Science & Education

, Volume 22, Issue 2, pp 293–324 | Cite as

Mendel and the Path to Genetics: Portraying Science as a Social Process

Article

Abstract

Textbook descriptions of the foundations of Genetics give the impression that besides Mendel’s no other research on heredity took place during the nineteenth century. However, the publication of the Origin of Species in 1859, and the criticism that it received, placed the study of heredity at the centre of biological thought. Consequently, Herbert Spencer, Charles Darwin himself, Francis Galton, William Keith Brooks, Carl von Nägeli, August Weismann, and Hugo de Vries attempted to develop theories of heredity under an evolutionary perspective, and they were all influenced by each other in various ways. Nonetheless, only Nägeli became aware of Mendel’s experimental work; it has also been questioned whether Mendel even had the intention to develop a theory of heredity. In this article, a short presentation of these theories is made, based on the original writings. The major aim of this article is to suggest that Mendel was definitely not the only one studying heredity before 1900, if he even did this, as may be inferred by textbooks. Although his work had a major impact after 1900, it had no impact during the latter half of the nineteenth century when an active community of students of heredity emerged. Thus, textbooks should not only present the work of Mendel, but also provide a wider view of the actual history and a depiction of science as a social process.

References

  1. Allchin, D. (2003). Scientific myth-conceptions. Science Education, 87, 329–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Allen, G. (1975). Life science in the twentieth century. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Audesirk, T., Audesirk, G., & Byers, B. E. (2002). Biology: Life on earth (6th ed.). New Jersey: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  4. Bateson, W. (1902). Mendel’s principles of heredity: A defence. London: Cambridge University Press (available at www.esp.org).
  5. Bowler, P. J. (1989). The Mendelian revolution: The emergence of hereditarian concepts in modern science and society. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Bowler, P. J., & Morus, I. R. (2005). Making modern science: A historical survey. Chicago and New York: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  7. Brannigan, A. (1979). The reification of Mendel. Social Studies of Science, 9(4), 423–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brooks, W. K. (1883). The law of heredity: A study of the cause of variation and the origin of living organisms (2nd ed.). Baltimore and New York: John Murphy & Co., Publishers.Google Scholar
  9. Bulmer, M. (1999). The development of Francis Galton’s ideas on the mechanism of heredity. Journal of the History of Biology, 32, 263–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Burian, R. M. (2000). On the internal dynamics of Mendelian genetics. Comptes Rendus de l’Académie des Sciences Series III Sciences de la Vie, 323, 1127–1137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Callender, L.A. (1988). Gregor Mendel: An opponent of descent with modification. History of Science, 26, 41–75.Google Scholar
  12. Churchill, F. B. (1970). Hertwig, Weismann, and the meaning of reduction division circa 1890. Isis, 61(4), 428–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Churchill, F. B. (1987). From heredity theory to Vererbung: The transmission problem, 1850–1915. Isis, 78(3), 336–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cobb, M. (2006). Heredity before genetics: A history. Nature Reviews Genetics, 7, 953–958.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Correns, C. (1950). [1900] G. Mendel’s law concerning the behavior of progeny of varietal hybrids. Genetics, 35, 33–41.Google Scholar
  16. Darden, L. (1976). Reasoning in scientific change: Charles Darwin, Hugo de Vries and the discovery of segregation. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 7, 127–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Darden, L. (1985). Hugo de Vries’s lecture plates and the discovery of segregation. Annals of Science, 42(3), 233–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Darwin, C. (1859). On the origin of species by means of natural selection, 1st edn. London: John Murray (available at http://darwin-online.org.uk).
  19. Darwin, C. (1868). The variation of animals and plants under domestication, 1st edn. London: John Murray (available at http://darwin-online.org.uk).
  20. Darwin, C. (1871). Pangenesis. Nature, 3, 502–503 (available at http://darwin-online.org.uk).
  21. de Marrais, R. (1974). The double-edged effect of Sir Francis Galton: A search for the motives in the Biometrician-Mendelian debate. Journal of the History of Biology, 7(1), 141–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. de Vries, H. (1910). [1889] Intracellular pangenesis. Chicago: The Open Court Publishing Co (available at www.esp.org).
  23. de Vries, H. (1950). [1900] Concerning the law of segregation of hybrids. Genetics, 35, 30–32.Google Scholar
  24. Dunn, L. C. (1991) [1965]. A short history of genetics. Ames Iowa: Iowa State University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Endersby, J. (2007). A guinea pig’s history of biology. Cambridge Massachusetts and London England: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Endersby, J. (2009). Darwin on generation, pangenesis and sexual selection. In J. Hodge & G. Radick (Eds.), Cambridge companion to Darwin (2nd ed., pp. 73–95). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Fairbanks, D. J., & Rytting, B. (2001). Mendelian controversies: A botanical and historical review. American Journal of Botany, 88(5), 737–752.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Falk, R. (2006). Mendel’s impact. Science in Context, 19(2), 215–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Falk, R. (2009). Genetic analysis: A history of genetic thinking. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Falk, R., & Sarkar, S. (1991). The real objective of Mendel’s paper: A response to Monaghan and Corcos. Biology and Philosophy, 6, 447–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Fisher, R. A. (1936). Has Mendel’s work been rediscovered? Annals of Science, 1, 115–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Franklin, A., Edwards, A. W. F., Fairbanks, D. J., Hartl, D. L., & Seidenfeld, T. (2008). Ending the Mendel-Fisher controversy. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
  33. Galton, F. (1865). Hereditary talent and character. Macmillan’s Mag., 12, 157–166, 318–327 (available at http://galton.org).
  34. Galton, F. (1871a). Experiments in pangenesis, by breeding from rabbits of a pure variety, into whose circulation blood taken from other varieties had previously been largely transfused. Proceedings of the Royal Society, 19, 393–410 (available at http://galton.org).
  35. Galton, F. (1871b). Pangenesis. Nature, 4, 5–6. (available at http://galton.org).
  36. Galton, F. (1876). A theory of heredity. Journal of the Anthropological Institute, 5, 329–348 (available at http://galton.org).Google Scholar
  37. Galton, F. (1889). Natural inheritance. London: Macmillan (available at http://galton.org).
  38. Gasking, E. B. (1959). Why was Mendel’s work ignored? Journal of the History of Ideas, 20(1), 60–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Gayon, J. (1998). Darwinism’s struggle for survival: Heredity and the hypothesis of natural selection. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Gillham, N. W. (2001a). A life of Sir Francis Galton: From African explorations to the birth of eugenics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Gillham, N. W. (2001b). Evolution by jumps: Francis Galton and William Bateson and the mechanism of evolutionary change. Genetics, 159, 1383–1392.Google Scholar
  42. Gribbin, J. (2003). Science: A history. London: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
  43. Griffiths, A. J. F., Gelbart, W. M., Miller, J. H., & Lewontin, R. C. (1999). Modern genetic analysis. New York: WH Freeman and Company.Google Scholar
  44. Hartl, D. L., & Orel, V. (1992). What Did Gregor Mendel think he discovered? Genetics, 131, 245–253.Google Scholar
  45. Henig, R. M. (2000). The monk in the garden: The lost and found genius of Gregor Mendel. Boston and New York: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  46. Hodge, M. J. S. (1985). Darwin as a lifelong generation theorist. In D. Kohn (Ed.), The Darwinian heritage (pp. 207–243). Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  47. Hull, D. L. (1988). Science as a process: An evolutionary account of the social and conceptual development of science. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  48. Kampourakis, K., & McComas, W. F. (2010). Charles Darwin and evolution: Illustrating human aspects of science. Science & Education, 19(6–8), 637–654.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Kampourakis, K., & Zogza, V. (2007). Students’ preconceptions about evolution: How accurate is the characterization as “Lamarckian” when considering the history of evolutionary thought? Science & Education, 16(3–5), 393–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Kitcher, P. (1993). The advancement of science: Science without legend, objectivity without illusions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  51. Lenay, C. (2000). Hugo De Vries: From the theory of intracellular pangenesis to the rediscovery of Mendel. Comptes Rendus de l’Académie des Sciences Series III Sciences de la Vie, 323, 1053–1060.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. López-Beltrán, C. (2007). The medical origins of heredity. In S. Müller-Wille & H. J. Rheinberger (Eds.), Heredity produced: At the crossroads of biology, politics, and culture, 1500–1870 (pp. 105–132). Cambridge MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  53. Mader, S. S. (2004). Biology (8th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  54. Mayr, E. (1982). The growth of biological thought: Diversity, evolution and inheritance. Cambridge, Massachussetts and London, England: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  55. Mendel, G. (1950). Gregor Mendel’s letters to Carl Nägeli. 1866–1873. Genetics, 35, 1–29.Google Scholar
  56. Mendelsohn, E. (1964). The biological sciences in the nineteenth century: Some problems and sources. History of Science, 3, 39–59.Google Scholar
  57. Monaghan, F., & Corcos, A. (1990). The real objective of Mendel’s paper. Biology and Philosophy, 5, 267–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Moore, R. (2001). The “rediscovery” of Mendel’s work. Biosciene, 27(2), 13–24.Google Scholar
  59. Müller-Wille, S., & Orel, V. (2007). From Linnaean species to Mendelian factors: Elements of hybridism, 1751–1870. Annals of Science, 64(2), 171–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Müller-Wille, S., & Rheinberger, H. J. (2007). Heredity: The formation of an epistemic space. In S. Müller-Wille & H. J. Rheinberger (Eds.), Heredity produced: At the Crossroads of biology, politics, and culture, 1500–1870 (pp. 3–34). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  61. Nägeli von, C. (1898/1884). A mechanico-physiological theory of organic evolution. Chicago: The Open Court Publishing Co.Google Scholar
  62. Nogler, G. A. (2006). The lesser-known Mendel: His experiments on Hieracium. Genetics, 172(1), 1–6.Google Scholar
  63. Nyhart, L. (2009). Modern nature: The rise of the biological perspective in Germany. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  64. Olby, R. C. (1966). Origins of Mendelism. New York: Schocken Books.Google Scholar
  65. Olby, R. C. (1979). Mendel no Mendelian? History of Science, 17, 53–72.Google Scholar
  66. Olby, R. C. (1985). Origins of Mendelism (2nd ed.). Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  67. Olby, R. C. (2000a). Horticulture: The font for the baptism of Genetics. Nature Reviews Genetics, 1, 65–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Olby, R. C. (2000b). Mendelism: From hybrids and trade to a science. Comptes Rendus de l’Académie des Sciences Series III Sciences de la Vie, 323, 1043–1051.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Olby, R. (2009). Variation and Inheritance. In M. Ruse & R. J. Richards (Eds.), Cambridge companion to the ‘‘Origin of Species’’ (pp. 30–46). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  70. Olby, R. & Gautrey, P. (1968). Eleven references to Mendel before 1900. Annals of Science, 24(1), 7-20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Orel, V. (1996). Gregor Mendel: The first geneticist. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  72. Orel, V. (2003). Gregor Mendel: A počátky genetiky. Praha: Academia.Google Scholar
  73. Orel, V. (2009). The “useful questions of heredity” before Mendel. Journal of Heredity, 100(4), 421–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Orel, V., & Hartl, D. L. (1994). Controversies in the interpretation of Mendel’s discovery. History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences, 16, 423–464.Google Scholar
  75. Orel, V., & Peaslee, M. H. (2008). The echo of Darwin in Mendel’s Brno. In E. M. Engels & T. F. Glick (Eds.), The reception of Charles Darwin in Europe (pp. 259–268). London and New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
  76. Orel, V., & Wood, R. J. (1998). Empirical genetic laws published in Brno before Mendel was born. Journal of Heredity, 89, 79–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Orel, V., & Wood, R. J. (2000). Essence and origin of Mendel’s discovery. Comptes Rendus de l’Académie des Sciences Series III Sciences de la Vie, 323, 1037–1041.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Peterson, E. L. (2008). William Bateson from Balanoglossus to Materials for the Study of Variation: The transatlantic roots of discontinuity and the (un)naturalness of selection. Journal of the History of Biology, 41, 267–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Raven, P. H., Johnson, G. B., Losos, J. B., Mason, K. A., & Singer, S. R. (2008). Biology (8th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  80. Rheinberger, H. J. (2000). Mendelian inheritance in Germany between 1900 and 1910: The case of Carl Correns (1864–1933). Comptes Rendus de l’Académie des Sciences Series III Sciences de la Vie, 323, 1089–1096.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Rheinberger, H. J. (2008). Heredity and its entities around 1900. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 39, 370–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Roberts, H. F. (1929). Plant hybridisation before Mendel. Princeton: Princeton University Press (available at http://www.archive.org/details/planthybridizati00robe).
  83. Roll-Hansen, N. (1978). The genotype theory of Wilhelm Johannsen and its relation to plant breeding and the study of evolution. Centaurus, 22(3), 201–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Rudge, D. W., & Howe, E. M. (2009). An explicit and reflective approach to the use of history to promote understanding of the nature of science. Science & Education, 18(5), 561–580.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Sandler, I. (2000). Development: Mendel’s legacy to Genetics. Genetics, 154, 7–11.Google Scholar
  86. Spencer, H. (1864). Principles of biology. London and Edinburgh: Williams and Norgate (available at http://www.google.com/books?id=3yYCAAAAQAAJ&hl=el).
  87. Stamhuis, I. H. (2003). The reactions on Hugo de Vries’s Intracellular Pangenesis; the discussion with August Weismann. Journal of the History of Biology, 36, 119–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Sturtevant, A. H. (2001). [1965]. A history of genetics. New York: Electronic Scholarly Publishing project & Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press (available at www.esp.org).
  89. Theunissen, B. (1994). Closing the door on Hugo de Vries’ Mendelism. Annals of Science, 5, 225–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Tschermak, E. (1950). [1900]. Concerning artificial crossing in Pisum sativum. Genetics, 35, 42–47.Google Scholar
  91. Weismann, A. (1889a). [1885]. The continuity of the Germ-plasm as the foundation of a theory of heredity. In E. Poulton et al. (ed.), Essays upon heredity and kindred biological problems, Oxford (available at www.esp.org).
  92. Weismann A (1889b). [1883]. On heredity. In E. Poulton et al. (ed.), Essays upon heredity and kindred biological problems, Oxford (available at www.esp.org).
  93. Weismann A (1893). [1892]. The germ-plasm: A theory of heredity. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons (available at www.esp.org).
  94. Westerlund, J., & Fairbanks, D. (2004). Gregor Mendel and “myth-conceptions”. Science Education, 88(5), 754–758.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Winther, R. (2000). Darwin on variation and heredity. Journal of the History of Biology, 33, 425–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Winther, R. (2001). August Weismann on germ-plasm variation. Journal of the History of Biology, 34, 517–555.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Wood, R. J., & Orel, V. (2001). Genetic prehistory in selective breeding: A prelude to Mendel. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  98. Wood, R. J., & Orel, V. (2005). Scientific breeding in Central Europe during the early nineteenth century: background to Mendel’s later work. Journal of the History of Biology, 38, 239–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Geitonas SchoolVari AttikisGreece

Personalised recommendations