Advertisement

Science & Education

, Volume 24, Issue 1–2, pp 125–150 | Cite as

Women as Mendelians and Geneticists

  • Marsha L. Richmond
Article

Abstract

After the rediscovery of Mendel’s laws of heredity in 1900, the biologists who began studying heredity, variation, and evolution using the new Mendelian methodology—performing controlled hybrid crosses and statistically analyzing progeny to note the factorial basis of characters—made great progress. By 1910, the validity of Mendelism was widely recognized and the field William Bateson christened ‘genetics’ was complemented by the chromosome theory of heredity of T. H. Morgan and his group in the United States. Historians, however, have largely overlooked an important factor in the early establishment of Mendelism and genetics: the large number of women who contributed to the various research groups. This article examines the social, economic, and disciplinary context behind this new wave of women’s participation in science and describes the work of women Mendelians and geneticists employed at three leading experimental research institutes, 1900–1940. It argues that the key to more women working in science was the access to higher education and the receptivity of emerging interdisciplinary fields such as genetics to utilize the expertise of women workers, which not only advanced the discipline but also provided new opportunities for women’s employment in science.

Keywords

Cold Spring Harbor Bodleian Library Kaiser Wilhelm Institute Kaiser Wilhelm Society Private Research Institute 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Allen, G. E. (1969). Hugo de Vries and the reception of the `mutation theory’. Journal of the History of Biology, 2, 55–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Allen, G. E. (1978). Thomas Hunt Morgan: The man and his science. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Aron, C. S. (1987). Ladies and gentlemen of the civil service: Middle-class workers in Victorian America. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Bateson, B. (Ed.). (1928a). Letters from the Steppe written in the years 1886–1887 by William Bateson. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
  5. Bateson, B. (Ed.). (1928b). William Bateson, F.R.S., naturalist: His essays and addresses, together with a short account of his life. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Baxter, A., & Farley, J. (1979). Mendel and meiosis. Journal of the History of Biology, 12, 137–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bernstein, G., & Bernstein, L. (1979). Attitudes toward women’s education in Germany, 1870–1914. International Journal of Women’s Studies, 2, 473–488.Google Scholar
  8. Bischof, B. (2004). The `Marie Curie Syndrome,’ the role of mentors and romanticism, or why were there so many women in radioactivity research in Vienna? In I. Stamhuis, S. Ŝtrbáňová, & K. Mojsejová (Eds.), Women scholars and institutions. Proceedings of the international conference (Prague, June 811, 2003) (pp. 13B: 639–658). Prague: Studies in the History of Sciences and Humanities.Google Scholar
  9. Blackburn, H. (1902). Women’s suffrage; a record of the women’s movement in the British Isles, with biographical sketches of Miss Becker. London: Williams and Norgate.Google Scholar
  10. Blackman, H. J. (2007). The natural sciences and the development of animal morphology in late-Victorian Cambridge. Journal of the History of Biology, 40, 71–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Blackwelder, J. K. (1997). Now hiring: The feminization of work in the United States, 1900–1995. College Station: Texas A&M University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Boehm, L. (1958). Von den Anfängen des akademischen Frauenstudiums in Deutschland: Zugleich ein Kapitel aus der Geschichte der Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München. Historisches Jahrbuch, 77, 298–327.Google Scholar
  13. Boney, A. D. (1998). The summer of 1914: Diary of a botanist. Notes and Records of the Royal Society of London, 52, 323–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Bonner, T. N. (1992). To the ends of the earth: Women’s search for education in medicine. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Brück, M. T. (1998). Lady computers. Astronomy Now, 12, 48–51.Google Scholar
  16. Brush, S. G. (1978). Nettie M. Stevens and the discovery of sex determination by chromosomes. Isis, 69, 163–172.Google Scholar
  17. Campos, L. (2006). Radium and the secret of life. Ph.D. diss., Harvard University.Google Scholar
  18. Campos, L. (2008). Genetics without genes: Blakeslee, Datura, and `chromosomal mutations.’ In S. Müller-Wille, H.-J. Rheinberger (Eds.). A cultural history of heredity IV: Heredity in the century of the gene, Preprint 343 (pp. 343–358). Berlin: Max Planck Institute for the History of Science.Google Scholar
  19. Charnley, B. (2011). Agricultural science, plant breeding and the emergence of a Mendelian system in Britain, 18801930. Ph.D. diss., University of Leeds.Google Scholar
  20. Cock, A. G., & Forsdyke, D. R. (2008). Treasure your exceptions: The science and life of William Bateson. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Creese, M. R. S. (1991). British women of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries who contributed to research in the chemical sciences. British Journal for the History of Science, 24, 275–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Crew, F. A. E. (1969). Recollections of the early days of the genetical society. In Fifty years of genetics. Proceedings of a symposium held at the 160th meeting of the genetical society of Great Britain on the 50th anniversary of its foundation (pp. 9–15). Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd.Google Scholar
  23. Davenport, C. B. (1900). Review of Von Guaita’s experiments in breeding mice. Biological Bulletin, 2, 121–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Davenport, C. B. (1901). Mendel’s law of dichotomy in hybrids. Biological Bulletin, 2, 307–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Davenport, C. B. (1904). First report of station for experimental evolution under Department of Experimental Biology. Carnegie Institution of Washington Year Book no. 3, 23–32.Google Scholar
  26. Davenport, C. B. (1908). Department of experimental evolution. Carnegie Institution of Washington Year Book no. 7, 86–96.Google Scholar
  27. De Bont, R. (2008). Darwins Kleinkinderen: De Evolutietheorie in Belgie, 1865–1945. Nijmegen: Uitgeverij Vantilt.Google Scholar
  28. Débaissieux, P. (1939). Victor Grégoire (1870–1938). Revue Des Questions Scientifiques, 116, 349–369.Google Scholar
  29. Deichmann, U. (1996). Biologists under Hitler. (Thomas Dunlap, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Deichmann, U. (1997). Frauen in der Genetik, Forschung und Karrieren bis 1950. In `Aller Männerkultur zum Trotz’: Frauen in Mathematik und Naturwissenschaften (pp. 245–282). Frankfurt am Main: Campus Verlag.Google Scholar
  31. Evans, R. J. (1976). The feminist movement in Germany, 1894–1933. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  32. Gerstengarbe, S. (2004). The geneticist Paula Hertwig (1889–1983): A female scientist under various regimes. In I. Stamhuis, S. Ŝtrbáňová & K. Mojsejová (Eds.), Women scholars and institutions. Proceedings of the international conference (Prague, June 811, 2003) (pp. 13A: 295–317). Prague: Studies in the History of Sciences and Humanities.Google Scholar
  33. Gianquitto, T. (2013). Botanical smuts and hermaphrodites: Lydia Becker, Darwin’s botany, and education reform. Isis, 104, 250–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Greg, W. R. (1869). Why are women redundant?. London: N. Trübner.Google Scholar
  35. Hall, B. K. (2005). Betrayed by Balanoglossus: William Bateson’s rejection of evolutionary embryology as the basis for understanding evolution. Journal of Experimental Zoology Part B: Molecular and Developmental Evolution, 304B, 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Harman, O. S. (2004). The man who invented the chromosome: A life of Cyril Darlington. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Harvey, R. (1996). Bateson’s ladies. Typescript. John Innes Centre Archives.Google Scholar
  38. Harwood, J. (1993). Styles of scientific thought: The German genetics community, 1900–1933. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  39. Jordan, E. (1999). The women’s movement and women’s employment in nineteenth century Britain. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  40. Kamminga, H. (1997). Frederick Gowland Hopkins and the unification of biochemistry. Trends in Biochemical Sciences, 22, 184–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Kingsland, S. E. (2005). Evolution of American ecology, 1890–2000. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Kohler, R. E. (1982). From medical chemistry to biochemistry: The making of a biomedical discipline. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Kuckuck, H. (1980). Elisabeth Schiemann 1881 bis 1972. Berichte der Deutsche Botanische Gesellschaft, 93, 517–537.Google Scholar
  44. Lipset, D. (1980). Gregory Bateson: The legacy of a scientist. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  45. Lock, R. H. (1906). Recent progress in the study of variation, heredity, and evolution. London: John Murray.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Lutz, A. M. (1907a/1912). A study of the chromosomes of Oenothera Lamarckiana, its mutants and hybrids. In Proceedings of the 7th International Zöological Congress, Boston, 19-24 August 1907, pp. 352–354.Google Scholar
  47. Lutz, A. M. (1907b). A preliminary note on the chromosomes of Oenothera Lamarckiana and one of its mutants, O. Gigas. Science 51.Google Scholar
  48. Lykknes, A., Kvittingen, L., & Børresen, A. K. (2004). Appreciated abroad, depreciated at home: The career of a radiochemist in Norway: Ellen Gleditsch (1879–1968). Isis, 95, 576–609.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. MacLeod, R., & Moseley, R. (1979). Fathers and daughters: Reflections on women, science and Victorian Cambridge. History of Education, 8, 321–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Marie, J. (2004). The importance of place: A history of genetics in 1930s Britain. Ph.D. diss., University College London.Google Scholar
  51. Marjoribanks, I. (Ed.). (1900). The international congress of women of 1899. London: T. F. Unwin.Google Scholar
  52. Mazón, P. M. (2003). Gender and the modern research university: The admission of women to German higher education, 1865–1914. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  53. McWilliams-Tullberg, R. (1975). Women at Cambridge. A men’s universitythough of a mixed type. London: Victor Gollanz.Google Scholar
  54. Mozans, H. J. (1991). Woman in science; with an introductory chapter on woman’s long struggle for things of the mind. [1913]. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
  55. Müller-Wille, S. (2005). Early Mendelism and the subversion of taxonomy: Epistemological obstacles as institutions. Studies in the History and Philosophy of Biology and Biomedical Sciences, 36, 465–487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Needham, D. (1982). Women in Cambridge biochemistry. In D. Richter (Ed.), Women scientists: The road to liberation (pp. 158–163). London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  57. Ogilvie, M. B. (1991). The `New Look’ women and the expansion of American zoology: Nettie Maria Stevens (1861–1921) and Alice Middleton Boring (1883–1955). In K. R. Benson, J. Maienschein, & R. Rainger (Eds.), The expansion of American Biology (pp. 52–79). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
  58. Ogilvie, M. B. (2000). Obligatory amateurs: Annie Maunder (1868–1947) and British women astronomers at the dawn of professional astronomy. British Journal for the History of Science, 33, 67–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Ogilvie, M. B., & Choquette, C. (1981). Nettie Maria Stevens (1861–1912): Her life and contributions to cytogenetics. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 125, 292–311.Google Scholar
  60. Olby, R. (1985). Origins of Mendelism (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  61. Olby, R. (1987). William Bateson’s introduction of Mendelism to England: A reassessment. British Journal for the History of Science, 20, 399–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Olby, R. (1989). Scientists and bureaucrats in the establishment of the John Innes Horticultural Institution under William Bateson. Annals of Science, 46, 497–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Opitz, D. L. (2013). `A triumph of brains over brute’: Women and science at the Horticultural College, Swanley, 1890–1910. Isis, 104, 30–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Palladino, P. (1990). The political economy of applied research: Plant breeding in Great Britain, 1910–1940. Minerva, 28, 446–468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Patterson, M. H. (Ed.). (2008). American New Woman revisited: A reader, 1894–1930. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
  66. Perrone, F. (1993). Women academics in England, 1870–1930. History of Universities, 12, 339–367.Google Scholar
  67. 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
  68. Rentetzi, M. (2004). Gender, politics, and radioactivity research in interwar Vienna: The case of the Institute for Radium Research. Isis, 95, 359–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Rentetzi, M. (2009). Trafficking materials and gendered experimental practices: Radium research in early 20th century Vienna. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  70. Richmond, M. L. (1997). A lab of one’s own: The Balfour biological laboratory for women at Cambridge University, 1884–1914. Isis, 88, 422–455.Google Scholar
  71. Richmond, M. L. (2001). Women in the early history of genetics: William Bateson and the Newnham College Mendelians, 1900–1910. Isis, 92, 55–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Richmond, M. L. (2004). Adam Sedgwick (1854–1913). Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  73. Richmond, M. L. (2006). The `domestication’ of heredity: The familial organization of geneticists at Cambridge University, 1895–1910. Journal of the History of Biology, 33, 565–605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Richmond, M. L. (2007a). Muriel Wheldale Onslow and biochemical genetics. Journal of the History of Biology, 40, 389–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Richmond, M. L. (2007b). Opportunities for women in early genetics. Nature Reviews Genetics, 8, 897–902.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Richmond, M. L. (2010). Women in mutation studies: The role of gender in the methods, practices, and results of early twentieth-century genetics. In L. Campos, A. von Schwerin (Eds.), Making mutations: Objects, practices, contexts. Preprint 393 (pp. 11–48). Berlin: Max Planck Institute for the History of Science.Google Scholar
  77. Richmond, M. L. (2012). A model collaborative couple in genetics: Anna Rachel Whiting and Phineas Westcott Whiting’s study of sex determination in Habrobracon. In A. Lykknes, D. Opitz, & B. Van Tiggelen (Eds.), For better or for worse: Collaborative couples in the sciences (pp. 149–192). Basil: Birkhäuser Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Rosenberg, R. (1982). Beyond separate spheres: Intellectual roots of modern feminism. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  79. Rossiter, M. W. (1980). Women’s work in science, 1880–1910. Isis, 71, 381–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Rossiter, M. W. (1982). Women scientists in America: Struggles and strategies to 1940. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University.Google Scholar
  81. Satzinger, H. (2004). Women’s places in the new laboratories of genetic research in early 20th century: Gender, work, and the dynamics of science. In I. Stamhuis, S. Ŝtrbáňová & K. Mojsejová (Eds.), Women scholars and institutions. Proceedings of the international conference (Prague, June 811, 2003) (pp. 13A: 265–294). Prague: Studies in the History of Sciences and Humanities.Google Scholar
  82. Satzinger, H. (2009). Differenz und Vererbung. Geschlechterordnungen in der Genetik und Hormonforschung 18901950. Cologne: Böhlau Verlag.Google Scholar
  83. Schiemann, E., & Emmy Stein (1879–1954). Der Züchter, 25, 65–67.Google Scholar
  84. Schwerin, A. v. (2004). Experimentalisierung des Menschen. Der Genetiker Hans Nachtsheim und die vergleichende Erbpathologie, 19201945. Göttingen: Wallstein.Google Scholar
  85. Sheffield, S. L.-M. (2004). Women and science: Social impact and interaction. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO.Google Scholar
  86. Stamhuis, I. H., & Monsen, A. (2007). Kristine Bonnevie, university career for women. Journal of the History of Biology, 40, 427–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Stamhuis, I., & Richmond, M. L. (2013). Opportunities for women in early genetics—an international perspective. In E. Höxtermann (Ed.), Elisabeth Schiemann (1881–1972): Vom AufBruch der Genetik und der Frauen in den UmBrüchen des 20. Jahrhunderts. Rangsdorf: Basilisken-Presse.Google Scholar
  88. Stephenson, M. (1932). Muriel Wheldale Onslow. 1880–1932. Biochemical Journal, 26, 915–916.Google Scholar
  89. Tentler, L. W. (1979). Wage-earning women: Industrial work and family life in the United States, 1900–1930. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  90. Ticknor, C. (1901). The steel-engraving lady and the gibson girl. The Atlantic Monthly, 88, 105–108.Google Scholar
  91. Ubisch, G. von. (1956–57). Aus dem Leben einer Hochschuldozentin, Mädchenbildung und Frauenschaffen, 413–422, 498–507; 35–45.Google Scholar
  92. University of Michigan. (1893). Calendar of the University of Michigan for 1892–93. Ann Arbor, MI: University Press.Google Scholar
  93. Vicinus, M. (1985). Independent women: Work and community for single women, 1850–1920. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  94. Vogt, A. (1996). `Auch Damen möchten den Doktorhut’: Promotionen von Frauen an der Philosophischen Fakultät der Berliner Universität zwischen 1898 und 1945. In C. Meinel & M. Renneberg (Eds.), Geschlechterverhältnisse in Medizin, Naturwissenschaft und Techni (pp. 288–296). Bassum: Verlag für Geschichte der Naturwissenschaft und der Technik.Google Scholar
  95. Vogt, A. (2004). Women scholars at German universities–or why did this story start so late? In I. Stamhuis, S. Ŝtrbáňová & K. Mojsejová (Eds.), Women scholars and institutions. Proceedings of the international conference (Prague, June 811, 2003) (pp. 13A: 159–186). Prague: Studies in the History of Sciences and Humanities.Google Scholar
  96. Watts, M. T. (1975). Reading the landscape of America. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  97. Wilcox, S. (1909). The unrest of modern woman, The Independent, 67, 62–69.Google Scholar
  98. Zevenhuizen, E. (1998). The hereditary statistics of Hugo de Vries. Acta Botanica Neerlandica, 47, 427–463.Google Scholar
  99. Zevenhuizen, E. (2008). Vast in het spoor van Darwin: Biografie van Hugo de Vries. Amsterdam: Uitgeverij Atlas.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of HistoryWayne State UniversityDetroitUSA

Personalised recommendations