Science in the ex-USSR

[MarxSchmarx]

Is science in the ex-USSR states doomed to mediocrity? When one peruses the leading journals, with the exception of certain branches of (mostly pure, rarely applied) mathematics and the occasional computer science entry, the former Soviet states, especially those other than Russia/Ukraine and maybe the Baltics, have virtually no contributions of note. Virtually all major medical and engineering discoveries and advances seem to be made, since the fall of the USSR, by scientists working outside the ex-USSR. What little successes they do have (e.g., in astronomy) are so flagrantly reliant on the massive Soviet investments in those fields.

I understand that there was a major loss of expertise in the early 1990s. But in most respects it has been entire scientific generation and still the notion that the ex-USSR is any leader in any field is incredulous. Indeed, science in most central Asian and Caucasus states has been entirely excluded from the western mainstream. But in terms of scientific stagnation, Russia doesn't seem far behind, and judging from citations I get the sense that the contributions of this former powerhouse tend to be comparable to states like Israel or Poland; indeed, it seems smaller countries like Sweden and South Korea are routinely able to make major advances that Russia is not. This is particularly surprising because many historically strong Soviet fields like biology have almost no major Soviet contributors left in the ex-USSR.

A necessary question is how this came about. The utter inability of post-Soviet science, even a generation later, to recover after the collapse of the USSR is intriguing, because it underscores just how irrelevant the brilliance of individual scientists can be.

[MustCrushCapitalism]

I wouldn't say soviet science has the best record... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trofim_Lysenko)

[Камо́ Зэд]

I'd like to present some links with regards to epigenetics with some discussion on how it relates to the work of Lysenko and Michurin, for the leisurely perusal of interested readers:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1973965/
http://cigognenews.blogspot.com/2010/01/....ml#comment-form
http://www.jstor.org/pss/1312341
http://www.diigo.com/bookmark/http%3A%2F....ml?tab=commen t
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v364/n6439/abs/364712a0.html
http://www.maverickscience.com/lamarck-vindicated.pdf
http://www.nytimes.com/1981/02/27/us/inh....s-reported.html
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,846027,00.html
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/04/090412081315.htm
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/body/epigenetics.html
http://kidshealth.org/parent/positive/issues_2011/2011_epigenetics.html
http://triplehelixblog.com/2011/05/epige....ou-should-care/
http://dels-old.nas.edu/envirohealth/newsletters/newsletter1_epigenetics.pdf
http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-07-evolution-orchid-epigenetics.html
http://genesdev.cshlp.org/content/23/7/781.full
http://www.sinauer.com/detail.php?id=2993
http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/....n-in-evolution/
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2011-06/foas-asc063011.php
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18925573
http://www.stembook.org/node/613
http://hstalks.com/main/browse_talk_info.php?talk_id=105&series_id=18&c=252
http://www.bionews.org.uk/page_81514.asp
http://themedicalbiochemistrypage.org/gene-regulation.html
http://www.xgencongress.com/epg
http://richarddawkins.net/articles/64273....on-in-evolution

[Flying Purple People Eater]

Biology? Strong? In the USSR?

If I'm not mistaken, stalin was supportive of a nutjob who was in complete denial of mendelian genetics because it 'opposed the current ideology'.

Edit: MCC already posted this, sorry.

[Камо́ Зэд]

Biology? Strong? In the USSR?

If I'm not mistaken, stalin was supportive of a nutjob who was in complete denial of mendelian genetics because it 'opposed the current ideology'.

Edit: MCC already posted this, sorry.

You might be interested in some of the above links, then, comrade. You might come to a different understanding and perhaps even an appreciation of Lysenko and Michurin, particularly with regards to developments in the field of epigenetics, sometimes creatively (or perhaps even derisively) called "Neo-Lamarckian" in that biologists are coming to understand more and more how external conditions can influence hereditary traits. Lysenko's Heredity and Its Variability makes for a good introduction into what the man actually believed with regards to biology.

[MustCrushCapitalism]

You might come to a different understanding and perhaps even an appreciation of Lysenko and Michurin, particularly with regards to developments in the field of epigenetics

I don't think you understand quite what you're endorsing. There's a reason why modern biologists universally accept Mendelian inheritance. Lamarckian inheritance does have some validity to it. Lamarck claimed that characteristics can be gained through use/environmental factors. This is partially accurate in that genes - genes which you've already inherited, that is - can be activated, or deactivated, through use.

So what did Lysenko do? Lysenko applied Lamarckian inheritance to genetics, rejecting Mendelian inheritance entirely. Basically - he claimed that genes are created through use, not simply activated, as in, you gain a whole new gene through use. This is total bullshit and was considered antiquated even for the time. The CPSU endorsed this for ideological reasons because the idea of genetic inheritance through hereditary being incorrect seemed more egalitarian or something. This mistaken idea of "proletarian science" left soviet biology backwards in comparison to western biologists who endorsed the correct theory of Mendelian inheritance.

To summarize - Lysenko was a psuedoscientist and to endorse his anti-scientific ideas is incorrect for the same reason that endorsing creationism is. There is a reason why the entire scientific community accepts Mendelian inheritance. There is a reason why it accepts evolution instead of creationism. There is a reason why it accepts global warming as existing. There is a reason it does not accept Lamarckian inheritance as a replacement for Mendelian. Science should be left to the scientific community.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

http://richarddawkins.net/articles/64273....on-in-evolution

This link is broken.