R&D Magazine Blogs

newsvine diigo google
slashdot
Share

Rdmag.com - Blogs

Was Mendel Darwin’s Missed Opportunity?

(Paul Livingstone) Permanent link

Paul Headshot with Name and TitleThe editors at Wired Magazine have pointed out that today is the anniversary of Gregor Mendel's presentation of a painstakingly produced paper about his breeding experiments on some 28,000 pea plants. It happened to be the classic paper that quietly introduced the world to the basic laws of heredity. These laws would help explain and substantiate the theories of Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace.

But a missed connection would help guarantee the obscurity of this work for years to come. Mendel, who tended his plants while living as an Augustinian monk in what is now the Czech Republic, lived a very different life than traveler, lecturer, and science celebrity Darwin. But they do have a shocking connection, pointed out by Randy Alfred’s post in Wired: Mendel had actually sent a copy of his first paper to Darwin in 1866, who is believed to have never read the priceless work because the pages had never been cut.

Of course, Darwin could have cracked open the pages during his many bed-ridden hours in these years, read Mendel’s work, which was first presented in 1865, and not gleaned useful information. But that seems hardly possible—Darwin was conducting his own similar research on orchids and climbing plants during the 1860s. And later heredity researchers often found themselves duplicating the work of the monk who died in 1884. His Law of Segregation and Law of Independent Assortment are now standard high school biology class fare.

I believe Darwin may have shelved the work intentionally. By 1865, the theorist, in a state of nearly constant illness, had already received a lifetime’s worth of praise and criticism for his ideas. Many of the jabs stemmed from those who wished to unite theories of natural selection with faith—namely Christian faith. He was in a constant battle with his peers over questions of faith, and later a target of ridicule by the public for his perceived attacks on it.

Darwin may also have assumed Mendel was a potential rival. The competitive Englishman had had his fill of those already. A letter from Alfred Russel Wallace, who concurrently (or maybe previously) pioneered the tenets of natural selection, had several years earlier forced Darwin to publish some of his “Natural Selection” work before he was finished writing it. And we all know the ghost of Wallace would haunt Darwin’s legacy long after his death.

Sensitive to the issue of intellectual property, Darwin may not have wanted to cloud his own individual effort to explain heredity by discovering someone else had all of the answers. Or even some of the answers.

It’s a shame—it would have been a treat to learn what the so-called “father of evolution” thought of the work of the “father of genetics”. And vice versa.

Ironically, of course, Mendel—not often called the father of genetics—was uninterested in fame or accolades. And it would not be the last injustice suffered by Mendel’s work. Embroiled in a dispute over taxes on religious institutions, he abandoned scientific work and his experiments with bees. After his death the succeeding abbott burned all of Mendel’s papers to mark an end to the tax dispute.

He, like Wallace, would have to be rediscovered.

 


Dear Paul,

Excellent article and I can really relate to your alternative schemes. Did you know about Charles Darwin's grandfather, Erasmus Darwin? He was a naturalist and an evolutionist before Charles's birth. I think it is possible that Charles may have got some ideas from him.
Charles Darwin has been an icon for me. Both what you wrote about his ignored link with Mendel and what I recently discovered about Erasmus Darwin have put a few tiny dents in his image. However, I still think the world owes a debt of gratitude to Darwin III for opening our minds to some alternative to direct creation and appreciate that standing up for his convictions was a courageous act of Darwin's.

Hans van Leeuwen
Posted by: Leeuwen at 2/8/2010 5:40 PM


Paul,
You're way off-base. Go and read 'Journey of the Beagle', or Darwin's biography (e.g., the one written by his son, Sir Francis Darwin). In both books, you'll also learn a lot about his father and grandfather (both physicians, as I recall).

Darwin did indeed seek recognition by his peers for his work, as do all scientists, but he was very far from the kind of person you suggested. When Wallace sent him a draft of his paper about the mutability of species asking his opinion about his ideas, Darwin had already spent 20 years assembling his research and writing his own thesis about the origin of species. The problem was that to publish his thesis/theory at that time in mid-Victorian England (mid 1800s), when the Church of England controlled much of daily life and thought, would have been heresy.

It's a strong testament to his honesty and character, that, as soon as he received Wallace's letter, Darwin went to his life-long mentor, John Henslow, and said, essentially, well, I guess I'm scooped and I cannot now publish my thesis. But Henslow convinced him to publish his work, saying that he owed as much to the effort he had already put into the research. Julian Huxley had a part in arranging for Wallace and Darwin to present their findings and theories together to a meeting of the Linnean Society.
Here's the relevant link:
http://www.linnean.org/index.php?id=380
Read paragraph III, in particular

As for dissing Mendel's efforts, Darwin loved nothing more than to discuss science with others with open minds. At the time of Mendel's publication, Darwin was agonized by all the negative opinion his (and Wallace's) theory had provoked. I bet he was a bit busy... besides, as you point out, he was a very sick man at that stage (probably the result of contracting Chagas from the beetles he experimented with 30 years earlier on the Beagle) and would have had little time for much other than trying to write up the various papers he published in the 10-15 years before his death.
Posted by: nquigley at 2/11/2010 2:11 PM


RE: Hans
Thanks for reading! I regret that this came across as critical of Darwin. Whether or not you subscribe to his theories (as I do), the impact of his work was monumental and nothing can diminish it. I was merely trying to understand why he overlooked this critical bit of research, and tried to imagine his thinking at the time. Failing an unwillingness to review the work, I can only guess that he overlooked it, perhaps for some of the reasons I suggested.
Posted by: Paul Livingstone at 2/12/2010 10:30 AM


RE: nquigley
I have read two of Darwin's published works, but very little in detail about his life, so I will absolutely pick up these books you recommended and learn more about him. I'm glad to hear you believe he would not diss Mendel knowingly. I tend to agree, but I wanted feedback from others more knowledgeable than I. I honestly think he didn't know what he had in Mendel's research and I am finding that the 1860s were a tumultuous time in his life.
Posted by: Paul Livingstone at 2/12/2010 10:38 AM


This whole thread is shot through with basic ignorance. There are hundreds of historians that are working in detail on all Darwin's, Wallace's, and E Darwin's publications and correspondence. Mendel's work was not obscure, but simply irrelevant to the sort of dialogue the that science was having with nature. Mendel had his own copy of Origin and Variation under Domestication, the latter he had underlined the passage that suggested inheritable characteristics were dilutable - as most evidence suggested at the time.
The big question from 1860 - 1875 was the search for the mechanism of Acquired Characteristics which had been an endemic assumption about inheritability for thousands of years; confirmed by Erasmus Darwin and later (by 8 years) suggested by Lamarck. If you care to read Origin, Darwin never abandons the idea but hardly mentions it as it is too obvious; in Variation of Plants and Animals he proposes his own mechanistic theory oh how it works: pangenesis. He and cousin Galton spend years transfusing rabbits trying to prove is, fail, but Darwin does not give up on the idea because it still remained the BEST answer.
By 1875 Darwin gives up on it, but the search goes on. For example in the188os. Weissman, the man who finally sees the (importance of Mendel), cuts the tails of hundreds of rodents for 22 generations to see if mutilation can be inherited.
The reason Mendel was not used until 1900 is not due to his obscurity. It is not that the importance of the work went unnoticed because Mendel’s work was obscure, but the fact was that its significance was obscured by current paradigms which led to the work going relatively unnoticed. Mendel had not "discovered genetics" - all he had achieved was a mathematisation of inheritable characteristics.
Any one how cares to consult Darwin's own work on Antirhimums will see that Darwin , himself was close to the magical 3:1 ration, but no one was looking for the rather limited cases of simple dominance/recessiveness.
Neither Mendel nor Darwin would have understood its significance until Weissman and others unpacked the problem in 1900.
There is another rather weird comment above - "He like Wallace, would have to be dediscovered". What utter rot!! Wallace may have escaped the notice of Mr Livingstone above, but as far as I know no one who knows the first thing about this topic ever neglected him. He has always been credited with the co-discovery of natural selection and his works and correspondence are closely linked with Darwin's. The first moment nat sel was offered to the world was by a joint paper of the two of them.
As for the remark on the church above. They were pretty much irrelevant, and of little consequence to the career of evolutionary science. Darwin's reluctance to publish was due to his humanitarian views and feared that nat sel could be used for the continued justification of slavery, which he detested.
Descent of Man asserts and urges the belief in the unity of mankind and the uniformity of mental potential. Race differences were mainly be explained by sexual selection, and acquired characteristics: superficial, with mankind being largely improvable given the right cultural opportunities.
Posted by: chaz wyman at 3/28/2010 10:13 AM


I would also like to correct nquigley above. It was Thomas Henry Huxley, not Julian that arranged for Darwin and Wallace to give their paper.
The comment"would have had little time for much other than trying to write up the various papers he published in the 10-15 years before his death.."
This was the most productive period of his life.
From 1867 as well as numerous papers, articles correspondences, Darwin found plenty of time to: help his cousin conduct intensive experiments, conduct many in the grounds of Down House, publish several major books:
The two volume "Variation of Plants and Animals under Domestication",
The Descent of Man (2 vols),
Expressions of the Emotions in Animals and Man,
Insectivorous Plants,
Cross and Self Fertilisation of Plants,
Forms of Flowers,
The Life of Erasmus Darwin,
The Movement of Plants
and his amazing "Vegetable Mould and Earthworms."

All of which were widely read and discussed by the scientists of the day.

It is no wonder that the paper of an abbe from Austria on peas would have gained much of his attention, especially since its results were not so different from Darwin's own.
Posted by: chaz wyman at 3/28/2010 10:34 AM


blog comments powered by Disqus
Register or log in to comment on this blog!

New To Market

more

JEOL to launch world's smallest solid-state NMR probe
JEOL to launch world's smallest solid-state NMR probe

According to JEOL Resonance, a new benchmark for resolution and benchmark will be set with its introduction next week of a new 0.75-mm solid state nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) probe. The probe is capable of high resolution sample analysis by spinning the sample at 110 kHz, the world's fastest spinning speed for NMR.

Energy Harvesting Subsystems for Wireless Sensors

Nextreme Thermal Solutions has developed two new energy harvesting subsystems for the plumbing and HVAC industries. The subsystems are the latest additions to Nextreme's Thermobility energy harvesting platform that uses thin-film thermoelectric technology to convert available thermal energy into electric power for a variety of autonomous self-powered applications.

Tools & Technology

more

Plates, Stirrers Feature Five or Nine Positions
Plates, Stirrers Feature Five or Nine Positions

Torrey Pines Scientific Inc. has announced a new line of multi-position analog stirring hot plates and stirrers featuring five or nine stirring positions.

Phree Phospholipid Removal Plates

Phenomenex Inc. has introduced Phree phospholipid removal plates for fast cleanup of plasma samples in pharmaceutical and clinical research laboratories. In one step, Phree removes both proteins and phospholipids and delivers the prepared plasma to a collection plate.

Advertisement

Advertisement

Top Stories and Headlines
EVERY DAY!

FREE Email Newsletter