Mendel and modern genetics: The legacy for today

Endeavour

Volumn 27, Issue 2, 2003, Pages 63-68

  Allen, Garland E ^a  

^a WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BIOMEDICAL ENGINEERING; BIOTECHNOLOGY;

MODERN GENETICS;

GENETIC ENGINEERING;

EID: 0037812866     PISSN: 01609327     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0160-9327(03)00065-6     Document Type: Review

References (30)

1. Sturtevant, A.H. (1965) History of Genetics, Harper & Row; in chapter 21, Sturtevant reviews the claims that the three rediscoverers were really so independent, whilst several papers by Alain Corcos and Floyd Monaghan suggest that only Correns had really collected data that were really comparable to those obtained by Mendel. See, Corcos, A. and Monaghan, F. (1985) Role of de Vries in the recovery of Mendel's work. J. Hered. 76, 187-190; (1986) Tschermmak: a non-discoverer of Mendelism I: an historical note. J. Hered. 77, 468-469; and (1987) Tscheremak: a non-discoverer of Mendelism II: a critique. J. Hered. 78, 2-10. These various positions have been admirably summarized in Peter Bowler (1989) The Mendelian Revolution. The Emergence of Hereditarian Concepts in Modern Science and Society, Johns Hopkins University Press, especially chapter 1
2. Sturtevant, A.H. (1965) History of Genetics, Harper & Row; in chapter 21, Sturtevant reviews the claims that the three rediscoverers were really so independent, whilst several papers by Alain Corcos and Floyd Monaghan suggest that only Correns had really collected data that were really comparable to those obtained by Mendel. See, Corcos, A. and Monaghan, F. (1985) Role of de Vries in the recovery of Mendel's work. J. Hered. 76, 187-190; (1986) Tschermmak: a non-discoverer of Mendelism I: an historical note. J. Hered. 77, 468-469; and (1987) Tscheremak: a non-discoverer of Mendelism II: a critique. J. Hered. 78, 2-10. These various positions have been admirably summarized in Peter Bowler (1989) The Mendelian Revolution. The Emergence of Hereditarian Concepts in Modern Science and Society, Johns Hopkins University Press, especially chapter 1
3. Sturtevant, A.H. (1965) History of Genetics, Harper & Row; in chapter 21, Sturtevant reviews the claims that the three rediscoverers were really so independent, whilst several papers by Alain Corcos and Floyd Monaghan suggest that only Correns had really collected data that were really comparable to those obtained by Mendel. See, Corcos, A. and Monaghan, F. (1985) Role of de Vries in the recovery of Mendel's work. J. Hered. 76, 187-190; (1986) Tschermmak: a non-discoverer of Mendelism I: an historical note. J. Hered. 77, 468-469; and (1987) Tscheremak: a non-discoverer of Mendelism II: a critique. J. Hered. 78, 2-10. These various positions have been admirably summarized in Peter Bowler (1989) The Mendelian Revolution. The Emergence of Hereditarian Concepts in Modern Science and Society, Johns Hopkins University Press, especially chapter 1
4. Sturtevant, A.H. (1965) History of Genetics, Harper & Row; in chapter 21, Sturtevant reviews the claims that the three rediscoverers were really so independent, whilst several papers by Alain Corcos and Floyd Monaghan suggest that only Correns had really collected data that were really comparable to those obtained by Mendel. See, Corcos, A. and Monaghan, F. (1985) Role of de Vries in the recovery of Mendel's work. J. Hered. 76, 187-190; (1986) Tschermmak: a non-discoverer of Mendelism I: an historical note. J. Hered. 77, 468-469; and (1987) Tscheremak: a non-discoverer of Mendelism II: a critique. J. Hered. 78, 2-10. These various positions have been admirably summarized in Peter Bowler (1989) The Mendelian Revolution. The Emergence of Hereditarian Concepts in Modern Science and Society, Johns Hopkins University Press, especially chapter 1
5. Sturtevant, A.H. (1965) History of Genetics, Harper & Row; in chapter 21, Sturtevant reviews the claims that the three rediscoverers were really so independent, whilst several papers by Alain Corcos and Floyd Monaghan suggest that only Correns had really collected data that were really comparable to those obtained by Mendel. See, Corcos, A. and Monaghan, F. (1985) Role of de Vries in the recovery of Mendel's work. J. Hered. 76, 187-190; (1986) Tschermmak: a non-discoverer of Mendelism I: an historical note. J. Hered. 77, 468-469; and (1987) Tscheremak: a non-discoverer of Mendelism II: a critique. J. Hered. 78, 2-10. These various positions have been admirably summarized in Peter Bowler (1989) The Mendelian Revolution. The Emergence of Hereditarian Concepts in Modern Science and Society, Johns Hopkins University Press, especially chapter 1
6. Bateson, W. (1902) Mendel's Principles of Heredity: A Defense, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK
7. Letter from William Bateson to his wife, Beatrice, 3 October 1902, quoted in Paul, D. and Kimmelman, B. (1988) Mendel in America: theory and practice - 1900-1919. In Rainger, R. et al. (1988) The American Development of Biology, p. 283, University of Pennsylvania Press
8. Allen, G.E. (1978) Thomas Hunt Morgan, the Man and His Science, Princeton University Press
9. Orel, V. (1996) Gregor Mendel, the First Geneticist, pp. 40-41, Oxford University Press
10. Orel, V. (1973) The scientific milieu in Brno during the era of Mendel's research, J. Hered. 64, 314-318; see also [5], chapters 2-3
11. Orel, V. and Wood, R. (2000) Scientific animal breeding in Moravia before and after the rediscovery of Mendel's theory. Quarterly Review of Biology 75: pp. 149-157
12. Olby, R. (1979) Mendel no Mendelian? History of Science 17, pp. 53-72
13. Brannigan, A. (1979) The reification of Mendel, Social Studies of Science 9, pp. 423-454
14. Meijer, O. (1983) The essence of Mendel's discovery. In Gregor Mendel and the Foundation of Genetics (Orel, V. and Matalova, A., eds.), The Mendelianum of the Moravian Museum in Brno, pp. 123-178
15. Monaghan, F.V. and Corcos, A. (1984) On the origins of the Mendelian laws. J. Hered. 75, 67-69; and (1984) The true Mendelian laws. J. Hered. 75, 321-323
16. Monaghan, F.V. and Corcos, A. (1984) On the origins of the Mendelian laws. J. Hered. 75, 67-69; and (1984) The true Mendelian laws. J. Hered. 75, 321-323
17. Mendel, G., cited in [11], p. 105. The original reads: 'Diese Entwicklung erfolgt nach einem constanten Gesetze, welches in der materiellen Beschaffenheit und Anordnung der Elemente begründet ist, die in der Zelle zur lebesnfähigen Vereinigung gelangten.'
18. Allen, G. (2000) The reception of mendelism in the United States, 1900-1930. Comptes Rendu Academie des Sciences, Paris. Sciences de la vie 323, 1081-1088
19. On the industrialization of agriculture in 20th-century America, see Shannon, F.A. (1961) The Farmer's Last Frontier, pp. 362-365 and 366-367, Holt, Rinehart and Winston; and Kloppenberg, J.R. (1988) First the Seed. The Political Economy of Plant Biotechnology. Cambridge University Press, especially chapters 2-4
20. On the industrialization of agriculture in 20th-century America, see Shannon, F.A. (1961) The Farmer's Last Frontier, pp. 362-365 and 366-367, Holt, Rinehart and Winston; and Kloppenberg, J.R. (1988) First the Seed. The Political Economy of Plant Biotechnology. Cambridge University Press, especially chapters 2-4
21. Punnett, R. (1911) Mendelism, Macmillan
22. Morgan, T.H. et al. (1915) The Mechanism of Mendelian Inheritance, Henry Holt & Co.
23. Castle, W.E. (1919) Piebald rats and the theory of genes. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 5, 126-130; quotation on p. 127
24. East, E.M. (1912) The Mendelian notation as a description of physiological facts. Am. Nat. 46, 633-695
25. Haldane, J.B.S. (1932) The Causes of Evolution, p. 57, Harper and Brothers
26. This quotation comes from Punnett, R.C., ed. (1928) Scientific Papers of William Bateson, (vol. 2), p. 1, Cambridge University Press
27. Bateson, W. (1902) Mendel's Principles of Heredity: A Defense, Cambridge University Press; quoted from Lewontin, R.C. and Levins, R. (1985) The Dialectical Biologist, p. 180, Harvard University Press
28. Bateson, W. (1902) Mendel's Principles of Heredity: A Defense, Cambridge University Press; quoted from Lewontin, R.C. and Levins, R. (1985) The Dialectical Biologist, p. 180, Harvard University Press
29. Coleman, W. (1970) Bateson and chromosomes: conservative thought in science, Centaurus 15, 228-314
30. For a more detailed discussion of the mechanistic view of the gene, see Allen, G.E. (2002) The classical gene: its nature and its legacy. In Mutating Concepts, Evolving Disciplines: Genetics, Medicine and Society, (Parker, L.S. et al., eds), pp. 11-41, Kluwer Academic Publishers