>He was vindicated by modern science.

He denied that genetic heritability existed and that all characteristics were propagated epigenetically. That's hardly been vindicated. In practice his theories and practical policies were utterly disastrous.

It is true that since then we have found some mechanisms by which some traits can propagate epigenetically, but characterising that as vindicating Lysenkoism is absurd.

I believe he denied existence of genes, not heretability of traits.

His theories were mostly pseudoscientific nonsense - but that alone is not particularly harmful. What was evil about him is that he literally destroyed other people’s lives, his most prominent victim being Vavilov.

DNA wasn't yet discovered when he was alive, and "genes" were an abstract philosophical concept.

That’s why I said genetic heritability.

If only he did not resort to using political means instead of science to push his views, he could have been considered a visionary (like Vernadsky or Oparin).

Instead, he's just a criminal and a fraud.

Yes, it was a story of political conflict, not a story about science.

thats the difference between science and other realms of human knowledge: it doesn’t matter how you can spin his words, because his theory made inaccurate predictions.