Darwinian evolution across the disciplines.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Biomedical subjects
Publications and source records attributed to M R Dietrich.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
During the early 20th century the diverse practices of genetics were unified by the concept of the gene. This classical gene was simultaneously a unit of structure, function, mutation, and recombination. Starting in the 1940s, however, the classical gene began to fragment. Today when we speak of a gene for some malady, a regulatory gene, a structural gene, or a gene frequency, it is entirely possible that we are deploying different gene concepts even though we are using the same term. The problem of the gene addresses the fragmentation of the classical gene concept by asking to what extent a comprehensive and unifying gene concept is possible or desirable. Fully comprehensive gene concepts seem untenable today, but, within different disciplinary domains, unifying, but non-comprehensive, gene concepts can be epistemically worthwhile. The problem of the gene persists, however, not because of its epistemic value, but because of its political value. Using both the arguments for newly proposed gene concepts and the historical dispute over the classical gene, I argue that the desirability of gene concepts rests in part on the political ramifications of their deployment and contestation.
Using an analogy between moths and men, in 1916, Richard Goldschmidt proposed that homosexuality was a case of genetic intersexuality. As he strove to create a unified theory of sex determination that would encompass animals ranging from moths to men, Goldschmidt's doubts grew concerning the association of homosexuality with intersexuality until, in 1931, he dropped homosexuality from his theory of intersexuality. Despite Goldschmidt's explicit rejection of his theory of homosexuality, Theo Lang, a researcher in the Genealogical-Demographic Department of the Institute for Psychiatric Research in Munich, revived it, maintained Goldschmidt's association with it, and argued on its behalf in publications from 1936 to 1960. Lang's appropriation of Goldschmidt's theory did not depend on his resolution of the difficulties Goldschmidt had found with his own theory. Lang and Goldschmidt, I argue, had fundamentally different scientific and social commitments that allowed one to reject this theory of homosexuality and the other to accept it.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.