Heredity or Environment ?

Jennings, Denys

doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(00)73966-3

Cited by 3 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Equally problematic was the tendency, especially of the American school, to postulate simple Mendelian factors to explain complex behaviours—that is, they worked under the unit‐character concept of early Mendelism (Jennings, 1924; Morgan, 1932; Ludmerer, 1972: p. 62). The unit‐character concept is based on the assumption of a one‐to‐one relationship between a phenotypic character and a Mendelian gene.…”

Section: Opposition To the Scientific (Genetic) Basis Of Eugenicsmentioning

confidence: 98%

Eugenics and Modern Biology: Critiques of Eugenics, 1910–1945

Allen

2011

Annals of Human Genetics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary Eugenics in most western countries in the first four decades of the 20th century was based on the idea that genes control most human phenotypic traits, everything from physical features such as polydactyly and eye colour to physiological conditions such as the A‐B‐O blood groups to mental and personality traits such as “feeblemindedness,” alcoholism and pauperism. In assessing the development of the eugenics movement—its rise and decline between 1900 and 1950—it is important to recognise that its naïve assumptions and often flawed methodologies were openly criticised at the time by scientists and nonscientists alike. This paper will present a brief overview of the critiques launched against eugenicists’ claims, particularly criticisms of the American school led by Charles B. Davenport. Davenport's approach to eugenics will be contrasted to his British counterpart, Karl Pearson, founder and first editor of the Annals of Eugenics. It was not the case that nearly everyone in the early 20th century accepted eugenic conclusions as the latest, cutting‐edge science. There are lessons from this historical approach for dealing with similar naïve claims about genetics today.

show abstract

Section: Opposition To the Scientific (Genetic) Basis Of Eugenicsmentioning

confidence: 98%

Eugenics and Modern Biology: Critiques of Eugenics, 1910–1945

Allen

2011

Annals of Human Genetics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Depending upon whether the critic was a sociologist (Bernard, 1924;Ward, 1883;Cooley, 1896Cooley, , 1922, an anthropologist (Boas, 1894),apsychologist(Dunlap, 1919Kuo, 1921Kuo, , 1922, or a biologist (Child, 1924;Herrick, 1924;Jennings, 1924), one or a few of the criteria mentioned by Morgan were singled out for special criticism. Since most of those on both sides of the instinct dispute were willing to admit the validity of instincts in animals, the debates often centered around the question of human instincts (did they exist and if so how many were there?…”

Section: The Anti-instinct Movement and The Issue Ofmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Kuo rejected the role of heredity in behavior because behavioral development and the resulting adult phenotype is subject to variation and environmental modification, facts that even in 1920 were widely known to be irrelevant to the question of heredity (i.e., whether gene alteration affects the behavioral phenotype). At the risk of repeating myself I hasten to point out that after 1910 most serious biologists recognized that all characteristics of the organism, including neural structures, may be altered by changing the genes; that all characteristics may be altered by changing the conditions of development; and that, in theory at least, any kind of change induced by gene alteration, can also be induced (phenocopies) by altering the environment (e.g., see Bauer, 1911, Lillie, 1927Morgan et aI., 1915;Child, 1924;Jennings, 1924Jennings, , 1925. It is particularly puzzling why this escaped the notice of Kuo, since several other behavioral scientists, including a few explicitly interested in developmental problems, appeared to be familiar with the progress made in biology on these issues.…”

Section: The Anti-instinct Movement and The Issue Ofmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ontogeny

1982

Perspectives in Ethology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It has preoccupied biologists (e.g., Jennings, 1924), ethologists (e.g., Lorenz, 1965), psychologists (e.g., Plomin, 1990), and sociologists (e.g., Homans, 1979) since Francis Galton (1874) first formalized the distinction-and even before (see Medawar & Medawar, 1983, pp. 194-196).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We can, however, put her perspective in historical context by noting that it has much in common with (a) classic critiques of the nature-nurture dichotomy (e.g., Lehrman, 1953Lehrman, , 1970Verplanck, 1955), (b) prior alternatives to "genetic imperialism" (e.g., Jennings, 1924;Weiss, 1971; see Oyama, 1989, p. 10), and (c) earlier emphases on life-span development (e.g., Beach, 1955;Kantor & Smith, 1975;Kuo, 1967Kuo, /1976Schneirla, 1966).3 Contemporary syntheses and extensions of this earlier work may be found under the rubrics of developmental interactionism, probabilistic epigenesis, an interactionist approach, dialectical materialism, and the inheritance of niches (see, e.g., Delprato, 1987;Gottlieb, 1983Gottlieb, , 1992Johnston, 1988;Levins & Lewontin, 1985;Miller, 1988a;West, King, & Arberg, 1988). Oyama herself acknowledges much of this classical and contemporary work and more, noting parallels between it and her own efforts.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%