Switch to: References

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. Ideas about heredity, genetics, and 'medical genetics' in Britain, 1900–1982.William Leeming - 2005 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 36 (3):538-558.
    The aim of this paper is to understand how evolving ideas about heredity and genetics influenced new medical interests and practices and, eventually, the formation of ‘medical genetics’ as a medical specialism in Britain. I begin the paper by highlighting the social and institutional changes through which these ideas passed. I argue that, with time, there was a decisive convergence in thought that combined ideas about the familial aspects of heredity and the health needs of populations with an omnibus ‘genetic’ (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • How scientific ideas develop and how to develop scientific ideas.Marga Vicedo - 1995 - Biology and Philosophy 10 (4):489-499.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Knowledge is power: Hugo de Vries on science, heredity and social progress.Bert Theunissen - 1994 - British Journal for the History of Science 27 (3):291-311.
    Hugo de Vries (1848–1935) would without doubt turn in his grave if he could be told about the various perspectives from which historians have studied his ideas and works. His would not be an exceptional case, of course, for many before and after him have fallen victim to the irony of history. Still, I am inclined to grant de Vries that he would have some reason for his distress, for the irony has hit him particularly hard. In 1922, de Vries (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  • Sources of Wilhelm Johannsen’s Genotype Theory.Nils Roll-Hansen - 2009 - Journal of the History of Biology 42 (3):457-493.
    This paper describes the historical background and early formation of Wilhelm Johannsen's distinction between genotype and phenotype. It is argued that contrary to a widely accepted interpretation his concepts referred primarily to properties of individual organisms and not to statistical averages. Johannsen's concept of genotype was derived from the idea of species in the tradition of biological systematics from Linnaeus to de Vries: An individual belonged to a group - species, subspecies, elementary species - by representing a certain underlying type. (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   10 citations  
  • Sources of Wilhelm Johannsen’s Genotype Theory.Nils Roll-Hansen - 2009 - Journal of the History of Biology 42 (3):457-493.
    This paper describes the historical background and early formation of Wilhelm Johannsen's distinction between genotype and phenotype. It is argued that contrary to a widely accepted interpretation his concepts referred primarily to properties of individual organisms and not to statistical averages. Johannsen's concept of genotype was derived from the idea of species in the tradition of biological systematics from Linnaeus to de Vries: An individual belonged to a group - species, subspecies, elementary species - by representing a certain underlying type. (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   10 citations  
  • Renegotiating Disciplinary Fields in the Life Sciences.Alessandro Minelli - 2020 - Philosophies 5 (4):43.
    The general problem around which this Special Issue revolves is that the way in which science is organized into specialties can have negative consequences on the progress of knowledge [...].
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Tracing the shifting sands of 'medical genetics': what's in a name?William Leeming - 2010 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 41 (1):50-60.
    This paper focuses on the structural development of institution-based interest in genetics in Anglo-North American medicine after 1930 concomitantly with an analysis of the changes through which ideas about heredity and the hereditary transmission of diseases in families have passed. It maintains that the unfolding relationship between medicine and genetics can best be understood against the background of the shift in emphasis in conceptualisations of recurring patterns of disease in families from ‘biological relatedness’ to ‘related to chromosomes and genes’. The (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Tracing the shifting sands of ‘medical genetics’: what’s in a name?William Leeming - 2010 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 41 (1):50-60.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Ideas about heredity, genetics, and ‘medical genetics’ in Britain, 1900–1982.William Leeming - 2005 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 36 (3):538-558.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Die Epilobium-Kontroverse zwischen den Botanikern Heinz Brücher und Ernst Lehmann.Uwe Hoßfeld - 1999 - NTM Zeitschrift für Geschichte der Wissenschaften, Technik und Medizin 7 (1):140-160.
    One area of genetics particularly dominated by German-speaking geneticists (Brücher, Correns, Lehmann, Michaelis, Oehlkers, Renner, von Wettstein) during the interwar period was research in the field of cytoplasmic inheritance (Plasmon-Theory). The controversy between the botanists Lehmann (Tübingen) and Brücher (Jena, Tübingen) about the function of “supressor genes” in Epilobium cell division was central to debates about cytoplasmic inheritance. The failure of Brücher, Michaelis and Oehlkers to replicate Lehmann's Epilobium experiments ultimately forced Lehmann to admit his error.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Generation and the Origin of Species (1837–1937): A Historiographical Suggestion.M. J. S. Hodge - 1989 - British Journal for the History of Science 22 (3):267-281.
    Bernard Norton's friends in the history of science have had many reasons for commemorating, with admiration and affection, not only his research and teaching but no less his conversation and his company. One of his most estimable traits was his refusal to beat about the bush in raising the questions he thought worthwhile pursuing. I still remember discoursing at Pittsburgh on Darwin's route to his theory of natural selection, and being asked at the end by Bernard what were Darwin's views (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  • Pluralization through epistemic competition: scientific change in times of data-intensive biology.Fridolin Gross, Nina Kranke & Robert Meunier - 2019 - History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences 41 (1):1.
    We present two case studies from contemporary biology in which we observe conflicts between established and emerging approaches. The first case study discusses the relation between molecular biology and systems biology regarding the explanation of cellular processes, while the second deals with phylogenetic systematics and the challenge posed by recent network approaches to established ideas of evolutionary processes. We show that the emergence of new fields is in both cases driven by the development of high-throughput data generation technologies and the (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  • Cancer, Conflict, and the Development of Nuclear Transplantation Techniques.Nathan Crowe - 2014 - Journal of the History of Biology 47 (1):63-105.
    The technique of nuclear transplantation – popularly known as cloning – has been integrated into several different histories of twentieth century biology. Historians and science scholars have situated nuclear transplantation within narratives of scientific practice, biotechnology, bioethics, biomedicine, and changing views of life. However, nuclear transplantation has never been the focus of analysis. In this article, I examine the development of nuclear transplantation techniques, focusing on the people, motivations, and institutions associated with the first successful nuclear transfer in metazoans in (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  • Intellectual property, plant breeding and the making of Mendelian genetics.Berris Charnley & Gregory Radick - 2013 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 44 (2):222-233.
    Advocates of “Mendelism” early on stressed the usefulness of Mendelian principles for breeders. Ever since, that usefulness—and the favourable opinion of Mendelism it supposedly engendered among breeders—has featured in explanations of the rapid rise of Mendelian genetics. An important counter-tradition of commentary, however, has emphasized the ways in which early Mendelian theory in fact fell short of breeders’ needs. Attention to intellectual property, narrowly and broadly construed, makes possible an approach that takes both the tradition and the counter-tradition seriously, by (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   10 citations  
  • How Theories Became Knowledge: Morgan's Chromosome Theory of Heredity in America and Britain. [REVIEW]Stephen G. Brush - 2002 - Journal of the History of Biology 35 (3):471-535.
    T. H. Morgan, A. H. Sturtevant, H. J. Muller and C. B. Bridges published their comprehensive treatise "The Mechanism of Mendelian Heredity" in 1915. By 1920 Morgan 's "Chromosome Theory of Heredity" was generally accepted by geneticists in the United States, and by British geneticists by 1925. By 1930 it had been incorporated into most general biology, botany, and zoology textbooks as established knowledge. In this paper, I examine the reasons why it was accepted as part of a series of (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   13 citations  
  • The plant breeding industry after pure line theory: Lessons from the National Institute of Agricultural Botany.Dominic Berry - 2014 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 46 (1):25-37.
    In the early twentieth century, Wilhelm Johannsen proposed his pure line theory and the genotype/phenotype distinction, work that is prized as one of the most important founding contributions to genetics and Mendelian plant breeding. Most historians have already concluded that pure line theory did not change breeding practices directly. Instead, breeding became more orderly as a consequence of pure line theory, which structured breeding programmes and eliminated external heritable influences. This incremental change then explains how and why the large multi-national (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations