DOCSLIB.ORG

Redacted for Privacy

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

AN ABSTRACT OF THE DISSERTATION OF J. Christopher Jolly for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in History of Science presented on May 30, 2003. Title: Thresholds of Uncertainty: Radiation and Responsibility in the Fallout Controversy Redacted for Privacy Mary Jo N The public controversy over possible health hazards from radioactive fallout from atomic bomb testing began in 1954, shortly after a thermonuclear test by the United States spread fallout world wide. In the dissertation, I address two of the fundamental questions of the fallout controversy: Was there a threshold of radiation exposure below which there would be no significant injury? What was the role of a responsible scientist in a public scientific debate? Genetics and medicine were the scientific fields most directly involved in the debate over the biological effects of radiation. Geneticists' prewar experiences with radiation led them to believe that there was no safe level of radiation exposure and that any amount of radiation would cause a proportional amount of genetic injury. In contrast to geneticists, physicians and medical researchers generally believed that there was a threshold for somatic injury from radiation. One theme of the dissertation is an examination of how different scientific conceptual and methodological approaches affected how geneticists and medical researchers evaluated the possible health effects of fallout. Geneticists and physicians differed not only in their evaluations of radiation hazards, but also in their views of how the debate over fallout should be conducted. A central question of the fallout debate was how a responsible scientist should act in a public policy controversy involving scientific issues upon which the scientific community had not yet reached a consensus. Based on their assumption that any increase in radiation exposure was harmful, most geneticists believed that they had a responsibility to speak out publicly about the deleterious effects of radiation. Physicians, who believed in the likelihood of a threshold for significant radiation-induced injury, generally adopted the opposite view. They believed that public discussion of possible, but improbable, radiation hazards was irresponsible because it risked creating irrational public fear of radiation exposure. In my dissertation, I examine how the different positions of geneticists and physicians over what constituted responsible public scientific debate affected the rhetoric of the controversy, as well as the implications of the debate in matters of politics and policy. © Copyright by J. Christopher Jolly May 30, 2003 All Rights Reserved Thresholds of Uncertainty: Radiation and Responsibility in the Fallout Controversy By J. Christopher Jolly A DISSERTATION Submitted to Oregon State University In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Presented May 30, 2003 Commencement June 2004 Doctor of Philosophy thesis of J. Christopher Jolly presented on May 30, 2003 Redacted for Privacy Major Professck', rèresenting History of Science Redacted for Privacy Head of the History Department Redacted for Privacy Dean of thè'Graduate School I understand that my thesis will become part of the permanent collection of Oregon State University libraries. My signature below authorizes release of my thesis to any reader upon request. I, Redacted for Privacy J. Christopher Jolly, Authof ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I offer heartfelt thanks to the members of my committee, Mary Jo Nye, Robert Nye, Paul Farber, and Ronald E. Doel. All of them played significant roles in my development as an historian. Paul consistently went above and beyond the call of duty as Department Head in insuring that I successfully navigated the financial and bureaucratic hurdles of graduate school. Bob added significantly to my intellectual breadth and depth in approaching historical questions. Ron showed me the joys of being an archive rat and offered invaluable advice on the broader context of Cold War science. (If there are any mistakes about that in the dissertation, they are mine, not his.) I especially thank Mary Jo for serving as my mentor. She sets an inspiring example of what a historian should be. She possesses many qualities, both personally and intellectually, that helped me through the process. However, as patience and forbearance were the two qualities that doubtless allowed her to see me through, I offer her special thanks for possessing them. I thank my parents for their whole-hearted and unquestioning support throughout my life and my seemingly equally long career as a graduate student. I hope I can pass on the appreciation for education that they instilled in me to others. I thank Dee Baer, who agreed to be an outside reader, not realizing the task to which she committed herself. Her comments were invaluable not only in helping me clarify some of my discussions of the science of genetics (any remaining mistakes are, of course, mine) but also in catching many of the typos. I thank my fellow graduate students, Kristin Johnson, Erik Ellis, and Bill Martin (wherever you are these days, Bill) for their sanity-saving camaraderie during the process. I look forward to being their colleagues throughout our careers. I thank Ginny, Marilyn, and Sharon in the History Department office for providing logistical and moral support throughout my graduate school career. I thank all the archivists and librarians who aided me in my research. Without them I probably would not have found half the information, and I certainly would not have had as an enjoyable time doing it.I also thank the National Science Foundation and the California Institute of Technology Archives for their generous financial support, without which I could not have done the necessary research. I thank Kerry for being my partner in graduate school during most of my time in Corvallis and for still finding the time to listen, commiserate, and keep my spirits up even after she moved on and got a life.I also thank her answering machine for always being there all the other times I called. Despite the academic accomplishment recognized by this degree, her friendship is the best thing I gained from my decision to attend graduate school at Oregon State. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1 Introduction........................................................ 1 2 Genetics, Medicine, and Radiation Before the War 19 3 Atomic Age Genetics............................................ 73 4 Fallout Before the Fallout Controversy....................... 123 5 Worldwide Fallout and the Beginnings of the Controversy 162 6 Genetic Certainties, Genetic Doubts........................... 217 7 The Genetic Basis of the BEAR Committee 267 8 The BEAR Genetics Panel...................................... 314 9 Different Perspectives: The Pathology and Genetics Panels 369 10 The Impact of the BEAR Report................................ 408 11 "The Battle of Fallout".......................................... 455 12 Debate over Somatic Effects.................................... 485 13 Conclusion.......................................................... 538 Archival Sources ....................................................... 565 Bibliography........................................................... 566 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AAAS American Association for the Advancement of Science ABCC Atomic Bomb Casualty Commission AEC Atomic Energy Commission AFSWP Armed Forces Special Weapons Project BEAR Biological Effects of Atomic Radiation BEIR Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation DOE Department of Energy FAS Federation of American Scientists FCDA Federal Civil Defense Administration ICRP International Commission on Radiation Protection JAMA Journal of the American Medical Association JCAE Joint Committee on Atomic Energy MED Manhattan Engineering District MPC Maximum Permissible Concentration NAS National Academy of Sciences NATO North Atlantic Treaty Organization NCRP National Committee on Radiation Protection NEJM New England Journal of Medicine NYOO New York Operations Office WHO World Health Organization Thresholds of Uncertainty: Radiation and Responsibility in the Fallout Controversy Introduction "You might say it was out of control." Representative Chet Holifleld (D-CA), commenting on the Bravo Shot In the early dawn of 1 March 1954, Shinzo Suzuki, a crewman aboard the Japanese fishing ship, Fukuryu Maru, or The Lucky Dragon, called out to his crewmates "The sun rises in the west!" The vessel was trolling for fish 80-90 miles east of the Bikini atoll, perhaps best known as a test site for the United States nuclear program. As the ominous glow surged across the sky, the Japanese fisherman debated whether or not they were witnessing a pika-don. A compound of the Japanese words for thunder and flash, pika-don had been coined shortly after the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings to describe the atomic bomb. The Lucky Dragon 's chief engineer, Tadashi Yamamoto, advised the crew to pay attention because "strange things may follow!" Shortly after Yamamoto's warning, crewman Takashi Suzuki did note something strange--white sand was falling from the heavens.' Yamamoto was right in ways he probably did not foresee. The white sand that fell upon the crew of the Lucky Dragon was radioactive fallout from the Bravo shotthe United States first test of a deliverable thermonuclear device. The bomb was an unqualified technical success, producing an explosive yield of fifteen megatons, almost double what the weapons designers had predicted. Though successful from the perspective
Recommended publications
  • The Online Version of Catalogue 32 Does Not Contain the Printed

    The Online Version of Catalogue 32 Does Not Contain the Printed

    Please note: The online version of Catalogue 32 does not contain the printed version’s 172 black and white illustrations—this is because the illustrations in the printed catalogue were submitted to the printer as hard copy, rather than electronic files. Future catalogues will have digitized illustrations, so that their online versions will be exact counterparts of the printed ones. Catalogue 32 CLASSICS OF SCIENCE & MEDICINE With 172 black & white and 6 color illustrations Table of Contents Science & Medicine Page 5 Recent Books, History & Reference 80 Norman Publishing 83 About Our Cover. The cover of Catalogue 32 features the following: (1) No. 198, a beautifully executed bronze bust of Ambroise Paré by the 19th century French sculptor Emile Picault (ca. 1893); (2) No. 109, Domenico Fontana’s Della transportatione dell’obelisco (1590), a classic of Renaissance engineering describing the removal of the Vatican obelisk to its present site in the Piazza of St. Peter; (3) No. 127, George Robert Gray’s Genera of Birds (1849), with magniWcent plates by David William Mitchell, Joseph Wolf, Edward Lear and others; (4) On the Fabric of the Human Body (1998), the English translation of the Wrst book of Andreas 1543 1 4 Vesalius’s De humani corporis fabrica ( ); 5 (5) No. 112, Narrative of a Journey to the Shores of the Polar Sea (1823), John Franklin’s clas- 23 sic account of his Wrst Arctic expedition of 1819–22; (6) No. 103, Oliver Byrne’s edition of The First Six Books of the Elements of Euclid 6 (1847), one of the most striking and attrac- tive examples of color printing issued by the noted Victorian publisher William Pickering; and (7) No.
  • 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

    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.
  • 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. 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.
  • Copyright by Paul Harold Rubinson 2008

    Copyright by Paul Harold Rubinson 2008

    Copyright by Paul Harold Rubinson 2008 The Dissertation Committee for Paul Harold Rubinson certifies that this is the approved version of the following dissertation: Containing Science: The U.S. National Security State and Scientists’ Challenge to Nuclear Weapons during the Cold War Committee: —————————————————— Mark A. Lawrence, Supervisor —————————————————— Francis J. Gavin —————————————————— Bruce J. Hunt —————————————————— David M. Oshinsky —————————————————— Michael B. Stoff Containing Science: The U.S. National Security State and Scientists’ Challenge to Nuclear Weapons during the Cold War by Paul Harold Rubinson, B.A.; M.A. Dissertation Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of The University of Texas at Austin in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy The University of Texas at Austin August 2008 Acknowledgements Thanks first and foremost to Mark Lawrence for his guidance, support, and enthusiasm throughout this project. It would be impossible to overstate how essential his insight and mentoring have been to this dissertation and my career in general. Just as important has been his camaraderie, which made the researching and writing of this dissertation infinitely more rewarding. Thanks as well to Bruce Hunt for his support. Especially helpful was his incisive feedback, which both encouraged me to think through my ideas more thoroughly, and reined me in when my writing overshot my argument. I offer my sincerest gratitude to the Smith Richardson Foundation and Yale University International Security Studies for the Predoctoral Fellowship that allowed me to do the bulk of the writing of this dissertation. Thanks also to the Brady-Johnson Program in Grand Strategy at Yale University, and John Gaddis and the incomparable Ann Carter-Drier at ISS.
  • Introduction and Historical Perspective

    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
  • Dear President Obama

    Dear President Obama

    OPEN LETTER TO PRESIDENT OBAMA FROM U.S. ORGANIZATIONS Mr. President: It’s time to move from talk to action on nuclear disarmament. April 28, 2014 Dear President Obama, During the closing session of the Nuclear Security Summit in The Hague on March 25, 2014, you cited a number of concrete measures to secure highly-enriched uranium and plutonium and strengthen the nuclear nonproliferation regime that have been implemented as a result of the three Nuclear Security Summits, concluding: “So what’s been valuable about this summit is that it has not just been talk, it’s been action.” Would that you would apply the same standard to nuclear disarmament! On April 5, 2009 in Prague, you gave millions of people around the world new hope when you declared: “So today, I state clearly and with conviction America’s commitment to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons.” Bolstered by that hope, over the past three years, there has been a new round of nuclear disarmament initiatives by governments not possessing nuclear weapons, both within and outside the United Nations. Yet the United States has been notably “missing in action” at best, and dismissive or obstructive at worst. This conflict may come to a head at the 2015 Review of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT). We write now, on the eve of the third Preparatory Committee (PrepCom) meeting for the 2015 Review Conference of the NPT, which will take place at UN headquarters in New York April 28 – May 9, 2014, to underscore our plea that your administration shed its negative attitude and participate constructively in deliberations and negotiations regarding the creation of a multilateral process to achieve a nuclear weapons free world.
  • The Bravo Test and the Death and Life of the Global Ecosystem in the Early Anthropocene

    The Bravo Test and the Death and Life of the Global Ecosystem in the Early Anthropocene

    Volume 13 | Issue 29 | Number 1 | Article ID 4343 | Jul 20, 2015 The Asia-Pacific Journal | Japan Focus The Bravo Test and the Death and Life of the Global Ecosystem in the Early Anthropocene Robert Jacobs Introduction contaminating fish, birds, animals and plants far from nuclear test sites. As many of these On March 1st 1954 the United States tested its radionuclides remain dangerous for hundreds first deliverable hydrogen bomb at Bikini Atoll of thousands of years, the dangers inherent in in the Marshall Islands. The weapon yielded a thermonuclear detonations would produce force three times as large as its designers had legacies still not well understood. planned or anticipated.1 The radioactive fallout cloud that resulted from the weapon would kill As radiation from Bravo the test spread around a fisherman located 100 km away, cause illness the Pacific Ocean, contaminating fish that in hundreds and perhaps thousands of people would be caught thousands of miles away, across hundreds of miles, and contaminate human conceptions of warfare and of nature entire atolls with high levels of radiation also began to mutate and change. displacing residents most of whom have never been able to return to their homes. Slowly it U.S. strategic nuclear planners quickly would become evident that, while this weapon recognized the radiological fallout as a had been tested in the Marshall Islands, its powerful tool of war, separate from the power detonation was a global event. of blast and heat that were fundamental to nuclear war fighting strategies. Over time both People around the world were shocked by the the United States and the former Soviet Union devastation wrought by the American nuclear would integrate the capacity of this weapon to attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki near the poison vast swaths of the Earth with lethal end of World War Two.
  • Radiocarbon After Four Decades RADIOCARBON R.E

    Radiocarbon After Four Decades RADIOCARBON R.E

    Radiocarbon After Four Decades RADIOCARBON R.E. Taylor A. Long R.S. Kra Editors Radiocarbon After Four Decades An Interdisciplinary Perspective With 148 Illustrations Springer Science+Business Media, LLC R.E. Thylor Austin Long Department of Anthropology Department of Geosciences Institute of Geophysics and Planetary Physics The University of Arizona University of California, Riverside Thscon, AZ 85721 USA Riverside, CA 92521-0418 USA Renee S. Kra Department of Geosciences The University of Arizona Thscon, AZ 85721 USA Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Radiocarbon after four decades: an interdisciplinary perspective / [editors], R.E. Taylor, Austin Long, Renee S. Kra. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-1-4757-4251-0 ISBN 978-1-4757-4249-7 (eBook) DOI 1O.l007/978-1-4757-4249-7 1. Radiocarbon dating. I. Taylor, R. E. (Royal Ervin), 1938- II. Long, Austin. III. Kra, Renee S. QC798.D3R3 1992 546'.6815884-dc20 91-44448 Printed on acid-free paper. © 1992 Springer Science+BusinessMedia New York Originally published by Springer-Verlag New York, Inc. in 1992 Softcover reprint of the hardcover 1st edition 1992 All rights reserved. This work may not be translated or copied in whole or in part without the written per­ mission of the publisher,Springer Science+Bnsiness Media, LLC, except for brief excerpts in connection with reviews or scholarly analysis. Use in connection with any form of information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereaf­ ter developed is forbidden. The use of general descriptive names, trade names, trademarks, etc., in this publication, even if the former are not especially identified, is not to be taken as a sign that such names, as understood by the Trade Marks and Merchandise Marks Act, may accordingly be used freely by anyone.
  • Appendix E Nobel Prizes in Nuclear Science

    Appendix E Nobel Prizes in Nuclear Science

    Nuclear Science—A Guide to the Nuclear Science Wall Chart ©2018 Contemporary Physics Education Project (CPEP) Appendix E Nobel Prizes in Nuclear Science Many Nobel Prizes have been awarded for nuclear research and instrumentation. The field has spun off: particle physics, nuclear astrophysics, nuclear power reactors, nuclear medicine, and nuclear weapons. Understanding how the nucleus works and applying that knowledge to technology has been one of the most significant accomplishments of twentieth century scientific research. Each prize was awarded for physics unless otherwise noted. Name(s) Discovery Year Henri Becquerel, Pierre Discovered spontaneous radioactivity 1903 Curie, and Marie Curie Ernest Rutherford Work on the disintegration of the elements and 1908 chemistry of radioactive elements (chem) Marie Curie Discovery of radium and polonium 1911 (chem) Frederick Soddy Work on chemistry of radioactive substances 1921 including the origin and nature of radioactive (chem) isotopes Francis Aston Discovery of isotopes in many non-radioactive 1922 elements, also enunciated the whole-number rule of (chem) atomic masses Charles Wilson Development of the cloud chamber for detecting 1927 charged particles Harold Urey Discovery of heavy hydrogen (deuterium) 1934 (chem) Frederic Joliot and Synthesis of several new radioactive elements 1935 Irene Joliot-Curie (chem) James Chadwick Discovery of the neutron 1935 Carl David Anderson Discovery of the positron 1936 Enrico Fermi New radioactive elements produced by neutron 1938 irradiation Ernest Lawrence
  • UC San Diego UC San Diego Electronic Theses and Dissertations

    UC San Diego UC San Diego Electronic Theses and Dissertations

    UC San Diego UC San Diego Electronic Theses and Dissertations Title The new prophet : Harold C. Urey, scientist, atheist, and defender of religion Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/3j80v92j Author Shindell, Matthew Benjamin Publication Date 2011 Peer reviewed|Thesis/dissertation eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO The New Prophet: Harold C. Urey, Scientist, Atheist, and Defender of Religion A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree Doctor of Philosophy in History (Science Studies) by Matthew Benjamin Shindell Committee in charge: Professor Naomi Oreskes, Chair Professor Robert Edelman Professor Martha Lampland Professor Charles Thorpe Professor Robert Westman 2011 Copyright Matthew Benjamin Shindell, 2011 All rights reserved. The Dissertation of Matthew Benjamin Shindell is approved, and it is acceptable in quality and form for publication on microfilm and electronically: ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ Chair University of California, San Diego 2011 iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Signature Page……………………………………………………………………...... iii Table of Contents……………………………………………………………………. iv Acknowledgements………………………………………………………………….
  • Chromosomal Theory and Genetic Linkage

    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).
  • Front Matter (PDF)

    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.