家族图表是如何变成孟德尔式的:家谱内容的变化及其对遗传学理论巩固的影响

IF 0.8 2区 历史学 Q2 HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE
Amir Teicher
{"title":"家族图表是如何变成孟德尔式的:家谱内容的变化及其对遗传学理论巩固的影响","authors":"Amir Teicher","doi":"10.1177/09526951221107558","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article offers a close examination of a small selection of pedigrees taken from German Mendelian and eugenic scholarship of the 1920s and 1930s. It examines the procedures that became customary for presenting data on human inherited pathologies, as well as the frequent changes in the information content of those charts. Relevant biographical and genealogical data was removed, and important indications regarding the diagnostic methods applied by the investigating scholar were lost, as soon as a pedigree was charted or reproduced. Data on healthy individuals was condensed, leading to an emphasis on the hereditary burden of pathological traits. At times, healthy individuals were entirely omitted, as were exogenous martial partners. These modifications paved the way for further theoretical amendments, including the addition of ‘carrier’ status to chosen individuals along the pedigree. With this addition, these pedigrees changed their ontological status, from empirical records of human reproduction to partially hypothetical illustrations of Mendelian theory itself. This process was complemented by the representation of theoretical genetic models in the format of a human pedigree. A comparison to practices of charting pedigrees still common today suggests that the processes hereby revealed are far from exceptional. In line with the ideas put forward by Ludwik Fleck, they are interpreted as germane to the way scientific ideas are communicated and propagated and to the scientific culture of genetics. The article also offers a refinement to Fleck’s analysis of textbook construction, which highlights the extent to which textbook examples differ from the original data on which they are based.","PeriodicalId":50403,"journal":{"name":"History of the Human Sciences","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"How family charts became Mendelian: The changing content of pedigrees and its impact on the consolidation of genetic theory\",\"authors\":\"Amir Teicher\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/09526951221107558\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This article offers a close examination of a small selection of pedigrees taken from German Mendelian and eugenic scholarship of the 1920s and 1930s. It examines the procedures that became customary for presenting data on human inherited pathologies, as well as the frequent changes in the information content of those charts. Relevant biographical and genealogical data was removed, and important indications regarding the diagnostic methods applied by the investigating scholar were lost, as soon as a pedigree was charted or reproduced. Data on healthy individuals was condensed, leading to an emphasis on the hereditary burden of pathological traits. At times, healthy individuals were entirely omitted, as were exogenous martial partners. These modifications paved the way for further theoretical amendments, including the addition of ‘carrier’ status to chosen individuals along the pedigree. With this addition, these pedigrees changed their ontological status, from empirical records of human reproduction to partially hypothetical illustrations of Mendelian theory itself. This process was complemented by the representation of theoretical genetic models in the format of a human pedigree. A comparison to practices of charting pedigrees still common today suggests that the processes hereby revealed are far from exceptional. In line with the ideas put forward by Ludwik Fleck, they are interpreted as germane to the way scientific ideas are communicated and propagated and to the scientific culture of genetics. The article also offers a refinement to Fleck’s analysis of textbook construction, which highlights the extent to which textbook examples differ from the original data on which they are based.\",\"PeriodicalId\":50403,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"History of the Human Sciences\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-07-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"History of the Human Sciences\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/09526951221107558\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"历史学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"History of the Human Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/09526951221107558","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文对20世纪20年代和30年代德国孟德尔和优生学研究中的一小部分谱系进行了仔细的研究。它检查了呈现人类遗传病理学数据的习惯程序,以及这些图表信息内容的频繁变化。一旦绘制或复制了系谱,相关的传记和系谱数据就被删除了,关于调查学者应用的诊断方法的重要指示也就丢失了。对健康个体的数据进行了浓缩,从而强调了病理特征的遗传负担。有时,健康的个体被完全忽略,外源性的军事伙伴也是如此。这些修改为进一步的理论修正铺平了道路,包括在谱系中为选定的个体增加“携带者”身份。有了这一补充,这些谱系改变了它们的本体论地位,从人类繁殖的经验记录变成了孟德尔理论本身的部分假设例证。这一过程得到了以人类谱系形式表示理论遗传模型的补充。与今天仍然常见的家谱绘制实践相比,这里揭示的过程远非特例。根据Ludwik Fleck提出的观点,它们被解释为与科学思想的交流和传播方式以及遗传学的科学文化密切相关。这篇文章还对Fleck对教科书结构的分析进行了改进,强调了教科书实例与它们所基于的原始数据的差异程度。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
How family charts became Mendelian: The changing content of pedigrees and its impact on the consolidation of genetic theory
This article offers a close examination of a small selection of pedigrees taken from German Mendelian and eugenic scholarship of the 1920s and 1930s. It examines the procedures that became customary for presenting data on human inherited pathologies, as well as the frequent changes in the information content of those charts. Relevant biographical and genealogical data was removed, and important indications regarding the diagnostic methods applied by the investigating scholar were lost, as soon as a pedigree was charted or reproduced. Data on healthy individuals was condensed, leading to an emphasis on the hereditary burden of pathological traits. At times, healthy individuals were entirely omitted, as were exogenous martial partners. These modifications paved the way for further theoretical amendments, including the addition of ‘carrier’ status to chosen individuals along the pedigree. With this addition, these pedigrees changed their ontological status, from empirical records of human reproduction to partially hypothetical illustrations of Mendelian theory itself. This process was complemented by the representation of theoretical genetic models in the format of a human pedigree. A comparison to practices of charting pedigrees still common today suggests that the processes hereby revealed are far from exceptional. In line with the ideas put forward by Ludwik Fleck, they are interpreted as germane to the way scientific ideas are communicated and propagated and to the scientific culture of genetics. The article also offers a refinement to Fleck’s analysis of textbook construction, which highlights the extent to which textbook examples differ from the original data on which they are based.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
History of the Human Sciences
History of the Human Sciences 综合性期刊-科学史与科学哲学
CiteScore
1.60
自引率
11.10%
发文量
31
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: History of the Human Sciences aims to expand our understanding of the human world through a broad interdisciplinary approach. The journal will bring you critical articles from sociology, psychology, anthropology and politics, and link their interests with those of philosophy, literary criticism, art history, linguistics, psychoanalysis, aesthetics and law.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信