Lysenkoism
A group of critical-Marxist scholars called, "Science for the People," which included influential anthropologist Stephen J. Gould, began directing its activist efforts against any field that studied possible genetic contributions to individual and group differences.
“The Mismeasure of Man ends up as a sophisticated piece of political propaganda, rather than as a balanced scientific analysis… Instead of recognizing the value of eliminating bias, his answer is to press for equal and opposite bias, in a virtuous direction-not recognizing the irony and danger… In effect, we see here Lysenkoism risen again: an effort to outlaw a field of science because it conflicts with a political dogma… as Trofim Lysenko did in the Soviet Union to suppress all of genetics between 1935 and 1965… Science can make a great contribution toward solving our social problems by helping us to base our policies and judgments upon reality, rather than upon wish or conjecture. Because this influence is so powerful it is essential for such contributions to be judged critically, by the standards of science” (Davis 1978, 41-59)
“The increased focus of our age on social justice… has had admirable consequences. But it has also reactivated an old threat to science: the demand that certain kinds of scientific knowledge be forbidden… [But this position] ignores a crucial distinction: between actions that are themselves dangerous and knowledge that might lead to dangerous actions… Science does not create the realities of nature: it only discovers them. And if it is not allowed to discover them they will still be there, determining whether or not our assumptions and our predictions turn out to be correct… If we wish to build social policy soundly we must not confuse the normative with the empirical… [in] an illogical effort to derive an ‘is’ from an ‘ought’.” Call this move “the moralistic fallacy… the mirror image of… the naturalistic fallacy. But, alas… we are in the midst of one of history’s swings between a romantic concern with the good and a classic concern with the truth.” (Davis 1978, 390)
Davis, Bernard. (1978) Neo-Lysenkoism, IQ, and the Press. The Public Interest.
“The Mismeasure of Man ends up as a sophisticated piece of political propaganda, rather than as a balanced scientific analysis… Instead of recognizing the value of eliminating bias, his answer is to press for equal and opposite bias, in a virtuous direction-not recognizing the irony and danger… In effect, we see here Lysenkoism risen again: an effort to outlaw a field of science because it conflicts with a political dogma… as Trofim Lysenko did in the Soviet Union to suppress all of genetics between 1935 and 1965… Science can make a great contribution toward solving our social problems by helping us to base our policies and judgments upon reality, rather than upon wish or conjecture. Because this influence is so powerful it is essential for such contributions to be judged critically, by the standards of science” (Davis 1978, 41-59)
“The increased focus of our age on social justice… has had admirable consequences. But it has also reactivated an old threat to science: the demand that certain kinds of scientific knowledge be forbidden… [But this position] ignores a crucial distinction: between actions that are themselves dangerous and knowledge that might lead to dangerous actions… Science does not create the realities of nature: it only discovers them. And if it is not allowed to discover them they will still be there, determining whether or not our assumptions and our predictions turn out to be correct… If we wish to build social policy soundly we must not confuse the normative with the empirical… [in] an illogical effort to derive an ‘is’ from an ‘ought’.” Call this move “the moralistic fallacy… the mirror image of… the naturalistic fallacy. But, alas… we are in the midst of one of history’s swings between a romantic concern with the good and a classic concern with the truth.” (Davis 1978, 390)
Davis, Bernard. (1978) Neo-Lysenkoism, IQ, and the Press. The Public Interest.