Skip to main content

Putting Mendel in His Place: How Curriculum Reform in Genetics and Counterfactual History of Science Can Work Together

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Philosophy of Biology

Part of the book series: History, Philosophy and Theory of the Life Sciences ((HPTL,volume 1))

Abstract

Textbook presentations of genetics have changed remarkably little since their earliest days. Typically an initial chapter introduces Mendel’s pea-hybridization experiments and the lessons (‘laws’) drawn from them. Then, in succeeding chapters, those lessons are gradually qualified and supplemented out of existence. The case of dominance is an especially well-discussed example of a concept that has survived in genetics pedagogy despite its diminishing role in genetic theory and practice. To clarify the costs of continuing to organize knowledge of heredity in traditionally Mendelian ways, this chapter recalls criticisms of Mendelism that were made at its start but have since been lost. The criticisms came from the Oxford zoologist W. F. R. Weldon (1860–1906). Although remembered now as a ‘biometrician’, Weldon was by training an embryologist, who toward the end of his life drew upon the latest experimental studies of animal development in order to suggest an alternative and, in his view, superior concept of dominance to that found in Mendel’s work. Weldon’s dissent from Mendelism could well serve to inspire those attempting now to cast Mendelian tradition aside in order to reshape genetics teaching for a genomic age.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    See Skopek (2011) on the birth and early career of the start-with-Mendel strategy among writers of textbooks in genetics.

  2. 2.

    Although we shall concentrate on dominance here, other aspects of traditional Mendelian pedagogy have also been criticized. As Kampourakis (2013) has shown, the presentation of the process of science is also flawed, promoting, as it does, a view of Mendel as a lone pioneer, rather than as the author of one contribution to the social activity that is science.

  3. 3.

    Allchin (2002), p. 50, citing also Donovan (1997).

  4. 4.

    For more on the increasingly inadequate public understanding of genetic issues, see Condit et al. (1998), Smerecnik (2010), Condit (2011), and Lewis (2011).

  5. 5.

    For a review of the complex, polygenic nature of the inheritance of eye colour, see Sturm and Frudakis (2004); for discussion of the reasons why determinist explanations of patterns of inheritance are attractive, see Moore (2008).

  6. 6.

    The authors are currently working on an annotated edition of Weldon’s manuscript.

  7. 7.

    On heredity-environment interactions in Galton’s work and Mendel’s, see Radick (2011).

  8. 8.

    On counterfactuals and the history of science in general, see Radick 2008; on the case for a counterfactual history of genetics, with Weldon as a focus, see Radick 2005.

  9. 9.

    The strategy outlined here has affinities with that advocated in Dougherty 2009. Of course, the very concept of the ‘gene’ is problematic; see Burian and Kampourakis, this volume, for discussion of an alternative way to conceptualize the material of heredity.

  10. 10.

    On the problems of genetic determinism see Lewontin (1993); see also Moore, this volume.

  11. 11.

    On the critique of “genetic basis” talk see Kitcher (1997, ch. 11, esp. p. 251); on the concept of heritability, and why the nature/nurture dichotomy no longer holds explanatory power in biology, see Moore, this volume.

References

  • Allchin, Douglas. 2000. Mending Mendelism. The American Biology Teacher 62(9): 633–639.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allchin, Douglas. 2002. Dissolving dominance. In Mutating concepts, evolving disciplines: Genetics, medicine and society, ed. Lisa Parker and Rachel Ankeny, 43–61. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Allchin, Douglas. 2005. The dilemma of dominance. Biology and Philosophy 20: 427–451.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bateson, William. 1902. Mendel’s principles of heredity: A defence. With a translation of Mendel’s original papers on hybridisation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bizzo, Nelio, and Charbel N. El-Hani. 2009. Darwin and Mendel: Evolution and genetics. Journal of Biological Education 43(3): 108–114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Castéra, Jérémy, and Pierre Clément. 2012. Teachers’ conceptions about the genetic determinism of human behaviour: A survey in 23 countries. Science & Education [online] (2012). doi: 10.1007/s11191-012-949-0. Accessed 18 Sept 2012.

  • Charnley, Berris, and Gregory Radick. 2013. Intellectual property, plant breeding and the making of Mendelian genetics. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science. [online] (2013). doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsa.2012.11.004. Accessed 25 Mar 2013.

  • Collins, Angelo, and James H. Stewart. 1989. The knowledge structure of Mendelian genetics. The American Biology Teacher 51(3): 143–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Condit, Celeste M. 2011. When do people deploy genetic determinism? A review pointing to the need for multi-factorial theories of public utilization of scientific discourses. Sociology Compass 5(7): 618–635.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Condit, Celeste M., Nneka Ofulue, and Kristine M. Sheedy. 1998. Determinism and mass-media portrayals of genetics. American Journal of Human Genetics 62: 979–984.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Donovan, M.P. 1997. The vocabulary of biology and the problem of semantics. Journal of College Science Teaching 26: 381–383.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dougherty, Michael J. 2009. Closing the gap: Inverting the genetics curriculum to ensure an informed public. American Journal of Human Genetics 85: 6–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Falk, Raphael. 2001. The rise and fall of dominance. Biology and Philosophy 16(3): 285–323.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gericke, Niklas M., Mariana Hagberg, Vanessa Carvalho dos Santos, Leyla Mariana Joaquim, and Charbel N. El-Hani. 2012. Conceptual variation or incoherence? Textbook discourse on genes in six countries. Science & Education [online] (2012). doi: 10.1007/s11191-012-9499-8. Accessed 18 Sept 2012.

  • Gilbert, Scott F. 2010. Developmental biology, 9th ed. Sunderland: Sinauer Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guilfoile, Patrick. 1997. Wrinkled peas & white-eyed fruit flies: The molecular basis of two ­classical genetic traits. The American Biology Teacher 59(2): 92–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haldane, J.B.S., and Julian Huxley. 1927. Animal biology. Oxford: Oxford University Press at the Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kampourakis, K. 2013. Mendel and the path to genetics: Portraying science as a social process. Science Education 22(2–3): 293–324.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, Kyung-Man. 1994. Explaining scientific consensus: The case of Mendelian genetics. New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kitcher, Philip. 1997. The lives to come: The genetic revolution and human possibilities. London: Allen Lane/Penguin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, Jenny. 2011. Genetics and genomics: Teaching secondary biology. In Teaching secondary biology, ed. M. Reiss, 173–214. London: Hodder Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, Jenny. 2012. Young people’s understandings of gene technology – From Flavr Savr tomatoes to stem cell therapy. Science & Education [online] (2012). doi: 10.1007/s11191-012-9523-z. Accessed 18 Sept 2012.

  • Lewontin, Richard. 1993. The doctrine of DNA: Biology as ideology. London: Penguin Books Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacKenzie, D.A., and S.B. Barnes. 1974. Biometrician versus Mendelian: A controversy and its explanation, Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie special edition 18, 165–196.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mills-Shaw, R. Kenna, Katie Van Horne, Hubert Zhang, and Joann Boughman. 2008. Essay contest reveals misconceptions of high school students in genetics content. Genetics 178: 1157–1168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moore, David S. 2008. Espousing interactions and fielding reactions: Addressing laypeople’s beliefs about genetic determinism. Philosophical Psychology 21(3): 331–348.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nowgen. 2011. Genomics in schools: An interim report from the Nowgen Schools Genomics Programme. Manchester: Biomedical Research Centre.

    Google Scholar 

  • Olby, Robert. 1988. The dimensions of scientific controversy: The biometric-Mendelian debate. British Journal for the History of Science 22: 299–320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Radick, Gregory. 2005. Other histories, other biologies. In Philosophy, biology and life, Supplement to philosophy, Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplement, vol. 56, ed. O’Hear Anthony, 21–47. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Radick, Gregory. 2008. Why what if? Isis 99: 547–551.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Radick, Gregory. 2011. Physics in the Galtonian sciences of heredity. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 42: 129–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Russell, Peter J. 2006. iGenetics: A Mendelian approach. San Francisco/London: Pearson/Benjamin Cummings.

    Google Scholar 

  • Russell, Peter J. 2010. iGenetics: A molecular approach, 3rd ed. San Francisco/London: Benjamin Cummings/Pearson Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, James. 2008. In pursuit of the gene: From Darwin to DNA. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Skopek, Jeffrey K. 2011. Principles, exemplars, and uses of history in early 20th century genetics. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 42: 210–225.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smerecnik, Chris M.R. 2010. Lay responses to health messages about the genetic risk factors for salt sensitivity: Do mass media genetic health messages result in genetic determinism? Psychology, Health & Medicine 15(4): 386–393.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stewart, James H. 1982. Difficulties experienced by high school students when learning basic Mendelian genetics. American Biology Teacher 44(2): 80–84, 89.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sturm, Richard A., and Tony N. Frudakis. 2004. Eye colour: Portals into pigmentation genes and ancestry. Trends in Genetics 20(8): 327–332.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weldon, W.F.R. 1902a. Mendel’s laws of alternative inheritance in peas. Biometrika 1(2): 228–254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weldon, W.F.R. 1902b. On the ambiguity of Mendel’s categories. Biometrika 2(1): 44–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weldon, W.F.R. 1904–1905. Theory of inheritance. Ref 264/2D, Papers of Karl Pearson. Special collections, University College London, London.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to the British Academy for the Small Research Grant that funded our work on Weldon’s manuscript; to UCL Special Collections for permission to quote from that manuscript; to the Uses and Abuses of Biology programme at The Faraday Institute for Science & Religion, St Edmund’s College, Cambridge, for funding the ongoing pedagogic project described above; to Andrew Cuming, Faculty of Biological Sciences, University of Leeds, for much helpful discussion; and to Kostas Kampourakis for his exemplary editorial support. An ­earlier version of Sects. 3 and 4 appeared as part of Greg Radick’s inaugural lecture at the University of Leeds, “Scientific Inheritance: How History Matters for the Sciences,” 16 May 2012 (available at http://lutube.leeds.ac.uk/clasew/videos/8153).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Annie Jamieson .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Jamieson, A., Radick, G. (2013). Putting Mendel in His Place: How Curriculum Reform in Genetics and Counterfactual History of Science Can Work Together. In: Kampourakis, K. (eds) The Philosophy of Biology. History, Philosophy and Theory of the Life Sciences, vol 1. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6537-5_25

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics