 |
|
 Bruce Stillman, Ph.D.
Page 1 of 3
In the waning years of the 19th century, the Biological Laboratory at Cold Spring Harbor was expanding its summer program of research and courses that then focused on organism-based biology, encompassing the fields of botany, zoology, bacteriology, and embryology. At the same time, events in Europe would soon have a profound influence on the science at the fledgling laboratory and shape much of biology in the then new 20th century. The hybridist, Hugo de Vries, professor of botany at the University of Amsterdam, completed his extensive, decade-long research on plant hybridization that uncovered quantitative laws of inheritance, research that he first published in 1900. Sparked by the circulation of reprints of the de Vries manuscript, Carl Correns and Erich von Tschermak published accounts of their independent research on plant hybridization in the same year, coming to the same conclusion that traits were inherited as discrete, quantitative units. All three had independently, and to de Vries's disappointment, rediscovered Gregor Mendel's laws of heredity that had remained unappreciated for over three decades. The Darwinian disciple William Bateson, upon receiving de Vries's paper, immediately recognized the importance of the combined discoveries. He soon presented a synthesis of the new field to the Royal Horticultural Society in May of 1900, almost exactly 100 years ago, and, in 1905, coined the term genetics.
Charles Davenport, who was by then director of the Biological Laboratory, was aware of these dramatic developments and quickly seized the opportunity to bring Mendelism to Cold Spring Harbor. Davenport was already concerned with understanding inheritance and how it related to evolution. By 1902, he had outlined a plan to the Executive Committee of the Carnegie Institution of Washington for the establishment of a Station for Experimental Evolution, a proposal that was in competition with a rival scheme from the Marine Biological Laboratory at Woods Hole. Fortunately, the Carnegie Institution executive approved Davenport's proposal in 1903, and by 1904, the Station opened with great fanfare. The now celebrated Hugo de Vries was appointed as an honorary associate of the Station for Experimental Evolution and spoke at the opening of the new laboratory. There, he echoed Davenport's belief that understanding the process of evolution necessitates direct experimentation on plants and animals. Remarkably, de Vries chose not to mention Mendel, probably because he considered his 10 or 12 years of studies on plant hybridization to be more extensive and superior to Mendel's work with a limited number of species. Although Mendel was not yet celebrated by those present, Charles Darwin was much in the minds of the assembled, and his revolutionary ideas and studies on evolution of species, by now 45 years old, heavily influenced the goals of the new science. The very name of the station indicated that the principal goal was to understand the laws of inheritance and, thereafter, the secrets of evolution would fall into place.
Evolution and the new science were not only on the minds of the assembled scientists, but clearly were of concern to others present. W.R.T. Jones, brother of the late John D. Jones, one of founders of the Biological Laboratory and governor of the Wawapex Society which owned the Carnegie land, suggested that the new experimental station would revitalize Cold Spring Harbor and its environs, making "our village" well known both at home and abroad. That prediction was more than fulfilled. But Jones also raised concern by stating, "I trust in going back and investigating, as far as possible, the origin and order in creation, it will find nothing to interfere with the doctrine of the church just around the corner, erected largely by the aid of family relatives, in its efforts for improving morals and explaining to the best of its ability life hereafter." This not so subtle plea reflected the tussle between Darwin's ideas and the doctrines of the Christian church that, unfortunately, has not disappeared after 100 years of enormous insight into the nature of life and the process of evolution. Recent pronouncements by misguided educators in Kansas, who eliminated the teaching of evolution from school curriculum because creation was not taught, make it clear that it is still a challenge for some to separate religious beliefs from scientific reason and progress. What is not appreciated by many is that creation, if it should be taught at all, should be taught within the context of religious education, not in the schools as an alternative to evolution. But the very fact that this debate still exits suggests that science will always be a target for attack both because it often challenges accepted opinion and dogma and because it is sometimes difficult for the public to grasp complex new ideas. Thus, it is easy for a vocal few to twist the scientific progress to confuse others.
|
