Abstract
The controversy between Biometricians and Mendelians has been called an “inexplicable embarrassment” since it revolved around the mistaken identification of Mendelian genetics with non-Darwinian saltationism, a mistake traced back to the non-Darwinian William Bateson, who introduced Mendelian analysis to British science. The following paper beings to unravel this standard account of the controversy by raising a simple question: Given that Bateson embraced evolution by natural selection and that he studied the causes of variation within a broadly Darwinian framework of problems and questions, how are we to understand the claim that he was a non-Darwinian? A brief survey of possible responses to this question is followed by an alternative proposal: the controversy will be considered as a struggle among Darwinians about the future course of Darwinism. On this account, Darwin's own work led to the juncture at which Mendelians and Biometricians parted company, indeed, the Origin itself prepared the divergent methodological stances subsequently adopted by Bateson and his antagonists. The inexplicable embarrassment is dissolved through the parsimonious reconstruction of the profound substantive conflict between Biometricians and Mendelians as a chapter in the articulation and differentiation of the Darwinian research programme.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
References
Bateson, Beatrice: 1928, William Bateson, F. R. S. Naturalist, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Bateson, William: 1894, Materials for the Study of Variation, Macmillan, London.
Bateson, William: 1909, Mendel's Principles of Heredity, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Bateson, William: 1922, ‘Evolutionary Faith and Modern Doubts’, Science 55, 55–61.
Bateson, William: 1928, Scientific Papers of William Bateson, R. C. Punnett (ed.), 2 vols., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Bateson, William: 1979, Problems of Genetics, reprint of 1913 edition, Yale University Press, New Haven.
Bowler, Peter: 1988, The Non-Darwinian Revolution: Reinterpreting a Historical Myth, John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.
Brooks, William Keith: 1883, The Law of Heredity: A Study of the Cause of Variation and the Origin of Living Organisms, John Murphy, Baltimore.
Cock, A. G.: 1973, ‘William Bateson, Mendelism and Biometry’, Journal of the History of Biology 6, 1–36.
Coleman, W.: 1970, ‘Bateson and Chromosomes: Conservative Thought in Science’, Centaurus 15, 228–314.
Darden, L.: 1977, ‘William Bateson and the Promise of Mendelism’, Journal of the History of Biology 10, 87–106.
Darwin, Charles: 1887, The Variation of Animals and Plants under Domestication, 2nd edn., Appleton, New York.
Darwin, Charles: 1903, More Letters of Charles Darwin, 2 vols., Appleton, New York.
Darwin, Charles: 1962, The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Species in the Struggle for Life, 6th edn., Collier, New York.
Darwin, Charles: 1964, On the Origin of Species (facsimile of the 1st edn.), Harvard University Press, Cambridge.
Farrall, L.: 1975, ‘Controversy and Conflict in Science: A Case Study — The English Biometric School and Mendel's Laws’, Social Studies of Science 5, 269–301.
Febvre, Lucien: 1982, The Problem of Unbelief in the Sixteenth Century: The Religion of Rabelais, Harvard University Press, Cambridge.
Fisher, R. A.: 1936, ‘Has Mendel's Work been Rediscovered’, Annals of Science 1, 115–37.
Froggatt, P. and N. C. Nevin: 1971a, ‘Galton's “Law of Ancestral Heredity”: Its Influence on the Early Development of Human Genetics’, History of Science 10, 1–27.
Froggatt, P. and N. C. Nevin: 1971b, ‘The “Law of Ancestral Heredity” and the Mendelian-Ancestrian Controversy in England, 1889–1906’, Journal of Medical Genetics 8, 1–36.
Hull, D.: 1985, ‘Darwinism as a Historical Entity: A Historiographic Proposal’, in David Kohn (ed.), The Darwinian Heritage, Princeton University Press, Princeton, pp. 773–812.
Huxley, Julian: 1943, Evolution: The Modern Synthesis, Harper Brothers, New York and London.
Kitcher, P.: 1985, ‘Darwin's Achievement’, in Nicholas Rescher (ed.), Reason and Rationality in Natural Science, University Press of America, Lanham, MD, pp. 123–85.
MacKenzie, D.: 1981, ‘Sociobiologies in Competition: The Biometrician-Mendelian Debate’, in Charles Webster (ed.), Biology, Medicine and Society 1840–1940, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 243–88.
MacKenzie, D. and B. Barnes: 1975, ‘Biometriker versus Mendelianer’, Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie, Sonderheft 18 (Wissenschaftssoziologie), pp. 165–96.
MacKenzie, D. and B. Barnes: 1979, ‘Scientific Judgment: The Biometry-Mendelism Controversy’, in Barry Barnes and Steven Shapin (eds.), Natural Order: Historical Studies of Scientific Culture, Sage, London, pp. 191–210.
Mayr, E.: 1973, ‘The Recent Historiography of Genetics’, Journal of the History of Biology 6, 125–54.
Mayr, E.: 1976, Evolution and the Diversity of Life, Belknap, Cambridge.
Mayr, E.: 1980, ‘Prologue: Some Thoughts on the History of the Evolutionary Synthesis’, in Ernst Mayr and William Provine (eds.), The Evolutionary Synthesis: Perspectives on the Unification of Biology, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, pp. 1–48.
Mayr, E.: 1982, The Growth of Biological Thought, Harvard University Press, Cambridge.
Mayr, E.: 1985, ‘Darwin's Five Theories of Evolution’, in David Kohn (ed.), The Darwinian Heritage, Princeton University Press, Princeton, pp. 755–72.
Mayr, E. and W. Provine (eds.): 1980, The Evolutionary Synthesis: Perspectives on the Unification of Biology, Harvard University Press, Cambridge.
Merton, R. K.: 1987, ‘Three Fragments from a Sociologist's Notebook: Establishing the Phenomenon, Specified Ignorance, and Strategic Research Materials’, Annual Review of Sociology 13, 1–28.
Nordmann, A.: 1990, ‘Persistent Propensities: Portrait of a Familiar Controversy’, Biology & Philosophy 5, 379–99.
Nordmann, A.: 1991, ‘The Evolutionary Analysis: Apparent Error, Certified Belief, and the Defects of Asymmetry’, unpublished manuscript.
Norton, B.: 1973, ‘The Biometric Defense of Darwinism’, Journal of the History of Biology 6, 272–316.
Norton, B.: 1975a, ‘Metaphysics and Population Genetics: Karl Pearson and the Background to Fisher's Multi-Factorial Theory of Inheritance’, Annals of Science 32, 537–53.
Norton, B.: 1975b, ‘Biology and Philosophy: The Methodological Foundations of Biometry’, Journal of the History of Biology 8, 85–93.
Olby, R.: 1988, ‘The Dimensions of Scientific Controversy: The Biometric-Mendelian Debate’, British Journal for the History of Science 22, 299–320.
Pearson, K.: 1902, ‘On the Fundamental Conceptions of Biology’, Biometrika 11, 320–44.
Provine, William: 1971, The Origins of Theoretical Population Genetics, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Roll-Hansen, Nils: 1980, ‘The Controversy between Biometricians and Mendelians: A Test Case for the Sociology of Scientific Knowledge’, Social Science Information 19, 501–17.
Romanes, George John: 1896, Darwin, and after Darwin: The Darwinian Theory, Open Court, Chicago.
Weldon, W. F. R.: 1901–02, ‘Mendel's Laws of Alternative Inheritance in Peas’, Biometrika 1, 228–54.
Weldon, W. F. R.: 1902–03, ‘On the Ambiguity of Mendel's Categories’, Biometrika 2, 44–55.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Nordmann, A. Darwinians at war Bateson's place in histories of Darwinism. Synthese 91, 53–72 (1992). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00484969
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00484969
Keywords
- Research Programme
- Natural Selection
- Standard Account
- Simple Question
- Alternative Proposal