Synthese

, Volume 190, Issue 2, pp 293–319 | Cite as

Models of data and theoretical hypotheses: a case-study in classical genetics

Article

Abstract

Linkage (or genetic) maps are graphs, which are intended to represent the linear ordering of genes on the chromosomes. They are constructed on the basis of statistical data concerning the transmission of genes. The invention of this technique in 1913 was driven by Morgan’s group’s adoption of a set of hypotheses concerning the physical mechanism of heredity. These hypotheses were themselves grounded in Morgan’s defense of the chromosome theory of heredity, according to which chromosomes are the physical basis of genes. In this paper, I analyze the 1919 debate between William Castle and Morgan’s group, about the construction of genetic maps. The official issue of the debate concerns the arrangement of genes on chromosomes. However, the disputants tend to carry out the discussions about how one should model the data in order to draw predictions concerning the transmission of genes; the debate does not bear on the data themselves, nor does it focus on the hypotheses explaining these data. The main criteria that are appealed to by the protagonists are simplicity and predictive efficacy. However, I show that both parties’ assessments of the simplicity and predictive efficacy of different ways of modeling the data themselves depend on background theoretical positions. I aim at clarifying how preference for a given model and theoretical commitments articulate.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Allen G. (1974) Opposition to the Mendelian-chromosome theory: The physiological and developmental genetics of Richard Goldschmidt. Journal of the History of Biology 7: 49–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Allen G. (1978) Thomas Hunt Morgan. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  3. Bateson, W., Saunders, E. R., & Punnett R. C. (1905). Further experiments on inheritance in sweet peas and stocks: Preliminary account. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, LXXVII.Google Scholar
  4. Bateson W. (1913) Problems of genetics. Yale University Press, New HavenGoogle Scholar
  5. Bateson W. (1916) Review of The mechanism of Mendelian heredity. Science, 44: 536–543CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Boveri T. (1904) Ergebnisse über die Konstitution der chromatischen Substanz des Zellkerns. G. Fischer, JenaCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Castle W. E. (1919a) Is the arrangement of the genes in the chromosome linear?. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 5(2): 25–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Castle W. E. (1919b) The linkage system of eight sex-linked characters of Drosophila virilis (data of Metz). Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 5(2): 32–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Castle W. E. (1919c) Are genes linear or non-linear in arrangement?. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 5(11): 500–506CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Carlson E. A. (1967) The gene: A critical history. Reprinted by the University of Iowa Press, W.B. Saunders, PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
  11. Cock A. (1983) William Bateson’s rejection and eventual acceptance of chromosome theory. Annals of Science 40: 19–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Coleman W. (1970) Bateson and chromosomes: Conservative thoughts in science. Centaurus 15: 228–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Creighton H. B., McClintock B. (1931) A correlation of cytological and genetical crossing-over in Zea Mays. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA. 17: 492–497CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Darden L. (1977) William Bateson and the promise of Mendelism. Journal of the History of Biology. 10: 87–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Darden L. (1991) Theory change in science: Strategies from Mendelian genetics. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  16. Dietrich M. R. (2000) From gene to genetic hierarchy: Richard Goldschmidt and the problem of the gene. In: Beurton P., Falk R., Rheinberger H. J. (eds) The concept of gene in development and evolution. Historical and epistemological perspectoves. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 91–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dunn L. C. (1965) A short history of genetics. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  18. Goldschmidt R. (1917) Crossing-over ohne Chiasmatypie?. Genetics 2: 82–95Google Scholar
  19. Janssens F. A. (1909) Spermatogénèse dans les batraciens. V. La théorie de la chiasmatypique. Nouvelle interprétation des cinèses de maturation. La Cellule 25: 387–411Google Scholar
  20. Kuhn, T. (1977). Objectivity, value judgement, and theory choice. In The essential tension (pp. 320–339). Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Morgan T. H. (1910a) Sex-limited inheritance in drosophila. Science 32: 1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Morgan T. H. (1910b) Chromosomes and heredity. American Naturalist 44: 449–496CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Morgan T. H. (1911a) Random segregations versus coupling in Mendelian inheritance. Science 34: 873–384CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Morgan T. H. (1911b) An attempt to analyze the constitution of the chromosomes on the basis of sex-limited inheritance in drosophila. Journal of Experimental Zoology 13: 79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Morgan T. H., Cattell E. (1912) Data for the study of sex-limited inheritance in drosophila. Journal of Experimental Zoology 13: 79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Morgan T. H., Sturtevant A. H., Muller H. J., Bridges C. B. (1915) The mechanism of Mendelian heredity. Henry Holt and Company, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Morgan T. H., Bridges C. B. (1916) Sex-linked inheritance in drosophila. Carnegie Institute Washington Publications 237: 1–88Google Scholar
  28. Morgan T. H. (1928) The theory of the gene. Yale University Press, Revised and enlarged edition. New HavenGoogle Scholar
  29. Muller, H. J. (1916). The mechanism of crossing-over. American Naturalist, 50(I–IV), 193–221, 284–305, 350–366, 421–434.Google Scholar
  30. Muller H.J. (1920) Are the factors of heredity arranged in a line?. American Naturalist 54: 97–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Painter T. P. (1934) A new method for the study of chromosomes aberrations and the plotting of chromosome maps in Drosophila melanogaster. Genetics 19: 175–188Google Scholar
  32. Sturtevant A. H. (1913) The linear arrangement of six sex-linked factors in Drosophila, as shown by their mode of association. Journal of Experimental Zoology 14: 43–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Sturtevant A. H., Bridges C. B., Morgan T. H. (1919) The spatial relations of genes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 5: 168–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Sutton W. S. (1902) On the morphology of the chromosome group in Brachystola magna. Biological Bulletin 4: 39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Waters C. K. (1994) Genes made molecular. Philosophy of Science 61: 163–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Wimsatt W. (1987) False models as means to truer theories. In: Nitecki M., Hoffman A. (eds) Neutral models in biology. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 23–55Google Scholar
  37. Wimsatt, W. C. (1992). Golden generalities and co-opted anomalies: Haldane vs. Muller and the drosophila group on the theory and practice of linkage mapping. In The founders of evolutionary genetics. A centenary reappraisal (pp. 101–166). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University College LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations