Posted by Image: Trofim Lysenko, founder of the pseudoscientific theory that became known as Lysenkoism, a rejection of the gene theory of inheritance in favor of something more agreeable to Marxist-Leninist ideology.
To those who might be interested, here is what I submitted today regarding the propose OMB rule changes governing federal research grants. Here’s a link to a NYT article for background, if you’re not already familiar with this topic. Many thanks to the Union of Concerned Scientists for providing the original template with the relevant policies in numbered form, which I have below in italics. I have streamlined the UCS text in order to stay under the character limit on the Federal Register site. The body of the comments are my personal opinions, not those of the UCS.
____________________________________
I am strongly opposed to OMB’s proposed rule changes to the Guidance for Federal Financial Assistance (OMB-2026-0034-0001). I focus here on the following specific concerns:
- The changes make political appointees, many of whom have no scientific training, or who may supervise programs on subjects beyond their expertise, the primary deciders of what constitutes a worthwhile scientific investment (§200.205(d)).
I am reminded of two other societies that went down the path of forcing science to align with political ideologies: the Soviet Union and Communist China.
In the Soviet Union, Stalin preferred the theories of Lysenko over those of Darwin and Mendel, which resulted in famines when agricultural practices were pursued using Marxist-Leninist principles rather than modern scientific genetics to guide plant breeding programs. In Communist China, the Cultural Revolution led to the suppression of Western science, which the cadres deemed ‘degenerate’ and ‘reactionary’. As a result, China impoverished itself for two generations.
Giving political ideology primacy over the pursuit of scientific truth is always a terrible idea.
- The Trump administration will have even more leeway to restrict funding eligibility to certain types of institutions, and to consider an applicant’s history and organizational “affiliations” in determining whether they’re eligible for funding (§200.206). Researchers who partner with hospitals who have provided lifesaving care to trans kids, nonprofits who have provided educational services to immigrants, or even schools that provide special education programs of which the administration has been critical could all see their fundings opportunities vanish.
In particular, the war on ‘gender ideology’ is cruel, un-American, and scientifically incoherent. Ideologies are ways of thinking that organize what is otherwise a hard-to-understand complex world. Therefore, proclaiming there are ‘only two genders’ is itself a gender ideology. The fact that this particular ‘two-gender’ ideology has no basis in science is just an added insult to thinking people and should not be codified in law or policy. Instead, we should seek to use science to better understand how to best support our children to live lives that they find the most meaningful and loving.
If we are to live up to the promise of the Declaration Of Independence, even trans kids have a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, as measured by their own lights, and not be denied care by the government.
- The rule sets strict limitations, seeking a large reduction in projects that involve international collaboration (§200.220).
International collaborations are essential to maintaining US leadership. Withdrawing behind national borders will only isolate us from some of the most exciting work going on in science. The US is a large and rich country, so that diminishment will not be felt by the general population for a time, but turning away from the path that led to America’s scientific, technological and economic dominance these last few generations will lead to a country that is poorer, more isolated, and viewed with suspicion by others.
And toward what end? What is the purpose of this turning away? We are handing the future to other countries.
- Even researchers who have already received funds will be subject to review of their findings after the fact, as publications and conference presentations will not be supported unless reviewed by political appointees (§200.421), a violation of the First Amendment.
Finally, trying to bring scientists to heel ideologically will backfire because forcing alignment with a political ideology will produce not loyalty but cynicism, along with false performances of agreement. In the old Soviet Union, scientists had to request permission to submit work for publication by first answering the question: ‘How does this work improve the lives of the peasants?’ They, of course, came up with various answers, all of which meant nothing.
The Icarus Question 