Trofim Lysenko, the mid-20th century anti-Mendel scientist and Stalin favorite, is back in the news. Under his government-supported ideological pseudoscientific system (eponymously named “Lysenkoism”), countless people died. Even though he was eventually dismissed, Russian science tanked for several generations, struggling to catch up with the rest of the world to the present day.

How did so many people, including many scientists, become so willing to abandon scientific progress and support Lysenko, helping pave the way for catastrophe after catastrophe? Clearly, his promotion by the Soviet government, thanks to the alignment of his beliefs with their philosophy and policies, scared many into acceptance. But that still doesn’t fully account for his rapid rise and — coming way too late for many — his dramatic fall.

My recent interest is more than just historical curiosity. When one looks at the incoming administration’s nominees for Health and Human Services, NIH, FDA, NASA, CDC, etc., one could be forgiven for fearing that ideology is again ascendant over scientific reality: The very thing that led to Lysenkoism less than a century ago. These possible “science” leaders are indeed a threat, particularly if they get a high level of political support with very little challenge.

It is too easy to place the blame on a poor education system for the deep levels of suspicion of science and scientists in many parts of our country. But asking “what is wrong with them?” should be secondary to the far more important question of “what is wrong with us?” Scientists and their supporters may be about to reap a whirlwind that we have at least partially sown.

It is a tragedy that so many people I talk with have experienced science in their school education as only a set of facts to be memorized and spit back out at test time. That is not good science. No, good science is built on the twin pillars of method and language, both of which have tremendous power to enlighten reality and unite or — sadly — to obscure and fragment.

Scientific method at its best is an intellectual openness to considering, debating and testing new findings that enhance or even contradict current understandings.

That philosophy is obviously inimical to more dogmatic belief systems, whose proponents simply dismiss scientists and scientific discoveries (e.g., vaccines) as incompatible with deeply held “truths.” The extent of out-of-hand dismissal of science at least partially reflects a failure by scientists to impart in both our communications and our actions just how freeing and even existentially satisfying the scientific method is.

The other pillar, scientific language, evolved out of necessity for scientists to communicate new concepts and discoveries accurately with each other as succinctly as possible. But for the non-scientist (or even the scientist in a different field of expertise), scientific language might as well be Sumerian when used outside the lab. Modern-day scientists tend to be particularly guilty of relying on professional language even in settings in which they may be the only one fluent, basically rendering concepts and ideas inaccessible to others, and thus more easily dismissed as “just another belief system.”

As a result, all manner of crazy ideas and charlatans can gain political and social ascendancy thanks to the relative accessibility of their mendacious language that offers assured comfort, especially compared to hard-to-access science. Lysenko’s twisting of method and language gave him (initially) great power over the Soviet population and even many scientists. Those few scientists and science-supporters who opposed him did so initially only from inside the scientific ivory tower, and they were quickly and easily silenced. Others simply fled or hid, hoping he wouldn’t last long, which ended up only prolonging his tenure.

Are we on the verge of a new American version of Lysenkoism? Maybe not, but there is no question we are facing at the very least a rough few years ahead for science. The temptation is strong to take shelter until this madness is over. But if we truly believe science is a critical element of a healthy and just society, scientists and their supporters cannot hide now. We must push back on the emerging anti-scientific forces by engaging a much wider audience through more accessible language, and by publicly modeling a fearless commitment to good science no matter where it leads.

Fintan Steele is an ex-Benedictine monk and priest with a Ph.D. in biology/genetics. He spent most of his life in science communications, including scientific publishing and, most recently, for biopharma and academic centers. He and his husband live in Hygiene. Email: fsteele1@me.com.