Field Of Heredity Research Articles

Celebrating Mendel’s 150th anniversary

> If Darwinian evolution be natural selection combined with heredity then the single statement which embraces the whole field of heredity must prove as epoch-making to the biologist as the law of gravitation to the astronomer . 1 > > K. Pearson, mathematician and statistician (1857–1936). Gregor Mendel (1822–84) discovered such a statement encompassing the whole field of heredity by sexual reproduction, and as endorsed by Karl Pearson, must be compared to Isaac Newton, one of the world’s greatest scientists. This year is the 150th anniversary that Mendel’s laws of inheritance were published in 1866 entitled Versuche uber Pflanzen-Hybriden. 2 Mendel appears as the sole founding father of modern genetics, unlike most sciences where several people are often credited. Mendel came from Heinzendorf, a village close to Brunn (now called Brno) in the Czech Republic. He spent almost all his working life in the Augustinian Monastery of St. Thomas in Brunn and rose from a monk to elected Abbot from 1868 to 1884.3 Comparing a Catholic monk to Isaac Newton raises controversy. Many people attacked Mendel’s results and most virulent was the British geneticist Professor Sir Ronald A Fisher FRS (1890–1962) who wrote4: ‘the paper is only intelligible if the experiments reported in it were fictitious; the data of the later experiments were biased strongly in agreement with expectation’; concluding ‘the data of most, if not all of the experiments have been falsified so as to agree closely with Mendel’s expectations’. Mud sticks and many people react to Mendel's …

The struggle for authority in the field of heredity, 1900-1932: new perspectives on the rise of genetics.

Investigations of the rise of genetics by biologists, historians, and sociologists of science have resulted in a rich body of literature as diverse as it is large.' Although the pluralistic nature of this group of authors has resulted in a variety of approaches and interpretations, one common view concerns the notion of genetics itself. Whether it is referred to as a field or a discipline, genetics is generally treated as a purely intellectual entity representing the study of heredity with an origin in antiquity.2 Treating genetics and other disciplines in this way has led investigators to rely on the notion that the development of science comprises a process of consensus formation. Science is credited with the capacity to develop in accordance with its own immanent logic. Studies dealing with the classical genetics period (1910-1935) by and large have been carried out so as to reconstruct a synthesis and convergence of disciplines.3 That is to say, they detail, on the one

Genetics, eugenics and society: internalists and externalists in contemporary history of science.

In certain circles of the history of science, two distinct traditions, apparently as immiscible as oil and water, have long co-exi,ted. One, which for the sake of argument can be called the 'internalist' tradition,' is a form of intellectual history. It is concerned with the growth of particular scientific, often technical, ideas; with how certain ideas in a field of science arose, were influenced by or, in turn, influenced ideas in other fields of science (or occasionally philosophy). The other tradition again for simplicity, called the 'externalist' is in the nature of social, political and economic history. It is more concerned with the interaction between society and particular scientific ideas, or the practice of science as a social phenomenon; it is less concerned with fine points in the development of the scientific ideas themselves. Externalists attempt to understand the factors which caused the development of a particular set of scientific ideas, and which in turn were affected by the science itself. Of course, most good history of science contains both internalist and externalist elements. But until very recently there have been few examples of a genuine integration. The field of the history of genetics now offers the prospect of such an integration. The history of biology in general, and genetics in particular, has grown rapidly in the past decade. Beginning with the publication of L. C. Dunn's A Short History of Genetics (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1965) and A. H. Sturtevant's A History of Genetics (New York: Harper & Row, 1965) genetics emerged as an important new field in the history of modern biological science. In the intervening years the work of E. A. Carlson, William Coleman, Frederick Churchill, Mark Adams, Robert Olby, Ruth Cowan and many others (including the present author) have attempted to elucidate various aspects of the history of genetics in the period since the 1880s.2 Virtually all of these workers have focused attention on the 'internal' development of specific, often technical ideas in the field of heredity: from pre-Mendelian theories through the rediscovery of Mendel and the chromosome theory to molecular genetics. Only a few works have appeared during this period which attempt in any way to relate the development of genetic

Humangenetik; Ein kurzes Handbuch. In 5 vol. Band II: Kyematopathien, Wachstum und Korperform, Skellettsystem

The five-volume set, of which the present book is the first to appear, is intended as a comprehensive review of present-day knowledge in the field of heredity. In this volume the first chapter discusses the pathology of the pre-natal period, encompassing anomalies of the embryo and fetus, membranes and appendages. The next deals with anomalies of growth and body configuration. The various forms of dwarfism are discussed, as well as the osseous and chondro-dysplasias. Then we have a presentation of diseases of the skeletal system, such as the chondromatoses, disturbances of osteogenesis in general, as well as a number of rare syndromes. The following chapter deals with malformations of the extremities. Anomalies pertaining to the number and size of the fingers are discussed in great detail, as are the thalidomide-induced embryopathies. Then there is a long presentation of anomalies, malformations and diseases of the teeth, mouth and jaw, followed by

Development of a Eugenic Philosophy

DURING recent years there has been renewed interest in the critical examination of eugenic theory, and in the reformulation of a reasonable and effective eugenic philosophy. This development has attracted the attention of professional students in the fields of population, genetics, human geography, sociology, and social philosophy, as well as of laymen active in various fields of administration. Out of what seemed at times a wide divergence of opinion, considerable agreement is possible on a broad philosophy of eugenics which appears not incompatible with present knowledge. Any such philosophy must, however, be recognized as tentative and experimental. The present scientific knowledge as to human inheritance and its relation to our social system is too limited for any dogmatic formulation of ideas. In the field of heredity, biologists are agreed that the genetic constitution of modern man is exceedingly heterogeneous. This carries certain very practical implications. Any program of negative eugenics, even of a very drastic sort, must therefore have limited results. The actual sterilization of as much as one percent of the population might be justified from a social point of view, as social economy, and as a protection to children from the tragedy of being reared by feebleminded parents. It would also be justified eugenically because it would prevent propagation among a group of individuals, many of whom are carriers of serious defect. But the trend of the race would still be largely determined by the birth differentials among the remaining 99 percent of the population. Similarly, an increase of births among the limited number of people recognizable as carriers of superior genes would not directly affect the trend to any great extent, even if the difficulties of bringing about such an increase could be surmounted. It must not be overlooked, however, that such an increase would be vastly more important than a corresponding decrease in defectives through sterilization. This limited upper group is the one that has suffered most from a decline of the birth rate, and therefore is the one that most needs to be restored to a normal condition. Nevertheless, a eugenic philosophy dealing only with the extremes would be limited in its effect, as well as socially controversial. As a corollary to the heterogeneous genetic composition of most of our people, it appears reasonable to make an assumption as to the distribution of socially valuable hereditary capacities. While at the present time it is impossible to measure differences in such capacities among the majority

Fifty Years of the American Society of Naturalists

Next article No AccessFifty Years of the American Society of NaturalistsEdwin G. ConklinEdwin G. Conklin Search for more articles by this author PDFPDF PLUS Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail SectionsMoreDetailsFiguresReferencesCited by The American Naturalist Volume 68, Number 718Sep. - Oct., 1934 Published for The American Society of Naturalists Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1086/280559 Views: 2Total views on this site Citations: 4Citations are reported from Crossref PDF download Crossref reports the following articles citing this article:Vassiliki Betty Smocovitis, Daniel I. Bolnick, Christopher M. Moore, and Patricia L. Morse Trends and Transitions in 150 Years of The American Naturalist, The American Naturalist 196, no.66 (Oct 2020): 663–678.https://doi.org/10.1086/711418Toby A. Appel Biological and Medical Societies and the Founding of the American Physiological Society, (Jan 1987): 155–176.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-7528-6_7Jan Sapp The struggle for authority in the field of heredity, 1900?1932: New perspectives on the rise of genetics, Journal of the History of Biology 16, no.33 (Jan 1983): 311–342.https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00582405 L. C. Dunn The American Naturalist in American Biology, The American Naturalist 100, no.915915 (Oct 2015): 481–492.https://doi.org/10.1086/282444

Problems of Evolution and Present Methods of Attacking Them

Next article FreeProblems of Evolution and Present Methods of Attacking ThemEdwin G. ConklinEdwin G. Conklin Search for more articles by this author PDFPDF PLUS Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail SectionsMoreDetailsFiguresReferencesCited by The American Naturalist Volume 46, Number 543Mar., 1912 Published for The American Society of Naturalists Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1086/279263 Views: 82Total views on this site Citations: 1Citations are reported from Crossref PDF download Crossref reports the following articles citing this article:Jan Sapp The struggle for authority in the field of heredity, 1900?1932: New perspectives on the rise of genetics, Journal of the History of Biology 16, no.33 (Jan 1983): 311–342.https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00582405

Hereditary Characters and their Modes of Transmission

THIS volume deals very clearly and briefly with the whole field of heredity, but perhaps its most interesting feature is the development of a theory as to the relative share borne by the chromosomes and other parts of the sexual cells in the transmission of hereditary characters. Stated somewhat crudely, the theory and the arguments which support it are as follows:—In the chromosomes are represented new characters (i.e. individual variations, mutations, and the like), while other parts of the cell are concerned with the propagation of old-established racial characters. That the chromosomes do not bear entities representing all the inherited characters is shown, firstly, by experimental evidence, such as the fertilisation of enucleated Echinoderm ova. For instance, Godlewski fertilised enucleated eggs of sea-urchins with the sperm of crinoids and obtained gastrulæ which possessed pure maternal characters only. Second, through the reducing divisions half the chromatin is eliminated from the mature gametes. In spite of this, all the racial characters are shown by the individual which develops from the fertilised ovum. If one half the entities representing the racial characters of the father are absent from the sperm, it is so improbable as to be almost inconceivable that exactly those characters which are unrepresented will be supplied by the mother, seeing that the entities present in the ovum have been halved in number in a corresponding way. Hereditary Characters and their Modes of Transmission. By C. E. Walker. Pp. xii+239. (London: Edward Arnold, 1910.) Price 8s. 6d. net.