Perspectives

Anecdotal, Historical and Critical Commentaries on Genetics The 1948 International Congress of Genetics in Sweden: People and Politics

Bengt O. Bengtsson1 and Anna Tunlid Department of Biology and Research Policy Institute, Lund University, SE-223 62 Lund, Sweden

ABSTRACT The International Congresses have played an important role in the history of genetics. The Eighth International Congress, which in 1948 was held in Sweden, celebrated the conclusion of the war against Nazism and many new decisive scientific advances. It also signaled a hardening of the fight against Lysenkoism, which was growing in strength in the Soviet Union. A rare document is available from the Congress—an amateur film made by a young delegate, Nils Nybom. With its help a living description can be given of the scientific and political melees in which the delegates were involved.

The period immediately following a war is a most difficult one in The International Congresses of Genetics have been which to organize an international congress. (M. Demerec, of great importance for the development of the disci- 1948, in Bonnier and Larsson 1949, p. 85) pline (Haynes 1998), and due to the centrality of HE Eighth International Congress of Genetics was genetics for all kinds of human affairs, they have often T held in 1948. After an ambitious pre-Congress visit carried strong political undertones. The 1948 Congress to University of Lund and plant breeding stations in was perhaps more political than any of the others, and to southern Sweden, the main proceedings took place in most of the participants it must have felt like a victory Stockholm on July 7–14. The delegates met at congress because it marked the commencement of Medborgarhuset, a striking example of modern Swed- normal scientific exchanges after the defeat of Nazi ish architecture with grandiose front steps on which the Germany and its allies in the Second World War. The participants relaxed between talks. Excursions outside ongoing growth of genetics as an academic and applied Stockholm were made to the royal mansion Drottning- science must also have felt like an important achieve- holm with its 18th-century opera house and to the ment. Much had happened both internally and exter- University of Uppsala. The details of the Congress are nally to the discipline since the preceding congress in recorded in the Proceedings that were published as a Edinburgh in 1939, and genetics was on its way to supplement to Hereditas (Bonnier and Larsson 1949). become one of the most important sciences in the During the Congress a young Swedish student, Nils post-war world. The Congress marked, however, not only Nybom (1925–1970), later a professor of horticultural past victories but also an important coming fight, namely genetics at the Swedish Agricultural University, filmed the fight against the Stalinist version of hereditary all outdoor events with his small hand-driven camera. He science, Lysenkoism. This hotchpotch of ideas in which had a cinematographic talent, and the film that he the inheritance of acquired characteristics played an produced (8 mm, black and white, no sound, 25 min important part had been lying low since the beginning long) is a valuable and moving document of the of the war but was now again raising its head. We Congress and its participants. The single copy of the consider the people and politics involved in these film is owned by the Mendelian Society in Lund, and it bellicose interactions and start by describing the mis- has now been cleaned, digitalized, and re-edited. For fortunes of the preceding International Congress of those with internet access of sufficient quality it can be Genetics of 1939, which partly explain why Sweden was seen at http://www.mendelskasallskapet.nu. When spe- chosen to host the Congress in 1948. cific participants are referred to in this text, the accompanying numbers indicate at what point in the THE ROAD TO STOCKHOLM film they can be seen. The various misfortunes of the Seventh International 1Corresponding author: Biology Building, So¨lvegatan35,SE-22362Lund, Congress of Genetics can be followed in its Proceedings Sweden. E-mail: [email protected] (Punnett 1941). It should have been held 1937 in

Genetics 185: 709–715 ( July 2010) 710 B. O. Bengtsson and A. Tunlid

Moscow, but the local organization committee ran into And if they could not organize an International Con- problems with the Lysenkoists and the political control gress themselves, perhaps they would at least be allowed over science (Soyfer 2003). An attempt to postpone the to visit such an event in Sweden, a country with which Congress for one year did not help, so the Permanent the USSR had good contacts? International Committee under its chairman Otto After some discussions about organizing a congress Mohr from Norway transferred the task to the British jointly with Denmark in 1947, which failed primarily geneticists, who invited the Seventh International Con- because the International Microbiological Congress was gress of Genetics to meet in Edinburgh on August 23– held in Copenhagen that year, Crew, on behalf of the 30, 1939. Permanent International Committee, decided to hold The organizational problems were many. The emi- the Congress in Stockholm in July 1948. An organization nent Russian geneticist Nicolai Vavilov was forbidden by committee was formed, which was headed by the human the Soviet authorities to attend, as were all other Soviet geneticist Gunnar Dahlberg, with plant geneticist Arne scientists. And just as the geneticists began to assemble Mu¨ntzing (2:45) as vice chairman and drosophilist Gert in Edinburgh it became clear that the Second World War Bonnier as general secretary. They all belonged to a was imminent. Many participants were recalled to their young generation of internationally minded geneticists countries and left in haste, sometimes even without known for their critique of anti-Semitism. They repre- having had time to register, while others decided to stay sented the three main centers of genetic research in in Britain and/or claimed refugee status. ‘‘But amongst Sweden: Uppsala, Lund, and Stockholm. However, us there were some 150 Americans, Canadians, Austral- during the preparations for the Congress, Dahlberg fell ians, New Zealanders, South Africans and others for seriously ill and could not take part in the event. whom immediate departure was impracticable. These The organizing committee tried hard but was unable formed a most solid core of immovables, and as long as to solve its primary problem: it could not establish direct they remained the congress was in being’’ (Punnett contact with the geneticists in the USSR to make it 1941, p. 6). Thus, the Seventh International Congress possible for them to attend the conference. Even worse, kept on lecturing, demonstrating, and discussing genet- the fate of many of the Russian colleagues remained ics until the eve of war. As for the next congress, the completely unknown. Did Vavilov live? [No, we know Italians made an offer to hold it in Rome in 1942, but it today. He had died in prison already in 1943 (Crow was decided to give the Permanent International Com- 1993).] And what about Timofeéff-Ressovsky, who for mittee, now with Congress President F. A. E. Crew as its decades had worked in Berlin but had chosen to chairman, full authority to decide where and when it surrender to the Red Army? (Yes, he survived, but had should be held. to do top-secret radiation research in prison-like circum- Many private and official contacts and conflicts pre- stances; his fate did not become known until many years ceded the decision to ask Sweden to hold the Eighth later.) International Congress of Genetics (Bonnier and Larsson 1949; Tunlid 2004). Important of course was the high international standing of the Swedish genetics THOSE WHO DID AND THOSE WHO DID NOT ATTEND community; with 18 participants, Sweden constituted the sixth largest contingent to the Edinburgh Congress The politics in the organization of the 1948 Congress after Great Britain and Northern Ireland (229), the to a large extent thus came to turn around questions of United States (131), Germany (42), France (29), and who was allowed and who was not allowed or in various India (21). The fact that, as a neutral country, Sweden ways discouraged from attending the Congress (Figure had escaped the war and could offer the delegates some 1). All Soviet geneticists were warmly welcome, but they relative prosperity also played a role. As did the fact that were not permitted by their authorities to come. What the leading Swedish geneticists were well known and about the geneticists in various ways associated with easily accepted by their victorious British and American Nazism or with any of the defeated countries? Were they colleagues. Many of them had traveled extensively in the welcome to attend? United States in the 1930s with the aid of Rockefeller The question was sensitive, and it led to extensive grants, and both F. A. E. Crew and Cyril Darlington discussions and frank exchanges among the organizers. (20:25) from Britain had made successful visits to It appears that the Swedish geneticists saw the Congress Sweden during the war [where the latter for intelligence as a possibility for reconciliation, where geneticists from purposes noted the political sentiments among the countries recently separated by war should be able to younger scientists (Hagberg 2006, p. 101)]. meet and (re)establish contacts. The decision, taken by Finally, the close contacts, often personal, between the organizers of an earlier international congress on cell Swedish and Russian geneticists were very important. biology in Stockholm, to exclude German and Japanese There was a strong sentiment in the genetics community scientists was thus deemed unacceptable to the geneti- that as much help as possible should be given to the cists. One understood, however, that respect must be embattled geneticists in the USSR (Krementsov 1996). shown to those who strongly reacted to the atrocities that Perspectives 711

Figure 1.—The 1948 International Congress of Genetics in Stockholm. Courtesy of Nils-Olof Bosemark.

had been committed during the war and who perhaps sessions, or just enjoying the sun. They were the victors: themselves had been exiled, detained, or imprisoned. they had survived the war and were back in science. The compromise found was to invite to the Congress only The positive ambiance in the film should not, how- those Germans who could be regarded as generally ever, let us forget those who did not attend the Congress: acceptable. The German geneticist Hans Nachtsheim, the dead, the lost, those forbidden to attend, or those who was considered ‘‘clean’’ in these matters (although just not welcome. Next to Vavilov, the second most see Paul and Falk 1999), provided a list of 18 ‘‘good’’ notable absentee was actually a Swede, Herman Nilsson- Germans who were all invited. Twelve of them, including Ehle, the Nestor among Scandinavian geneticists Nachtsheim himself, attended the Congress, coming (Bengtsson 1999; Tunlid 2004). At the beginning of from all four postwar occupation zones. [They would the Mendelian era, he had performed world-famous soon find themselves in yet another conflict-laden research on quantitative variation, and as the head of the situation, leaving, for example, Hans Stubbe (2:45) and Svalo¨f plant breeding institute and one of the world’s Georg Melchers (8.54) in separate scientific communi- first professors in "a¨rftlighetsla¨ra," he had incessantly ties in East and West Germany, respectively.] No partic- promoted the development of genetics. For Nilsson- ular restrictions were put on nationals from any other Ehle, it was a science of utmost importance for society, country, at least from the organizers’ side. Referring to and he initiated the creation of Swedish research the handling of these questions, Milislav Demerec (7:21), institutes for race biology (later human genetics), from the United States but representing the Permanent animal breeding, horticulture, and forestry research. International Committee, said that ‘‘courage and tact are Politically, he was a stern anti-Bolshevist and a staunch required to handle the delicate situations that arise in supporter of Germany. The geneticists from southern preparing for an international meeting [immediately Sweden saw in him the obvious president for an in- following a war]. Our Swedish colleagues are to be ternational congress to be held in Sweden, just as his congratulated for the splendid work they have done. It friend Erwin Bauer had been the president of the 1927 is entirely to their credit that we are having a truly Congress in Berlin. But the times were different and the international congress’’ [Bonnier and Larsson (1949), international colleagues protested against the sugges- p. 85; see also his positive description of the Congress in tion. To Otto Mohr, the Norwegian geneticist with Science (Demerec 1948)]. extensive international experience but also with the According to the Proceedings, 610 geneticists from 41 experience of having been interned during the German countries registered with the Congress. By far the largest occupation, it was totally unacceptable to appoint delegations came from Sweden (139), Great Britain Nilsson-Ehle to the presidency. In a letter to the General (112), and the United States (100), while a number of Secretary of the Organizing Committee, Gert Bonnier, nations contributed a substantial number of delegates, Mohr wrote: ‘‘We mustn’t forget that distorted genetics such as France (27), Italy (22), Portugal (19), and and race-swindle formed one of the founding stones of Denmark (18). A single geneticist came from, for the despicable ideology of the Nazi. And here a man like example, Japan (H. Kihara; 16:51) and China (C. C. Nilsson-Ehle should have had special talents to judge. Li; 16:59). In the film, the delegates can be seen shaking That’s why we expected more from him.’’(Tunlid 2004, hands, studying experimental fields, chatting between p. 244; our translation from Norwegian). 712 B. O. Bengtsson and A. Tunlid

Thus, Nilsson-Ehle was never made president of the 1948 Congress, and he did not attend it either. Instead, Herman Muller (14:13), world-famous drosophilist who in 1946 had been awarded the Nobel Prize in Medicine for his work on radiation-induced mutations, was chosen, with the Finnish Lepidoptera geneticist Harry Federley (14:34) as vice president.

THE SCIENTIFIC VICTORIES On Wednesday, July 7, the Congress started with a plenary session at which Muller gave his presidential address, ‘‘Genetics in the Scheme of Things’’ (Bonnier and Larsson 1949, pp. 96–127). Known to the audience not only for his scientific achievements but also for his strong philosophical and political views, the listeners were probably nevertheless surprised by the briefness of Muller’s reference to the victory over Nazism. It would Figure 2.—C. D. Darlington and R. A. Fisher in discussion have been natural if he had dwelled on the atrocities during a break in the program. Courtesy of Nils-Olof Bose- performed by the defeated powers, often in the name of mark. hereditary theories. But this he did not do. His presentation is of 11,500 words in its printed version and Muller when he concluded that ‘‘we have good reasons of these only 132 are devoted to Nazi policy. It obviously to believe that ...all ...genes ...have the same essential sufficed to him, since ‘‘this monster overreached him- composition, inasmuch as they require a combination of self so suicidally, and his psychoses are now sufficiently some kind of nucleic acid or nucleic acid prototype with well understood, to require no further comment here’’ some kind of protein or protein prototype’’(p. 108). But (p. 105). A certain vigilance, however, was still called for when the famous cytologist Cyril Darlington (Figure 2) since ‘‘this danger is by no means entirely past, as is ended his plenary presentation on ‘‘The Working Units shown, for example, by the increasing influence of ex- of Heredity’’ by saying that the gene ‘‘is biologically and not-so-ex-Nazis among the staffs of the German adjustable in both length and breadth,’’ the statement universities in the Western zones.’’ probably made more sense in 1948 than it does today. Muller’s talk was divided into seven parts covering As a way to develop the understanding of genes, topics such as the origin of life, the mutational decay of Muller mentioned the working out of ‘‘semi-allele (re- humankind, and the disastrous effects of Lysenkoism. peat) differences,’’ particularly the Rh system in man. In The fifth topic was ‘‘Present and Potential Victories of the film, R. A. Fisher (6:17), the theoretical originator of Genetics.’’ Here Muller made his personal comments this work (Edwards 2007), can be seen marching on what was going to be presented in Stockholm and between plant breeding plots in the almost only known where the field of genetics was moving in general. Today footage of him. His own presentation to the Congress it serves as a brief guide to the scientific content of the concerned tetrasomic inheritance in Lythrum, while it Congress. was up to his friend R. R. Race to describe their C, D, E– For Muller, the main presentation was to be Charlotte c, d, e interpretation of the Rhesus factor. From the Auerbach’s description of ‘‘Chemical Induction of Proceedings, one can understand that a heated discus- Mutations.’’ Auerbach (17:45) had worked on chemical sion took place around this interpretation of the mutagenesis during the war as a refugee in Edinburgh in antigenic system. collaboration with J. M. Robson, and in the film she is Muller also showed special interest in studies on the seen together with another brilliant Edinburgh genet- ‘‘significance of various kinds of breeding systems’’ and icist refugee, Guido Pontecorvo (21:40). The topic of made explicit references to the work by Cyril Darlington chemical mutagenesis that Auerbach, Demerec, and (20:25), Kenneth Mather (16:11), Ledyard Stebbins many others approached in the Congress was, of course, (10:38), and Ralph Erskine Cleland (18:07). Cleland is of great interest to Muller with his own background in seen in the film in deep discussion with Gunnar radiation genetics. It was also an important step forward O¨ stergren (18:07), the Swedish geneticist who, by for genetics whose task it was ‘‘tobring us nearer to those comparing B chromosomes to ‘‘genetic parasites,’’ had elusive ultimate objects of our study, the genes.’’ Today, just cast doubt on the interpretations of genetic systems some 60 years later, it is difficult to comprehend how that assumed that they always evolve adaptively (Hurst very much the participants in Stockholm knew about et al. 1996). genetics, and how very little they understood about the The empirical and mathematical population geneti- structure and function of the gene. It is easy to follow cists were given their proper due by Muller, and at the Perspectives 713 end of the film a sequence is seen where Theodosius Guido Pontecorvo (21:40), and Laura Garnjobst (de- Dobzhansky and J. B. S. Haldane exchange pleasantries scribing work done by Raymond W. Barratt, Edward (23:45). Of the three founding fathers of theoretical Tatum, and herself). A second open scientific conflict in population genetics—R. A. Fisher, J. B. S. Haldane, and the Congress, in addition to the one concerning the Sewal Wright—the latter did not attend the Congress. inheritance of the Rhesus factor, was obviously played Muller, who liked to regard all questions from a out between the well-known Danish yeast geneticist higher perspective, found it easy to praise the evolu- Øyvind Winge (18:34) and Carl Lindegren, who pre- tionary synthesis that was under development at the sented results on the ‘‘conversion of genes’’ that he time, aiming to join genetics with other biological fields, claimed broke Mendel’s rules and in which Winge did including paleontology. In the relevant books by Dobz- not believe. Winge’s sensitivity can be partly explained hansky and Stebbins, an important role is played by by a heightened feeling of how important it was to empirical examples taken from the Swedish plant defend genetics from all kinds of revisionist attempts geneticists who in the film are seen demonstrating field now when Lysenkoism was threatening to make a experiments: Go¨te Turesson (22:28), Arne Mu¨ntzing comeback. (5:12), A˚ ke Gustafsson (8:14), Olof Tedin (5:48), and Albert Levan [who later became one of the pioneers of human cytogenetics (9:47)]. To this group of empirical HUMAN GENETICS AND THE FIGHT AGAINST LYSENKOISM evolutionists should be added the Dane Jens Clausen (11:08), who at this time worked on plant variation in The largest parts of Muller’s presidential address California. In addition, the father of ecological genetics, ‘‘Genetics in the Scheme of Things’’ were devoted to E. B. Ford, who presented results on industrial mela- the genetics of humans and the necessity to fight against nism to the Congress, can be seen in the film (23:37), as Lysenkoism. The questions are related, but we start with can the heretic evolutionary geneticist Richard Gold- the first. schmidt (3:30), a refugee from Germany now at the Not only some geneticists, but also some topics were University of California at Berkeley. notably absent from the Stockholm Congress. The So far we have discussed Muller’s views on the results Congress marked the end of a bloody world war, but it from higher organisms. He was, however, adamant on also marked the end of unbelievable atrocities per- how important research on microorganism was going to formed in the name of hereditary science. However, as be in the future, now that genetics ‘‘has literally blasted far as can be judged from the Proceedings, the topic of its way into the core of bacteria and viruses.’’ Salvador racism and fascist biological theory was never explicitly Luria, who did not attend the conference, was acknowl- tackled in any presentation, except for some brief edged for his work on phages, and results on them were references at the opening of the Congress. J. B. S. presented by Max Delbru¨ck in his talk on ‘‘Genetic Haldane (23:21) gave a technical plenary talk on "The Experiments with Bacteriophages.’’ Georg Melchers Rate of Mutation of Human Genes,’’ while most of the (10:37) and German colleagues described their war- presentations in the sessions devoted to human genetics time research on viruses in Nicotiana. And a special concerned details of different hereditary diseases. The indirect reference was given by Muller to Philip Dane Tage Kemp, newly appointed professor of genetics L’He´ritier for his work on the inheritance of virus-like and eugenics in Copenhagen, had been invited to give a elements in Drosophila. plenary presentation on ‘‘TheRise of Human Genetics,’’ With respect to bacteria, Muller pointed to the fact but to judge from the Proceedings he gave a poor that their ‘‘genetic material, or parts of it, can now be performance. The paper appears hastily written and may actually extracted and handled in vitro without loss of its have been acceptable in the 1930s when Kemp was viability—a possibility opening up remarkable opportu- strongly supported by the Rockefeller Foundation nities for studies of the chemistry of the gene and of (Koch 1996). In 1948, his advocacy for collecting and mutation’’(p. 116). He was right, but not many concrete keeping a national register with detailed information on results were reported at the time. Luca Cavalli (his name all asocial, handicapped, mentally deficient, and genet- then) presented data on chemical mutagenesis in ically ill individuals in Denmark must have sounded Escherichia coli, as did Milislav Demerec, who referred uncomfortable and out of date. The decade after the war to the work by Joshua Lederberg that made it possible to saw a restructuring of the field of human genetics with talk about ‘‘linkages’’ and ‘‘crossing over’’ also in old concerns shifting out of focus and new priorities bacteria. (Neither Joshua nor Esther Lederberg at- developing (Kevles 1985). However, in Kemp’s pre- tended the Congress.) sentation to the Congress, not much of this was to be Muller knew that ‘‘a rapidly growing group of funda- heard, with his insistence on eugenics being right and mental biochemical reactions’’ was on its way to being acceptable if performed with ‘‘trained medical knowl- unraveled in bacteria and ‘‘moulds.’’ With respect to the edge’’ (as if lack of proper medical knowledge was the last group of organisms, the fungi, the Congress heard main problem with Nazi eugenic practices!). More in presentations by, among others, Boris Ephrussi (18:25), line with future trends was probably the presentation by 714 B. O. Bengtsson and A. Tunlid

Figure 3.—One of the lecture theaters before the start of the session. Courtesy of Nils-Olof Bosemark.

Luisa Gianferrari on ‘‘TheGenetics Consultory Board of Soon after the Congress the Lysenkoists, with the full Milan University’’ describing a free genetic counseling support of Stalin, grabbed power over all biological service, which indicated a move away from direct societal research in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. control over reproduction. Muller described the event in a footnote to his address Muller’s own contribution to the problem of human as printed in the Proceedings: ‘‘Approximately one genetics consisted of his principled insistence on the month after the above words were spoken, the Central need for human genetic improvement (or at least a fight Committee of the Communist Party of the USSR against mutational deterioration). In this he continued announced its approval of the doctrine of inheritance his pre-World War II crusade for a ‘‘left-wing eugenics,’’ of acquired characters, and of the attack on genetics by argued in the name of human rationality and expressed, the charlatan Lysenko’’ (p. 108). for example, in the ‘‘Geneticists’ Manifesto’’ (Crew et al. All Congress delegates in Stockholm knew that 1939). Unlike Kemp, who saw questions on human Lysenko and his followers had fought genetics since reproduction from a very narrow medical-governmental the 1930s (although Trofim Lysenko himself partici- viewpoint, Muller regarded humankind from a lofty and pated in the Ithaca Congress in 1932), but probably few abstract perspective and argued for the necessity that it expected that the Soviet Union would break with its rationally guide its own biological future. What he now positive image as an ally in the defeat of Nazi Germany by in 1948 bitterly recognized was that not even in the most proclaiming there to be ‘‘bourgeois sciences’’ and fully rational socialist or communist society could sound forbidding all its communist supporters to adhere to eugenic practices evolve spontaneously. genetics. The political situation in the world was, Actually, according to Muller, the situation in the however, under rapid change: the Berlin blockade had summer of 1948 was moving in exactly the wrong started just days before the Congress began, and by the direction. In the Soviet Union, where earlier Muller end of the year the Cold War was a somber reality. had worked but from which he had left in dismay in the A sign of the bitter and conflict-laden times ahead 1930s, all genetic knowledge on which sound eugenics appeared at the plenary session that ended the Con- should be based was on its way to being banned: gress. Here 11 delegates from Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, In that country, unfortunately, it has come to pass that Poland, and Yugoslavia wanted to register their dis- genetics as we know it no longer finds a place in the agreement with ‘‘some of the statements made in the official curricula and that it is regarded by the dominant address of the President,’’ which they did not believe group of officials as a dire heresy. Most of the main would ‘‘contribute to international scientific collabora- geneticists are, as the case may be, broken, executed, tion.’’ The motion was not discussed, but the petitioners disgraced, not to be located, fugitives, forced into other work or, in the mildest cases, driven to such a redirection were promised that their statement would be included of their lines of research and publication as to give the in the Proceedings. International politics was more appearance of working somehow in support of the important than ever in the debate on inheritance doctrines approved by the [political] officials (p. 106). (Krementsov 1996). Muller’s outburst against Lysenkoism and his description of the political repression of genetics in the USSR ARICHCONGRESS comprised a substantial part of his presidential address (15%), and he himself found it so out of order that he Some of the geneticists attending (Figure 3) the Con- introduced it with a disclaimer saying that he did not gress in Stockholm are still professionally active, and they speak ‘‘in the role of an official of this Congress,’’ but provide the rest of us with a link to the event. They also that he was ‘‘convinced that these things should be stated help make contemporary the entire history of genetics, here.’’And he obviously knew what he was talking about. since some of the delegates whom they met in 1948 at the Perspectives 715

Congress had themselves experienced the start of have been kindly provided by Nils-Olof Bosemark. Part of this work was genetics in 1900. Foremost among these early geneti- supported by the Mendelian Society in Lund. cists was Erich Tschermak von Seysenegg (6:50), one of the rediscovers of Mendel’s laws. In the film, he is seen happily smiling during his visit to the Svalo¨fplant LITERATURE CITED breeding institute, a true link to the origin of genetics. Bengtsson, B. O., 1999 Genetik och politik. Bera¨ttelser om en ve- The Stockholm Congress was also the event where a tenskap mitt i samha¨llet (Genetics and Politics. Tales about a Sci- woman, Charlotte Auerbach, played the leading scien- ence in the Centre of Society.). Norstedts, Stockholm. onnier arsson tific role, albeit in an environment dominated by men, B , G., and R. L (eds.), 1949 Proceedings of the Eighth International Congress of Genetics. Supplement to Hereditas, Lund, although perhaps less so than expected. The number of Sweden. women studying the plant breeding fields during the Crew, F. A. E., G. P. Child,P.C.Koller,C.D.Darlington,P.R. avid pre-Congress is high and, for example, at Uppsala D et al, 1939 Social biology and population improvement. Nature 144: 521–522. Hedda Nordenskio¨ld (22:21) was one of the demon- Crow, J. F., 1993 N. I. Vavilov, martyr to genetic truth. Genetics 143: strators. Attending the Congress were also some women 1–4. emerec who later would make contributions to the development D , M., 1948 Eighth International Congress of Genetics. Sci- ence 108: 249–251. of genetics, for example, Mary Lyon and Salome Edwards, A. W. F., 2007 R. A. Fisher’s unravelling of the Rhesus Gluecksohn-Schoenheimer (later Gluecksohn-Waelsh). blood-group system. Genetics 175: 471–476. aynes One of the early leading Mendelian geneticist, Kristine H , R. H., 1998 Heritable variation and mutagenesis at early International Congresses of Genetics. Genetics 148: 1419–1431. Bonnevie from Norway, was registered to attend the Hagberg, A., 2006 En va¨xtfo¨ra¨dlares korsva¨gar. (The Crossroads of Congress to talk about one of her mouse mutants, but a Plant Breeder.) Sveriges Utsa¨desfo¨renings Tidskrift, ha¨fte 3–4. urst tlan engtsson died before its start. H , L.D., A. A and B. O. B , 1996 Genetic conflicts. Q. Rev. Biol. 71: 317–364. Thus, with the aid of the Congress Proceedings and Kevles, D. J., 1985 In the Name of Eugenics: Genetics and the Uses of the remarkable film that Nils Nybom produced, it is Human Heredity. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA. och possible even today to obtain an inkling of the many K , L., 1996 Racehygiejne i Danmark 1920–56. (Racial Hygiene in Denmark 1920–56). Gyldendal, Copenhagen. exciting and tension-laden dimensions that structured Krementsov, N., 1996 A ‘‘second front’’ in Soviet genetics: the in- those summer days in Sweden. The genetic congresses ternational dimension of the Lysenko controversy, 1944–1947. J. that followed—from Bellagio in Italy 1953 to Berlin in Hist. Biol. 29: 229–250. Paul, D. B., and R. Falk, 1999 Scientific responsibility and political 2008—would of course also carry political undertones context: the case of genetics under the swastika, pp. 257–275 in and have exciting delegates, although probably some- Biology and the Foundation of Ethics, edited by J. Maienschein and use what less so than the Eighth Congress in Stockholm M. R . Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. Punnett, R. C. (Editor), 1941 Proceedings of the Seventh International 1948. Genetical Congress. Supplement to J. Genet., Cambridge, UK. Soyfer, V. N., 2003 Tragic history of the VII International Congress Nils-Olof Bosemark, Arne Hagberg, Antonio Lima-de-Faria, and of Genetics. Genetics 165: 1–9. Udda Lundqvist all attended the 1948 Congress and have been most Tunlid, A., 2004 A¨rftlighetsforskningens gra¨nser. Individer och in- helpful in recognizing delegates in the film. We are also grateful for stitutioner i framva¨xten av svensk genetik. Avdelningen fo¨r ide´- comments from audiences in Lund, Sweden; Cambridge, United och la¨rdomshistoria. (Boundary of genetics: Individuals and in- Kingdom; and Berlin, Germany. Staffan Lindstro¨m helped with the re- stitutions in the development of Swedish genetics.) Ph.D. Thesis, editing of the film, and we owe him many thanks. The photographs Lunds University, Lund, Sweden.