The beginnings of the debate between the Mendelians and the Biometricians in psychiatric genetics: David Heron, Karl Pearson, Abraham Rosanoff, and Charles Davenport 1913–1914

Abstract

AbstractThe world learned of the heated dispute about the methodology of the early works by Davenport and Rosanoff claiming Mendelian transmission patterns for mental handicap and psychiatric illness in a bold headline in the New York Times on Sunday, November 9, 1913: ENGLISH EXPERT ATTACKS AMERICAN EUGENIC WORK. I here focus on the debate surrounding Rosanoff's 1911 study where he presented evidence that the neuropathic constitution, including, among its manifestations, dementia praecox, and manic‐depressive illness, was an autosomal recessive trait. The “English expert,” David Heron, a student of Pearson's, launched the debate in his 1913 paper which argued that Rosanoff's field work methods were biased, his clinical assessments sloppy, his phenotype far too broad, and his statistical approach flawed. Both Davenport, Rosanoff's mentor, and Rosanoff vigorously defended their methods. Behind this sometimes personal debate was the long simmering controversy about the relative validity of Biometrical genetic (represented by Heron and Pearson) and Mendelian genetic (represented by Rosanoff and Davenport) models for genetic transmission in plants, animals and, especially, humans. A review suggests that most of Heron's criticisms were valid. This episode presages later controversies within psychiatric genetics, for example between twin and linkage researchers in the 1980s and 1990s.