Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The struggle for authority in the field of heredity, 1900–1932: New perspectives on the rise of genetics

  • Published:
Journal of the History of Biology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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

References

  1. Recent reviews make it unnecssary to provide a complete list of the historical studies dealing with the rise of genetics. See for example Ernst Mayr, “The Recent Historiography of Genetics”,J. Hist. Biol 6 (1973), 125–154. See also the extensive bibliographic eassay provided by Garland E. Allen,Life Science in the Twentieth Century (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1975), pp. 236–241; and Daniel J. Kevles, “Genetics in the United States and Great Britain, 1890–1930: A Review with Speculations”,Isis, 71 (1980), 441–445.

    Google Scholar 

  2. An explicit example of the search for the origins of genetics in the discussions of Aristotle can be found in A. H. Sturtevant,A History of Genetics, (New York: Harper & Row, 1965), pp. 1–8.

    Google Scholar 

  3. The notion of the synthesis and convergence of disciplines is fundamental to the account of William B. Provine,The Origins of Theoretical Population Genetics, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1971). It is explicitly stated in Allen,Life Science, pp. 113–145; Frederick Churchill, “William [sic] Johannsen and the Genotype Concept”,J. Hist. Biol., 7 (1974), 5–30; Garland E. Allen, “Naturalists and Experimentalists: The, Genotype and the Phenotype”, in William Coleman and Camille Limoges, eds.,Studies in History of Biology (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1979). See also the many relevant essays in Ernst Mayr and William B. Provine, eds.,The Evolutionary Synthesis: Perspectives on the Unification of Biology (Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 1980).

    Google Scholar 

  4. Pierre Bourdieu, “The Specificity of the Scientific Field and the Social Conditions of the Progress of Reason”,Soc. Sci. Info., 6 (1975), 19–47.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Ibid., p. 21.

  6. This view of a discipline is informed by the work of Terence J. Johnson,Professions and Power (London: MacMillan, 1972). See also Richard Whitley, “Umbrella and Polytheistic Scientific Disciplines and Their Elites”,Soc. Stud. Sci., 6, (1976), 471–497.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Karl Pearson,The Grammar of Science, 2nd ed. (London: MacMillan, 1900), p. 474.

    Google Scholar 

  8. For a list of the views of naturalists on heredity and evolution, see Allen, “Naturalists and Experimentalists”, esp. pp. 188–189.

  9. Edmund B. Wilson,The Cell in Development and Inheritance 2nd ed. (New York: MacMillan, 1900), p. 6.

    Google Scholar 

  10. See William Coleman, “Cell, Nucleus, and Inheritance: An Historical Study”Proc. Am. Phil. Soc., 109 (1965), 124–158.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Edmund B. Wilson, “The Bearing of Cytological Research on Heredity”,Science 88, (1914), 333–352; quotation on p.352.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Edwin G. Conklin, “The Mechanism of Heredity”,Science, 89 (1908), 89–99; quotation on p. 90.

    Google Scholar 

  13. See Jan Sapp, “Cytoplasmic Inheritance: The Hidden Face of the History of Genetics” (doctoral diss., Université de Montréal; in prep.), chap. 1.

  14. Jacques Loeb,The Organism as a Whole (New York: Putnam, 1916), pp. v-vi.

    Google Scholar 

  15. These views of breeders are expressed repeatedly in essays and editorials published between 1910 and 1914 in theAmerican Breeder's Magazine.

  16. “Heredity: Creative Energy”,Am. Breeder's Mag. 1 (1910), 89.

  17. This is Galton's definition of genetics; see “Breeding, Genetics, Eugenics”,Am. Breeder's Mag.,3 (1912), 308–309. For brief accounts of eugenics and its relation to genetics in the United States see for example Garland E. Allen, “Genetics, Eugenics and Society: Internalists and Externalists in Contemporary History of Science”,Soc. Stud. Sci.,6 (1976), 111. See also his “Genetics as a Social Weapon”, in Rita Arditti, Pat Brennan, and Steve Cavrak, eds.,Science and Liberation (Montreal: Black Rose Books, 1980), pp. 48–62.

  18. W. F. R. Weldon, “On Certain Correlated Variations in Caecinus Moenas”,Proc. Roy. Soc., 54 (1893), 329 (Cited in Provine,Origins), p. 31.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Karl Pearson, “Mathematical Contributions to the Theory of Evolution. On the Law of Ancestral Heredity”,Proc. Roy. Soc. 62, (1898), 386–412.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Conklin, “Mechanism of Heredity”,Science, 89 (1908), pp. 89–90.

    Google Scholar 

  21. E. G. Conklin, “The Mechanism, of Evolution, in the Light of Heredity and Development”,Sci. Monthly, 7 (1919), 481–506.

    Google Scholar 

  22. E. G. Conklin, “Problems of Evolution and Present Methods of Attacking Them”,Amer. Nat., 46 (1912), 121–128; quotation on p. 128.

    Google Scholar 

  23. See Churchill, “Wilhelm Johannsen” and Allen, “Naturalists and Experimentalist”.

  24. Allen,Life Science, pp. 55–56.

  25. Allen, “Naturalists and Experimentalists”, p. 199.

  26. Ibid., p. 204.

  27. W. Johannsen, “The Genotype Conception of Heredity,”Amer. Nat., 45 (1911), 129–159; quotation on p. 129.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Ibid., p. 130.

  29. William Coleman,Biology in the Nineteenth Century: Problems of Form, Function, and Transformation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1971), esp. pp. 160–166.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Johannsen, “Genotype Conception,” p. 139.

  31. Ibid., p. 130.

  32. Ibid.

  33. Ibid., p. 134.

  34. Ibid., p. 138.

  35. Ibid., p. 130.

  36. W. Johannsen, “The Genotype Conception of Heredity,”Amer. Nat., 45 (1911), pp. 142–143.

    Google Scholar 

  37. An extensive account of the many theories of heredity postulated during the second half of the nineteenth century is provided by Yves Delage,La structure du protoplasma at les théories sur l'hérédité et les grands problèmes de la biologie générale (Paris: C. Reinwald, 1895). For a historica account of Weismann's theory, see Frederick B. Churchill, “August Weismann and a Break from Tradition,”J. Hist. Biol., 1 (1968), 91–112.

    Google Scholar 

  38. For a general critique of the morphological theories of Weismann and others, see for example C. M. Child,Physiological Foundations of Behavior (New York: Henry Holt, 1924), pp. 18–32.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Ibid. See also Sapp, “Cytoplasmic Inheritance.”

  40. Allen, “Naturalists and Experimentalists” p. 205.

  41. Johannsen, “Genotype Conception”, p. 132.

  42. Ibid.

  43. Ibid.

  44. Ibid.

  45. Ibid., p. 130.

  46. Ibid., p. 131.

  47. Ibid., p. 159.

  48. Conklin, in his “Mechanism of Heredity” in 1908, phrased the problem as one involving the intrusion into scientific thought of ideas based on social relations: “The comparison of heredity to the transmission of property from parent to children has produced confusion in the scientific as well as the popular mind” (p. 90). Similarly, Morgan wrote in 1910: “When we speak of the transmission of characters from parent to offspring, we are speaking metaphorically; for we now realize that it is not characters that are transmitted to the child from the body of the parent, but that the parent carries over the material common to both parents and offspring. This point of view is so generally accepted to-day that I hesitate to restate it.” “Chromosomes and Heredity,”Amer. Nat., 65 (1910), 449–496; quotation on p. 449.

  49. An explicit example of this view is offered by L. C. Dunn, who wrote in 1917 about the word “determined”: “It does not mean that the character itself is present in the germ in any form, but rather that it is represented by substances or forces which not onlystand for the character but in some way bring about its expression.” “Nucleus and Cytoplasm as Vehicles of Heredity,”Amer. Nat., 51 (1917), 286–300; quotation on p. 286.

  50. F. R. Lillie to Julian S. Huxley, March 19, 1928, Woods Hole archives, Lillie file.

  51. Dunn, “Nucleus and Cytoplasm,” p. 300.

  52. Conklin, “Méchanism of Evolution”, p. 487.

  53. F. R. Lillie, “The Gene and the Ontogenetic Process,”Science, 66 (1927), 361–368; quotation on p. 362.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Albert Brachet,Traité d'embryologie des vertébrés, 2nd ed. (Brussels: Masson, 1935), p. 3; my translation.

    Google Scholar 

  55. William Bateson, “Adress of the President of the British Association for the Advancement of Science,”Science, 40 (1914), 287–302; quotation on p. 289.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Ibid., p. 288.

  57. Ibid., p. 289.

  58. Ibid.

  59. Thomas Hunt Morgan,The Physical Basis of Heredity (Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott, 1919), p. 247.

    Google Scholar 

  60. These views are expressed by Bateson, “Address of the President,” pp. 291–294.

  61. Ibid., p. 294.

  62. Ibid., p. 293.

  63. It should be pointed out that the struggle between Bateson and Gregory has been given a different interpretation. Allen sees it as part of a continuous dispute arising early in the nineteenth century between experimentalists and naturalists. He understands the conflict between the two traditions to be a philosophical one: “the two traditions seemed at the time to be in a conflict over a fundamental question: which methods give the most meaningful answer to scientific, that is biological problems?” “Naturalists and Experimentalists,” p. 181.

  64. W. K. Gregory, “Genetics versus Paleontology,”Amer. Nat., 51 (1917), 622–635; quotation on p. 622.

    Google Scholar 

  65. Ibid., p. 623.

  66. Ibid.

  67. F. B. Sumner, speaking about himself in 1923, cited in William B. Provine, “Francis B. Sumner and the Evolutionary Syntheis,” in William Coleman and Camille Limoges, eds.,Studies in History of Biology, (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1979), pp. 211–240; quotation on p. 211.

    Google Scholar 

  68. F. B. Sumner to Pearl, Febuary 9, 1928, cited in Provine, “Francis B. Sumner,” p. 235.

  69. For information concerning the institutional growth of genetics during this period, see Kevles, “Genetics,” p. 451. See also Charles E. Rosenbert,No Other Gods (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1976), pp. 196–209.

    Google Scholar 

  70. For a sociological analysis of the influence of agents outside the “scientific community” on the differentiation of scientific specialities, see Ron Johnston and Dave Robbins, “The Development of Specialities in Industrialized Science,”Sociol. Rev., 25 (1977), 87–108.

    Google Scholar 

  71. A critical examination of the relationship between genetics and agriculture is provided by Rosenberg,No Other Gods, pp. 153–209. See also Herbert J. Webber, “The Effect of Research in Genetics on the Art of Breeding,”Am. Breeder's Mag. 3 (1912), 29–36, 152–154.

    Google Scholar 

  72. Ibid. See also James Wilson, “Presidential Address: Ninth Annual Meeting,”Am. Breeder's Mag., 4 (1913), 53–57.

    Google Scholar 

  73. See the various editorials dealing with philanthropy and genetics, such as “Pedagogics of Genetics,” and “Genetics-A Field for the Scientific Philanthropist,”Am. Breeder's Mag., 3 (1912), 302–306.

  74. The relationship of Shull, East, and practical breeding during the first decades of Mendelism was intimate indeed. For reviews dealing with corn breeding particularly, see George Harrison Shull, “Hybrid Seed Corn,”Science, 103 (1946), 547–550; Donald F. Jones, “Edward Murray East,”Nat. Acad. Biog. Mem., 23 (1944), 217–242; A. R. Crabb,The Hybrid-Corn Makers (New Burnswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press, 1947). See also Rosenberg,No other Gods, pp. 173–209.

    Google Scholar 

  75. W. Bateson, “Address to the Agricultural Sub-Section,”Brit. Ass. Adv. Sci. (1911), pp. 1–10: quotation on p. 10.

  76. “The New Magazine,”Am. Breeder's Mag., 1 (1910), 61–64; quotation on p. 62.

  77. “ Darwin, Mendel, and Cruikshank,”Am. Breeder's Mag.,1 (1910), 6–14.

  78. For a general account of the rise of American universities, see for example Edward Shils, “The Order of Learning in the United States from 1865 to 1920: The Ascendancy of the Universities,”Minerva, 16 (1978), 159–195.

    Google Scholar 

  79. A descriptive account of the work carried out during the first two decades of the Morgan school of genetics is provided by Sturtevant,History of Genetics, pp. 51–57.

  80. T. H. Morgan, “Genetics and the Physiology of Development,”Amer. Nat., 60 (1926), 489–515; quotation on p. 491.

    Google Scholar 

  81. T. H. Morgan, “Genetics and the Physiology of Development,”Amer. Nat., 60 (1926), pp. 492–496.

    Google Scholar 

  82. Lillie, “Gene and Ontogenetic Process,” p. 362.

  83. Ibid., p. 367.

  84. Ross G. Harrison, “Embryology and its Relations,”Science, 85 (1937), 369–374; quotation on p. 372.

    Google Scholar 

  85. J. G. Needham, “Methods of Securing Better Cooperation between Government and Laboratory Zoologists in the Solution of Problems of General or National Importance,” a symposium of the American Society of Zoologists,Science, 49 (1919), 455–458; quotation on p. 457. See also the text of the entomologist L. O. Howard, pp. 453–455.

    Google Scholar 

  86. William Morton Wheeler, “The Dry-Rot of Our Academic Biology,”Science, 57 (1923), 61–71; quotation on p. 62.

    Google Scholar 

  87. Since it was decided that evolution was the most general and most interesting topic common to all the natural sciences, at the recommendation of T. H. Morgan in 1908 the study of evolution became the policy of the society. Both evolution and genetics represented the main topics of the papers and symposia until the mid-1930s, with occasional excursions into biometry, cytology, sex, and society. See E. G. Conklin, “Fifty Years of the American Society of Naturalists,”Amer. Nat., 68 (1934), 385–401; quotation on p. 393.

    Google Scholar 

  88. L. J. Cole, secretary of the American Society of Naturalists, to members of the executive committee, October 25, 1929. For dialogue on the suitability of changing the “naturalists” into a “genetics society,” see also G. H. Shull to H. J. Muller, October 2, 1929, and H. J. Muller to G. H. Shull, November 2, 1929. Herman J. Muller File, Manuscripts Department, Lilly Library, Indiana University.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institut d'Histoire et de Sociopolitique des Sciences, Université de Montréal, H3C 3J7, Montreal, Quebec, Canada

    Jan Sapp

Authors
  1. Jan Sapp
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Sapp, J. The struggle for authority in the field of heredity, 1900–1932: New perspectives on the rise of genetics. J Hist Biol 16, 311–342 (1983). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00582405

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00582405

Search

Navigation