Copyright © 1997 by Robert C. Olby
(This essay is made available exclusively at MendelWeb, for non-commercial educational use only, with the kind permission of the author. Although you are welcome to download this text, please do not reproduce it without the author's permission.)
Literary scolars and intellectual historians have for many years studied the reception of "great" works of literature and their authors. Many have persuasively argued that what is considered "great," in any age, often has as much to do with historical and poltical context as with qualities inherent in the texts and the lives of their authors. Indeed, it has become common that such studies dispute whether the notion of an "inherent quality," in a work of literature or in a person, is even coherent. Whether or not one adopts such an extreme view, it is clear that the examination of how a work or author comes to be regarded as "great, " and how it comes to have the particular reputation it has, can provide interesting commentary on the tastes and politics of cultures, disciplines and nations.
The reception and interpretation of "great" scientific works is particularly interesting, because often their significance comes to be described in terms their authors could not easily have understood. While it is quite possible that Dostoyevsky might easily have understood the presentation of his work in a current undergraduate course in Russian literature, it is less clear that Mendel would easily have understood, much less appreciated, the presentation of his work in a current undergraduate course in genetics. Similarly, in the development of a modern scientific discipline, techniques (both experimental and theoretical) change so rapidly over time, that the interpretation of the work of a scientific "pioneer" is likely to be described in a language that does not easily map onto the language used by that person (though admittedly this incommensurability may be more striking in contemporary physics than in contemporary biology).
Olby's essay, then, is an attempt to rigorously question and review how Mendel's work has been regarded and represented since 1900, and to show how the image of Mendel as "the first geneticist," is a complicated construction, whether we choose to defend or criticize it. I am very grateful to Professor Olby for allowing this excellent, previously unpublished essay to appear here, and am honored to have him among the authors of MendelWeb.
Copyright © 1997 by Robert C. Olby.
(This essay is made available exclusively at MendelWeb, for non-commercial educational use only, with the kind permission of the author. Although you are welcome to download this text, please do not reproduce it without the author's permission.)