I don't know how "little known" it is — it was the classic argument to bring up about "politicized science" in the Cold War, and is pretty well-known by people who talk about such thing (along with Deutsche Physik). So I'm not sure your premise is right, though of course Lysenko is not as well known as Galileo (one only would learn about Lysenko in the context of Lysenkoism, a period in Soviet history; whereas one learns about Galileo in a lot of contexts, and as a "stand in" for the Scientific Revolution).

For people who use history as polemics, Bruno + Hypatia + Galileo are all part of the "religion vs. science" narrative. Lysenkoism + Deutsche Physik are part of the "politics vs. science" narrative, specifically regarding too much state interaction into scientific research directions and even content. So perhaps the people who you are reading are, for whatever reason, emphasizing one narrative over the other. There are also various politics of emphasizing one narrative over another — in the US, people who are arguing against religious conservatives emphasize the religion narrative, whereas people arguing against perceived socialism argue emphasize the second, though that can vary (climate change deniers accuse climate scientists of Lysenkoism, for example).

I would just note that in all of these cases you should not assume these polemical versions of history are actually very accurate. The religion v. science narrative is a total misreading of history, and even reading Lysenkoism or Deutsche Physik as examples of "ideological science" is very incomplete (and the cases are quite different from one another in many important structural ways). Even characterizing Lysenkoism as a "War on Science" is a very historically misleading way to put it; it was more complicated than that.