====== Redaktion Artikel Gen, genetisch ======
===== Allgemeines =====

Verfasser:

Koautor:

Redaktionell verantwortlich:

Abgabetermin:

Autorenabsprachen:

Expertisen:

Bemerkungen:


===== Stand der Redaktionsarbeit =====



--- //[[sinn@zfl-berlin.org|Constantin Sinn]] 2020/03/31 13:10//

===== Internes Material =====

==== B. Sekundärmaterial ====
=== Begriffsgeschichtliche Arbeiten ===

=== Sonstige Literatur ===


  * Gros, François: Les secrets du gène. Paris, 1986. (Nouvelle édition revue et augmeentée. Paris, 1991)

|Abstract:  We outline three very different concepts of the gene—instrumental, nominal, and postgenomic. The instrumental gene has a critical role in the construction and interpretation of experiments in which the relationship between genotype and phenotype is explored via hybridization between organisms or directly between nucleic acid molecules. It also plays an important theoretical role in the foundations of disciplines such as quantitative genetics and population genetics. The nominal gene is a critical practical tool, allowing stable communication between bioscientists in a wide range of fields grounded in well-defined sequences of nucleotides, but this concept does not embody major theoretical insights into genome structure or function. The post-genomic gene embodies the continuing project of understanding how genome structure supports genome function, but with a deflationary picture of the gene as a structural unit. This final concept of the gene poses a significant challenge to conventional assumptions about the relationship between genome structure and function, and between genotype and phenotype.|

  * Leeming, William: Ideas about heredity, genetics, and ‘medical genetics’ in Britain, 1900–1982. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 36/3, 2005, S. 538-558

|Abstract: The aim of this paper is to understand how evolving ideas about heredity and genetics influenced new medical interests and practices and, eventually, the formation of ‘medical genetics’ as a medical specialism in Britain. I begin the paper by highlighting the social and institutional changes through which these ideas passed. I argue that, with time, there was a decisive convergence in thought that combined ideas about the familial aspects of heredity and the health needs of populations with an omnibus ‘genetic’ approach to health and illness that focused on the structures and activities of chromosomes and genes in individuals. I show how this convergence in thought was spurred on, first, by innovations in genetic science and technology in the years after 1960, and, second, by negotiated protocols and standards of medical practice worked out by bodies such as the relevant royal colleges, the linked associations and societies for medical professionals, affected training and research authorities, and the state. The notion of ‘medical genetics’ in Britain consequently gained a semblance of unanimity over its basic reference points and arrived at a meaning directly tributary to current acceptance of the term in the context of a medical specialism.|


  * López Beltrán, Carlos: In the cradle of heredity: French physicians and l'hérédité naturelle in the early nineteenth century. Journal of the History of Biology 37 (2004) S. 39–72. [[http://www.springerlink.com/content/q4t618173gq02683/fulltext.pdf|Volltext]]

|Abstract: This paper argues that our modern concept ofbiological heredity was first clearlyintroduced in a theoretical and practicalsetting by the generation of French physiciansthat were active between 1810 and 1830. Itdescribes how from a traditional focus onhereditary transmission of disease, influentialFrench medical men like Esquirol,Fodéré, Piorry, Lévy, moved towardsconsidering heredity a central concept for theconception of the human bodily frame, and itsset of physical and moral dispositions. Thenotion of heredity as a natural force, with awide ranging capabilities of transmittingdifferentially both fundamental and accidentalcharacters was generalized by that generationof physicians with the help of contemporarynaturalists and physiologists. By 1830 the termhérédité was widespread, andit shared the explanatory and semanticqualities of traditional medical concepts likeconstitution and temperament. An analysis isgiven of the main developments that led to theconception of biological (including human)bodies as consisting of a layered, hierarchicalorganization of characters, differentiallyaffected by the laws of conservation (Heredity)and change (Inneity, Variation). Themid-century work of the French physicianProsper Lucas, Traité Philosophique etPhysiologique de L''HéréditéNaturelle is shown to be the culmination ofthe efforts of several generations of Frenchphysicians towards having a feasible, complexlystructured notion of how heredity works.|

  * Müller-Wille, Staffan: Hybrids, pure cultures, and pure lines: From nineteenth-century biology to twentieth-century genetics. Studies in History and Philosophy of the Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 38 (2007) S. 796–806.

|Abstract: Prompted by recent recognitions of the omnipresence of horizontal gene transfer among microbial species and the associated emphasis on exchange, rather than isolation, as the driving force of evolution, this essay will reflect on hybridization as one of the central concerns of nineteenth-century biology. I will argue that an emphasis on horizontal exchange was already endorsed by 'biology' when it came into being around 1800 and was brought to full fruition with the emergence of genetics in 1900. The true revolution in nineteenth-century life sciences, I maintain, consisted in a fundamental shift in ontology, which eroded the boundaries between individual and species, and allowed biologists to move up and down the scale of organic complexity. Life became a property extending both 'downwards', to the parts that organisms were composed of, as well as 'upwards', to the collective entities constituted by the relations of exchange and interaction that organisms engage in to reproduce. This mode of thinking was crystallized by Gregor Mendel and consolidated in the late nineteenth-century conjunction of biochemistry, microbiology and breeding in agro-industrial settings. This conjunction and its implications are especially exemplified by Wilhelm Johannsen's and Martinus Beijerinck's work on pure lines and cultures. An understanding of the subsequent constraints imposed by the evolutionary synthesis of the twentieth century on models of genetic systems may require us to rethink the history of biology and displace Darwin's theory of natural selection from that history's centre.|

  * Müller-Wille, Staffan u. Vitezslav Orel: From Linnaean species to Mendelian factors: Elements of hybridism, 1751-1870. Annals of Science 64 )2007) S. 171–215.

|Abstract: In 1979, Robert C. Olby published an article titled 'Mendel no Mendelian?', in which he questioned commonly held views that Gregor Mendel (1822-1884) laid the foundations for modern genetics. According to Olby, and other historians of science who have since followed him, Mendel worked within the tradition of so-called hybridists, who were interested in the evolutionary role of hybrids rather than in laws of inheritance. We propose instead to view the hybridist tradition as an experimental programme characterized by a dynamic development that inadvertently led to a focus on the inheritance of individual traits. Through a careful analysis of publications on hybridization by Carl Linnaeus (1707-1778), Joseph Gottlieb Koelreuter (1733-1806), Carl Friedrich Gärtner (1772-1850), and finally Mendel himself, we will show that this development consisted in repeated reclassifications of hybrids to accommodate anomalies, which in the end allowed Mendel to draw analogies between whole organisms, individual traits, and 'elements' contained in reproductive cells. Mendel's achievement was a product of normal science, and yet a revolutionary step forward. This also explains why, in 1900, when the report he gave on his experiments was 'rediscovered', Mendel could be read as a 'Mendelian'.|

  * Portin, Petter: The concept of the gene: Short history and present status. The Quarterly Review of Biology 68 (1993) S. 173–223.

|Abstract: The concept of the gene is and has always been a continuously evolving one. In order to provide a structure for understanding the concept, its history is divided into classical, neoclassical, and modern periods. The classical view prevailed into the 1930s, and conceived the gene as an indivisible unit of genetic transmission, recombination, mutation, and function. The discovery of intragenic recombination in the early 1940s and the establishment of DNA as the physical basis of inheritance led to the neoclassical concept of the gene, which prevailed until the 1970s. In this view the gene (or cistron, as it was called then) was subdivided into its constituent parts, mutons and recons, identified as nucleotides. Each cistron was believed to be responsible for the synthesis of a single mRNA and hence for one polypeptide. This colinearity hypothesis prevailed from 1955 to the 1970s. Starting from the early 1970s, DNA technologies have led to the modern period of gene conceptualization, wherein none of the classical or neoclassical criteria are sufficient to define a gene. Modern discoveries include those of repeated genes, split genes and alternative splicing, assembled genes, overlapping genes, transposable genes, complex promoters, multiple polyadenylation sites, polyprotein genes, editing of the primary transcript, and nested genes. We are currently left with a rather abstract, open, and generalized concept of the gene, even though our comprehension of the structure and organization of the genetic material has greatly increased.|

----
^ Kategorien: {{tag> }}  ^