[yes_man]

Theres huge uncertainty and layered assumptions in all of microbiology and biochemistry about how exactly things work on small scale. Because it is really hard to study live reactions in little things you can just barely see on an electron microscope.

But yet humanity has managed to assert statistical truths about for example genetics and explain countless diseases, even cure and alleviate some. So even if you don’t have a theory on how exactly something works from the ground up, if you have statistical evidence, plenty of useful and practical advances can be built top-bottom and we have outcomes that validate this.

Not giving any opinion on this piece specifically but just saying there can be scientific value even if the details are hand-wavy.

[roywiggins]

For an example, scientists discovered both viruses and genetics long before they knew the molecular basis of either of them.

[jibal]

I'm well aware of that. The point is that people are drawing all sorts of unwarranted conclusions from this lay report on early stage research.

[lutusp]

> The point is that people are drawing all sorts of unwarranted conclusions from this lay report on early stage research.

That is partly because no one seems willing to summarize this work, in concise form, for nonspecialists. Such a summary might be, "This is an important finding, but it doesn't mean Lysenko was right, and the term 'inheritance' doesn't have just one meaning."

I think the term "inheritance" for both DNA and epigenetic information transfers (as in the linked article) is innately confusing.