Must Introductory Genetics Start with Mendel?

Abstract

It is 157 years since Mendel presented his results on hybridisation in peas to the Brünn Society for Natural Science. The discipline of genetics has dramatically changed since then, with technological advancements revealing multifactorial causation and trait variability. Whilst none of this complexity featured in the discovery of classical genetics, Mendel and his peas still dominate teaching today. Must genetics always start from such a simplistic, determinist perspective? A number of recent studies (e.g. Donovan, 2021; Dougherty, 2010; Jamieson & Radick, 2013) have made the case for emphasising the complexity of genetics from the beginning. In this study, I will examine the origins and fate of two earlier attempts at reform, from the 1970s and 1980s. One was from Steven Rose, a biochemist in London and founder of the British Society for Social Responsibility in Science, who developed a genetics course for distance teaching at the Open University. The other was from Garland Allen, a historian of science and influential writer of biology textbooks, including four editions of Study of Biology. Both tried to depart from the standard start-with-Mendel script, in ways that aimed to help students better appreciate not only the complexities of genetics but also embedding genetics—and genetic knowledge—in society. Both met significant resistance, with concerns varying from the creation of unrealistic demands on students to the time and cost of making large-scale changes to textbooks. In closing, I will suggest that the experiences of Rose and Allen hold valuable lessons for reformers of the genetics curriculum today.