Comment from Hamilton in his 2000 review of Lynn's _Dysgenics_:

Occasional but persistent, like tropical jellyfish
drifting to Britain, one or another new version of
a Lamarckian modification washes to the sea
walls of evolutionary theory almost every year. I
believe that fundamentally most come in the great ocean current of popular appeal that I
outlined in my first paragraphs and that, as with
the real jellyfish, most of such theories are
moribund even as they arrive. But recently a
more serious claim has come [and he discusses recent claims and ideas, and theoretic aspects].

Yes, Hamilton was always open to wild ideas. Pity one of them killed him.

One of the problems with this subject is that mainstream biologists don't often want to get involved with it. People don't want to waste their time, resources and reputation on fields of research that they don't think will produce positive results. So claims of 'Lamarckian' inheritance are not always tested as strictly as they should be.

It seems epigenetics by DNA methylation is at least getting ample attention - indeed is mildly trendy, in a way that seems harmless enough. (I've been in one grad class where it was touted as the latest trendy hope for unraveling the causation of complex diseases.) Despite its pro-PC political possibilities, I think the scientific establishment is likely to do a fine job sorting it out. It doesn't really imperil the turf of any well-defined core of academic workers, or threaten to make it look like a whole field of august professors was 2,000 miles down the wrong road. In contrast I'm pessimistic that, say, bacterial etiologies for atherosclerosis or Alzheimer's get a fair hearing.