Revisiting the Origins of Genetics (original) (raw)
Related papers
Gregor Mendel and the History of Heredity
2018
Gregor Mendel’s paper "Experiments on Plant Hybrids" (1866) has become a paradigmatic case in the historiography of the life sciences because production and reception of a “discovery” sharply fell apart, thus raising fundamental questions about the relationship between scientific achievement and “its” time. In this chapter, I am providing an overview of answers that have been given to these questions by various historians. In a first section, I cover commentators who have claimed that Mendel was “ahead” of his time, and that contemporaries failed to recognize his achievement. I then move on to scholars and scientists who argued against this position, claiming that Mendel was not anticipating twentieth-century genetics, but was in fact representative of an older research tradition. In a last step, I turn to the more recent cultural history of heredity according to which Mendel was embedded in a local culture that combined a variety of advanced and traditional strands of nineteenth-century life-sciences. Overall, I am arguing that one should not overestimate the coherence and dominance of presumed “paradigms”, “epistemes” or “styles” in biology.
Principles and biological concepts of heredity before Mendel
Biology Direct, 2021
The knowledge of the history of a subject stimulates understanding. As we study how other people have made scientific breakthroughs, we develop the breadth of imagination that would inspire us to make new discoveries of our own. This perspective certainly applies to the teaching of genetics as hallmarked by the pea experiments of Mendel. Common questions students have in reading Mendel’s paper for the first time is how it compares to other botanical, agricultural, and biological texts from the early and mid-nineteenth centuries; and, more precisely, how Mendel’s approach to, and terminology for debating, topics of heredity compare to those of his contemporaries? Unfortunately, textbooks are often unavailing in answering such questions. It is very common to find an introduction about heredity in genetic textbooks covering Mendel without mentions of preceding breeding experiments carried out in his alma mater. This does not help students to understand how Mendel came to ask the questi...
Mendel is credited for discovering Laws of Heredity, but his work has come under criticism on three grounds: for possible falsification of data to fit his expectations, for getting undue credit for the laws of heredity without having ideas of segregation and independent assortment, and for being interested in the development of hybrids rather than in the laws of heredity. I present a brief review of these criticisms and conclude that Mendel deserved to be called the father of genetics even if he may not, and most likely did not, have clear ideas of segregation and particulate determiners as we know them now. I argue that neither Mendel understood the evolutionary significance of his findings for the problem of genetic variation, nor would Darwin have understood their significance had he read Mendel's paper. I argue that the limits to imagination, in both cases, came from their mental framework being shaped by existing paradigms-blending inheritance in the case of Darwin, hybrid development in the case of Mendel. Like Einstein, Darwin's natural selection was deterministic; like Niels Bohr, Mendel's Laws were probabilistic-based on random segregation of trait-determining "factors". Unlike Einstein who understood quantum mechanics, Darwin would have been at a loss with Mendel's paper with no guide to turn to. Geniuses in their imaginations are like heat-seeking missiles locked-in with their targets of deep interests and they generally see things in one dimension only. Imagination has limits; unaided imagination is like a bird without wingsit goes nowhere.
Gregor J. Mendel - genetics founding father
Czech Journal of Genetics and Plant Breeding, 2014
Mendel’s impact on science is overwhelming. Although based on the number of scientific papers he published he might be considered a meteorologist, his most significant contribution is his study of plant hybrids. This single work puts Mendel on a par with Darwin’s evolutionary theory and establishes him firmly in the frame of today’s biology. The aim of this article is to introduce the personality of Gregor Johann Mendel, focussing not just on his scientific work, but also on his background and what or who influenced him. To understand Mendel’s use of quantification and mathematical analysis of obtained results, representing a radical departure from methods of his predecessors, it is important to know something about their arguments, beliefs, and practices. He designed his experiments to answer a long standing question of hybridization, not inheritance as we perceive it today, since the science of genetics was born considerably later. He studied many genera of plants, but his famous ...
A brief history of genetics: Chronology, concepts, and themes
2021
The history of genetics, since its origin, has transcended the scientific dimension, interweaving social, cultural, and political contexts. This brief contribution aims both to offer a chronological overview of scientific achievements in the field of genetics, starting from the pivotal work of Mendel and Darwin, and to outline concepts and themes that have emerged over time. It will show how the history of genetics allows us to reflect on some peculiar dynamics of the history of scientific thought, such as the evolution of scientists’ image, its relationship with society, the birth of new forms of cooperation (from the small lab to Big Science), and a constant, intense dialogue among the different social actors. All these elements still strongly characterize genetics today and investigating their historical roots will help us understand their nature and raison d'etre .
Theory in Biosciences, 2012
The contribution of Erich von Tschermak-Seysenegg (1871-1962) to the beginning of classical genetics is a matter of dispute. The aim of this study is to analyse, based on newly accessible archive materials, the relevance of his positions and theoretical views in a debate between advocates of early Mendelian explanation of heredity and proponents of biometry, which took place in England around 1901-1906. We challenge not only his role of an 'external consultant', which at the time de facto confirmed his status of 'rediscoverer' of Mendel's work but also analyse his ambivalent positions which are to be seen as a part of 'further development' (Weiterführung), a development of Mendel's legacy as he understood it. Second, there is an interesting aspect of establishing connections within an 'experimental culture' along the Mendel's lines of thought that was parallel to the first step of institutionalizing the new discipline of Genetics after 1905/06. Part of the study is also the analysis of contribution of his older brother Armin von Tschermak-Seysenegg (1870-1952) who-much like in the case of 'rediscovery' of 1900-1901-was for his younger brother an important source of theoretical knowledge. In this particular case, it regarded Bateson's 'Defence' of Mendel from 1902.
MENDEL IN GENETICS TEACHING: SOME CONTRIBUTIONS FROM HISTORY OF SCIENCE AND ARTICLES FOR TEACHERS
School science descriptions about Mendel and his story are problematic because several statements that are controversial among historians of science are repeated over and over again as if they were established facts. Another problem is the neglect of other scientists working on inheritance in the second half of the 19th century, including Darwin, Spencer, Galton, Nägeli, Brooks, Weismann and de Vries, who paved the way for the reinterpretation of Mendel’s work in 1900. These problems are often found in textbooks and are likely to be present in school science throughout the world. Here, we discuss the contributions that history of science and papers published in journals that target teachers may bring to improve how school science deals with Mendel and his contributions. Evidently the idea is not that school teachers could solve problems still under discussion in the historical literature. The point is, rather, that it is important to avoid treating Mendel’s contributions as uncontroversial, mentioning, for instance, that there are ongoing debates on whether he proposed the laws named after him, appealing to invisible factors underlying phenotypic traits that are seen as the heritable potentials for those traits, and would in due time be known as genes. History of science can contribute to put the mythic Mendel into question in the science classroom, bringing school science closer to the controversies around the interpretation of his work.
Mendel, Darwin, and Lysenko: the battle toward understanding genetics
Open Access Government
Mendel, Darwin, and Lysenko: the battle toward understanding genetics August 1948 saw the Soviet government ban all teaching and research in genetics. Within a year, “the doctrine of agronomist Trofim Lysenko – dubbed ‘Soviet Creative Darwinism’ – replaced genetics in curricula and research plans of biological, medical, veterinary, and agricultural institutions.” (Krementsov 2010). Here, Ute Deichmann on the occasion of Gregor Mendel’s 200th birthday in 2022, commemorates his great achievements as a pioneer of genetics as well as the strongest attack on the gene concept in the history of science, launched in the Soviet Union under Stalin.
1866-2016: Mendelian genetics celebrates its 150 th birthday
One hundred and fifty years ago, in The Proceedings of the Natural History Society of Brünn Gregor Mendel published the results of his hybridization studies on pea plants (Pisum sativum). At the time his studies did not raise particular interest but when they were rediscovered in 1900, it appeared clear that his essay had to be considered the birth certificate of a new science: Genetics. Although Mendel knew Darwin’s work he did not realized to have in his hands the tools to decode the physical basis on which natural selection works.