Meaning: This quote by Trofim Lysenko, a prominent Soviet biologist, encapsulates the intense ideological and scientific struggle that characterized the biological research and discourse during his time. Lysenko's work and ideas had a significant impact on the field of biology, particularly in the Soviet Union, where his theories were embraced and promoted by the government. To fully understand the significance of this quote, it is essential to delve into the historical context and the key concepts that characterized the struggle between the two opposing trends in biology during Lysenko's era.

The "present epoch of struggle between two worlds" referred to in the quote reflects the intense ideological and political tensions of the time. The Cold War era saw the world divided into two distinct ideological camps – the capitalist West and the communist East. This global ideological conflict also permeated the scientific and academic spheres, leading to the emergence of opposing trends in various branches of knowledge, including biology.

Lysenko's quote highlights the "two opposing and antagonistic trends" that were "penetrating the foundations of nearly all branches of biology." These opposing trends can be understood in the context of the broader ideological and scientific debates that characterized the field of biology during Lysenko's time. On one hand, there was the prevailing influence of traditional genetics and evolutionary biology, which was deeply rooted in the principles of Mendelian genetics and Darwinian evolution. This approach emphasized the role of genetic inheritance and natural selection in driving biological diversity and adaptation.

On the other hand, Lysenko represented a radically different trend in biology, advocating for a theory known as Lysenkoism. Lysenkoism challenged the traditional genetic and evolutionary principles and proposed an alternative framework for understanding biological inheritance and evolution. At the core of Lysenkoism was the idea that acquired traits could be inherited and passed on to subsequent generations, a concept known as Lamarckian inheritance. This theory rejected the primacy of genes and natural selection and instead emphasized the role of environmental factors in shaping the characteristics of organisms.

Lysenko's theories gained traction and prominence in the Soviet Union, largely due to their alignment with the prevailing communist ideology. The Soviet government endorsed Lysenko's ideas as they resonated with the Marxist emphasis on the malleability of nature and the potential for human intervention to shape and improve the natural world. Lysenko's influence extended beyond scientific circles, and his ideas were incorporated into agricultural policies and practices, with far-reaching consequences for Soviet agriculture and biology.

The quote by Lysenko sheds light on the intense and polarized nature of the debate between these two opposing trends in biology. The clash between traditional genetics and Lysenkoism was not merely a scientific dispute but also a reflection of the broader ideological and political tensions of the time. The struggle for dominance in the field of biology was intertwined with the larger ideological battle between capitalism and communism, with each side seeking to assert the superiority of its scientific worldview.

The ramifications of this ideological struggle were profound, influencing the direction of scientific research, education, and policy. Lysenko's ascendancy in the Soviet Union led to the suppression of traditional genetics and the persecution of scientists who opposed his ideas. This suppression had a chilling effect on scientific inquiry and contributed to the stagnation of biological research in the Soviet Union for decades.

In conclusion, Lysenko's quote encapsulates the turbulent and polarized nature of the biological discourse during his time. The clash between the two opposing trends in biology was not merely a scientific debate but a reflection of the larger ideological and political divisions of the Cold War era. The legacy of this struggle continues to resonate in the history of biology, serving as a cautionary tale about the dangers of allowing ideology to dictate scientific inquiry and the importance of upholding the principles of evidence-based research and academic freedom.