Published May 24th, 2006 by Future Atlas
Communists, creationists, and competitiveness
The June 2006 Scientific American notes the 50th anniversary of the resignation of Trofim Lysenko from his position overseeing the Soviet Union’s agricultural science.
Lysenko famously set back Soviet science by rejecting Mendelian genetics — the science of genetics — in favor of the idea that organisms could acquire characteristics during their lifetimes, as the latter was seen as more compatible with Soviet Marxism and its pursuit of the new human.
Real damage was done; Soviet farms apparently did not even plant ideologically incorrect hybrid corn until Lysenko was out of the way.
Holden Thorpe points out in “Evolution’s Bottom Line” in the NYT that creationists could do similar harm in the United States.
Creationism, he notes, has no commercial applications, while evolution does. An understanding of evolutionary relationships enables us to use animal genomes to study human health problems, and the knowledge that evolution continues equips us to fight deadly antibiotic-resistant bacteria.
Humans and bacteria share many genes, making antibacterial treatments trickier; Thorp suggests that most people would rather use antibiotics developed by someone who understood how this sharing came to be, rather than by a Biblical literalist ignorant of this relationship.
How will American students, and American competitiveness, fare when American kids are learning an ideologically distorted version of science, while Indians and Chinese students are learning the real thing, Thorp asks?
The Soviet Union suffered when ideologues suppressed science that disturbed their religious world view; the United States will suffer if the same thing occurs here.