[thatnerd]

The comparison to the present-day US isn't hyperbole. It's not a perfect match but there are parallels.

The article mentions Lysenko, a Soviet "biologist" who set back Soviet biology for a generation. He believed, for example, that plants in the USSR would not compete with each other for resources the way they did in capitalist societies, but would instead share resources. He asserted that crops could therefore be planted closer together in the USSR, yielding more food per acre. Evidence to the contrary was suppressed: Lysenko had Stalin's ear and a zealot's confidence. The rest of the field was either purged or fell in line. Scientists lost their jobs or got sent to Siberia.

The comparison to the present-day US isn't perfect, but it also isn't hyperbole. While scientists in the US mostly aren't in the same type of danger of arrest for speaking out (assuming ICE doesn't start targeting political opponents), but we're looking at a similar era in the US in terms of making theories and data fit ideology. RFK, Jr. has his preferred biological theories about vaccines, autism, and disease. Government scientists are at risk of losing their jobs and their financial security if they reference (or publish) findings that Kennedy objects to. Universities are still (as far as I can tell) safe for natural scientists because the first wave of the crackdown is focused on the humanities and social sciences, so this purge of scientists is limited to federal government employees, but the effect is real, and it isn't a stretch to assume that if the government finds success in the current purge, it will go looking further afield.

The human impact is significant for those affected, but the article is right to point out that this purge of scientists from the government for ideological goals will have a broader impact for society: it will set back American science.

Kennedy doesn't even have to be wrong on the facts for the culture he's creating to be toxic for federal science in his department and beyond. Just the politicization of science pushes our country towards being a scientific backwater.

[MengerSponge]

Let's Not Lose Our Minds (2017) by Carl Zimmer: https://carlzimmer.medium.com/lets-not-lose-our-minds-c5dcac...

The situation has only devolved since he wrote this.

[lq9AJ8yrfs]

Neither US political party has a monopoly on Lysenko-style academics, unfortunately.

At least one of them seems to have an introspective capacity, at some level. So that's nice?

Genuinely I wonder if this would make for good charity? Where can I donate to promote political introspection? I'll consider any mainstream spot on the political spectrum.

[jjk166]

The fact that any party can implement Lysenko-style academics means the system has failed. We don't need political introspection so they more benevolently interfere with scientific progress, we need a system where they don't interfere, where they can't interfere without an impractical degree of effort.

Science is beneficial for progress, it makes sense at a 20,000 ft level for the government to encourage it, but politicians deciding which grants to offer, guidelines for what can be published by grant recipients, being able to make serious threats against universities and other such research institutions with few restrictions - there is no argument for a government to have such power. Either publicly funded research institutions should have strong protections in place for their academic integrity, or some alternative to government funding for these institutions should be the norm.

[insane_dreamer]

But only one party is halving scientific funding and withholding billions in research grants

[danaris]

> Universities are still (as far as I can tell) safe for natural scientists because the first wave of the crackdown is focused on the humanities and social sciences

Well, kinda—but only because they're not cracking down on any specific views in the natural sciences; they're just cutting their funding entirely.

Large swaths of natural science research at US universities relied (past tense) on federal grant funding, and that's effectively been eliminated across the board.

They just don't want any science research being done, period, unless it's 100% funded and owned by for-profit companies.

[stronglikedan]

This take is quite alarmist, but also so biased that it cannot be taken seriously.

[hermitcrab]

Is it though? Trump just fired an economist because she released some job numbers he didn't like.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvg3xrrzdr0o