How Ideology Killed Evidence: The Tragedy of Lysenkoism
- Sagnik Mukherjee
- Jan 2
- 6 min read
Abstract
This essay undertakes an examination of the life and legacy of Trofim Denisovich Lysenko, a figure whose prominence within Soviet scientific circles had catastrophic consequences. His unsubstantiated theories and pseudo-scientific methodologies contributed to extensive agricultural collapse, resulting in acute food shortages and state-orchestrated famines that claimed the lives of millions of Soviet citizens.Furthermore, this essay seeks to elucidate the profound risks posed by the intrusion of ideological conviction and personal bias into the natural sciences, as well as the extent to which state power can enforce and institutionalise dominant doctrines within the scientific community and broader intelligentsia.
Introduction
Trofim Denisovich Lysenko (29 September 1898 – 20 November 1976) emerged as a leading advocate of Lamarckian inheritance and repudiated Mendelian genetics in favour of a set of unorthodox and ultimately pseudoscientific doctrines that later came to be known collectively as Lysenkoism.
In 1940, he was appointed director of the Institute of Genetics under the Soviet Academy of Sciences, a position from which he wielded considerable political authority. Lysenko employed this influence to suppress scientific dissent, systematically discrediting, marginalising, and in many cases imprisoning critics who challenged his anti-Mendelian views, thereby entrenching his theories as official state ideology.
Soviet geneticists who refused to abandon Mendelian principles were removed from their positions, often reduced to poverty, and in several notable instances incarcerated. Among the most prominent of these was the botanist Nikolai Vavilov. The widespread implementation of Lysenko’s agronomic prescriptions contributed significantly to agricultural failures and famines that resulted in the deaths of millions within the Soviet Union. The extension of his methods to the People’s Republic of China in 1958 produced similarly disastrous outcomes, playing a major role in the Great Chinese Famine of 1959–1961.
Keywords: Trofim Denisovich Lysenko, pseudoscientific doctrines, Lysenkoism, Institute of
Genetics under the Soviet Academy, death of millions of Soviet people
Early Life
Lysenko was born into a Ukrainian peasant family, a background that afforded him only limited formal education—typical of rural communities of the period. He did not acquire basic literacy until the age of thirteen and managed to complete merely two years of schooling, coinciding fortuitously with the upheavals of the Russian Revolution. In the new political climate, his proletarian origins and loyalty to the Bolshevik Party proved advantageous for his advancement into higher education. Far more detrimental, however, was his inadequate academic foundation. Early in his career, one of his scientific presentations was sharply criticised by Nikolai Maximov, then director of his institute, for elementary statistical errors. Instead of addressing these shortcomings, Lysenko rejected the discipline altogether, famously asserting that “mathematics has no place in biology.”
His pseudoscientific approach was thus rooted in a combination of ignorance and resentment, and it became politically expedient precisely because it allowed ideology to substitute for empirical knowledge. Lysenko routinely began with predetermined conclusions, selectively highlighted favourable observations, dismissed contradictory evidence, or fabricated results when necessary. These methods did nothing to hinder his rapid ascent, as his class background and ideological fervour aligned neatly with the priorities of the Soviet state.
Lysenko’s initial research focused on vernalisation—a legitimate agronomic technique in which crop maturation can be altered through controlled exposure to moisture and temperature. He declared that his supposed innovations in this field would significantly increase Soviet agricultural output, despite pre-existing evidence demonstrating that vernalisation did not enhance overall annual yields. His most distinctive and destructive theoretical stance was a wholesale rejection of Darwinian principles. Lysenko asserted that acquired characteristics were heritable, claiming, for instance, that vernalised grain would continue to yield vernalised progeny without further treatment. Far from being merely misguided, he proved to be ruthlessly intolerant of dissent, actively working to silence and eliminate those who challenged his assertions.
Retrospection: Science and Ideology
Having grown up in profound poverty at the dawn of the 20th century, Lysenko embraced the ideals of the communist revolution with unwavering conviction. Consequently, whenever scientific principles appeared to conflict with the doctrines of Marxism–Leninism, he consistently subordinated scientific reasoning to ideological loyalty, assuming that biological reality would ultimately vindicate political theory. It never did.
Lysenko benefited enormously from state patronage. His efforts to persuade peasants to resume cultivation impressed Joseph Stalin, who valued Lysenko’s proletarian background and saw in him a symbol of the regime’s commitment to the working class. By the late 1920s, Soviet leadership had largely consolidated its support behind Lysenko. This endorsement aligned with broader Party policies that sought to rapidly elevate individuals of proletarian origin into influential positions within agriculture, science, and industry. Officials actively sought candidates like Lysenko—those with peasant roots, limited formal scientific training, and minimal ties to the established academic community.
Lysenko’s close association with Stalin enabled him to exert substantial influence over Soviet genetics throughout the early and mid-20th century. His appointment in 1940 as director of the Institute of Genetics within the Academy of Sciences further institutionalised his authority, granting him extensive power to shape—and suppress—the direction of biological research across the USSR.
This dynamic can be understood through the lens of Antonio Gramsci’s concept of cultural hegemony, which posits that ruling groups maintain power through both coercive and ideological means. Lysenko exemplifies the cognitive or ideological dimension of this framework: the state utilised key institutions—universities, the press, and even the Academy of Sciences—to impose and legitimise its preferred doctrines. Simultaneously, it shaped public perception by exerting tight control over the intelligentsia, epitomised by Lysenko’s politically motivated elevation to the directorship of the Academy’s genetics division.
.
In his later career, as part of Stalin’s Great Plan for the Transformation of Nature, Lysenko played an advisory role in large-scale afforestation initiatives. He advocated a method of “nest” planting, arguing—without empirical basis—that trees planted in dense clusters would exhibit higher survival rates because they would “struggle together” against weeds and collectively channel their energy toward the strongest shoot, with weaker ones sacrificing themselves for the benefit of the group. To promote such supposed “class solidarity” among oak seedlings, he proposed digging a central pit surrounded by subsidiary holes. This idea reflected his broader belief that the Marxist principle of class unity extended beyond human society to encompass all living organisms, including plants and animals.
A core component of Lysenko’s worldview was his rejection of the concept of genes, which he dismissed as a “bourgeois” construct. In his view, organisms developed traits primarily in response to their immediate environment, and these acquired characteristics were heritable. Effectively, Lysenko attempted to transpose Marxist dialectical materialism directly into biological theory.
Despite the lack of scientific validity, Lysenko continued to receive high state honours. On 10 June 1945, he was awarded the title Hero of Socialist Labor along with the Order of Lenin “for outstanding services in the development of agricultural science and increasing the productivity of agricultural crops, especially potatoes and millet.” A second Order of Lenin followed on 10 September 1945, praising his role in fulfilling government directives during the wartime period to supply food for the military, the civilian population, and agricultural raw materials for industry.
Some contemporary apologists for Lysenko argue that his ideas anticipated the modern field of epigenetics, which examines how certain environmentally influenced traits may be transmitted across generations. This comparison, however, is deeply ironic: Lysenko rejected genetics entirely as a bourgeois fiction, whereas epigenetics operates squarely within the framework of molecular genetics. Moreover, epigenetically induced traits are generally limited in duration, typically persisting only for one or two generations, and are not permanent in the way Lysenko had claimed.
The legacy of Lysenkoism thus illustrates the profound dangers that arise when scientific inquiry is subordinated to ideological orthodoxy. By conflating political doctrine with biological theory, Lysenko not only hindered the progress of genetics but also reshaped the institutional culture of Soviet science into one that rewarded obedience over evidence. The suppression of genuine scientific research during his tenure created a vacuum in which misinformation flourished, innovation stagnated, and dissent became synonymous with political disloyalty. The long-term consequences of this period were severe: Soviet biology fell decades behind global developments, countless researchers were silenced or persecuted, and agricultural policies grounded in pseudoscience contributed to widespread human suffering. Lysenkoism remains a cautionary tale, underscoring the necessity of safeguarding scientific integrity from political manipulation and the catastrophic outcomes that emerge when ideology supplants empirical truth.
Conclusion
In conclusion, Lysenko’s pseudoscience rested fundamentally on a foundation of inadequate training, wilful ignorance, and ideological zeal, all of which rendered his theories politically expedient in a regime where doctrine routinely supplanted evidence. His approach reversed the scientific method: he began with ideologically convenient conclusions, selectively assembled favourable observations, dismissed contradictory data, and, when necessary, fabricated results. His most consequential departure from established science was the wholesale rejection of Darwinian principles, which he replaced with a biologically untenable vision shaped by Marxist–Leninist ideology. This essay has demonstrated not only the profound scientific distortions produced by Lysenko’s influence, but also the broader dangers posed when state institutions intervene in and ultimately commandeer scientific research to advance narrow political objectives. The history of Lysenkoism thus stands as a stark warning of the catastrophic consequences that arise when ideology overrides empirical inquiry.
References
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/12/trofim-lysenko-soviet-
Wikipedia
Remembering Lysenko: when ideology and science meet by Rob Poole
Hulton-Deutsch Collection / Corbis / Getty Images
Photos by M. Kalashnikov and N. Zubareva
Comments