Trofim Lysenko, a Soviet agronomist and favorite of Iosif Stalin, has long symbolized the unfortunate consequences of ideologically inspired governmental interference in science. Lysenko has been credited with almost singlehandedly stifling genetic science in the USSR and with the persecution and murders of prominent Soviet geneticists. The Lysenko episode has been studied from many perspectives and by some of the most distinguished historians of Russian/Soviet science, including the author of this monograph. Here Loren Graham's aim is not to retread that familiar territory but to reconsider Lysenko and his work, taking into account recent developments in the field of genetics.

For most of the twentieth century, mainstream geneticists around the world rejected the notion that characteristics acquired by an organism during its lifetime could be transferred to future generations. Nonetheless, there were a few scientists, Lysenko among them, who continued to opposed the orthodox Mendelian view. Lysenko maintained that his own research findings offered proof that acquired traits could be inherited. This stance became Soviet orthodoxy in part because it seemed consistent with the promise that the revolution could produce radical change at the most fundamental level, including in homo sapiens.

Lysenko's ideas were eventually rejected by Soviet science; however, the term “Lysenkoism” retained its power as a metaphor even as the field of genetics continued to evolve. Developments in the new subfield of epigenetics have produced evidence that acquired traits can in fact continue into succeeding generation. This has led some to suggest that, perhaps, Lysenko was right all along.

In this concise monograph, Loren Graham directly addresses this question: was Lysenko correct? He admits to being uncomfortable with posing such a question. Historians of science, he notes, typically focus on the ways in which social and political contexts affect scientific work. Questions of scientific “truth” remain outside the scope of their analyses and are, in any case, misguided since scientific knowledge is ever evolving. Nonetheless, in this instance, he argues, the endeavor is not only justified but worthwhile, because of the “new Lysenkoism” that has taken root in Putin's Russia.

Graham sets the stage by providing his readers with a brief yet illuminating history of late 19^th and early 20^th century genetics. He also describes the diverse positions taken by Soviet geneticists in the decade following the Bolshevik Revolution. Then he turns his attention to Lysenko and his work, even recounting an accidental meeting with Lysenko in Moscow in1971. That moment enabled him to solicit the man's own perspective on his legacy. Lysenko had been thoroughly discredited, yet he insisted to Graham that he had not directly ordered and therefore bore no culpability for the suffering of other scientists. Graham disagrees, concluding not only that Lysenko's claims of innocence are disingenuous but that his research was fundamentally flawed.

In the final chapters, Graham turns to the matter that seems to have motivated him to write this book: the “surprising effects” of the new Lysenkoism. After introducing the fundamentals of epigenetics, he addresses the ways in which debates about Lysenko and the inheritance of acquired characteristics have influenced scientific inquiry and discussion of social and political issues in 21^st century Russia. Graham chronicles efforts by conservative forces in Russia to use epigenetics in defense of creationist and homophobic positions. He describes scientists' avoidance of research on potentially important subjects (such as the intergenerational effects of famine) out of concern that what they might find could encourage the rehabilitation of Lysenko and all he stood for. He also points out other scientists who have adopted a “best defense is good offense” strategy to argue that those who would emphasize the inheritance of acquired characteristics should study the enduring effects of Stalinist political repression on the Russian psyche.

Graham concludes that Lysenko and epigenetics are “being used as a football by conflicting ideological factions” (134). It deserves note that this phenomenon is hardly unique to Russia. Consider, for example, conservative analyst Peter Ferrara's essay disparaging global warming science as “a disgraceful episode of Lysenkoism” (Forbes, April 28, 2013). Nonetheless, as Graham notes, given Russia's history the “passions” surrounding epigenetics are far stronger there. His focus on these developments is not only interesting and very readable but a valuable contribution to the history of Russian science.