DOCSLIB.ORG

The Modern Synthesis of Evolution and the Biological Sciences Curriculum Study

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Modern Synthesis of Evolution and the Biological Sciences Curriculum Study UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA RIVERSIDE Science for Survival: The Modern Synthesis of Evolution and The Biological Sciences Curriculum Study A Dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Education by Lisa Anne Green December 2012 Dissertation Committee: Dr. Margaret Nash, Chairperson Dr. Begoña Echeverria Dr. John Wills Copyright by Lisa Anne Green 2012 The Dissertation of Lisa Anne Green is approved: ___________________________________________ ___________________________________________ ___________________________________________ Committee Chairperson University of California, Riverside Acknowledgements One thing I learned in researching and writing this dissertation is that the construction of knowledge is truly a social enterprise. I am indebted to many people who helped to make this work possible. I thank my Dissertation Committee, whose guidance and encouragement were essential to my intellectual growth and the completion of this dissertation: Begoña Echeverria, John Wills, and especially my advisor Margaret Nash. Dr. Nash’s commitment to her graduate students is truly exemplary, and her wise counsel provided the beacon of light I needed to navigate the often foggy terrain. My early thinking on this project benefitted greatly from conversations with Reba Page and Douglas Mitchell of the Graduate School of Education at UCR. I owe special thanks to Betty Smocovitis of the University of Florida, whose insights were invaluable and whose book Unifying Biology was foundational to this project. I also greatly appreciate the contribution of BSCS Director Arnold Grobman, who breathed life into my archival research. A number of archivists and librarians were essential to the completion of this dissertation. I would like to especially thank Roy Goodman, Charles Greifenstein, and Earle Spamer of the American Philosophical Society Library; Dave Frasier of the Lilly Library at Indiana University; John Skarstad of Special Collections at the University of California, Davis, and Byllee Simon and the staff of the Biological Sciences Curriculum Study for their assistance with archival materials. I am also grateful for the assistance of the special collections staff at the Smithsonian Institution Archives and the following universities: Harvard University; University of California, Riverside; University of iv Chicago; University of Florida; and the University of Michigan. Special thanks to Janet Moores, Maria Mendoza, and Esther Arroyo of UCR Interlibrary Loan for their efforts in procuring numerous books and materials. My writing on this and other projects has benefitted greatly from my participation in the History Writing Group organized by Margaret Nash in the Graduate School of Education at UCR. My thanks go out to those whose read and commented on various drafts: David Berman, Deb Parr, Jennifer Silverman, JoeAnn Nguyen, Kathleen Adams, Kay Clapper, Lee Levin, Lois Nettleship, Mark Groen, Paul McHenry, Scott Smith, Terry Tomlinson, Wayne Shapiro, and Zach Haberler. I would like to thank those who generously provided financial support for various aspects of the dissertation process. These included the American Philosophical Society, the John U. Michaelis family, and the University of California, Riverside. In addition to important financial support, they provided encouragement to pursue this project. I thank Judy Maddox, who transcribed the interview with Arnold Grobman, provided editorial assistance, and was a wonderful “cheerleader.” Thanks also go to Phyllis Green for her encouragement and editorial work on an early draft. I am grateful for my wonderful father and mother, William and Betty Houck, who created and encouraged my interest in science from an early age. I will never forget the many trips to the Franklin Institute in Philadelphia or staying home from school to watch the history-making space launches of the 1960s. Finally, I would like to thank my family, Ruth and Alf Jorgensen, DeWayne Green, and James Green for their unfailing patience and love. I especially appreciate the v understanding and support of my husband DeWayne throughout the long process of graduate school. vi ABSTRACT OF THE DISSERTATION Science for Survival: The Modern Synthesis of Evolution and the Biological Sciences Curriculum Study by Lisa Anne Green Doctor of Philosophy, Graduate School of Education University of California, Riverside, December 2012 Dr. Margaret Nash, Chairperson In this historical dissertation, I examined the process of curriculum development in the Biological Sciences Curriculum Study (BSCS) in the United States during the period 1959-1963. The presentation of evolution in the high school texts was based on a more robust form of Darwinian evolution which developed during the 1930s and 1940s called “the modern synthesis of evolution.” Building primarily on the work of historians Vassiliki Smocovitis and John L. Rudolph, I used the archival papers and published writings of the four architects of the modern synthesis and the four most influential leaders of the BSCS in regards to evolution to investigate how the modern synthetic theory of evolution shaped the BSCS curriculum. The central question was “Why was evolution so important to the BSCS to make it the central theme of the texts?” Important answers to this question had already been offered in the historiography, but it was still not clear why every citizen in the world needed to understand evolution. I found that the emphasis on natural selection in the vii modern synthesis shifted the focus away from humans as passive participants to the recognition that humans are active agents in their own cultural and biological evolution. This required re-education of the world citizenry, which was accomplished in part by the BSCS textbooks. I also found that BSCS leaders Grobman, Glass, and Muller had serious concerns regarding the effects of nuclear radiation on the human gene pool, and were actively involved in informing the public. Lastly, I found that concerns of 1950s reform eugenicists were addressed in the BSCS textbooks, without mentioning eugenics by name. I suggest that the leaders of the BSCS, especially Bentley Glass and Hermann J. Muller, thought that students needed to understand genetics and evolution to be able to make some of the tough choices they might be called on to make as the dominant species on earth and the next reproductive generation in the nuclear age. This was science for survival. viii Table of Contents Introduction ............................................................................................................1 Significance...........................................................................................................9 Chapter 1: Historiography ..................................................................................10 The Modern Evolutionary Synthesis ..................................................................11 The History of Science and the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis .......................15 The History of Education and the BSCS ............................................................19 Mainline and Reform Eugenics ..........................................................................28 Sources ................................................................................................................32 Chapter 2: Why Evolution? ................................................................................36 Evolution in the 19th Century ..............................................................................37 The Modern Synthesis of Evolution ...................................................................40 The Modern Synthesis at the 1959 Darwin Centennial Celebration...................49 Conclusion ..........................................................................................................65 Chapter 3: Hermann J. Muller and Reform Eugenics .....................................67 Biographical Background ...................................................................................69 Muller, Evolution, and Education .......................................................................74 Muller and Eugenics ...........................................................................................80 Muller Takes It on the Road ...............................................................................83 Muller and the Darwin Centennial ......................................................................86 Muller’s Most Controversial Paper .....................................................................90 Values in Education ............................................................................................96 Conclusion ..........................................................................................................98 ix Chapter 4: H. Bentley Glass, Arnold Grobman, and John A. Moore ...........100 H. Bentley Glass ...............................................................................................101 Arnold B. Grobman ..........................................................................................112 John A. Moore ..................................................................................................120 Summary ...........................................................................................................136 Chapter 5: Curriculum Deliberation ...............................................................138 Organizational Precursors
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Understanding the Intelligent Design Creationist Movement: Its True Nature and Goals
    UNDERSTANDING THE INTELLIGENT DESIGN CREATIONIST MOVEMENT: ITS TRUE NATURE AND GOALS A POSITION PAPER FROM THE CENTER FOR INQUIRY OFFICE OF PUBLIC POLICY AUTHOR: BARBARA FORREST, Ph.D. Reviewing Committee: Paul Kurtz, Ph.D.; Austin Dacey, Ph.D.; Stuart D. Jordan, Ph.D.; Ronald A. Lindsay, J. D., Ph.D.; John Shook, Ph.D.; Toni Van Pelt DATED: MAY 2007 ( AMENDED JULY 2007) Copyright © 2007 Center for Inquiry, Inc. Permission is granted for this material to be shared for noncommercial, educational purposes, provided that this notice appears on the reproduced materials, the full authoritative version is retained, and copies are not altered. To disseminate otherwise or to republish requires written permission from the Center for Inquiry, Inc. Table of Contents Section I. Introduction: What is at stake in the dispute over intelligent design?.................. 1 Section II. What is the intelligent design creationist movement? ........................................ 2 Section III. The historical and legal background of intelligent design creationism ................ 6 Epperson v. Arkansas (1968) ............................................................................ 6 McLean v. Arkansas (1982) .............................................................................. 6 Edwards v. Aguillard (1987) ............................................................................. 7 Section IV. The ID movement’s aims and strategy .............................................................. 9 The “Wedge Strategy” .....................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Fizzling the Plutonium Economy: Origins of the April 1977 Carter Administration Fuel Cycle Policy Transition
    Fizzling the Plutonium Economy: Origins of the April 1977 Carter Administration Fuel Cycle Policy Transition The Harvard community has made this article openly available. Please share how this access benefits you. Your story matters Citation Williams, Peter King. 2010. Fizzling the Plutonium Economy: Origins of the April 1977 Carter Administration Fuel Cycle Policy Transition. Master's thesis, Harvard University, Extension School. Citable link https://nrs.harvard.edu/URN-3:HUL.INSTREPOS:37367548 Terms of Use This article was downloaded from Harvard University’s DASH repository, and is made available under the terms and conditions applicable to Other Posted Material, as set forth at http:// nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:dash.current.terms-of- use#LAA Fizzling the Plutonium Economy: Origins of the April 1977 Carter Administration Fuel Cycle Policy Transition Peter Williams A Thesis in the Field of History for the Degree of Master of Liberal Arts in Extension Studies Harvard University May 2010 © 2010 Peter Williams Abstract This study examines the scientific advocacy that shaped President Carter’s April 1977 policy decision to block the domestic implementation of so-called “plutonium economy” technologies, and thereby mandate the use of an “open” or “once–through” fuel cycle for U.S. nuclear power reactors. This policy transition was controversial, causing friction with U.S. allies, with the nuclear power industry, and with Congress. Early in his presidential campaign, Carter criticized the excessive federal financial commitment to developing plutonium-based reactors and adopted the view that the weapons proliferation risks of plutonium economy technologies were serious and needed to be addressed.
    [Show full text]
  • National States and International Science: a Comparative History of International Science Congresses in Hitler's Germany, Stalin's Russia, and Cold War United States
    National States and International Science: A Comparative History of International Science Congresses in Hitler's Germany, Stalin's Russia, and Cold War United States Osiris 2005 Doel, Ronald E. Department of History (and Department of Geosciences), Oregon State University Originally published by: The University of Chicago Press on behalf of The History of Science Society and can be found at: http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublication?journalCode=osiris Citation: Doel, R. E. (2005). National states and international science; A comparative history of international science congresses in Hitler's Germany, Stalin's Russia, and Cold War United States. Osiris, 20, 49-76. Available from JSTOR website: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3655251 National States and International Science: A ComparativeHistory of International Science Congresses in Hitler's Germany, Stalin's Russia, and Cold WarUnited States Ronald E. Doel, Dieter Hoffmann, and Nikolai Krementsov* ABSTRACT Priorstudies of modem scientificinternationalism have been writtenprimarily from the point of view of scientists, with little regardto the influenceof the state. This studyexamines the state'srole in internationalscientific relations. States sometimes encouragedscientific internationalism;in the mid-twentiethcentury, they often sought to restrictit. The presentstudy examines state involvementin international scientific congresses, the primaryintersection between the national and interna- tional dimensionsof scientists'activities. Here we examine three comparativein- stancesin which such
    [Show full text]
  • A Correlation of Cytological and Genetical Crossing-Over in Zea Mays. PNAS 17:492–497
    A CORRELATION OF CYTOLOGICAL AND GENETICAL CROSSING-OVER IN ZEA MAYS HARRIET B. CREIGHTON BARBARA MCCLINTOCK Botany Department Cornell University Ithaca, New York Creighton, H., and McClintock, B. 1931 A correlation of cytological and genetical crossing-over in Zea mays. PNAS 17:492–497. E S P Electronic Scholarly Publishing http://www.esp.org Electronic Scholarly Publishing Project Foundations Series –– Classical Genetics Series Editor: Robert J. Robbins The ESP Foundations of Classical Genetics project has received support from the ELSI component of the United States Department of Energy Human Genome Project. ESP also welcomes help from volunteers and collaborators, who recommend works for publication, provide access to original materials, and assist with technical and production work. If you are interested in volunteering, or are otherwise interested in the project, contact the series editor: [email protected]. Bibliographical Note This ESP edition, first electronically published in 2003 and subsequently revised in 2018, is a newly typeset, unabridged version, based on the 1931 edition published by The National Academy of Sciences. Unless explicitly noted, all footnotes and endnotes are as they appeared in the original work. Some of the graphics have been redone for this electronic version. Production Credits Scanning of originals: ESP staff OCRing of originals: ESP staff Typesetting: ESP staff Proofreading/Copyediting: ESP staff Graphics work: ESP staff Copyfitting/Final production: ESP staff © 2003, 2018 Electronic Scholarly Publishing Project http://www.esp.org This electronic edition is made freely available for educational or scholarly purposes, provided that this copyright notice is included. The manuscript may not be reprinted or redistributed for commercial purposes without permission.
    [Show full text]
  • Theodosius Dobzhansky: a Man for All Seasons
    GENERAL ARTICLE Theodosius Dobzhansky: A Man For All Seasons Francisco J Ayala In 1972, Theodosius Dobzhansky addressed the convention of Francisco J Ayala the National Association of Biology Teachers on the theme obtained his Ph D with Theodosius Dobzhansky "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolu­ in the 1960s and is tion". The title of that address (published in The American presently the Donald Bren Biology Teacher, Vol. 35, pp. 125-129) might serve as an epigram Professor of Biological of Dobzhansky's worldview and life, although it is limited in Sciences at the University of California, Irvine and a scope, for Dobzhansky believed and propounded that the impli­ member of President cations of biological evolution reach much beyond biology into Clinton's Committee of philosophy, sociology, and even socio-political issues. The Advisors on Science and place of biological evolution in human thought was, according Technology. He is a member of the U S to Dobzhansky, best expressed in a passage that he often quoted National Academy of from Pierre Teilhard de Chardin: "(Evolution) is a general Sciences and has been postulate to which all theories, all hypotheses, all systems must President and Chairman hence forward bow and which they must satisfy in order to be of the Board of the American Association for thinkable and true. Evolution is a light which illuminates all the Advancement of facts, a trajectory which all lines of thought must follow - this is Science. He has worked what evolution is". extensively on the population ecology and The Modern Synthesis of Evolutionary Theory evolutionary genetics of Drosophila species.
    [Show full text]
  • The Mendel Newsletter
    THE MENDEL NEWSLETTER Archival Resources for the History of Genetics & Allied Sciences ISSUED BY THE LIBRARY OF THE AMERICAN PHILOSOPHICAL SOCIETY New Series, No. 20 June 2015 IN THIS ISSUE John Marius Opitz Papers at the American Philosophical Society — Charles Greifenstein 3 Animal Genetics Collections at Edinburgh University Library Special Collections — Clare Button 6 Rethinking Russian Studies on the Genetics of Natural Populations: Vassily Babkoff’s Papers and the History of the “Evolutionary Brigade,” 1934–1940 — Kirill Rossiianov and Tatiana Avrutskaya 15 Centrum Mendelianum: The Mendel Museum Moved to the Former Premises of Mendel’s Scientific Society — Anna Matalová and Eva Matalová 25 Resident Research Fellowships in Genetics, History of Medicine and Related Disciplines 36 THE AMERICAN PHILOSOPHICAL SOCIETY LIBRARY Philadelphia The Mendel Newsletter June 2015 The Mendel Newsletter American Philosophical Society Library 105 South Fifth Street Philadelphia PA 19106-3386 U.S.A. www.amphilsoc.org/library Editor Managing Editor Michael Dietrich Earle E. Spamer, American Philosophical Society Department of Biological Sciences [email protected] 215 Gilman Hall, HB 6044 Dartmouth College Hanover NH 03755 The Mendel Newsletter [email protected] [email protected] Editorial Board Mark B. Adams, University of Pennsylvania Barbara Kimmelman, Philadelphia University Garland E. Allen, Washington University Martin L. Levitt, American Philosophical Society John Beatty, University of Minnesota Jane Maienschein, Arizona State University Frederick B. Churchill, Indiana University Diane B. Paul, University of Massachusetts, Boston Michael R. Dietrich, Dartmouth College Jan Sapp, York University,Toronto Bernardino Fantini, Institut Louis Jantet d’Histoire Vassiliki Beatty Smocovitis, University of Florida de Medicine, Geneva The Mendel Newsletter, New Series, No.
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction and Historical Perspective
    Chapter 1 Introduction and Historical Perspective “ Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution. ” modified by the developmental history of the organism, Theodosius Dobzhansky its physiology – from cellular to systems levels – and by the social and physical environment. Finally, behaviors are shaped through evolutionary forces of natural selection OVERVIEW that optimize survival and reproduction ( Figure 1.1 ). Truly, the study of behavior provides us with a window through Behavioral genetics aims to understand the genetic which we can view much of biology. mechanisms that enable the nervous system to direct Understanding behaviors requires a multidisciplinary appropriate interactions between organisms and their perspective, with regulation of gene expression at its core. social and physical environments. Early scientific The emerging field of behavioral genetics is still taking explorations of animal behavior defined the fields shape and its boundaries are still being defined. Behavioral of experimental psychology and classical ethology. genetics has evolved through the merger of experimental Behavioral genetics has emerged as an interdisciplin- psychology and classical ethology with evolutionary biol- ary science at the interface of experimental psychology, ogy and genetics, and also incorporates aspects of neuro- classical ethology, genetics, and neuroscience. This science ( Figure 1.2 ). To gain a perspective on the current chapter provides a brief overview of the emergence of definition of this field, it is helpful
    [Show full text]
  • Genes and Development: an Early Chapter in German Developmental Biology
    Int..I. Dey. BioI. 40: 83-87 (] 9%) 83 Genes and development: an early chapter in German developmental biology ULRICH GROSSBACH* Chair of Developmental Biology, Third Department of Zoology- Developmental Biology, University of Gottingen, Germany Gene action and its spatial and temporal control is a crucial time. However, the physical nature of the genes and the mecha- constituent of development. From a modern point of view, it is nisms of gene action were completely unknown. To elucidate therefore surprising that genetic concepts and methods were of such mechanisms in developmental processes was the aim of a no importance in the work of the outstanding German develop. group of biologists who worked at the University of Gbttingen in mental biologists Hans Driesch and Hans Spemann. Both were the decade from 1925 to 1935. apparently not interested in genetics. The dramatic progress in In these years, Gbttingen was a world centre of mathematics. classical genetics cannot have escaped Oriesch's attention, The physics and chemistry departments also belonged to the especially as T.H. Morgan had worked in his laboratory. but it is leading institutions in their field. Biology was very small. There easy to see that it had no place in his "vitalistic" biology. Much were two chairs of botany and one of zoology. Alfred KOhn, a stu- less obvious is that Spemann's critical and open mind should dent of August Weismann, became director of the Zoology have never led him to consider genetic influences in develop- Department in 1920. He started a cooperation with the physicist ment. Theodor Boveri had interpreted the decisive influence of Pohl on color vision in insects but went soon over to develop- cytoplasm onto the fate of the blastomeres in Ascaris develop- ment and genetics.
    [Show full text]
  • Alfred Kuhn, His Work and His Contribution to Molecular Biology
    Int..I. De\'. Bio!' 40: 69-75 (1996) 69 Alfred Kuhn, his work and his contribution to molecular biology ALBRECHT EGELHAAF* Zoologisches Institut der Universitat K61n, K61n, Germany Among the developmental biologists of this century Alfred evolution" (Kuhn 1959) were of great impact for Kuhn. Kuhn is an outstanding personality. Of greatest impact are his Weismann's research projects and objects laid the foundation for studies on the action of genes in development that maps him a his interests in developmental physiology. pioneer of the "one gene-one enzyme" hypothesis. This aspect After his promotion (1908) Kuhn became second assistant of will be in the center of the following report. However, it would be Weismann. Following his habilitation (1910) he worked as unjustified in view of his universality and broad influence not to "Privatdozent" and subsequently became "a.o. Professor" (asso- mention his other scientific interests comprising an astonishing ciate professor) at the Zoological Institute in Freiburg. Research variety of themes and objects. Much of this work can be traced periods in Naples and Heidelberg helped to enlarge his experi~ back to his early period of scientific activity in Freiburg. ences in a variety of projects. During World War I he was a med- Kuhn himself published only a short biographical account on ical orderly (1915-1918). The following two years he cooperated his scientific career until 1937 (Kuhn, 1959). He was born on with the famous embryologist Karl Heider at the Zoological April 22nd, 1885 in Baden Baden (South West Germany), Institute in Berlin. In 1920, Kuhn received the call to become full attended the gymnasium in Freiburg im Breisgau and began professor in Gbttingen.
    [Show full text]
  • Creation, Design and Evolution: Can Science Discover Or Eliminate God?
    University of St. Thomas Journal of Law and Public Policy Volume 4 Issue 1 Fall 2009 Article 5 January 2009 Creation, Design and Evolution: Can Science Discover or Eliminate God? Peter M.J. Hess Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.stthomas.edu/ustjlpp Part of the First Amendment Commons, Law and Philosophy Commons, and the Religion Law Commons Recommended Citation Peter M. Hess, Creation, Design and Evolution: Can Science Discover or Eliminate God?, 4 U. ST. THOMAS J.L. & PUB. POL'Y 102 (2009). Available at: https://ir.stthomas.edu/ustjlpp/vol4/iss1/5 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by UST Research Online and the University of St. Thomas Journal of Law and Public Policy. For more information, please contact the Editor-in-Chief at [email protected]. CREATION, DESIGN AND EVOLUTION: CAN SCIENCE DISCOVER OR ELIMINATE GOD? PETER M. J. HESS, PH.D.* NATIONAL CENTER FOR SCIENCE EDUCATION "The heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament shows forth his handiwork." Psalms 19:1 INTRODUCTION: THE PLAYING OUT OF THE DESIGN ARGUMENT IN THE WEST Every culture has its views about the universe, about the human person, and about the great metaphysical questions that confront us. How ought we to think about the relationship between cosmology, anthropology, and theology? This may be a challenge for us in our increasingly secular post- modem culture, but for most of human history it was not an issue. In the Judeo-Christian tradition these areas of human reflection were naturally bound up together, as in the Hebrew psalmist's proto-statement of the argument from design: "the heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament shows forth his handiwork."' The scholastic university culture of the High Middle Ages held as its ideal the "unity of knowledge," or unitas scientiae, approaching the study of the universe as a coherent and knowable whole.
    [Show full text]
  • Scientific Print and Its Problems During the Late Nineteenth Century
    Hist. Sci., xlviii (2010) SERIALITY AND THE SEARCH FOR ORDER: SCIENTIFIC PRINT AND ITS PROBLEMS DURING THE LATE NINETEENTH CENTURY Alex Csiszar Harvard University “I have been hunting every where in vain for Godron”, reported Joseph Dalton Hooker to Charles Darwin in March 1855, “I shall not rest till I have ferretted it out”. Hooker was referring not to a person, nor to a plant specimen that might have been in the Herbarium at Kew Gardens, but to a mislaid text.1 Darwin had sought Hooker’s guidance after stumbling on a footnote in a collection of botanical memoirs; it referred to a work called “De l’espèce et des races” by someone named Godron. Such a title alone might have been enough to attract his attention, but the footnote also implied that this work reported on several instances of variations in pear seeds derived from a single parent. Darwin had become intrigued; having worked out a great deal of his theory of natural selection by 1855, he was keen not only to gather more evidence, but also to gauge the progress of scientific opinion on the variation of species in general, especially as he looked forward to begin drafting his “species book”. Darwin jotted down the title in his “Books to be Read” notebook. But before he could read it, Darwin would need to findit. 2 The techniques and tools scientists have used to seek out and sort scientific informa- tion in print comprise a significant, though largely unexplored, domain of practice for historians of modern science. The methods used by Darwin and his contemporaries for locating relevant print sources were — as they would continue to be — varied, complex, and often serendipitous; they might sometimes involve consulting indexes and catalogues, but they also included trawling the contents of serials and titles of monographs on the shelves of personal and institutional libraries, following the trail of footnotes and lists of references, and (perhaps most importantly) corresponding with colleagues, booksellers, and friends for guidance, new leads, and off-the-cuff reviews.
    [Show full text]
  • Chromosomal Theory and Genetic Linkage
    362 Chapter 13 | Modern Understandings of Inheritance 13.1 | Chromosomal Theory and Genetic Linkage By the end of this section, you will be able to do the following: • Discuss Sutton’s Chromosomal Theory of Inheritance • Describe genetic linkage • Explain the process of homologous recombination, or crossing over • Describe chromosome creation • Calculate the distances between three genes on a chromosome using a three-point test cross Long before scientists visualized chromosomes under a microscope, the father of modern genetics, Gregor Mendel, began studying heredity in 1843. With improved microscopic techniques during the late 1800s, cell biologists could stain and visualize subcellular structures with dyes and observe their actions during cell division and meiosis. With each mitotic division, chromosomes replicated, condensed from an amorphous (no constant shape) nuclear mass into distinct X-shaped bodies (pairs of identical sister chromatids), and migrated to separate cellular poles. Chromosomal Theory of Inheritance The speculation that chromosomes might be the key to understanding heredity led several scientists to examine Mendel’s publications and reevaluate his model in terms of chromosome behavior during mitosis and meiosis. In 1902, Theodor Boveri observed that proper sea urchin embryonic development does not occur unless chromosomes are present. That same year, Walter Sutton observed chromosome separation into daughter cells during meiosis (Figure 13.2). Together, these observations led to the Chromosomal Theory of Inheritance, which identified chromosomes as the genetic material responsible for Mendelian inheritance. Figure 13.2 (a) Walter Sutton and (b) Theodor Boveri developed the Chromosomal Theory of Inheritance, which states that chromosomes carry the unit of heredity (genes).
    [Show full text]