The failure of a scientific critique: David Heron, Karl Pearson and Mendelian eugenics

British Journal for the History of Science

Volumn 31, Issue 4, 1998, Pages 441-452

  Spencer, Hamish G ^a   Paul, Diane B ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OTAGO   (New Zealand)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS BOSTON   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BIOMETRY; EPIDEMIOLOGY; HISTORY; HUMAN; MEDICAL GENETICS; MENTAL DEFICIENCY; UNITED KINGDOM; UNITED STATES;

BIOMETRY; EPIDEMIOLOGIC FACTORS; EUGENICS; GREAT BRITAIN; HISTORY, 20TH CENTURY; HUMANS; MENTAL RETARDATION; UNITED STATES;

EID: 0032236144     PISSN: 00070874     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0007087498003392     Document Type: Review

References (111)

1. See for example W. B. Provine, The Origins of Theoretical Population Genetics, Chicago, 1971; P. Froggatt and N. C. Nevin, 'The "Law of Ancestral Heredity" and the Mendelian-ancestrian controversy in England, 1889-1906', Journal of Medical Genetics (1971), 8, 1-36; B. J. Norton, 'Biology and philosophy: the methodological foundations of biometry', Journal of the History of Biology (1975), 8, 85-93; D. MacKenzie, 'Sociobiologies in competition: the biometrician-Mendelian debate', in Biology, Medicine and Society 1840-1940 (ed. C. Webster), Cambridge, 1981, 243-88; R. Olby, 'The dimensions of scientific controversy: the biometric-Mendelian debate', BJHS (1988), 22, 299-320; P. J. Bowler, The Mendelian Revolution, London, 1989, 71-2.
2. See for example W. B. Provine, The Origins of Theoretical Population Genetics, Chicago, 1971; P. Froggatt and N. C. Nevin, 'The "Law of Ancestral Heredity" and the Mendelian-ancestrian controversy in England, 1889-1906', Journal of Medical Genetics (1971), 8, 1-36; B. J. Norton, 'Biology and philosophy: the methodological foundations of biometry', Journal of the History of Biology (1975), 8, 85-93; D. MacKenzie, 'Sociobiologies in competition: the biometrician-Mendelian debate', in Biology, Medicine and Society 1840-1940 (ed. C. Webster), Cambridge, 1981, 243-88; R. Olby, 'The dimensions of scientific controversy: the biometric-Mendelian debate', BJHS (1988), 22, 299-320; P. J. Bowler, The Mendelian Revolution, London, 1989, 71-2.
3. See for example W. B. Provine, The Origins of Theoretical Population Genetics, Chicago, 1971; P. Froggatt and N. C. Nevin, 'The "Law of Ancestral Heredity" and the Mendelian-ancestrian controversy in England, 1889-1906', Journal of Medical Genetics (1971), 8, 1-36; B. J. Norton, 'Biology and philosophy: the methodological foundations of biometry', Journal of the History of Biology (1975), 8, 85-93; D. MacKenzie, 'Sociobiologies in competition: the biometrician-Mendelian debate', in Biology, Medicine and Society 1840-1940 (ed. C. Webster), Cambridge, 1981, 243-88; R. Olby, 'The dimensions of scientific controversy: the biometric-Mendelian debate', BJHS (1988), 22, 299-320; P. J. Bowler, The Mendelian Revolution, London, 1989, 71-2.
4. See for example W. B. Provine, The Origins of Theoretical Population Genetics, Chicago, 1971; P. Froggatt and N. C. Nevin, 'The "Law of Ancestral Heredity" and the Mendelian-ancestrian controversy in England, 1889-1906', Journal of Medical Genetics (1971), 8, 1-36; B. J. Norton, 'Biology and philosophy: the methodological foundations of biometry', Journal of the History of Biology (1975), 8, 85-93; D. MacKenzie, 'Sociobiologies in competition: the biometrician-Mendelian debate', in Biology, Medicine and Society 1840-1940 (ed. C. Webster), Cambridge, 1981, 243-88; R. Olby, 'The dimensions of scientific controversy: the biometric-Mendelian debate', BJHS (1988), 22, 299-320; P. J. Bowler, The Mendelian Revolution, London, 1989, 71-2.
5. See for example W. B. Provine, The Origins of Theoretical Population Genetics, Chicago, 1971; P. Froggatt and N. C. Nevin, 'The "Law of Ancestral Heredity" and the Mendelian-ancestrian controversy in England, 1889-1906', Journal of Medical Genetics (1971), 8, 1-36; B. J. Norton, 'Biology and philosophy: the methodological foundations of biometry', Journal of the History of Biology (1975), 8, 85-93; D. MacKenzie, 'Sociobiologies in competition: the biometrician-Mendelian debate', in Biology, Medicine and Society 1840-1940 (ed. C. Webster), Cambridge, 1981, 243-88; R. Olby, 'The dimensions of scientific controversy: the biometric-Mendelian debate', BJHS (1988), 22, 299-320; P. J. Bowler, The Mendelian Revolution, London, 1989, 71-2.
6. See for example W. B. Provine, The Origins of Theoretical Population Genetics, Chicago, 1971; P. Froggatt and N. C. Nevin, 'The "Law of Ancestral Heredity" and the Mendelian-ancestrian controversy in England, 1889-1906', Journal of Medical Genetics (1971), 8, 1-36; B. J. Norton, 'Biology and philosophy: the methodological foundations of biometry', Journal of the History of Biology (1975), 8, 85-93; D. MacKenzie, 'Sociobiologies in competition: the biometrician-Mendelian debate', in Biology, Medicine and Society 1840-1940 (ed. C. Webster), Cambridge, 1981, 243-88; R. Olby, 'The dimensions of scientific controversy: the biometric-Mendelian debate', BJHS (1988), 22, 299-320; P. J. Bowler, The Mendelian Revolution, London, 1989, 71-2.
7. P. Popenoe, 'Feeblemindedness', Journal of Heredity (1915), 6, 32-6.
8. H. H. Goddard, The Kallikak Family: A Study in the Heredity of Feeble-mindedness, New York, 1912.
9. C. B. Davenport, 'The inheritance of physical and mental traits of man and their application to eugenics', in Heredity and Eugenics (ed. W. E. Castle, J. M. Coulter, C. B. Davenport, E. M. East and W. L. Tower), Chicago, 1912, 281.
10. Davenport, op. cit. (4), 288.
11. H. H. Goddard, Feeble-mindedness: Its Causes and Consequences, New York, 1914, p. ix.
12. R. C. Punnett, 'Genetics and eugenics', in Problems in Eugenics. Papers Communicated to the First International Eugenics Congress Held at the University of London, July 24th to 30th, 1912, 2 vols., London, 1912, i, 137.
13. W. Bateson, 'Address on heredity', British Medical Journal (1913), 2, 360. Bateson went on to say, however, 'It is nevertheless difficult to regard this condition as a simple recessive.'
14. D. Heron, 'Mendelism and the problem of mental defect. I. A criticism of recent American work', Questions of the Day and of the Fray No. VII, London, 1913, 12.
15. MacKenzie, op cit. (1), 271. Eileen Magnello has disputed this link, however, arguing that the work carried out in the Drapers' Biometric Laboratory was very different both in subject and in methodology from that performed in the Galton Eugenics Laboratory (M. E. Magnello, 'Karl Pearson's methodological innovations: the Drapers' Biometric Laboratory and the Galton Eugenics Laboratory', History of Science, in press). One area of overlap, however, was work on heredity and Mendelian genetics, and it is noteworthy that, although Heron was appointed to the Galton Laboratory, he was also trained in Pearsonian biometrics and published several papers in Biometrika, the primary journal of Drapers' Laboratory. Moreover, Heron was seen by Davenport and other Mendelians as a biometrician and labelled as such (see note 63 below).
16. MacKenzie, op cit. (1), 271. Eileen Magnello has disputed this link, however, arguing that the work carried out in the Drapers' Biometric Laboratory was very different both in subject and in methodology from that performed in the Galton Eugenics Laboratory (M. E. Magnello, 'Karl Pearson's methodological innovations: the Drapers' Biometric Laboratory and the Galton Eugenics Laboratory', History of Science, in press). One area of overlap, however, was work on heredity and Mendelian genetics, and it is noteworthy that, although Heron was appointed to the Galton Laboratory, he was also trained in Pearsonian biometrics and published several papers in Biometrika, the primary journal of Drapers' Laboratory. Moreover, Heron was seen by Davenport and other Mendelians as a biometrician and labelled as such (see note 63 below).
17. MacKenzie, op cit. (1), 271. Eileen Magnello has disputed this link, however, arguing that the work carried out in the Drapers' Biometric Laboratory was very different both in subject and in methodology from that performed in the Galton Eugenics Laboratory (M. E. Magnello, 'Karl Pearson's methodological innovations: the Drapers' Biometric Laboratory and the Galton Eugenics Laboratory', History of Science, in press). One area of overlap, however, was work on heredity and Mendelian genetics, and it is noteworthy that, although Heron was appointed to the Galton Laboratory, he was also trained in Pearsonian biometrics and published several papers in Biometrika, the primary journal of Drapers' Laboratory. Moreover, Heron was seen by Davenport and other Mendelians as a biometrician and labelled as such (see note 63 below).
18. Heron, op. cit. (9), 4.
19. Heron was a foundation member of the Eugenics Education Society and in 1909 was elected to its Council (P. M. H. Mazumdar, Eugenics, Human Genetics and Human Failings: The Eugenics Society, its Sources and its Critics in Britain, London, 1992).
20. D. Barker, 'The biology of stupidity: genetics, eugenics and mental deficiency in the inter-war years', BJHS (1989), 22, 359.
21. S. J. Holmes, The Trend of the Race: A Study of Present Tendencies in the Biological Development of Civilized Mankind, New York, 1921, 38.
22. Goddard, op. cit. (3), 114.
23. Heron, op. cit. (9), 61.
24. As far as we are aware, Heron was the first to describe ascertainment bias in English, although he did not use that term. Wilhelm Weinberg, after whom the Hardy-Weinberg Principle is named, had written about the subject in terms of conditional probabilities as early as 1908, but his work was not widely known in Britain until 1931 when Hogben applied these ideas to human pedigrees (Mazumdar, op. cit. (11)). Thus, Barker's claim that any undergraduate would have been able to make this (and other) criticisms is perhaps a little exaggerated.
25. Heron, op. cit. (9), 38, italics in original.
26. Psychologists in particular were doubtful, but few had the genetic training to make telling points. For example, the psychiatrist Abraham Myerson ('Psychiatric family studies', American Journal of Insanity (1917), 73, 355-486) also claimed (in two pages of a seventy-page article) that Davenport's facts had been made to fit Mendelian theory: the category of feeblemindedness was polymorphic and the evidence for a single-gene defect was weak. But his criticism was mostly simple assertion of his doubts, and there was no response from the ERO.
27. Popenoe and Johnson in their often-reprinted text Applied Eugenics (P. Popenoe and R. H. Johnson, New York, 1918), also expressed reservations about the single-gene model, but again the criticism was brief and they did not doubt that most feeblemindedness was hereditary. Popenoe, as editor of the Journal of Heredity, may have been an influential critic, but by 1918 the Mendelian-chromosome theory was vindicated. Ironically, Davenport himself made one of the most relevant criticisms. In a surprisingly lukewarm review of Feeblemindedness ('Review of Feeblemindedness: Its Causes and Consequences. By H. H. Goodard', Science (1915), 42, 837-8), Davenport queried how a socially defined trait could be inherited as a Mendelian factor: 'since feeblemindedness is a social and not a biological term, it would seem almost absurd to seek to find a law of its inheritance'.
28. Popenoe and Johnson in their often-reprinted text Applied Eugenics (P. Popenoe and R. H. Johnson, New York, 1918), also expressed reservations about the single-gene model, but again the criticism was brief and they did not doubt that most feeblemindedness was hereditary. Popenoe, as editor of the Journal of Heredity, may have been an influential critic, but by 1918 the Mendelian-chromosome theory was vindicated. Ironically, Davenport himself made one of the most relevant criticisms. In a surprisingly lukewarm review of Feeblemindedness ('Review of Feeblemindedness: Its Causes and Consequences. By H. H. Goodard', Science (1915), 42, 837-8), Davenport queried how a socially defined trait could be inherited as a Mendelian factor: 'since feeblemindedness is a social and not a biological term, it would seem almost absurd to seek to find a law of its inheritance'.
29. Popenoe and Johnson in their often-reprinted text Applied Eugenics (P. Popenoe and R. H. Johnson, New York, 1918), also expressed reservations about the single-gene model, but again the criticism was brief and they did not doubt that most feeblemindedness was hereditary. Popenoe, as editor of the Journal of Heredity, may have been an influential critic, but by 1918 the Mendelian-chromosome theory was vindicated. Ironically, Davenport himself made one of the most relevant criticisms. In a surprisingly lukewarm review of Feeblemindedness ('Review of Feeblemindedness: Its Causes and Consequences. By H. H. Goodard', Science (1915), 42, 837-8), Davenport queried how a socially defined trait could be inherited as a Mendelian factor: 'since feeblemindedness is a social and not a biological term, it would seem almost absurd to seek to find a law of its inheritance'.
30. K. Pearson, 'Mendelism and the problem of mental defect. III. On the graduated character of mental defect and on the need for standardising judgments as to the grade of social inefficiency which shall involve segregation', Questions of the Day and of the Fray No. IX, London, 1914, 16.
31. K. Pearson and G. A. Jaederholm, 'Mendelism and the problem of mental defect. II. On the continuity of mental defect', Questions of the Day and of the Fray No. VIII, London, 1914.
32. Pearson, op. cit. (19), 5-8.
33. Pearson (and, presumably, Heron as well) accepted Mendelian explanations for discrete characters (such as blue and brown eye colour), but he considered these cases rare exceptions rather than the rule (M. E. Magnello, 'Karl Pearson's mathematization of inheritance: from ancestral heredity to Mendelian genetics (1895-1909)', Annals of Science (1998), 55, 35-94; see also Froggatt and Nevin, op. cit. (1)).
34. Pearson (and, presumably, Heron as well) accepted Mendelian explanations for discrete characters (such as blue and brown eye colour), but he considered these cases rare exceptions rather than the rule (M. E. Magnello, 'Karl Pearson's mathematization of inheritance: from ancestral heredity to Mendelian genetics (1895-1909)', Annals of Science (1998), 55, 35-94; see also Froggatt and Nevin, op. cit. (1)).
35. Pearson, op. cit. (19), 20.
36. The two papers by Pearson appeared at approximately the same time as these responses and were apparently ignored by Davenport and his co-workers.
37. C. B. Davenport, 'A discussion of the methods and results of Dr. Heron's critique', in Reply to the Criticism of Recent American Work by Dr. Heron of the Galton Laboratory, Eugenics Record Office Bulletin No. 11, Cold Spring Harbor, New York, 1914, 3-24; A. J. Rosanoff, 'Mendelism and neuropathic heredity: a reply to some of Dr. David Heron's criticisms of recent American work', in ibid., 27-43 (Reprinted from American Journal of Insanity (1914), 70, 571-87); D. F. Weeks, 'Extract from a letter to C. B. Davenport from Dr. David F. Weeks, Superintendent of the New Jersey State Village for Epileptics at Skillman', in ibid., 25.
38. C. B. Davenport, 'A discussion of the methods and results of Dr. Heron's critique', in Reply to the Criticism of Recent American Work by Dr. Heron of the Galton Laboratory, Eugenics Record Office Bulletin No. 11, Cold Spring Harbor, New York, 1914, 3-24; A. J. Rosanoff, 'Mendelism and neuropathic heredity: a reply to some of Dr. David Heron's criticisms of recent American work', in ibid., 27-43 (Reprinted from American Journal of Insanity (1914), 70, 571-87); D. F. Weeks, 'Extract from a letter to C. B. Davenport from Dr. David F. Weeks, Superintendent of the New Jersey State Village for Epileptics at Skillman', in ibid., 25.
39. C. B. Davenport, 'A discussion of the methods and results of Dr. Heron's critique', in Reply to the Criticism of Recent American Work by Dr. Heron of the Galton Laboratory, Eugenics Record Office Bulletin No. 11, Cold Spring Harbor, New York, 1914, 3-24; A. J. Rosanoff, 'Mendelism and neuropathic heredity: a reply to some of Dr. David Heron's criticisms of recent American work', in ibid., 27-43 (Reprinted from American Journal of Insanity (1914), 70, 571-87); D. F. Weeks, 'Extract from a letter to C. B. Davenport from Dr. David F. Weeks, Superintendent of the New Jersey State Village for Epileptics at Skillman', in ibid., 25.
40. C. B. Davenport, 'A discussion of the methods and results of Dr. Heron's critique', in Reply to the Criticism of Recent American Work by Dr. Heron of the Galton Laboratory, Eugenics Record Office Bulletin No. 11, Cold Spring Harbor, New York, 1914, 3-24; A. J. Rosanoff, 'Mendelism and neuropathic heredity: a reply to some of Dr. David Heron's criticisms of recent American work', in ibid., 27-43 (Reprinted from American Journal of Insanity (1914), 70, 571-87); D. F. Weeks, 'Extract from a letter to C. B. Davenport from Dr. David F. Weeks, Superintendent of the New Jersey State Village for Epileptics at Skillman', in ibid., 25.
41. C. B. Davenport, 'A reply to Dr. Heron's strictures', Science (1913), 38, 773-4.
42. D. Heron, 'English expert attacks American eugenic work', New York Times, 9 November 1913, part V, 1; C. B. Davenport, 'American work strongly defended', ibid., 1-2; D. Heron, 'English eugenics expert again attacks Davenport', ibid., 4 January 1914, part V, 1.
43. D. Heron, 'English expert attacks American eugenic work', New York Times, 9 November 1913, part V, 1; C. B. Davenport, 'American work strongly defended', ibid., 1-2; D. Heron, 'English eugenics expert again attacks Davenport', ibid., 4 January 1914, part V, 1.
44. D. Heron, 'English expert attacks American eugenic work', New York Times, 9 November 1913, part V, 1; C. B. Davenport, 'American work strongly defended', ibid., 1-2; D. Heron, 'English eugenics expert again attacks Davenport', ibid., 4 January 1914, part V, 1.
45. D. J. Kevles, In the Name of Eugenics: Genetics and the Uses of Human Heredity, New York, 1985.
46. H. S. Jennings, The Biological Basis of Human Nature, New York, 1930, 238.
47. J. S. Huxley, 'The vital importance of eugenics', Harper's Monthly Magazine (1931), 163, 324-31.
48. J. B. S. Haldane, Heredity and Politics, New York, 1938, 94, but see also D. B. Paul and H. G. Spencer, 'The hidden science of eugenics', Nature (1995), 374, 302-4 and D. B. Paul and H. G. Spencer, 'Did eugenics rest on an elementary mistake?', in Thinking about Evolution: Historical, Philosophical and Political Perspectives (ed. J. Beatty, C. Krimbas, D. B. Paul and R. S. Singh), in press. Diane Paul has noted that while all three of these geneticists (Jennings, Huxley and Haldane) were critical of conventional eugenics, they retained many eugenic views their whole lives (D. B. Paul, 'Eugenics and the left', Journal of the History of Ideas (1984), 45, 567-90).
49. J. B. S. Haldane, Heredity and Politics, New York, 1938, 94, but see also D. B. Paul and H. G. Spencer, 'The hidden science of eugenics', Nature (1995), 374, 302-4 and D. B. Paul and H. G. Spencer, 'Did eugenics rest on an elementary mistake?', in Thinking about Evolution: Historical, Philosophical and Political Perspectives (ed. J. Beatty, C. Krimbas, D. B. Paul and R. S. Singh), in press. Diane Paul has noted that while all three of these geneticists (Jennings, Huxley and Haldane) were critical of conventional eugenics, they retained many eugenic views their whole lives (D. B. Paul, 'Eugenics and the left', Journal of the History of Ideas (1984), 45, 567-90).
50. J. B. S. Haldane, Heredity and Politics, New York, 1938, 94, but see also D. B. Paul and H. G. Spencer, 'The hidden science of eugenics', Nature (1995), 374, 302-4 and D. B. Paul and H. G. Spencer, 'Did eugenics rest on an elementary mistake?', in Thinking about Evolution: Historical, Philosophical and Political Perspectives (ed. J. Beatty, C. Krimbas, D. B. Paul and R. S. Singh), in press. Diane Paul has noted that while all three of these geneticists (Jennings, Huxley and Haldane) were critical of conventional eugenics, they retained many eugenic views their whole lives (D. B. Paul, 'Eugenics and the left', Journal of the History of Ideas (1984), 45, 567-90).
51. J. B. S. Haldane, Heredity and Politics, New York, 1938, 94, but see also D. B. Paul and H. G. Spencer, 'The hidden science of eugenics', Nature (1995), 374, 302-4 and D. B. Paul and H. G. Spencer, 'Did eugenics rest on an elementary mistake?', in Thinking about Evolution: Historical, Philosophical and Political Perspectives (ed. J. Beatty, C. Krimbas, D. B. Paul and R. S. Singh), in press. Diane Paul has noted that while all three of these geneticists (Jennings, Huxley and Haldane) were critical of conventional eugenics, they retained many eugenic views their whole lives (D. B. Paul, 'Eugenics and the left', Journal of the History of Ideas (1984), 45, 567-90).
52. W. E. Castle, Genetics and Eugenics, 4th edn, Cambridge, MA, 1931, 381.
53. E. M. East, 'Review Genetic Principles in Medicine and the Social Sciences. By L. T. Hogben', Economica (1932), 12, 235-8.
54. See Barker, op. cit. (12), for a fuller treatment.
55. For example H. E. Garrett and H. Bonner, General Psychology, 2nd edn, New York, 1961.
56. Heron, op. cit. (9), 6, 38.
57. The New York Times treatment (op. cit. (27)) also played on their readers' patriotism, headlining their extracts from Heron's paper 'English expert attacks American eugenic work' and introducing it saying that Heron had made 'a spirited attack... upon the entire body of American Eugenics'. In his adjacent reply entitled 'American work strongly defended', Davenport continued this line, claiming 'We in America... have abandoned the Old World scholasticism' so that 'the United States is the only place where on a large scale, eugenics is being worked out' and which is 'attempting with any measure of success to put the findings of eugenics experts into practical everyday use'. Only at the end of the reply does he mention the biometrician-Mendelian debate, carefully phrasing it in terms of the main protagonists, 'Our Pearsonian critics absorbed with their mathematical tables.' Heron was careful in his response two months later to start out by saying that 'so much excellent scientific work has been done in America', but the paper's subeditors placed it under the headline 'English eugenics expert again attacks Davenport'. Davenport did not have it all his own way, however. The extract from Heron's paper contained a one-sentence assertion that Davenport favoured inter-racial marriages. In his reply, Davenport denied this view, but Heron's response expanded the accusation, quoting Davenport's comments on how hybridizing would allow the white population to gain various characteristics (for example 'keen sense of humour') supposedly superior in blacks.
58. Popenoe (op. cit. (2), 34) noted at the time that the controversy between Heron and the ERO members was 'fairly well aired in the daily as well as the scientific press'. Heron's monograph was (favourably) reviewed in the Times Literary Supplement, 3 September 1914, 410.
59. See for example G. K. Chesterton, Eugenics and Other Evils, London, 1922.
60. J. F. E. Prideaux, British Medical Journal (1923), 2, 231.
61. R. C. Punnett, 'Eliminating feeblemindedness', Journal of Heredity (1917), 8, 464-5. See also Paul and Spencer, op. cit. (31).
62. R. C. Punnett, 'Eliminating feeblemindedness', Journal of Heredity (1917), 8, 464-5. See also Paul and Spencer, op. cit. (31).
63. Davenport, op. cit. (25), 23.
64. Davenport, op. cit. (26), 774.
65. Davenport, op. cit. (25), 6.
66. Davenport, op. cit. (26) and op. cit. (25), 16.
67. Davenport, op. cit. (26) and op. cit. (25), 16.
68. Davenport, op. cit. (25), 11-16.
69. Davenport, op. cit. (25), 18, 22.
70. Rosanoff, op. cit. (25), 35.
71. Davenport, op. cit. (27).
72. Heron, op. cit. (27).
73. Davenport, op. cit. (25), 20.
74. This argument is particularly interesting because it has metamorphosed into one of the standard anti-eugenic responses: no one is free from some bad genes. For example, Haldane (op. cit. (31), 95-6) argued that 'With mental defects as with physical defects, if you once deem it desirable to sterilise I think it is a little difficult to know where you are to stop.'
75. This point was made clear in the preface to the published version of the lecture (J. M. Coulter, F. R. Little and W. L. Tower, 'Preface', in Heredity and Eugenics (ed. W. E. Castle, J. M. Coulter, C. B. Davenport, E. M. East and W. L. Tower), Chicago, 1912, pp. v-vi).
76. Davenport, op. cit. (27), 2.
77. Heron, op. cit. (27), 1.
78. See Paul and Spencer, op. cit. (31).
79. Rosanoff, op. cit. (25).
80. See Barker, op. cit. (12), 352.
81. This action may have appeared fair, but as Barker (op. cit. (12), 357) noted, the correction was still erroneous and fortuitously made the fit with the Mendelian model better.
82. E. M. East, 'Hidden feeblemindedness', Journal of Heredity (1917), 8, 215-17; R. A. Fisher, 'The elimination of mental defect', Eugenics Review (1924), 16, 114-16.
83. E. M. East, 'Hidden feeblemindedness', Journal of Heredity (1917), 8, 215-17; R. A. Fisher, 'The elimination of mental defect', Eugenics Review (1924), 16, 114-16.
84. Popenoe and Johnson, op. cit. (18), 105.
85. Barker, op. cit. (12), 351.
86. For example, Davenport, op. cit. (25), 22-4.
87. Ludmerer has argued that Davenport and his colleagues misinterpreted Heron's true motivation. Heron, he claimed, was merely encouraging 'Americans working in the field to employ greater caution' (K. M. Ludmerer, Genetics and American Society: A Historical Appraisal, Baltimore, 1972, 61). We disagree: the wholesale criticism of the Mendelian model shows quite clearly that Heron was attacking the method and not just the data.
88. G. E. Allen, Thomas Hunt Morgan, the Man and his Science, Princeton, 1978.
89. C. B. Davenport and E. B. Muncey, Huntington's Chorea in Relation to Heredity and Eugenics, Eugenics Record Office Bulletin No. 17, Cold Spring Harbor, New York, 1916.
90. R. A. Fisher, 'The correlation between relatives on the supposition of Mendelian inheritance', Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh (1918), 52, 399-433. As MacKenzie (op. cit. (1)), Froggatt and Nevin (op. cit. (1)), Magnello (op. cit. (22)) and others have noted, previous reconciliations were published (for example G. U. Yule, 'Mendel's laws and their probable relations to infra-racial heredity', New Phytologist (1902), 1, 193-207, 222-38; K. Pearson, 'Mathematical contributions to the theory of evolution - XII. On a generalised theory of alternative inheritance, with special reference to Mendel's laws', Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London A (1904), 203, 53-86; K. Pearson, 'On the ancestral gametic correlations of a Mendelian population mating at random', Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B (1909), 81, 225-9; E. M. East, 'A Mendelian interpretation of variation that is apparently continuous', American Naturalist (1910), 44, 65-82), but they had little effect on terminating the debate. While the biometricians considered that Mendelism could apply to discrete data, they thought such data were very rare and did not accept that Mendelism offered a full explanation of heredity, especially for continuous characters. Moreover, many Mendelians consistently portrayed their opponents as rejecting Mendelism in toto (Magnello, op. cit. (22)).
91. R. A. Fisher, 'The correlation between relatives on the supposition of Mendelian inheritance', Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh (1918), 52, 399-433. As MacKenzie (op. cit. (1)), Froggatt and Nevin (op. cit. (1)), Magnello (op. cit. (22)) and others have noted, previous reconciliations were published (for example G. U. Yule, 'Mendel's laws and their probable relations to infra-racial heredity', New Phytologist (1902), 1, 193-207, 222-38; K. Pearson, 'Mathematical contributions to the theory of evolution - XII. On a generalised theory of alternative inheritance, with special reference to Mendel's laws', Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London A (1904), 203, 53-86; K. Pearson, 'On the ancestral gametic correlations of a Mendelian population mating at random', Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B (1909), 81, 225-9; E. M. East, 'A Mendelian interpretation of variation that is apparently continuous', American Naturalist (1910), 44, 65-82), but they had little effect on terminating the debate. While the biometricians considered that Mendelism could apply to discrete data, they thought such data were very rare and did not accept that Mendelism offered a full explanation of heredity, especially for continuous characters. Moreover, many Mendelians consistently portrayed their opponents as rejecting Mendelism in toto (Magnello, op. cit. (22)).
92. R. A. Fisher, 'The correlation between relatives on the supposition of Mendelian inheritance', Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh (1918), 52, 399-433. As MacKenzie (op. cit. (1)), Froggatt and Nevin (op. cit. (1)), Magnello (op. cit. (22)) and others have noted, previous reconciliations were published (for example G. U. Yule, 'Mendel's laws and their probable relations to infra-racial heredity', New Phytologist (1902), 1, 193-207, 222-38; K. Pearson, 'Mathematical contributions to the theory of evolution - XII. On a generalised theory of alternative inheritance, with special reference to Mendel's laws', Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London A (1904), 203, 53-86; K. Pearson, 'On the ancestral gametic correlations of a Mendelian population mating at random', Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B (1909), 81, 225-9; E. M. East, 'A Mendelian interpretation of variation that is apparently continuous', American Naturalist (1910), 44, 65-82), but they had little effect on terminating the debate. While the biometricians considered that Mendelism could apply to discrete data, they thought such data were very rare and did not accept that Mendelism offered a full explanation of heredity, especially for continuous characters. Moreover, many Mendelians consistently portrayed their opponents as rejecting Mendelism in toto (Magnello, op. cit. (22)).
93. R. A. Fisher, 'The correlation between relatives on the supposition of Mendelian inheritance', Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh (1918), 52, 399-433. As MacKenzie (op. cit. (1)), Froggatt and Nevin (op. cit. (1)), Magnello (op. cit. (22)) and others have noted, previous reconciliations were published (for example G. U. Yule, 'Mendel's laws and their probable relations to infra-racial heredity', New Phytologist (1902), 1, 193-207, 222-38; K. Pearson, 'Mathematical contributions to the theory of evolution - XII. On a generalised theory of alternative inheritance, with special reference to Mendel's laws', Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London A (1904), 203, 53-86; K. Pearson, 'On the ancestral gametic correlations of a Mendelian population mating at random', Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B (1909), 81, 225-9; E. M. East, 'A Mendelian interpretation of variation that is apparently continuous', American Naturalist (1910), 44, 65-82), but they had little effect on terminating the debate. While the biometricians considered that Mendelism could apply to discrete data, they thought such data were very rare and did not accept that Mendelism offered a full explanation of heredity, especially for continuous characters. Moreover, many Mendelians consistently portrayed their opponents as rejecting Mendelism in toto (Magnello, op. cit. (22)).
94. R. A. Fisher, 'The correlation between relatives on the supposition of Mendelian inheritance', Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh (1918), 52, 399-433. As MacKenzie (op. cit. (1)), Froggatt and Nevin (op. cit. (1)), Magnello (op. cit. (22)) and others have noted, previous reconciliations were published (for example G. U. Yule, 'Mendel's laws and their probable relations to infra-racial heredity', New Phytologist (1902), 1, 193-207, 222-38; K. Pearson, 'Mathematical contributions to the theory of evolution - XII. On a generalised theory of alternative inheritance, with special reference to Mendel's laws', Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London A (1904), 203, 53-86; K. Pearson, 'On the ancestral gametic correlations of a Mendelian population mating at random', Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B (1909), 81, 225-9; E. M. East, 'A Mendelian interpretation of variation that is apparently continuous', American Naturalist (1910), 44, 65-82), but they had little effect on terminating the debate. While the biometricians considered that Mendelism could apply to discrete data, they thought such data were very rare and did not accept that Mendelism offered a full explanation of heredity, especially for continuous characters. Moreover, many Mendelians consistently portrayed their opponents as rejecting Mendelism in toto (Magnello, op. cit. (22)).
95. R. A. Fisher, 'The correlation between relatives on the supposition of Mendelian inheritance', Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh (1918), 52, 399-433. As MacKenzie (op. cit. (1)), Froggatt and Nevin (op. cit. (1)), Magnello (op. cit. (22)) and others have noted, previous reconciliations were published (for example G. U. Yule, 'Mendel's laws and their probable relations to infra-racial heredity', New Phytologist (1902), 1, 193-207, 222-38; K. Pearson, 'Mathematical contributions to the theory of evolution - XII. On a generalised theory of alternative inheritance, with special reference to Mendel's laws', Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London A (1904), 203, 53-86; K. Pearson, 'On the ancestral gametic correlations of a Mendelian population mating at random', Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B (1909), 81, 225-9; E. M. East, 'A Mendelian interpretation of variation that is apparently continuous', American Naturalist (1910), 44, 65-82), but they had little effect on terminating the debate. While the biometricians considered that Mendelism could apply to discrete data, they thought such data were very rare and did not accept that Mendelism offered a full explanation of heredity, especially for continuous characters. Moreover, many Mendelians consistently portrayed their opponents as rejecting Mendelism in toto (Magnello, op. cit. (22)).
96. R. A. Fisher, 'The correlation between relatives on the supposition of Mendelian inheritance', Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh (1918), 52, 399-433. As MacKenzie (op. cit. (1)), Froggatt and Nevin (op. cit. (1)), Magnello (op. cit. (22)) and others have noted, previous reconciliations were published (for example G. U. Yule, 'Mendel's laws and their probable relations to infra-racial heredity', New Phytologist (1902), 1, 193-207, 222-38; K. Pearson, 'Mathematical contributions to the theory of evolution - XII. On a generalised theory of alternative inheritance, with special reference to Mendel's laws', Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London A (1904), 203, 53-86; K. Pearson, 'On the ancestral gametic correlations of a Mendelian population mating at random', Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B (1909), 81, 225-9; E. M. East, 'A Mendelian interpretation of variation that is apparently continuous', American Naturalist (1910), 44, 65-82), but they had little effect on terminating the debate. While the biometricians considered that Mendelism could apply to discrete data, they thought such data were very rare and did not accept that Mendelism offered a full explanation of heredity, especially for continuous characters. Moreover, many Mendelians consistently portrayed their opponents as rejecting Mendelism in toto (Magnello, op. cit. (22)).
97. R. A. Fisher, 'The correlation between relatives on the supposition of Mendelian inheritance', Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh (1918), 52, 399-433. As MacKenzie (op. cit. (1)), Froggatt and Nevin (op. cit. (1)), Magnello (op. cit. (22)) and others have noted, previous reconciliations were published (for example G. U. Yule, 'Mendel's laws and their probable relations to infra-racial heredity', New Phytologist (1902), 1, 193-207, 222-38; K. Pearson, 'Mathematical contributions to the theory of evolution - XII. On a generalised theory of alternative inheritance, with special reference to Mendel's laws', Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London A (1904), 203, 53-86; K. Pearson, 'On the ancestral gametic correlations of a Mendelian population mating at random', Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B (1909), 81, 225-9; E. M. East, 'A Mendelian interpretation of variation that is apparently continuous', American Naturalist (1910), 44, 65-82), but they had little effect on terminating the debate. While the biometricians considered that Mendelism could apply to discrete data, they thought such data were very rare and did not accept that Mendelism offered a full explanation of heredity, especially for continuous characters. Moreover, many Mendelians consistently portrayed their opponents as rejecting Mendelism in toto (Magnello, op. cit. (22)).
98. R. A. Fisher, 'The correlation between relatives on the supposition of Mendelian inheritance', Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh (1918), 52, 399-433. As MacKenzie (op. cit. (1)), Froggatt and Nevin (op. cit. (1)), Magnello (op. cit. (22)) and others have noted, previous reconciliations were published (for example G. U. Yule, 'Mendel's laws and their probable relations to infra-racial heredity', New Phytologist (1902), 1, 193-207, 222-38; K. Pearson, 'Mathematical contributions to the theory of evolution - XII. On a generalised theory of alternative inheritance, with special reference to Mendel's laws', Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London A (1904), 203, 53-86; K. Pearson, 'On the ancestral gametic correlations of a Mendelian population mating at random', Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B (1909), 81, 225-9; E. M. East, 'A Mendelian interpretation of variation that is apparently continuous', American Naturalist (1910), 44, 65-82), but they had little effect on terminating the debate. While the biometricians considered that Mendelism could apply to discrete data, they thought such data were very rare and did not accept that Mendelism offered a full explanation of heredity, especially for continuous characters. Moreover, many Mendelians consistently portrayed their opponents as rejecting Mendelism in toto (Magnello, op. cit. (22)).
99. We have also found few citations of Pearson's two papers. If scientists were convinced by Davenport's response (and the rise of Mendelism in general), they may have remained largely unread. Their publication was not accompanied by the publicity that Heron achieved. Moreover, Heron's style may have tarnished all three critiques.
100. Popenoe, op. cit. (2), Kevles, op. cit. (28), 71.
101. Popenoe, op. cit. (2), Kevles, op. cit. (28), 71.
102. Holmes, op. cit. (13), 37.
103. Rosanoff, op. cit. (25).
104. We do not wish to imply that biometrical genetics disappeared completely. But after 1918, when Fisher (op. cit. (67)) showed how continuous traits could be explained by several Mendelian factors acting simultaneously, the synthesis of the chromosome theory with Mendelism provided the only viable explanatory theory of genetic inheritance. Sturtevant and Beadle's standard text mentions 'continuously variable characters' in a single paragraph of the final chapter (a historical review of the development of genetics) (A. H. Sturtevant and G. W. Beadle, An Introduction to Genetics, Philadelphia, 1939, 362). And of the forty-three major articles appearing in the first six months of 1930 in the Journal of Heredity, just one could be seen as explicitly biometric in its approach. Ironically, as Magnello (op. cit. (22)) has pointed out, many of Pearson's biometrical techniques, especially his chi-square goodness-of-fit test, became standard tools of Mendelian analysis.
105. We do not wish to imply that biometrical genetics disappeared completely. But after 1918, when Fisher (op. cit. (67)) showed how continuous traits could be explained by several Mendelian factors acting simultaneously, the synthesis of the chromosome theory with Mendelism provided the only viable explanatory theory of genetic inheritance. Sturtevant and Beadle's standard text mentions 'continuously variable characters' in a single paragraph of the final chapter (a historical review of the development of genetics) (A. H. Sturtevant and G. W. Beadle, An Introduction to Genetics, Philadelphia, 1939, 362). And of the forty-three major articles appearing in the first six months of 1930 in the Journal of Heredity, just one could be seen as explicitly biometric in its approach. Ironically, as Magnello (op. cit. (22)) has pointed out, many of Pearson's biometrical techniques, especially his chi-square goodness-of-fit test, became standard tools of Mendelian analysis.
106. We do not wish to imply that biometrical genetics disappeared completely. But after 1918, when Fisher (op. cit. (67)) showed how continuous traits could be explained by several Mendelian factors acting simultaneously, the synthesis of the chromosome theory with Mendelism provided the only viable explanatory theory of genetic inheritance. Sturtevant and Beadle's standard text mentions 'continuously variable characters' in a single paragraph of the final chapter (a historical review of the development of genetics) (A. H. Sturtevant and G. W. Beadle, An Introduction to Genetics, Philadelphia, 1939, 362). And of the forty-three major articles appearing in the first six months of 1930 in the Journal of Heredity, just one could be seen as explicitly biometric in its approach. Ironically, as Magnello (op. cit. (22)) has pointed out, many of Pearson's biometrical techniques, especially his chi-square goodness-of-fit test, became standard tools of Mendelian analysis.
107. We do not wish to imply that biometrical genetics disappeared completely. But after 1918, when Fisher (op. cit. (67)) showed how continuous traits could be explained by several Mendelian factors acting simultaneously, the synthesis of the chromosome theory with Mendelism provided the only viable explanatory theory of genetic inheritance. Sturtevant and Beadle's standard text mentions 'continuously variable characters' in a single paragraph of the final chapter (a historical review of the development of genetics) (A. H. Sturtevant and G. W. Beadle, An Introduction to Genetics, Philadelphia, 1939, 362). And of the forty-three major articles appearing in the first six months of 1930 in the Journal of Heredity, just one could be seen as explicitly biometric in its approach. Ironically, as Magnello (op. cit. (22)) has pointed out, many of Pearson's biometrical techniques, especially his chi-square goodness-of-fit test, became standard tools of Mendelian analysis.
108. Bateson was probably the closest thing that existed to an anti-eugenic Mendelian: he never joined the Eugenics Education Society, nor did he think eugenics was his job, seeing it as a 'serious nuisance diverting attention' from 'real Genetics' (letter dated 28 January 1915, in response to an invitation to lecture in Cambridge on eugenics, quoted in William Bateson, F.R.S., Naturalist: His Essays and Addresses (ed. B. Bateson), Cambridge, 1928, 388). Nevertheless, he was proud to deliver the 1919 Galton Lecture to the Eugenics Education Society and he endorsed the state putting 'such control on the feebleminded members of the population as to prevent their propagation' (W. Bateson, 'Common-sense in racial problems', reprinted in ibid., 371-87). This speech was written just two years after his close collaborator, R. C. Punnett, had shown (op. cit. 41) that, under the Mendelian model, such a policy would take an eternity to eliminate the condition.
109. Bateson was probably the closest thing that existed to an anti-eugenic Mendelian: he never joined the Eugenics Education Society, nor did he think eugenics was his job, seeing it as a 'serious nuisance diverting attention' from 'real Genetics' (letter dated 28 January 1915, in response to an invitation to lecture in Cambridge on eugenics, quoted in William Bateson, F.R.S., Naturalist: His Essays and Addresses (ed. B. Bateson), Cambridge, 1928, 388). Nevertheless, he was proud to deliver the 1919 Galton Lecture to the Eugenics Education Society and he endorsed the state putting 'such control on the feebleminded members of the population as to prevent their propagation' (W. Bateson, 'Common-sense in racial problems', reprinted in ibid., 371-87). This speech was written just two years after his close collaborator, R. C. Punnett, had shown (op. cit. 41) that, under the Mendelian model, such a policy would take an eternity to eliminate the condition.
110. Bateson was probably the closest thing that existed to an anti-eugenic Mendelian: he never joined the Eugenics Education Society, nor did he think eugenics was his job, seeing it as a 'serious nuisance diverting attention' from 'real Genetics' (letter dated 28 January 1915, in response to an invitation to lecture in Cambridge on eugenics, quoted in William Bateson, F.R.S., Naturalist: His Essays and Addresses (ed. B. Bateson), Cambridge, 1928, 388). Nevertheless, he was proud to deliver the 1919 Galton Lecture to the Eugenics Education Society and he endorsed the state putting 'such control on the feebleminded members of the population as to prevent their propagation' (W. Bateson, 'Common-sense in racial problems', reprinted in ibid., 371-87). This speech was written just two years after his close collaborator, R. C. Punnett, had shown (op. cit. 41) that, under the Mendelian model, such a policy would take an eternity to eliminate the condition.
111. For example, see Ludmerer, op. cit. (64).