As of now, this is something I have pondered because certain aspects of the history of modern genetics evidence characteristics that make me question some of its fundamental aspects such as hereditary theories.
For example, when I scratch the surfaces, modern genetics sure does seem to have a lot in common with eugenics and Nazi biological sciences - particularly with regard to theories of inheritance which smacks of vehement racism.
I have yet to research this thoroughly, but I intend at some point to compare the theories of Gregor Mendel and Francis Galton, the founders of modern genetics and eugenics.
A major theme is inherited characteristics versus environmentally acquired characteristics. The latter seems to be the traditional science as it was held by Hippocrates, Galen, and a host of others into early modern times. Lamarck is distinguished only for combining it with the idea of biological evolution.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inheritance_of_acquired_characteristics Lamarck was followed in the twentieth century by the controversial Soviet scientist Lysenko. The massive ridicule of Lysenko in the western press and by western academia follows the same pattern of western ridicule and hatred for every aspect of the Soviet Union which gives me pause. Was Lysenko correct?
Now Lysenko was a biological evolutionist just like Lamarck as well as even his enemies. I personally disagree on that issue, but that is not the point of dispute and irrelevant albeit worth noting.
Lysenko's view of acquired rather than inherited characteristics seems fundamentally opposed to Nazi racial science. The fact that Lysenko is automatically scorned in the west makes me want to question both Lysenko and his western detractors without prejudice.
I have not yet investigated this in depth and need more knowledge about Lysenko, but I read already the assertion that the application of his theories to agriculture had disastrous results which strikes me as a quite possibly a lie because I am familiar with some of the history of agriculture in the Ukraine in the 1930's and 1940's and its genuine successes as well as propaganda from the German Nazi press as well as the Hearst newspapers talking about genocide. The claim that Lysenko caused dismal failure in agriculture strikes me initially as recycled Nazi propaganda, but I'll examine it.
Anti-Lysenko sources are abundant and easy to find. Other than Lysenko himself, the first place I think of to look for a defense of him is the second edition of the Great Soviet Encyclopedia published in the 1950's.
Anyway, food for thought. It seems to parallel other unfortunate trends in the western degeneration of understanding science.