willfully ignoring science to serve a political agenda not only impedes progress. Whether it is agronomy, vaccine development or climate change, turning our back on science will inevitably cost lives.
