- Jul 2018
-
europepmc.org europepmc.org
-
On 2016 May 20, Donald Forsdyke commented:
FACTS BEFORE COUNTERFACTS
Counterfactual explorations can provide intriguing insights (1). But we have to be sure that the facts themselves are correct in the first place. In the context of Weldon, reference to "bad-tempered conflict with Mendel’s followers," really means conflict with William Bateson. While it is correct that the doctrinaire "Mendelian ‘genes for’ approach is increasingly seen as out of step with twenty-first-century biology" (1), for Bateson (1861-1926) the approach was also seen as out of step with twentieth-century biology.
Well aware of developmental and environmental factors, Bateson recognized that the biochemical characterization of genes should be high on the twentieth century research agenda. Thus, near the end of his life he declared that “Our knowledge of the nature of unorganized matter must first be increased. For a long time we may have to halt” in getting to grips with the underlying biological principles (2). However, he argued forcefully for looking beyond the visible characters of an organism (its conventional phenotype) to what we now regard as its genome phenotype (3). It was here that the answer to Darwin's fundamental question - the origin of species - was likely to lie.
Weldon had allied himself with Pearson whose brilliant work (later built on by Fisher), was to create modern biostatistics. But those were early days and they made elementary mistakes that Bateson was quick to point out. For example, Bateson would have bridled at the idea that “first year biologists” could serve as a reliable “control” against which to compare “second year humanities undergraduates” (1). Yes, we should “study Mendel, but let him be part of his time”(1). And as related by Meijer (4), Mendel followed the statistics of his time. Indeed, his results have withstood the test of time.
(1) Radick G (2016) Teach students the biology of their time. Nature 533:293 Radick G, 2016
(2) Cock AG, Forsdyke DR (2008) "Treasure Your Exceptions." The Science and Life of William Bateson. Springer, New York.
(3) Forsdyke, D. R. (2010) George Romanes, William Bateson, and Darwin's "Weak Point." Notes Rec R Soc Lond 64:139-154.
(4) Meijer OG (1982) The essence of Mendel’s discovery. In: Gregor Mendel and the Foundations of Genetics. Orel V (ed). The Mendelianum of the Moravian Museaum, Brno, pp. 173-200.
This comment, imported by Hypothesis from PubMed Commons, is licensed under CC BY.
-
- Feb 2018
-
europepmc.org europepmc.org
-
On 2016 May 20, Donald Forsdyke commented:
FACTS BEFORE COUNTERFACTS
Counterfactual explorations can provide intriguing insights (1). But we have to be sure that the facts themselves are correct in the first place. In the context of Weldon, reference to "bad-tempered conflict with Mendel’s followers," really means conflict with William Bateson. While it is correct that the doctrinaire "Mendelian ‘genes for’ approach is increasingly seen as out of step with twenty-first-century biology" (1), for Bateson (1861-1926) the approach was also seen as out of step with twentieth-century biology.
Well aware of developmental and environmental factors, Bateson recognized that the biochemical characterization of genes should be high on the twentieth century research agenda. Thus, near the end of his life he declared that “Our knowledge of the nature of unorganized matter must first be increased. For a long time we may have to halt” in getting to grips with the underlying biological principles (2). However, he argued forcefully for looking beyond the visible characters of an organism (its conventional phenotype) to what we now regard as its genome phenotype (3). It was here that the answer to Darwin's fundamental question - the origin of species - was likely to lie.
Weldon had allied himself with Pearson whose brilliant work (later built on by Fisher), was to create modern biostatistics. But those were early days and they made elementary mistakes that Bateson was quick to point out. For example, Bateson would have bridled at the idea that “first year biologists” could serve as a reliable “control” against which to compare “second year humanities undergraduates” (1). Yes, we should “study Mendel, but let him be part of his time”(1). And as related by Meijer (4), Mendel followed the statistics of his time. Indeed, his results have withstood the test of time.
(1) Radick G (2016) Teach students the biology of their time. Nature 533:293 Radick G, 2016
(2) Cock AG, Forsdyke DR (2008) "Treasure Your Exceptions." The Science and Life of William Bateson. Springer, New York.
(3) Forsdyke, D. R. (2010) George Romanes, William Bateson, and Darwin's "Weak Point." Notes Rec R Soc Lond 64:139-154.
(4) Meijer OG (1982) The essence of Mendel’s discovery. In: Gregor Mendel and the Foundations of Genetics. Orel V (ed). The Mendelianum of the Moravian Museaum, Brno, pp. 173-200.
This comment, imported by Hypothesis from PubMed Commons, is licensed under CC BY.
-