Ce soir sur France 5 : MYSTIFICATION.
Un reportage sur ce terrible paradoxe mediatique :
"La fonction du journaliste, c’est d’essayer de produire des vérités. Mais le modèle économique des médias, c’est de fabriquer de la controverse. Le consensus scientifique fait moins vendre qu’une polémique"
Des controverses célèbres autour de scientifiques persuadés d’avoir raison contre tout le monde.
Une émission scientifique bien présentée ou un reportage fouillé c'est bien plus intéressant que des polémiques ou débats sur tout et rien, les reprises de buzz ou les micro-trottoirs sur les départs en vacances ou le vaccin.
Mais c'est plus long et difficile. Faut bosser.
Les journalistes fainéants sont nombreux.
le lyssenkisme, qui, dans l’Union soviétique de #Staline, entraîna le bannissement de la génétique au nom de l’idéologie #communiste
[...]
Sur #Lyssenko, il y a peu d’archives.
[...]
#TrofimLyssenko est à part. C’est un #agronome de base qui, grâce à #Staline, arrive à dominer la biologie en #UnionSoviétique et à faire interdire la génétique jugée "bourgeoise"
[F]. Conclusions
The work of #Lukianenko and certain other grain breeders led to an explosion of research on HYVs in #Russia from the 1960s onward, as well as substantial genetics research and greatly improved education that began even before #Lysenko’s removal from power. These topics, however, lie outside the scope of this article. (109) This study of #Lukianenko challenges the prevailing view that #Lysenko held back Soviet genetics for a generation. While certainly during the heyday of #Lysenkoism, the #Soviet regime victimized many excellent #Soviet geneticists and wasted money and time on fraudulent Lysenkoists’ “research,” many other scientists conducted valid, substantial, and important work—particularly in the area of plant breeding. #Lukianenko was not the only agricultural scientist who did such research in these years, but his work had more national and international significance than that of any other #Soviet agricultural scientist in this period.
This work differed greatly from the conventional view of scientific research in the time of #Lysenko: #Lukianenko’s work began before #Lysenko’s rise and continued despite his dominance. #Lukianenko’s work relied substantially on plant varieties from outside the #USSR, in many cases brought into the #USSR through the work of #NikolaiVavilov. He also relied on conventional principles of genetics, including the guidelines for plant breeding published by #Vavilov, as well as some breeding theories and techniques from outside the #USSR. In particular he and his co-workers independently sought and achieved the same goals as the Italians around #Strampelli in the early 20th century and #Borlaug in the #GreenRevolution of the 1950s-1960s.
#Lukianenko’s work during #Lysenko’s time and afterwards produced several extremely important wheat varieties that had the same characteristics as the #GreenRevolution varieties created by #Borlaug. #Lukianenko’s Bezostaia-1, a semi-dwarf rust resistant HYV earned the highest praise from European and American breeders including #Borlaug as one of the best of the HYVs. This finding thus goes beyond even #Krementsov’s points about scientists’ evasion of #Lysenko. The work of #Lukianenko and his colleagues, more than simply continuing previous genetics-based work in plant breeding, achieved breakthroughs that put it at the forefront of world wheat breeding, both in their methods and their results. Because of the accomplishments of #Lukianenko and his co-workers in #Krasnodar, a post-Soviet Russian symposium on breeding of wheat and triticale commemorating #Lukianenko was entitled “The Green Revolution of P. P. Luk’ianenko.” (111) Thus despite #Lysenko, Soviet agronomists and #agriculture thus participated in the international #GreenRevolution under #Lysenko’s dominance as well as afterwards.
Oui, @julm .
Le passage sur Lysenko etait très ma traité.
Et les 3 autres cas étudiés ne sont pas beaucoup mieux abordés malheureusement.
@HygieneMentale
> Je ne sais pas lire une étude scientifique, mais je sais lire les gens qui savent lire une étude scientifique.
Ce serait quand même mieux si les journalistes scientifiques savaient à peu près lire les études…
Sommes-nous vaccinés contre les gardiens de l’ordre établi, "journalistes" autrement appelés "LES NOUVEAUX CHIENS DE GARDE"* ?
*Ref. au documentaire De Gilles Balbastre & Yannick Kergoat