Greetings Economists,
The term epigenetic was coined by Waddington a left wing biologist in
England whose work began in the 30s. The problems with Lysenkoism are
well known. The problem here in the U.S. was the tyrannical response
in the West to environmental inheritance. The basic ideas were
anathema in the West.
A cooling off toward the concept of environmental inheritance made
sense at the time because the science couldn't go technically deep
enough to verify theories. The Soviets should never have gone to
doctrinal policies, but in the West this demonstrates more than
anything how non democratic is the science.
Pinkers book "the blank slate" for example attacking the Blank Slate
represents a de facto consensus orthodoxy that was shrouded and
protected by anti-left bias. I don't think we disagree. However,
epigenetics offers soemthing a bit further. Let's take Genetic
patents as an example. I don't think you can claim in the science -
ownership of say a plant strain. Because the variability of gene
expression precludes a definite engineered plan of development and
ownership. Why because this forces upon agriculture and unrealistic
plan of plant stasis via a faulty concept of gene expression.
So in effect the rise of claims about epigentics undermines
significant economic status of bio-engineering. Which is a big deal
in my view.
thanks,
Doyle Saylor
On May 13, 2009, at 9:29 AM, Jim Devine wrote:
In their DIALECTICAL BIOLOGY, Levins & Lewontin have a good analysis
of Lysenko. They are far from being apologists for "big science."
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
