Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Women as Mendelians and Geneticists

  • Published:
Science & Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. A. M. Lutz to C. B. Davenport, 9 May 1912, Charles Benedict Davenport Collection, Ser. IIb: Cold Spring Harbor, American Philosophical Society Library, Philadelphia; hereafter, `Davenport Collection, APS.’

  2. Metz to Davenport, 13 April 1919, Davenport Collection, APS.

  3. Metz to Davenport, 9 August 1917, Davenport Collection, APS.

  4. Metz to Davenport, 29 July 1925, Davenport Collection, APS.

  5. Metz to Davenport, 11 December 1929, Davenport Collection, APS.

  6. Blakeslee to Davenport, 1 February 1928, Davenport Collection, APS: “She has refused, I know, some good offers in teaching positions.”

  7. 8904.2:221, “Mr. Bateson’s Lectures. N. Darwin Oct. 1906 (Variation & Heredity) Tues & Thurs 5 pm.” E. Nora Darwin Barlow Papers, GB 12 MS. Add.8904.2, Cambridge University Library, Department of Manuscripts and University Archives.

  8. “Diary,” Box e10, Cyril Dean Darlington Papers, Bodleian Library, Oxford University, p. 37.

  9. Personal communication, Lauritz Sverdrup Sømme, `Aslaug Sverdrup Sømme: A short biography,’ January 2009.

  10. “Diary,” E10, C. D. Darlington Papers, Bodleian Library, Oxford.

  11. Darlington Papers, B.50: “John Innes Horticultural Institution: A Brief History” [16 July 1953], Bodleian Library, Oxford.

  12. Annual Report, John Innes Horticultural Institute, 1941; John Innes Centre Archives, Norwich, England; hereafter `JICA.’

  13. Julian Huxley to Bateson, 25 June 1925, #1902, JICA.

  14. See especially: Bernstein and Bernstein (1979), Boehm (1958), Evans (1976), Mazón (2003), and Vogt (2004).

References

  • Allen, G. E. (1969). Hugo de Vries and the reception of the `mutation theory’. Journal of the History of Biology, 2, 55–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allen, G. E. (1978). Thomas Hunt Morgan: The man and his science. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aron, C. S. (1987). Ladies and gentlemen of the civil service: Middle-class workers in Victorian America. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bateson, B. (Ed.). (1928a). Letters from the Steppe written in the years 1886–1887 by William Bateson. London: Methuen.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Baxter, A., & Farley, J. (1979). Mendel and meiosis. Journal of the History of Biology, 12, 137–173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 8–11, 2003) (pp. 13B: 639–658). Prague: Studies in the History of Sciences and Humanities.

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Boney, A. D. (1998). The summer of 1914: Diary of a botanist. Notes and Records of the Royal Society of London, 52, 323–338.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bonner, T. N. (1992). To the ends of the earth: Women’s search for education in medicine. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brück, M. T. (1998). Lady computers. Astronomy Now, 12, 48–51.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brush, S. G. (1978). Nettie M. Stevens and the discovery of sex determination by chromosomes. Isis, 69, 163–172.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campos, L. (2006). Radium and the secret of life. Ph.D. diss., Harvard University.

  • 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.

  • Charnley, B. (2011). Agricultural science, plant breeding and the emergence of a Mendelian system in Britain, 1880–1930. Ph.D. diss., University of Leeds.

  • Cock, A. G., & Forsdyke, D. R. (2008). Treasure your exceptions: The science and life of William Bateson. New York: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • Davenport, C. B. (1900). Review of Von Guaita’s experiments in breeding mice. Biological Bulletin, 2, 121–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davenport, C. B. (1901). Mendel’s law of dichotomy in hybrids. Biological Bulletin, 2, 307–310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • Davenport, C. B. (1908). Department of experimental evolution. Carnegie Institution of Washington Year Book no. 7, 86–96.

  • De Bont, R. (2008). Darwins Kleinkinderen: De Evolutietheorie in Belgie, 1865–1945. Nijmegen: Uitgeverij Vantilt.

    Google Scholar 

  • Débaissieux, P. (1939). Victor Grégoire (1870–1938). Revue Des Questions Scientifiques, 116, 349–369.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deichmann, U. (1996). Biologists under Hitler. (Thomas Dunlap, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

  • 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.

  • Evans, R. J. (1976). The feminist movement in Germany, 1894–1933. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 8–11, 2003) (pp. 13A: 295–317). Prague: Studies in the History of Sciences and Humanities.

  • Gianquitto, T. (2013). Botanical smuts and hermaphrodites: Lydia Becker, Darwin’s botany, and education reform. Isis, 104, 250–277.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greg, W. R. (1869). Why are women redundant?. London: N. Trübner.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harman, O. S. (2004). The man who invented the chromosome: A life of Cyril Darlington. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harvey, R. (1996). Bateson’s ladies. Typescript. John Innes Centre Archives.

  • Harwood, J. (1993). Styles of scientific thought: The German genetics community, 1900–1933. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jordan, E. (1999). The women’s movement and women’s employment in nineteenth century Britain. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kamminga, H. (1997). Frederick Gowland Hopkins and the unification of biochemistry. Trends in Biochemical Sciences, 22, 184–187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kingsland, S. E. (2005). Evolution of American ecology, 1890–2000. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kohler, R. E. (1982). From medical chemistry to biochemistry: The making of a biomedical discipline. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kuckuck, H. (1980). Elisabeth Schiemann 1881 bis 1972. Berichte der Deutsche Botanische Gesellschaft, 93, 517–537.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lipset, D. (1980). Gregory Bateson: The legacy of a scientist. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lock, R. H. (1906). Recent progress in the study of variation, heredity, and evolution. London: John Murray.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • Lutz, A. M. (1907b). A preliminary note on the chromosomes of Oenothera Lamarckiana and one of its mutants, O. Gigas. Science 51.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacLeod, R., & Moseley, R. (1979). Fathers and daughters: Reflections on women, science and Victorian Cambridge. History of Education, 8, 321–333.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marie, J. (2004). The importance of place: A history of genetics in 1930s Britain. Ph.D. diss., University College London.

  • Marjoribanks, I. (Ed.). (1900). The international congress of women of 1899. London: T. F. Unwin.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • McWilliams-Tullberg, R. (1975). Women at Cambridge. A men’s university—though of a mixed type. London: Victor Gollanz.

  • 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.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Needham, D. (1982). Women in Cambridge biochemistry. In D. Richter (Ed.), Women scientists: The road to liberation (pp. 158–163). London: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Olby, R. (1985). Origins of Mendelism (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Olby, R. (1987). William Bateson’s introduction of Mendelism to England: A reassessment. British Journal for the History of Science, 20, 399–420.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olby, R. (1989). Scientists and bureaucrats in the establishment of the John Innes Horticultural Institution under William Bateson. Annals of Science, 46, 497–510.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Opitz, D. L. (2013). `A triumph of brains over brute’: Women and science at the Horticultural College, Swanley, 1890–1910. Isis, 104, 30–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palladino, P. (1990). The political economy of applied research: Plant breeding in Great Britain, 1910–1940. Minerva, 28, 446–468.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Patterson, M. H. (Ed.). (2008). American New Woman revisited: A reader, 1894–1930. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perrone, F. (1993). Women academics in England, 1870–1930. History of Universities, 12, 339–367.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rentetzi, M. (2004). Gender, politics, and radioactivity research in interwar Vienna: The case of the Institute for Radium Research. Isis, 95, 359–393.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rentetzi, M. (2009). Trafficking materials and gendered experimental practices: Radium research in early 20th century Vienna. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • Richmond, M. L. (2001). Women in the early history of genetics: William Bateson and the Newnham College Mendelians, 1900–1910. Isis, 92, 55–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richmond, M. L. (2004). Adam Sedgwick (1854–1913). Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richmond, M. L. (2007a). Muriel Wheldale Onslow and biochemical genetics. Journal of the History of Biology, 40, 389–426.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richmond, M. L. (2007b). Opportunities for women in early genetics. Nature Reviews Genetics, 8, 897–902.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenberg, R. (1982). Beyond separate spheres: Intellectual roots of modern feminism. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rossiter, M. W. (1980). Women’s work in science, 1880–1910. Isis, 71, 381–398.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rossiter, M. W. (1982). Women scientists in America: Struggles and strategies to 1940. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 8–11, 2003) (pp. 13A: 265–294). Prague: Studies in the History of Sciences and Humanities.

  • Satzinger, H. (2009). Differenz und Vererbung. Geschlechterordnungen in der Genetik und Hormonforschung 1890–1950. Cologne: Böhlau Verlag.

  • Schiemann, E., & Emmy Stein (1879–1954). Der Züchter, 25, 65–67.

  • Schwerin, A. v. (2004). Experimentalisierung des Menschen. Der Genetiker Hans Nachtsheim und die vergleichende Erbpathologie, 1920–1945. Göttingen: Wallstein.

  • Sheffield, S. L.-M. (2004). Women and science: Social impact and interaction. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stamhuis, I. H., & Monsen, A. (2007). Kristine Bonnevie, university career for women. Journal of the History of Biology, 40, 427–446.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • Stephenson, M. (1932). Muriel Wheldale Onslow. 1880–1932. Biochemical Journal, 26, 915–916.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Ticknor, C. (1901). The steel-engraving lady and the gibson girl. The Atlantic Monthly, 88, 105–108.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ubisch, G. von. (1956–57). Aus dem Leben einer Hochschuldozentin, Mädchenbildung und Frauenschaffen, 413–422, 498–507; 35–45.

  • University of Michigan. (1893). Calendar of the University of Michigan for 1892–93. Ann Arbor, MI: University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vicinus, M. (1985). Independent women: Work and community for single women, 1850–1920. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 8–11, 2003) (pp. 13A: 159–186). Prague: Studies in the History of Sciences and Humanities.

  • Watts, M. T. (1975). Reading the landscape of America. New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilcox, S. (1909). The unrest of modern woman, The Independent, 67, 62–69.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zevenhuizen, E. (1998). The hereditary statistics of Hugo de Vries. Acta Botanica Neerlandica, 47, 427–463.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zevenhuizen, E. (2008). Vast in het spoor van Darwin: Biografie van Hugo de Vries. Amsterdam: Uitgeverij Atlas.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of History, Wayne State University, Detroit, MI, USA

    Marsha L. Richmond

Authors
  1. Marsha L. Richmond
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marsha L. Richmond.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Richmond, M.L. Women as Mendelians and Geneticists. Sci & Educ 24, 125–150 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-013-9666-6

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-013-9666-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation