David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Journal of the History of Biology 41 (4):717 - 761 (2008)
This essay examines the origin(s) of genotype-environment interaction, or G×E. "Origin(s)" and not "the origin" because the thesis is that there were actually two distinct concepts of G×E at this beginning: a biometric concept, or \[G \times E_B\] , and a developmental concept, or \[G \times E_D \] . R. A. Fisher, one of the founders of population genetics and the creator of the statistical analysis of variance, introduced the biometric concept as he attempted to resolve one of the main problems in the biometric tradition of biology - partitioning the relative contributions of nature and nurture responsible for variation in a population. Lancelot Hogben, an experimental embryologist and also a statistician, introduced the developmental concept as he attempted to resolve one of the main problems in the developmental tradition of biology - determining the role that developmental relationships between genotype and environment played in the generation of variation. To argue for this thesis, I outline Fisher and Hogben's separate routes to their respective concepts of G × E; then these separate interpretations of G × E are drawn on to explicate a debate between Fisher and Hogben over the importance of G × E, the first installment of a persistent controversy. Finally, Fisher's \[G \times E_B\] and Hogben's \[G \times E_D \] are traced beyond their own work into mid-2Oth century population and developmental genetics, and then into the infamous IQ Controversy of the 1970s
|Keywords||analysis of variance (ANOVA) biometry developmental biology eugenics genetics genotype–environment interaction (G × E) IQ controversy Lancelot Hogben nature–nurture debate population genetics R. A. Fisher|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
C. Kenneth Waters (2011). Okasha's Unintended Argument for Toolbox Theorizing. [REVIEW] Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 82 (1):232-240.
James Tabery (2009). From a Genetic Predisposition to an Interactive Predisposition: Rethinking the Ethical Implications of Screening for Gene-Environment Interactions. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 34 (1):27-48.
Steindór J. Erlingsson (2009). The Plymouth Laboratory and the Institutionalization of Experimental Zoology in Britain in the 1920s. Journal of the History of Biology 42 (1):151 - 183.
Similar books and articles
Michael Scriven (1964). Book Review:Science in Authority Lancelot Hogben. [REVIEW] Philosophy of Science 31 (2):184-.
J. H. Woodger (1932). Genetic Principles in Medicine and Social Science. By Lancelot Hogben, M.A., D.Sc. (London: Williams & Norgate, Ltd.1931. Pp. 230). Price 15s. [REVIEW] Philosophy 7 (27):351-.
Robert A. Skipper (2002). The Persistence of the R.A. Fisher-Sewall Wright Controversy. Biology and Philosophy 17 (3):341-367.
Johannes Lenhard (2006). Models and Statistical Inference: The Controversy Between Fisher and Neyman–Pearson. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 57 (1):69-91.
Lancelot Hogben (1972). Modern Civilization and Scientific Knowledge. World Futures 12 (3):245-271.
Lancelot Hogben (1937). Our Social Heritage. Science and Society 1 (2):137 - 151.
Paul Griffiths & James Tabery, Behavioral Genetics and Development: Historical and Conceptual Causes of Controversy.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads18 ( #98,445 of 1,101,859 )
Recent downloads (6 months)5 ( #68,243 of 1,101,859 )
How can I increase my downloads?