davidbau.com

Starvation, Cook, and Bacon

In 1932, Stalin's authoritarian central planning program wrecked Soviet agriculture, starving millions. As the crisis deepened, Trofim Lysenko, a mediocre agronomist backed by Stalin, rejected established genetics as "bourgeois pseudoscience" and reorganized Soviet agriculture around his ideological theories. Plants could be trained by their environment, he claimed. Wheat could learn to resist cold through exposure. Scientific evidence was capitalist propaganda.

When the predictable disasters struck, Lysenko did not admit error. Instead, he blamed the scientists he had silenced. The geneticists he had purged were "wreckers" and "saboteurs" whose treachery explained why his methods failed. Thousands of real scientists were imprisoned or executed while millions of Soviet citizens starved.

What happened next reveals a three-step method that authoritarians use today....

The Totalitarian Recipe for Silencing Science

First, delegitimize the experts. Declare that scientists serve foreign interests, promote dangerous ideologies, or threaten the people's welfare. Why trust researchers whose findings contradict what the nation needs to believe?

Second, implement ideology-driven policy. Replace evidence-based decisions with politically convenient ones. Ignore warnings from the experts you've discredited.

Third, blame the discredited experts when disasters occur. When policies fail, point to the very scientists you silenced. Their "sabotage" explains everything.

Lysenko's program achieved its tragic goals, enabling him to maintain control over Soviet biology through the 1960s. He eliminated genetics as a field of study in the Soviet Union, purged thousands of scientists, and convinced Stalin and much of the Soviet public that his approach was correct. The method succeeded because it transformed scientific disagreement into political loyalty tests. Opposing Lysenko meant opposing the state.

From Moscow to Washington

The same playbook has been unfolding in the US for months. The administration has systematically squashed the independence of scientists across the nation. NSF Director Sethuraman Panchanathan resigned in April after 168 of his staff were fired. NIH Deputy Director Lawrence Tabak abruptly quit in February, followed by the removal of five institute directors. Nearly 400 climate scientists were dismissed from the National Climate Assessment. The EPA eliminated its entire Office of Research and Development, over 1,000 scientists. By March, nearly 2,000 of the nation's top researchers signed an open letter warning of an "assault on U.S. science," while a Nature poll found 75% of American scientists considering leaving the country.

Universities have been brought to heel through financial coercion. Columbia agreed to government demands after $400 million in funding was frozen. Harvard faces over $2 billion in frozen funds for refusing to accept government monitors in its classrooms. Cornell lost $1 billion, Northwestern $790 million. The message is clear: challenge the administration's ideology and lose your research funding. The chilling effect reaches every researcher dependent on federal grants, which in American science means nearly everyone.

Corporate science faces similar coercion. The government took a 10% stake in Intel after summoning its CEO to the White House. HHS terminated $500 million in mRNA vaccine contracts, forcing Pfizer, Moderna, and AstraZeneca to abandon life-saving research that experts warn will now move overseas. Tech giants desperate for renewable energy to power AI data centers remain silent as solar and wind projects are blocked. When Trump required AI companies to prove their chatbots aren't "woke," Microsoft declined comment. A Science report notes even "powerful private sector entities" now practice self-censorship wherever federal approval matters.

Worst of all, we are silencing the economic watchdogs who would warn that all this bullying is destroying the economy. On August 1st, Trump fired Bureau of Labor Statistics Commissioner Erika McEntarfer hours after she reported weak jobs numbers, accusing her without evidence of manipulating data. William Beach, Trump's own BLS commissioner from his first term, called the firing "groundless" and warned it "undermines the statistical mission of the Bureau."

On Monday, President Trump attempted to fire Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook, which would be the first time a president has dismissed a Fed governor in the institution's 111-year history. Cook herself is the economist whose groundbreaking research proved that violence and the breakdown of institutional independence destroy innovation and economic growth. Now she faces the very institutional attack her research warned against. Cook says Trump has no authority to remove her and is fighting the order in court. Under the Federal Reserve Act, governors can only be removed "for cause" which means serious misconduct.

This is not a story about liberal bias. Today, Trump dismissed his own CDC Chief Susan Monarez, a political appointee who had been opposed by Democrats and confirmed with party-line GOP backing. Her departure, precipitated by her refusal to deny vaccines to the American public, triggered resignations from veteran public health leaders Debra Houry, Demetre Daskalakis, Daniel Jernigan, and Jennifer Layden, career scientists with decades of experience managing disease outbreaks and epidemiological research.

Americans in 2025 enjoy something Soviet citizens in 1932 never had: the luxury of prosperity and the assumption that our institutions will endure. Yet, when Singapore restricted academic freedom through the 1990s while maintaining 7% annual growth, few citizens protested. When China tightened control over Hong Kong universities between 2019 and 2021, dismissing professors, mandating "national security education," the city's financial markets barely flickered. Prosperity anesthetizes populations against institutional erosion. This is not a new phenomenon. In 1933, German scientists presided over the world's most advanced research establishment. As unemployment plummeted from 30% to 2%, citizens felt increasingly secure. Within four years, 20% of physicists had been dismissed, including eleven Nobel laureates. The Kaiser Wilhelm Society continued operating: it simply redirected toward racial hygiene. Those who remained assumed their standing would protect them. By 1937, they were teaching "German physics," their economic comfort having become the chloroform under which scientific independence died. The three-step process works best precisely when people feel secure enough to tolerate "minor" compromises.

Bacon's Fragile 400-Year-Old Bargain

These attacks on scientific independence challenge a fragile historical achievement. We must recognize that authoritarian rule is the norm, not the exception in human history, and the rise of rational, scientific power is a relative historical aberration, the result of a 400-year-old bargain. If we do not defend it, that bargain will end.

Modern rational society emerged when thinkers like Francis Bacon faced a dilemma: how to sustain scientific autonomy even when it challenges authority. Bacon's framework was strategically brilliant: God had given humanity two separate books. The "Book of God's Word" revealed moral teachings. The "Book of God's Works" revealed the physical world. Each required different methods and different authorities.

Bacon's "Two Books" doctrine was ingenious. He was able to defend religion while also liberating scientific inquiry from church control. By separating domains of knowledge, he created space for evidence-based reasoning independent of political convenience.

The framework established that many truths exist independent of power. Temperature does not care about ideology. Disease transmission follows biological laws, not political preferences. Economic systems operate according to measurable patterns, not wishful thinking.

This separation became the foundation of both scientific method and democratic governance, forming the basis for the Enlightenment and several hundred years of technological progress and prosperity. It survives today in the independence of institutions like the CDC and the Federal Reserve. But each generation must defend the framework anew. Today, the role of the 17th century church has been taken by the authoritarian ruler.

Defending The Line Between Science and Starvation

Lysenko's story shows that protecting scientific independence from political authority is not just about power-sharing. It is the line between prosperity and starvation.

When political authority subordinates empirical knowledge, catastrophe follows. Soviet agriculture collapsed not because genetics was wrong, but because ideology trumped evidence. The "wreckers" and "saboteurs" Lysenko blamed were the very scientists who would have prevented the catastrophe.

Bacon's framework created intellectual space where unwelcome facts could be heard. That space is not self-maintaining. Each generation must choose whether evidence gets a voice independent of political convenience. Defending independent science requires concrete work. We must fund science that produces politically uncomfortable findings. We must speak up for experts under attack even when it costs us socially. We must learn enough about complex issues to distinguish legitimate scientific disagreement from bad-faith partisan attacks. It means accepting that scientists will sometimes be wrong, sometimes politically motivated, and sometimes deliver unwelcome findings. We defend the process anyway because the alternative is worse.

The alternative is Lysenko's silence, the deathly stillness that falls when we have eliminated everyone willing to contradict authority with facts. In 1932, Soviet citizens learned that when scientists disappear, starvation follows. The choice of whether to follow this same path is ours.

Posted by David at August 28, 2025 09:01 PM