DOCSLIB.ORG

Perspectives Anecdotal, Historical and Critical Commentaries on Genetics Edited by James I;

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Perspectives Anecdotal, Historical and Critical Commentaries on Genetics Edited by James I; Copyright 0 1997 by the Genetics Society of America Perspectives Anecdotal, Historical and Critical Commentaries on Genetics Edited by James I;. Crow and William F. Dove Seventy Years Ago: Mutation Becomes Experimental James F. Crow* and Seymour Abrahamsont *Genetics Laboratory and +Departmentof Zoology, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin 53706 N 1927 H. J. MULLER(1890-1967) published in Sci- against indiscriminate use of high-energy radiation, a I ence a paper entitled “Artificial Transmutation of crusade bolstered by the later demonstration thatmuta- the Gene.” It reported the first experimental produc- tion was linearly related to dose, down to doses as low tion of mutations and opened a new era in genetics. as could be practically studied. The title is curious. Why transmutation rather than muta- In the summerof 1927 MULLERgave a major paper at tion? The answer emerges from another paper(MULLER the Fifth International Congress of Genetics in Berlin. 1928a), written in 1926. After reviewing the repeated Typically, he scribbled the paper in transit and was still failure of efforts by many workers to modify the muta- preparing slides up to the time of its presentation. The tion rate, MULLERasked the question: “Do the preced- talk is said to have been confusing, but themessage was ing results mean, then, that mutation is unique among clear. This time he gave the full details and the skeptics biological processes in being itself outside the reach of were silenced. Helpful as he was throughout his life, modification or control,-that it occupies a position CURTSTERN got the paper typed, and it was published similar to that till recently characteristic of atomic trans- the next year (MULLER 1928b). mutation in physical science, in being purely spontane- Biologists generally accepted mutation as the ulti- ous, ‘from within,’ and not subject to influences com- mate basis of evolution. Furthermore, mutation prom- monly dealt with? Must it be beyond the range of our ised a way to get at the natureof the gene.Yet mutations scientific tools?” MULLERthought of his radiation ex- were so rare that therewas only anecdotal information. periments as parallel to those of RUTHERFORD, onlya In a few months MULLERfound more mutant genes few yearsearlier, demonstrating experimentaltransmu- than the total from all Drosophila labs up to that time. tation of chemical elements. Like the physicists, who Hisdiscovery was independently confirmed by L. J. were attracting a great deal of public attention at the STADLER,who startedexperiments withbarley and time, MULLERhad tampered with a fundamental natu- other plants atabout the same time (ROMAN1988; ral process and had succeeded in mastering it. He was STADLER1997). The slowerlife cycle in these plants an instant celebrity. meant that his results appeared somewhat later, but he The 1927 paper is also curious in another way, for it clearlydeserves recognition along with MULLER, al- presented no data-no dosage measurements, no num- though he didn’t always receive it. Other geneticists bers, no statistical analysis. MULLERsimply reported immediately jumped on the bandwagon, and the field qualitative results and rough comparisons, e.g., a muta- of radiation genetics was on its way. tion-rate increase of “fifteen thousand percent.” But a Although he was actively engaged in many aspects of paper without data invited skepticism, and the skeptics Drosophila genetics and was an active contributor in included no less than T. H. MORGAN,who was always various ways to the MORGANgroup, MULLER’S interest suspicious of speculations and invariably asked for the centered on mutation. His first experiments started in data. 1918, so his radiation paper represented the culmina- MULLER’Sidea was clearly to establish priority. He tion of a decade of work. MULLER’Stwo full reports, noted thatmany of the mutations were repeats of those one written before the X-ray discovery (1928a) and the found earlier.Most were recessive,but a few weredomi- other immediately after (1928b), report a remarkable nant. Many were lethal or sterilizing, and there were saga. The first paper occupies an entireissue of Genetics, dominant lethals, not easy to detect.In addition to gene 79 pages. In minute detail, he described the various mutations, MULLERreported a number of chromosome experiments, each successive one being an improve- rearrangements, especially translocations. He suggested ment and coming closer to providing convincing quan- mutation as a cause of cancer. And in this, his first titative data. His innovations and their updates are now paper on the subject, he began his lifetime crusade standard Drosophila methodology. Genetics 147: 1491-1496 (December, 1997) 1492 J. F. Crow and S. Abrahamson The problem from the beginning was the rarity of visible mutations were immediately apparent in males mutations. Early on, MULLERdecided that lethals were of the next generation. better material than visible mutations for quantitative From the beginning, MULLERthought that perhaps study. For one thing, they were far more numerous. the best way to getat the question of whether themuta- For another, the results were unambiguous; with rare tion rate was immutable was to study the effect of tem- exceptions there were no survivors (or only a few piti- perature. If mutation behaved like ordinary laboratory fully weak ones). The “personal equation” was elimi- chemical reactions, the rate should double or triple nated; lethals could be identified as well by the average with each rise of 10”. Therefore, throughout most of technician as by a sharp-eyed CALVIN BRIDGES.Soon the several years of studyin the early 1920s,temperature MULLERbegan devising ways to identify all the lethal was varied, with increasingly precise results in the later mutations on a chromosome, thereby multiplying the experiments. Controlling temperature was no easy task per-locus mutation rate by the numberof lethal-produc- in those days of poor equipment andpoorly supported ing loci on the chromosome. labs. MULLERdid experiments in the MORGANlab in Early in his work MULLERrealized the value of “C New York,at Woods Hole in Massachusetts, at Rice Insti- factors,” crossover suppressors, later proven to beinver- tute in Houston, and at the University of Texas in Aus- sions. He exploited these to construct balanced lethal tin. It was especially difficult to arrange cool tempera- systems in which lethal mutations, in addition to those tures in the hot Texas summers. He covered the cul- necessary to keep the system balanced, could be accu- tures with a wet cloth on which an electric fan blew. mulated overmany generations. Then, by elaborate Despite the crudity of the experimental conditions, he mating schemes, he could render the new mutations was able to compare two sets of experiments that,while homozygous and locate their approximate position by each varied considerably, differed on the average by linkage with known markers. This permitted further about 8”. enrichment of the number of mutations by summing By showing that the mutation rate could be influ- the mutations that had accumulated over manygenera- enced, MULLERmade mutation a researchable subject. tions. In his words (1928a): “Perhaps the most hopeful fea- In these accumulation experiments, MULLERfore- ture of the present datais that they show that mutation shadowed the work of MUKAI(1964), who employed is indeed capable of being influenced ‘artificially” this idea to measure the spontaneous rate of mutations that it does not stand as an unreachable god playing with small effects on viability. MULLERhad argued that its pranks upon us from some impregnable citadel in mutations producing small, statistically detected effects the germ plasm.” Later thetemperature effect was on viability and fertility were the most numerous class, given a theoretical interpretation (see SCHR~DINGER and MUKAIshowed it. 1944). MULLER’Smost famous Drosophila stock involved an It is a shortintellectual step from realization that the X chromosome that he called CZB. C stands for a cross- mutation process has a high temperature coefficient to over suppressor, Z is a recessive lethal, and B is the Bar thinking of radiation as a source of activating energy. “gene,” later proven to be a duplication. Using the Although MULLERjustly receives great credit forradia- crosses that arenow familiar to every student of elemen- tion mutagenesis, the greater contribution is his devel- tary genetics, MULLERwas able to measure the rate of opment of techniques whereby mutation could be stud- lethal mutation on the Xchromosome with almost no ied experimentally and measured reproducibly. In ambiguity. MULLERwas constantly on the lookout for three monumental papers-actually only two,since the time-saving methods, and this was one of his best. Since Science paper gave no details-MULLER provided essen- an F2 culture descended from a new recessive lethal tially all the basic techniques used in the burst of radia- contained no males, it was not necessary to examine tion experiments done in the next several decades. the flies in detail, but only enough toascertain whether In those days, many geneticists thought that best way males were present. This could be done by examining to get at the natureof the mysterious gene was through the flies in the vial with the naked eye or, a bit better, mutation. Perhaps the way the gene mutates could tell a hand lens sufficed. Figure 1 shows MULLERdemon- them what it is. Of course, genetic history has been strating his favorite low-tech instrument. The CZB quite different. The nature of the gene was discovered, method provides an easy way to map the location of not by the kinetics of mutation, but by the identification new lethals, and MULLERquickly exploited this. He of DNA as the genetic material, by advances in the showed that lethal mutations are distributed over the chemistry of large molecules, and by some clever model entireX chromosome, roughly uniformly, although building by WATSON and CRICK.Now the tables are concentrated at the “left” end.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Drosophila Melanogaster”
    | PRIMER More than Meets the Eye: A Primer for “Timing of Locomotor Recovery from Anoxia Modulated by the white Gene in Drosophila melanogaster” Bradley M. Hersh1 Department of Biology, Allegheny College, Meadville, Pennsylvania 16335 ORCID ID: 0000-0003-2098-4417 (B.M.H.) SUMMARY A single gene might have several functions within an organism, and so mutational loss of that gene has multiple effects across different physiological systems in the organism. Though the white gene in Drosophila melanogaster was identified originally for its effect on fly eye color, an article by Xiao and Robertson in the June 2016 issue of GENETICS describes a function for the white gene in the response of Drosophila to oxygen deprivation. This Primer article provides background information on the white gene, the phenomenon of pleiotropy, and the molecular and genetic approaches used in the study to demonstrate a new behavioral function for the white gene. KEYWORDS education; Drosophila; pleiotropy; behavior TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract 1369 Molecular Nature of the white Gene 1370 The Challenge of Pleiotropy 1370 Tissue-Specific Expression and RNA Interference (RNAi) 1371 Understanding the Experimental Details 1372 Establishing a behavioral phenotype 1372 Introgression: eliminating the trivial 1372 Dosage and position effect: complicating the story 1373 Molecular tricks: dissecting function and location of action 1373 Suggestions for Classroom Use 1374 Questions for Discussion 1374 HE white gene was the first Drosophila melanogaster the first attached-X and ring-X chromosome variants), is re- Tmutant discovered by Thomas Hunt Morgan in 1910, ported to have exclaimed “Oh, I do hope the white-eyed flyis following an exhaustive search for variant forms of the fly still alive” from her hospital bed after having just delivered (Morgan 1910).
    [Show full text]
  • 123 Author's Personal Copy
    Author's personal copy Synthese DOI 10.1007/s11229-012-0147-2 Models of data and theoretical hypotheses: a case-study in classical genetics Marion Vorms Received: 17 July 2011 / Accepted: 13 October 2011 © Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012 Abstract Linkage (or genetic) maps are graphs, which are intended to represent the linear ordering of genes on the chromosomes. They are constructed on the basis of statistical data concerning the transmission of genes. The invention of this technique in 1913 was driven by Morgan’s group’s adoption of a set of hypotheses concerning the physical mechanism of heredity. These hypotheses were themselves grounded in Morgan’s defense of the chromosome theory of heredity, according to which chro- mosomes are the physical basis of genes. In this paper, I analyze the 1919 debate between William Castle and Morgan’s group, about the construction of genetic maps. The official issue of the debate concerns the arrangement of genes on chromosomes. However, the disputants tend to carry out the discussions about how one should model the data in order to draw predictions concerning the transmission of genes; the debate does not bear on the data themselves, nor does it focus on the hypotheses explaining these data. The main criteria that are appealed to by the protagonists are simplicity and predictive efficacy. However, I show that both parties’ assessments of the simplicity and predictive efficacy of different ways of modeling the data themselves depend on background theoretical positions. I aim at clarifying how preference for a given model and theoretical commitments articulate.
    [Show full text]
  • Calvin Bridges' Experiments on Nondisjunction As Evidence for The
    Published on The Embryo Project Encyclopedia (https://embryo.asu.edu) Calvin Bridges’ Experiments on Nondisjunction as Evidence for the Chromosome Theory of Heredity (1913-1916) [1] By: Gleason, Kevin Keywords: Thomas Hunt Morgan [2] Drosophila [3] From 1913 to 1916, Calvin Bridges performed experiments that indicatedg enes [5] are found on chromosomes. His experiments were a part of his doctoral thesis advised by Thomas Hunt Morgan [6] in New York, New York. In his experiments, Bridges studied Drosophila [7], the common fruit fly, and by doing so showed that a process called nondisjunction caused chromosomes, under some circumstances, to fail to separate when forming sperm [8] and egg [9] cells. Nondisjunction, as described by Bridges, caused sperm [8] or egg [9] cells to contain abnormal amounts of chromosomes. In some cases, that caused the offspring produced by the sperm [8] or eggs to display traits that they would typically not have. His research on nondisjunction provided evidence that chromosomes carry genetic traits, including those that determine the sex of an organism. At the beginning of the twentieth century, other researchers were starting to establish the role that chromosomes play in heredity. In 1910, Morgan provided some evidence that genes [5], or the material factors that were thought to control heredity, are located on the chromosome. While Morgan was mating Drosophila [10], which typically had red eyes, Morgan found that one of the offspring flies had white eyes. He proceeded to mate the white-eyed fly with other flies, and he observed a generation of offspring in which only some of the male offspring, but only the male offspring, had white eyes.
    [Show full text]
  • Front Matter (PDF)
    BectonDickinson RVCSSystems ADVANCESIN CELLBIOLOGY The Fluorescence Activated Cell Cell Cycle after Simian test of mouse spleen cells reacted with Sorter (FACS) has become a powerful Virus-40 Infection varying dilutions of rabbit anti-mouse means of identifying and separating FACS has been used to study the T-cell antiserum plus complement has cells and cell constituents according to interplay between Simian Virus-40 shown that as antiserum concentration distinctive properties of FLUORESCENCE (SV-40) and host cells after infection increases, the percentage of cells in the and SIZE.FACS makes possible multi- of growing cell cultures. Both mock- dead subpopulation also increases. parameter measurement of individual and SV-40 infected cultures have been cells, providing the distribution of Sorting of Erythrocytes harvested at 24 to 48 hours after infec Containing Malaria Parasites these measurements in a sample. tion, stained for DNA content, and Plasmodium berghei-mtecied mouse Evaluation against operator-selected analyzed with FACS for cell cycle dis criteria, at rates to 5,000 cells per tribution. Infected cultures exhibited a erythrocytes can be analyzed and second, forms the basis for physical marked shift to above average G2 sorted on the basis of parasite DNA separation of viable subpopulations. content. Infected cells, treated with a DNA content by 24 hours after infec vital DNA-binding dye, fluoresce FACS measurements have been docu tion, and remained in this state for at mented for sensitivity to as few as with intensity corresponding to the least 24 hours further, indicating that number of parasites contained. Unin- 3,000 fluorescent molecules per cell. after infection, cycling cells completed Light-scatter measurements are sensi one round of DNA synthesis, but fected cells are nonfluorescent.
    [Show full text]
  • Alfred Henry Sturtevant (1891–1970) [1]
    Published on The Embryo Project Encyclopedia (https://embryo.asu.edu) Alfred Henry Sturtevant (1891–1970) [1] By: Gleason, Kevin Keywords: Thomas Hunt Morgan [2] Drosophila [3] Alfred Henry Sturtevant studied heredity in fruit flies in the US throughout the twentieth century. From 1910 to 1928, Sturtevant worked in Thomas Hunt Morgan’s research lab in New York City, New York. Sturtevant, Morgan, and other researchers established that chromosomes play a role in the inheritance of traits. In 1913, as an undergraduate, Sturtevant created one of the earliest genetic maps of a fruit fly chromosome, which showed the relative positions of genes [4] along the chromosome. At the California Institute of Technology [5] in Pasadena, California, he later created one of the firstf ate maps [6], which tracks embryonic cells throughout their development into an adult organism. Sturtevant’s contributions helped scientists explain genetic and cellular processes that affect early organismal development. Sturtevant was born 21 November 1891 in Jacksonville, Illinois, to Harriet Evelyn Morse and Alfred Henry Sturtevant. Sturtevant was the youngest of six children. During Sturtevant’s early childhood, his father taught mathematics at Illinois College in Jacksonville. However, his father left that job to pursue farming, eventually relocating seven-year-old Sturtevant and his family to Mobile, Alabama. In Mobile, Sturtevant attended a single room schoolhouse until he entered a public high school. In 1908, Sturtevant entered Columbia University [7] in New York City, New York. As a sophomore, Sturtevant took an introductory biology course taught by Morgan, who was researching how organisms transfer observable characteristics, such as eye color, to their offspring.
    [Show full text]
  • The Sources of Adaptive Variation
    Edinburgh Research Explorer The sources of adaptive variation Citation for published version: Charlesworth, D & Barton, N 2017, 'The sources of adaptive variation', Proceedings of the Royal Society B- Biological Sciences, vol. 284, no. 1855. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2016.2864 Digital Object Identifier (DOI): 10.1098/rspb.2016.2864 Link: Link to publication record in Edinburgh Research Explorer Document Version: Peer reviewed version Published In: Proceedings of the Royal Society B-Biological Sciences General rights Copyright for the publications made accessible via the Edinburgh Research Explorer is retained by the author(s) and / or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing these publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. Take down policy The University of Edinburgh has made every reasonable effort to ensure that Edinburgh Research Explorer content complies with UK legislation. If you believe that the public display of this file breaches copyright please contact [email protected] providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim. Download date: 01. Oct. 2021 1 1 The sources of adaptive variation 2 3 Deborah Charlesworth1, Nicholas H. Barton2, Brian Charlesworth1 4 5 1Institute of Evolutionary Biology, School of Biological Sciences, University of 6 Edinburgh, Charlotte Auerbach Rd., Edinburgh EH9 3FL, UK 7 8 2Institute of Science and Technology Austria, Klosterneuburg 3400, Austria 9 10 Author for correspondence: 11 Brian Charlesworth 12 Email: Brian,[email protected] 13 14 Phone: 0131 650 5751 15 16 Subject Areas: 17 Evolution 18 19 Keywords: 20 21 Modern Synthesis, Extended Evolutionary Synthesis, mutation, natural 22 selection, epigenetic inheritance 23 24 25 26 27 2 28 Abstract 29 The role of natural selection in the evolution of adaptive phenotypes has undergone 30 constant probing by evolutionary biologists, employing both theoretical and empirical 31 approaches.
    [Show full text]
  • CV of Matthew Hartfield ONLINE
    Curriculum Vitae Dr Matthew Hartfield Institute of Evolutionary Biology University of Edinburgh, Charlotte Auerbach Road Edinburgh EH9 3FL, UK [email protected] British Citizen EMPLOYMENT 2018 – Present: NERC Independent Research Fellow Institute of Evolutionary Biology, University of Edinburgh, UK 2017 – 2018: Postdoctoral Researcher Bioinformatics Research Centre, Aarhus University, Denmark Supervisor: Dr Thomas Bataillon 2014 – 2017: Marie Curie International Outgoing Fellow Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Toronto, Canada (2014 – 2016): Bioinformatics Research Centre, Aarhus University, Denmark (2016– 2017) Outgoing Hosts: Profs Aneil Agrawal and Stephen Wright Return Host: Dr Thomas Bataillon 2012 – 2014: CNRS Research Fellow ('CDD Chercher') Team MIVEGEC, IRD Montpellier, France Supervisor: Dr Samuel Alizon EDUCATION 2008 – 2012: PhD Evolutionary Biology Institute of Evolutionary Biology, University of Edinburgh, UK Supervisor: Prof. Peter D. Keightley 2007 – 2008: MSc Mathematical Biology University of Bath, UK Degree Class: Pass with Distinction Thesis supervisors: Dr Jane White and Dr Klaus Kurtenbach 2003 – 2007: MSci Mathematics Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine, London, UK. Degree Class: First Class (Honours) Page 1 of 5 FUNDING AND SOCIETAL AWARDS Major Awards: 1) NERC Independent Research Fellowship. 5 years (2018 – 2023); £518,440. 2) John Maynard Smith Prize, European Society for Evolutionary Biology. 3) Marie Curie International Outgoing Fellowship. 3 years (2014 – 2017); 271,642.50€. Other Awards: 4) 2018: American Society of Naturalists, towards a visit to the II Joint Congress on Evolutionary Biology (Montpellier, France). $500. 5) 2011: University of Edinburgh’s James Rennie Bequest, towards a visit to ESEB in Tübingen, Germany. £200. 6) 2010: Genetics Society UK, towards a visit to Evolution in Portland OR, USA.
    [Show full text]
  • The Outstanding Scientist, R.A. Fisher: His Views on Eugenics and Race
    Heredity (2021) 126:565–576 https://doi.org/10.1038/s41437-020-00394-6 PERSPECTIVE The outstanding scientist, R.A. Fisher: his views on eugenics and race 1 2 3 4 5 Walter Bodmer ● R. A. Bailey ● Brian Charlesworth ● Adam Eyre-Walker ● Vernon Farewell ● 6 7 Andrew Mead ● Stephen Senn Received: 2 October 2020 / Revised: 2 December 2020 / Accepted: 2 December 2020 / Published online: 15 January 2021 © The Author(s) 2021. This article is published with open access Introduction aim of this paper is to conduct a careful analysis of his own writings in these areas. Our purpose is neither to defend nor R.A. Fisher was one of the greatest scientists of the 20th attack Fisher’s work in eugenics and views on race, but to century (Fig. 1). He was a man of extraordinary ability and present a careful account of their substance and nature. originality whose scientific contributions ranged over a very wide area of science, from biology through statistics to ideas on continental drift, and whose work has had a huge Fisher’s scientific achievements 1234567890();,: 1234567890();,: positive impact on human welfare. Not surprisingly, some of his large volume of work is not widely used or accepted Contributions to statistics at the current time, but his scientific brilliance has never been challenged. He was from an early age a supporter of Fisher has been described as “the founder of modern sta- certain eugenic ideas, and it is for this reason that he has tistics” (Rao 1992). His work did much to enlarge, and then been accused of being a racist and an advocate of forced set the boundaries of, the subject of statistics and to estab- sterilisation (Evans 2020).
    [Show full text]
  • Effect of Mustard Gas on Some Genes in Drosophila Melanogaster Robert Stephen Crowe Iowa State University
    Iowa State University Capstones, Theses and Retrospective Theses and Dissertations Dissertations 1961 Effect of mustard gas on some genes in Drosophila melanogaster Robert Stephen Crowe Iowa State University Follow this and additional works at: https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/rtd Part of the Genetics Commons Recommended Citation Crowe, Robert Stephen, "Effect of mustard gas on some genes in Drosophila melanogaster " (1961). Retrospective Theses and Dissertations. 1943. https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/rtd/1943 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Iowa State University Capstones, Theses and Dissertations at Iowa State University Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Retrospective Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Iowa State University Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. This dissertation has been 61-6178 microfilmed exactly as received CROWE, Robert Stephen, 1908- EFFECT OF MUSTARD GAS ON SOME GENES IN DROSOPHILA MELANOGASTER. Iowa State University of Science and Technology Ph.D., 1961 Biology — Genetics University Microfilms, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan EFFECT OF MUSTARD GAS ON SOME GENES IN DROSOPHILA MELANOGASTER by Robert Stephen Crowe A Dissertation Submitted to the Graduate Faculty in Partial Fulfillment of The Requirements for the Degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Major Subject: Genetics Approved Signature was redacted for privacy. Charge of Major Work Signature was redacted for privacy. id of kajof Department Signature was redacted
    [Show full text]
  • The Dissemination of the Chromosome Theory of Mendelian Heredity By
    The dissemination of the chromosome theory of Mendelian heredity by Morgan and his collabora- tors around 1915: a case study on the distortion of science by scientists Lilian Al-Chueyr Pereira Martins * Abstract : In the transposition of scientific concepts, teachers usually provide their students with a knowledge that does not correspond to the complex science that is produced by scientists. This difference between the results of research and the sci- ence that is taught also may be found when scientists disseminate their own ideas. In such a process they may oversimplify the scientific results and present a “clean” and attractive account that will help them to gain adepts, at the cost of hiding the intri- cacy of the scientific process. This paper presents a historical case study of the dis- semination by Thomas Morgan, Alfred Sturtevant, Herman Muller and Calvin Bridges of their ideas concerning the Mendelian chromosome theory in the The Mechanism of Mendelian Heredity (1915). It analyses the process of simplification in this case, discussing some educational parallels, pointing out the resulting distortion of the scientific image and suggesting means of circumventing those problems. Key-words : history of genetics; chromosome theory; Morgan, Thomas Hunt; trans- position A difusão da teoria cromossômica da herança mendeliana por Morgan e seus colaboradores em torno de 1915: um estudo de caso de distorção da ciência por cientistas Resumo : Na transposição de conceitos científicos, os professores costumam apre- sentar a seus estudantes um conhecimento que não corresponde à ciência complexa produzida pelos cientistas. Esta diferença entre os resultados da pesquisa e a ciência que é ensinada pode também ser encontrada quando os cientistas divulgam suas próprias idéias.
    [Show full text]
  • Bruce Cattanach: Mutagenesis and Where It Can Lead You
    Genet. Res., Camb.(1998), 72, pp. 175–176. With 1 figure. Printed in the United Kingdom # 1998 Cambridge University Press 175 Bruce Cattanach: Mutagenesis and where it can lead you This Special Issue of Genetical Research constitutes a chromosomes was by then as great as in mutagenesis, tribute to the work and achievements of Bruce and his next move was to the City of Hope in Cattanach on the occasion of his official retirement. California, to join Susumu Ohno who had made the Bruce began his career working on mutagenesis in key finding underlying the discovery of X chromosome mice. His interest in mutagenesis continued through- inactivation. In the course of his X-chromosome work out his career but through it he was led to a wide range there Bruce found an inherited type of XX maleness in of major discoveries in mammalian genetics. The the mouse. This proved to be due to the Sxr sex contributions from his colleagues in this issue provide reversal factor, which later became important in the a flavour of the various fields his work has covered. understanding of sex determination in the mouse. Bruce was born on 5 November 1932. According to Thus began another of Bruce’s interests, in sex the story, when asked as a child what he would like to determination. Sxr involved a transposition of the do when he grew up, he said that he would like to sex-determining region of the Y chromosome from grow cows in test-tubes. Nevertheless, his first degree the short arm to the pseudoautosomal region.
    [Show full text]
  • Final Project Report
    Final project report ‘Towards Dolly: Edinburgh, Roslin and the Birth of Modern Genetics’ ‘The Making of Dolly: Science, Politics and Ethics’ Funded by the Wellcome Trust’s Research Resources scheme April 2012 – May 2016 1 Contents ‹ Page 2: Contents and project overview ‹ Page 3: The collections ‹ Page 4: Preservation and conservation ‹ Page 5: Public engagement ‹ Page 6: Academic and student engagement ‹ Page 7: Working with the science community ‹ Page 8: Associated projects ‹ Pages 9-10: Additional projects ‹ Page 11: Conclusions and acknowledgements ‹ Pages 12-35: Appendices Project Overview This report covers the work undertaken as part of two Wellcome Trust projects based around animal genetics collections at Edinburgh University Library Special Collections: ‘Towards Dolly: Edinburgh, Roslin and the Birth of Modern Genetics’ (April 2012- February 2014; January-May 2016), £135,607 (096694/Z/11/Z) ‘The Making of Dolly: Science, Politics and Ethics’ (October 2013 – December 2015), £101,191 (100731/Z/12/Z) The staff employed on these projects were Clare Button, Project Archivist (2012-2016) and Kristy Davis, Rare Book Cataloguer (2012-2014). Out of the work of these projects, additional funding was also secured for the following: ‘Scoping Beyond Dolly’ (July 2012), £10,000 (099447/Z/12/Z) ‘Science on a Plate: natural history through glass slides 1870-1930’ (October 2014-April 2015), £17,466 (105088/Z/14/Z) ‘Untangling the roots of animal genetics in Edinburgh, 1899-1939’ (forthcoming, June-November 2016), £26,261 (200428/Z/15/Z) 2 The Collections The collections which make up the projects encompass archives, rare books, objects, glass slides and artwork, and date from the 15th century to the present day.
    [Show full text]