Sleet: Why did Stalin oppose genetic technology?

Sleet: Why did Stalin oppose genetic technology?——Also talk about the issue of genetic modification (The following is a summary of the chat records between me and a netizen.) 1. Why did Stalin oppose genetic technology? Mr. D: I heard that Stalin used politics to interfere in science and severely damaged the development of science and technology in the Soviet Union. Is it true? I: Stalin put forward a slogan called "Technology determines everything." When Stalin died, the Soviet Union's technology had already caught up with the United States. Although the Soviet Union's four major inventions, the nuclear power plant, intercontinental missiles, artificial satellites and manned spaceflight, were in the early Hetu period, they were actually planned by Stalin during his lifetime. If this is political interference in science, it is also active interference. Mr. D: Well, that makes sense. Me: However, although Stalin put forward the slogan "technology determines everything", he was not a blind technological optimist. For example, Stalin never recognized the third technological revolution. Mr. D: Why doesn’t he admit the third technological revolution? Does he think it all belongs to this stage of industrial civilization? I: I can’t remember the examples he gave, but I can make analogies, such as airplanes and stealth airplanes, television and digital television. The former can be said to be revolution, while the latter can only be said to be reform. Mr. D: It’s not on the same level. Me: Yes. In addition, Stalin generally did not intervene in academic debates in the natural sciences, but with one exception, he supported Lysenko's criticism of the Morgan School of Genetics, the originator of today's genetic technology. Mr. D: I’ve heard a little bit about it, but I’m not sure about the details. Can you talk about the specific situation? Me: Lysenko’s report to Stalin was: Morgan’s genetic theory is bourgeois science, and traditional grafting and hybrid breeding is proletarian science. Mr. D: Why is it divided like this? Me: Stalin said: I support your theory and oppose Morgan's genetic theory, but your statement is completely wrong. In the field of natural science, there is only a distinction between science and pseudoscience, and there is no distinction between bourgeois science and proletarian science. I support you because I think what you say is right, not because you are proletarian. Otherwise, tell me, what kind of class is mathematics? Mr. D: Haha, Stalin’s level is still high. Natural science really should not be divided into bourgeois science and proletarian science. However, I heard that Stalin shot all the Morgan School members. This was too much. Me: Your statement is completely wrong. Lysenko had two debates with Vavilov and others of the Morgan School. The first time was from 1935 to 1941. The result of this debate is that there is no academic conclusion and both groups can continue to study. The second time was in 1948, when Stalin supported Lysenko’s criticism of the Morgan School. In the following four years, most Morgan School scientists stopped relevant research. But during the first debate, scientists from both groups were found guilty of treason, with more of the Morgan School being found guilty of treason. Its leader Vavilov himself was arrested in 1940 and died of illness in prison in 1943. Mr. D: It seems that I confused the two arguments. Me: I also confused the nature of the incident. Vavilov was arrested for treason, not for advocating Morgan's genetic theory, and someone from Lysenko's group was also arrested. In 1948, Stalin supported Lysenko's criticism of the Morgan School, but he did not arrest the Morgan School members, let alone shoot them. Mr. D: Did Vavilov commit treason? Me: I don’t know the details. But you can refer to today's Chinese intellectuals to see if all of them are loyal to the country. Mr. D: I’m confused, so Vavilov is very likely to be treason. Me: There is another thing worth noting. Vavilov was arrested in 1940, when the Great Purge was over. Also, after the outbreak of the Patriotic War in 1941, most criminals were released, including those with conclusive evidence of assassinating Stalin. However, Vavilov was not released, which is unlikely to happen without serious treason and sufficient evidence. Mr. D: You clarified a lot of my doubts. However, Lysenko’s theory is obviously wrong, so why does Stalin still support him? Me: Lysenko believes that genes do not exist at all, and the so-called genetic genes are completely fabricated by Morgan Vavilov and others.

Me: But this also shows that science does not have class characteristics, but the application and promotion of science does. Mr. D: What do you think of the prospects of genetically modified technology? Me: I don’t quite understand this, but I’m not optimistic about it personally. Science is very interesting. Some things that are considered correct today may not be correct tomorrow. Copernicus's heliocentric theory started modern science, but today we know that the sun is not the center of the universe; Newtonian mechanics began the era of physics, and today we know that it was just a special case with small errors in low-speed motion; Marie Curie discovered many things after radium The rich used radium to treat diseases, but healthy people were killed... Mr. D: Do you mean that the genetically modified technology itself may be wrong? Me: It is not wrong, but imperfect and defective. Lysenko’s theory of denying the existence of genes is no longer mentioned, but the Morgan School no longer denies grafting, hybridization and acquired inheritance. The debate in the fields of acquired inheritance is not over yet. Although current science believes that DNA (or RNA) is the only genetic material, perhaps the development of science and technology in the future will discover new genetic material, and then the entire now popular genetically modified technology will become a technology for creating fatally defective species. Mr. D: It is indeed possible. Me: Of course there is another possibility. Genetically modified technology will gradually be improved and eventually bring a revolution to agriculture. Mr. D: If so, will your opposition to the commercial planting of genetically modified crops cause China's agricultural backwardness? I: Your point of view is also a misunderstanding that many people fall into: that is, technologically advanced is good. Chemical fertilizers and pesticides have indeed brought a revolution to agriculture, but they have also cost humans a heavy price. Even if genetically modified technology brings a revolution to agriculture, it will inevitably come at a heavy price. There would be no harm in letting others try it first and China commercializing it later. Mr. D: That makes sense. But I am still a little worried that China's later commercial planting will lead to China's agricultural backwardness. Me: Being behind is not necessarily a bad thing. Technology is to solve problems rather than create them. Personally, I think: If traditional organic agriculture can solve food problems, there is no need to adopt more advanced chemical agriculture. If chemical agriculture can solve food problems, there is no need to adopt more advanced genetically modified agriculture. High technology often means high risks. Mr. D: Really? Me: Let me tell you another interesting thing. I read the thoughts of the great scientist Qian Weichang when he visited the United States in the late 1970s. The general idea is: The United States is too advanced, and the people all wear chemical fiber; China is too backward. Now, almost all people wear cotton. If Chinese people all wear high-tech chemical fibers in the future, they will be extremely happy. Now the Chinese people are really wearing chemical fiber. Are they happy? Mr. D: I am so happy that I almost die, hehe. Me: This happened to the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union has long rejected fast-growing chicken technology. Although the Soviet Union’s chicken consumption is at the forefront of the world, the average size of each chicken is less than half that of the United States. In the late 1980s, many people took to the streets with slogans such as "Even socialist chickens are smaller than capitalist chickens." However, today they are taking to the streets again with slogans such as "No fast-growing chickens, Bush legs, get out." If you had known today, why bother? Mr. D: Do you think technology will lead to the destruction of mankind? Me: I am not an extreme environmentalist, but I think that if profits are blindly pursued, the commercial science and technology system in which scientists and capitalists are closely integrated will not change. It will indeed lead to the destruction of mankind. However, I believe that socialism will defeat capitalism, and the commercial science and technology system that puts profits first will be replaced by the socialized science and technology system that puts people first. Humanity can finally control the harm of the double-edged sword of technology to a low level, and let science benefit mankind instead of harming it. Mr. D: Got it, goodbye. Me: Goodbye.