The role of mentoring in the careers of geneticists.

This commentary reflects on the importance of mentoring in science education. It is written from the perspective of a geneticist and historian of science, but its implications extend to many other fields. A lineage of mentoring is traced from the author's educational experience back through several centuries in the form of an intellectual pedigree.

Scientific feuds, polemics, and ad hominem arguments in basic and special-interest genetics.

Scientific disputes are commonly presented and settled in journal publications. Most are resolved by a weighing of evidence and new findings. In some cases the arguments are personal and in the form of ad hominem attacks on the personality or integrity of an author of a journal article. Many famous scientists (e.g., Galileo, Newton, and Hooke) used ad hominem arguments in responding to their critics. William Bateson, W.F.R. Weldon, William Castle, and H.J. Muller used ad hominem arguments in their publications until the end of World War I, when editorial policy of journals changed. Motivating some of the attacks are philosophic differences (such as holistic or reductionist approaches to science), ideological differences (such as Marxist or Capitalist outlooks), politics (such as Cold War depictions by East and West on fallout from nuclear testing), or conflicts of interest (which can be professional or financial such as the debates over nontraditional and orthodox medicine or over tobacco smoking and health). Most of the time, the disputes are motivated by honest disagreements over the interpretation of the data. A recent surge (2009-2016) of ad hominem attacks by Edward Calabrese has appeared disparaging H. J. Muller, E. B. Lewis, other twentieth-century contributors to radiation genetics, and the National Academy of Sciences. They address the mutational effects of low-dose radiation exposure. Calabrese's attacks have led to responses by geneticists in the field of mutagenesis, by agencies criticized by Calabrese, and by students and colleagues of those who have been accused of deception by Calabrese. This article reviews some of the history of ad hominem arguments in science and the background to the attacks by Calabrese. I argue that Calabrese's characterization of Muller and his supporters is unjust, misleading, and hurtful. I also propose some methods for dealing with or preventing ad hominem attacks in professional journals.

How fruit flies came to launch the chromosome theory of heredity.

Fruit flies were used by several laboratories between 1901 and 1910 for studies of experimental evolution at Harvard, Indiana University, and Cold Spring Harbor before Thomas Hunt Morgan found his white-eyed mutation that we associate with the beginnings of the fly lab at Columbia University. The major players prior to Morgan were William Castle and his students at Harvard University, Frank Lutz at Cold Spring Harbor, and Fernandus Payne whose ideas for working with fruit flies were shaped by his studies of blind cave fauna at Indiana University. Payne's interests were stimulated by the work of Carl Eigenmann, an authority on blind cave fauna, and William Moenkhaus, who introduced Payne to fruit flies at Indiana University before Payne moved to Columbia to pursue graduate work with Morgan and Edmund Wilson. The motivations of the laboratories differed in the theories used for their work. Castle spread the word about the utility of fruit flies for research, but Payne gave Morgan his first fruit flies for research leading to the discovery of the white-eye mutation.

H.J. Muller's contributions to mutation research.

H. J. Muller is best known for his Nobel Prize work on the induction of mutations by ionizing radiation. Geneticists are less familiar with his contributions to mutation and how he related the process of mutagenesis to the gene and distinguished gene mutations from other genetic and epigenetic events such as polyploidy, chromosome rearrangements, and position effects. The hallmark of Muller's contributions is his design of genetic stocks to solve genetic problems and allow experimentation to reveal new phenomena. In this review I relate Muller's personality to his teaching and research and present a history of Muller's ideas on mutation from his first days in Morgan's fly lab to his final thoughts on what became called "Muller's ratchet", a term he did not get to enjoy because it was coined seven years after his death.

Speaking out about the social implications of science: the uneven legacy of H. J. Muller.

H. J. Muller (1890-1967) was unusual as a scientist because he spoke out on numerous occasions about the uses and abuses of genetics in society. In this article, I follow Muller's efforts to do so and the consequences that they had on his career, his productivity as a research scientist, and his reputation. The shifting sites of Muller's work--which ranged from Columbia University to Texas, from Berlin to Moscow and Leningrad, from Madrid to Edinburgh, and from Amherst to Indiana University--made his activism unusual. Muller paid a price for his activism, and his reputation today is still marred by what most historians would consider risky judgments and reversals of position about genetics and society. My analysis is not a defense but rather an evaluation of the circumstances that led him to these positions and an analysis of the consequences of challenging society when scientists believe their science is being ignored or abused.