Thread by @mendel_random

Great piece by @aoifemcl “The deceptive simplicity of mendelian genetics” in @PLOSBiology in which she says “I could not imagine trying to teach genetics without starting with Mendel” A short 🧵linking to discussion #Mendel200 by @KampourakisK et al (1/n) journals.plos.org/plosbiology/ar…

2/n Mendel’s laws - actually first formulated in the way now taught by Robert Heath Lock in 1906: biodiversitylibrary.org/item/68277#pag… are a useful heuristic, relating to processes that are likely essential for complex life to exist

3/n The random process underlying segregation of alleles to gametes and then zygotes (at conception) (1st Law) and the independent assortment of genetic variants (outside close physical proximity) (2nd law) is what keeps cheating selfish genetic elements under control /cont

4/n Without this, complex life could probably not evolve wellcomecollection.org/works/dqc6abej
So what is the approach to teaching genetics without teaching Mendel going to do? Change their name?
There is considerable subtlety in Mendel’s paper, and a “myth exposing” approach /cont

5/n to teaching could help illustrate the complex nature of scientific practice. There is much written about the mythical status of Mendel’s story, and how incorrect it is, but heroic myth-busters fail to acknowledge how Mendel made it clear that the traits he selected / cont

6/n was a subgroup of the traits in peas he examined. There were others which did not follow the pattern. He was decidedly not presenting a totalising theory he said underlay all cross-generational phenotypic coherence / cont

7/n eg his 1870 paper on hawkweed was clear on this - as, indeed, was his 1866 paper. The suggestion that teaching Mendel ignores development is ironic, given that one of the most thoughtful and detailed by far of these spent 68 pages suggesting development and the passing /cont

8/n on of traits was inseparable to Mendel jstor.org/stable/23328361 Whilst Olby’s beautifully titled “Mendel – no Mendelian?” is always cited, this equally scholarly and perhaps more subtle contribution to the history of the sciences of development and inheritance is / cont

often notable by its absence. If you don’t fancy the 68 pages, here’s a shorter summary by the surviving author academic.oup.com/genetics/artic… This is just one nuance in Mendel’s writing, there are many more that would feed beautifully into an introduction to the complexity of genetics

10/n I have no experience in (nor have I done any research on) school teaching at all, and defer to those who do, but I can’t see a progressive and useful genetics without Mendel’s laws (and equally the occasional violations) being understood /cont

11/12 ’ll finish with white tiger illustrations, for an alternative to peas (for those who don't want to give peas a chance). Full White Tiger story here: ieureka.blogs.bristol.ac.uk/2022/07/15/the…

12/12 An alternative view given by @KampourakisK following his excellent talk at the #Mendel200 meeting yesterday

https://twitter.com/KampourakisK/status/1550166728956682240

and by @AdamRutherford (who's also thanked by @aoifemcl in her excellent piece)

https://twitter.com/AdamRutherford/status/1550199633439330307