Sleet: Why did Stalin oppose gene technology? -It's also about genetic modification (the following is a chat record between me and a netizen. 1. Why did Stalin oppose gene technology? D Jun: I heard that Stalin interfered with science by politics, which seriously damaged the development of science and technology in the Soviet Union. Is it true?/You don't say. An: Stalin put forward a slogan called "Technology decides everything". By the time Stalin died, the Soviet Union had caught up with the United States in science and technology. Although the Soviet Union's four great inventions, nuclear power plants, intercontinental missiles, artificial satellites and manned space flight, were actually Stalin's plans before his death. If this is a political intervention in science, it is also a positive intervention. D Jun: Well, that makes sense. An: However, although Stalin put forward the slogan "Technology is everything", he was not a blind optimist of science and technology. For example, Stalin never recognized the third technological revolution. D Jun: Why doesn't he admit that the third technological revolution belongs to this stage of industrial civilization? I: I can't remember the examples he gave, but I can make an analogy, such as airplanes and stealth planes, television and digital television. The former can be said to be a revolution, while the latter can only be said to be a progress. D Jun: Not the same level. I: ok. In addition, Stalin generally did not participate in academic debates in natural sciences, but with one exception, he supported lysenko's criticism of Morgan Genetics School, the originator of gene technology today. D Jun: I've heard of it, but I'm not sure about it. Can you tell me about the specific situation? An: lysenko's report to Stalin is that Morgan's geneticism is bourgeois science, and the traditional graft hybridization breeding is proletarian science. D jun: why do you divide it like this? Me: Stalin said: I support your theory and oppose Morgan's gene theory, but your statement is completely wrong. There is only a distinction between science and pseudoscience in the field of natural science, and there is no distinction between bourgeois science and proletarian science. I support you because I think you are right, not because you are a proletariat. Why don't you tell me what math is? D Jun: Haha, Stalin's level is still very high. Natural science should not be divided into bourgeois science and proletarian science. However, it is too much to hear that Stalin shot the Morgan family. I: Your statement is completely wrong. Lysenko and vavilov of Morgan School have two arguments. The first time is from 1935 to 194 1 year. The result of this debate is that no academic conclusion has been reached, and both factions can continue to study. The second time was 1948, when Stalin supported lysenko's criticism of Morgan School. In the following four years, most Morgan school scientists stopped their research. However, in the first debate, some scientists from both factions were convicted of treason, and more people from Morgan School were convicted of treason. Its leader vavilov himself was arrested in 1940 and died in prison in 1943. D Jun: It seems that I have confused the two arguments. Me: I also confused the nature of the incident. Vavilov was arrested for treason, not because he advocated Morgan's genetic theory, but because of the lysenko faction. 1948 Stalin supported lysenko's criticism of Morgan School, but he didn't arrest Morgan School people, let alone shoot them. D Jun: Did vavilov commit treason? I: I don't know the details. But you can refer to whether the intellectuals in China today are all loyal to the country. D Jun: I'm dizzy, so vavilov will probably commit treason. I: There is another thing worth noting. Vavilov was arrested in 1940, when the purge was over. Also, 194 1 After the outbreak of the Great Patriotic War, most criminals were released, including Stalin's assassination with conclusive evidence. However, vavilov has not been released, which would not have happened without serious treason and sufficient evidence. D Jun: You have clarified a lot of my doubts. However, lysenko's theory is obviously wrong. How could Stalin support him? Me: lysenko thinks that genes don't exist. The so-called genetic genes were completely invented by Morgan vavilov and others. This is obviously wrong today, but the double helix structure of DNA was discovered after Stalin's death 1953, when the evidence of gene existence was not sufficient. At that time, vavilov and others denied graft hybridization and acquired inheritance, but people with a little agricultural knowledge knew that graft hybridization and acquired inheritance existed. D Jun: You mean that there are mistakes in the theories of both factions, and the mistakes of Morgan School were more obvious at that time? Ann: Yes, many people always equate the early gene theory with today's gene technology, but there is still a big difference between them. Before the theory of lateral gene transfer and epigenetics came into being, Morgan School had obvious loopholes. In addition, lysenko is a bit like Yuan Longping in China. He invented many new technologies by traditional breeding methods, which improved the yield and quality of crops, while vavilov focused on biological taxonomy, with few practical results. D Jun: That is to say, although lysenko's theory of denying the existence of genes was wrong, he made greater contributions to the agricultural production practice at that time. Ann: Yes, transgenic technology has only been widely used in recent ten years. Prior to this, the agricultural field has always been a traditional breeding technology. Although lysenko denied that gene ontology was wrong, he insisted that the achievements of traditional breeding techniques were indeed greater. In addition, from 1952, when Stalin was still alive, the Soviet Union began to publish articles that disagreed with lysenko's opinion. If Stalin had lived a few more years, he might not have supported lysenko's theory of denying the existence of genes. Second, about the genetically modified problem D Jun: What do you think of today's genetically modified problem? I participated in a transgenic activity these days and then supported it with Fang. What do you think of this? Me: Si Manan is a teacher I admire very much, but Si Manan and I have different views on the issue of genetic modification. But I think the general direction is the same, and it is not necessary to agree on every question. As for Fang, I don't know him and I can't draw a conclusion. I can only say that at present, I support most of his anti-counterfeiting activities and oppose his views on genetic modification. D Jun: Can you tell me your opinion? Si Manan said that rice hybridization in Yuan Longping is essentially a clumsy transgenic technology. Is it true?/You don't say. Me: From lysenko to Yuan Longping, whether they admit or deny the existence of genes, cultivating new varieties will indeed change genes. However, the risk degree of traditional breeding technology and modern transgenic technology is qualitatively different. For example, traditional breeding technology is like integrating the genes of whites and blacks, while modern transgenic technology is like integrating the genes of whites and bacteria. Can it be said that the risk is as great? D Jun: Si Manan said that mainstream scientists and the most important scientific institutions all over the world believe that genetically modified food is safe. Do you agree? I: I don't know about that. But the fact is, today's scientists are not the kind of scientists who avoided the pursuit of the church while studying in the Middle Ages. Contemporary scientists themselves are closely integrated with capitalists, and their products can only be funded by commercialization. The "opinions" driven by interests are hardly reliable. D Jun: Si Manan said that he is a "universal value school" on scientific issues. On the issue of transgenic technology, the standards of American scientists, German scientists, Japanese scientists and China scientists are unified. There can be no exceptions here. what do you reckon ? I don't think "pure science" divorced from politics exists. The lack of class in science does not mean that scientists have no class, nor does it mean that the application and popularization of science have no class. The United States is a profit-oriented country, and the standards for genetically modified foods are relatively loose. Germany pays more attention to environmental protection and has stricter standards. China is a socialist country, so we should pay more attention to the possible risks to the people. D Jun: Is China still a socialist country? I: I won't comment on this question. But I can tell you an interesting story. During the Cultural Revolution, I read a world survey, which said: American agriculture blindly pursued profits and applied fertilizers and pesticides indiscriminately, which not only destroyed the environment, but also damaged the quality of food. As a socialist country, China should put people's interests first, and never allow the abuse of chemical fertilizers and pesticides, so that science can benefit mankind instead of harming it ... D Jun: Haha, it's ironic to compare China today. An: But it also shows that there is no class in science, but there is a class in the application and promotion of science. D Jun: What do you think of the prospect of transgenic technology? Me: I don't know much about this, but I personally don't like it. Science is an interesting thing. Some things are right today and may be wrong tomorrow. Heliocentrism of Copernicus initiated modern science, but today we know that the sun is not the center of the universe; Newtonian mechanics began the physical age, and today we know that it is only a special case of low speed and small error; After Madame Curie discovered radium, many rich people used radium to treat diseases, and as a result, healthy people died ... D Jun: You mean that the transgenic technology itself may be wrong? I: It's not a mistake, it's just imperfect and flawed. Lysenko's theory of denying the existence of genes is no longer mentioned, but Morgan School no longer denies graft hybridization and acquired inheritance, and the debate in acquired inheritance and other fields is not over. Although today's science thinks that DNA (or RNA) is the only genetic material, perhaps new genetic material will be discovered with the development of science and technology in the future, so the whole popular transgenic technology will become a technology to make deadly defective species. D Jun: It is indeed possible. An: Of course, there is another possibility. Transgenic technology will gradually improve, and eventually bring a revolution to agriculture. D Jun: If so, will your opposition to commercial cultivation of genetically modified crops lead to agricultural backwardness in China? An: Your point of view is also a misunderstanding that many people fall into: advanced technology is good. Fertilizers and pesticides have indeed brought a revolution to agriculture, but they have also paid a heavy price to mankind. Even if transgenic technology will bring a revolution to agriculture, it will inevitably pay a heavy price. Let others try first. It won't hurt to plant it commercially in China in the future. D jun: that makes sense. But I'm still a little worried that the commercial planting in China in the later period will lead to the backwardness of agriculture in China. Me: Being backward is not necessarily a bad thing. Technology is to solve problems, not to create them. Personally, if traditional organic agriculture can solve the food problem, there is no need to adopt more advanced chemical agriculture. Chemical agriculture can solve the food problem, so there is no need to adopt more advanced transgenic agriculture. High technology often means high risk. D Jun: Really? Me: Let me tell you a funny story. I have seen Qian Weichang, a great scientist, feel when he visited the United States in the late 1970s. America is so advanced that people wear chemical fiber. China is so backward that almost everyone wears cotton cloth. If people in China wear high-tech chemical fiber in the future, they will be very happy. Now people in China really wear chemical fiber. Are they happy? D Jun: I'm so happy, hehe. Ann: It happened in the Soviet Union. For a long time, the Soviet Union has always rejected the technology of fast-growing chickens. Although the consumption of chicken in the Soviet Union ranks among the top in the world, the average size of each chicken is less than half that of the United States. At the end of 1980s, many people took to the streets and slogan "Even socialist chickens are smaller than capitalist chickens". As a result, today they took to the streets with the slogan "Don't give birth to chickens soon, Bush's legs will come out". If I know today, why should I know? D Jun: Do you think technology will lead mankind to destruction? Me: I am not an extreme environmentalist, but I think that if we blindly pursue profits, and the commercial science and technology system closely combined with scientists and capitalists remains unchanged, it will really lead to the destruction of mankind. But I believe that socialism will surely defeat capitalism, and the profit-oriented commercial science and technology system will be replaced by the people-oriented socialized science and technology system. Finally, mankind can control the harm of the double-edged sword of science and technology at a low level, so that science can benefit mankind rather than harm it. D Jun: I see. Goodbye. I: Goodbye.