The Reception of Hugo de Vries’s Intracellular Pangenesis; the Discussion with August Weismann

Research output: Contribution to JournalArticleAcademicpeer-review

Abstract

In 1889 Hugo de Vries published Intracellular Pangenesis in which he formulated his ideas on heredity. The high expectations of the impression these ideas would make did not come true and publication was negated or reviewed critically. From the reactions of his Dutch colleagues and the discussion with the famous German zoologist August Weismann we conclude that the assertion that each cell contains all hereditary material was controversial and even more the claim that characters are inherited independently of each other. De Vries felt that he had to convince his colleagues of the validity of his theory by providing experimental evidence. He established an important research program which resulted in the rediscovery of Mendel's laws and the publication of The Mutation Theory. This article also illustrates some phenomena that go beyond an interesting episode in the development of theories of heredity. It shows that criticism from colleagues can move a researcher so deeply that he feels compelled to set up an extensive research program. Moreover it illustrates that it is not unusual that a creative scientist is only partially willing to take criticism on his theories into account. Last but not least it demonstrates that common opinion on the validity of specific arguments may change in the course of time.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)119-152
JournalJournal of the history of Biology
Volume36
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2003

Fingerprint

Heredity
research programs
Publications
inheritance (genetics)
zoologists
development theory
Research
researchers
Research Personnel
mutation
Mutation
cells
Pangenesis
August Weismann
Reception
Criticism
Research Program

Cite this

@article{4f7efaf5d4bd429db30dab503e553433,
title = "The Reception of Hugo de Vries’s Intracellular Pangenesis; the Discussion with August Weismann",
abstract = "In 1889 Hugo de Vries published Intracellular Pangenesis in which he formulated his ideas on heredity. The high expectations of the impression these ideas would make did not come true and publication was negated or reviewed critically. From the reactions of his Dutch colleagues and the discussion with the famous German zoologist August Weismann we conclude that the assertion that each cell contains all hereditary material was controversial and even more the claim that characters are inherited independently of each other. De Vries felt that he had to convince his colleagues of the validity of his theory by providing experimental evidence. He established an important research program which resulted in the rediscovery of Mendel's laws and the publication of The Mutation Theory. This article also illustrates some phenomena that go beyond an interesting episode in the development of theories of heredity. It shows that criticism from colleagues can move a researcher so deeply that he feels compelled to set up an extensive research program. Moreover it illustrates that it is not unusual that a creative scientist is only partially willing to take criticism on his theories into account. Last but not least it demonstrates that common opinion on the validity of specific arguments may change in the course of time.",
author = "I.H. Stamhuis",
year = "2003",
doi = "10.1023/A:1022561530690",
language = "English",
volume = "36",
pages = "119--152",
journal = "Journal of the history of Biology",
issn = "0022-5010",
publisher = "Springer Netherlands",

}

The Reception of Hugo de Vries’s Intracellular Pangenesis; the Discussion with August Weismann. / Stamhuis, I.H.

In: Journal of the history of Biology, Vol. 36, 2003, p. 119-152.

Research output: Contribution to JournalArticleAcademicpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - The Reception of Hugo de Vries’s Intracellular Pangenesis; the Discussion with August Weismann

AU - Stamhuis, I.H.

PY - 2003

Y1 - 2003

N2 - In 1889 Hugo de Vries published Intracellular Pangenesis in which he formulated his ideas on heredity. The high expectations of the impression these ideas would make did not come true and publication was negated or reviewed critically. From the reactions of his Dutch colleagues and the discussion with the famous German zoologist August Weismann we conclude that the assertion that each cell contains all hereditary material was controversial and even more the claim that characters are inherited independently of each other. De Vries felt that he had to convince his colleagues of the validity of his theory by providing experimental evidence. He established an important research program which resulted in the rediscovery of Mendel's laws and the publication of The Mutation Theory. This article also illustrates some phenomena that go beyond an interesting episode in the development of theories of heredity. It shows that criticism from colleagues can move a researcher so deeply that he feels compelled to set up an extensive research program. Moreover it illustrates that it is not unusual that a creative scientist is only partially willing to take criticism on his theories into account. Last but not least it demonstrates that common opinion on the validity of specific arguments may change in the course of time.

AB - In 1889 Hugo de Vries published Intracellular Pangenesis in which he formulated his ideas on heredity. The high expectations of the impression these ideas would make did not come true and publication was negated or reviewed critically. From the reactions of his Dutch colleagues and the discussion with the famous German zoologist August Weismann we conclude that the assertion that each cell contains all hereditary material was controversial and even more the claim that characters are inherited independently of each other. De Vries felt that he had to convince his colleagues of the validity of his theory by providing experimental evidence. He established an important research program which resulted in the rediscovery of Mendel's laws and the publication of The Mutation Theory. This article also illustrates some phenomena that go beyond an interesting episode in the development of theories of heredity. It shows that criticism from colleagues can move a researcher so deeply that he feels compelled to set up an extensive research program. Moreover it illustrates that it is not unusual that a creative scientist is only partially willing to take criticism on his theories into account. Last but not least it demonstrates that common opinion on the validity of specific arguments may change in the course of time.

U2 - 10.1023/A:1022561530690

DO - 10.1023/A:1022561530690

M3 - Article

VL - 36

SP - 119

EP - 152

JO - Journal of the history of Biology

JF - Journal of the history of Biology

SN - 0022-5010

ER -