Week5

There were many references in class and in the book, Century of the Gene, about similarities of biology and physics. Biology is explained in physics terms, an example being how genes were equated with atoms. From what I understand physics is very old and was one of the starting sciences. Is this why so many references are made to it when discussing a fairly unrelated biology term : the gene? From what you know of the field, is it still common to relate biology concepts to physics?

I was very intrigued by the article written by T.H. Morgan entitled, "What Are 'Factors' in Mendelian Explanations?" The idea on how scientists used theories to explain experimental data and then use that very data to backup the initial theory boggled my mind simply because as a scientist we must seek the truth by means of observation and eliminate as much bias and outside influence as possible to ensure pure results. But if a certain result is already expected it is almost impossible not impose a "push" on results. On the other hand just because someone has devoloped an idea that can't be backed by any real data does't entirely mean they're wrong, they just lack sufficient evidence to convince the scientific community of its validity. With this being said is it safe to say that through the evolution of our education system over the last century these types of Mendelian "factor-assumptions" are a thing of the past?

Also, a slightly off topic comment, in terms of explaining String Theory, are factor-assumptions used?

In the book Controlling Human Heredity, page 32, on the second half of the page, it mentions: 'Human beings have noble intentions but are too weak to carry them through'. This statement struck me because who is to say we are too weak? What makes us weak? This cannot be true for all human beings because otherwise this statement wouldn't have been said. Also, can't some noble intentions be different to different people such as maybe someone of lower class vs. someone of higher class? Or just with different people in general? Can noble intentions be obtained through money and power, or through the earnest and forceful drive we have within us? Some people are very physically strong and some are strong minded with smarts. If we consider survival of the fittest, we can say that those who 'fail' are too 'weak'? So do those who succeed meet their noble intention?

"Predictive tests create the need to make choices. What if we already have one child and want the second to be of the opposite sex?" (page 3)

This excerpt inspired this question. How difficult would controlling the sex of a person be? Could the study of eugenics discontinue sexual orientation of those who are considered neither or both male and female? How dangerous could this study be in countries such as China, where families are biased about their offspring's gender? http://www.unfpa.org/gender/case_studies.htm

According to supporters of eugenics, all traits were inherited from ancestors. Were they never met with any exceptions, i.e. a poor, uneducated family producing a genius child? There must have been some circumstances that did not fit into their theories, so how were those dealt with?

I'm confused about the whole keeping American blood pure thing. I thought it was supposed to be about a melting pot?

my question is how many people were actually truly convinced that everything they were being could be passed down through genetics was actually accurate? and were there any people that tried to fight or go against it and voice their own opinion? === My question regards the affect Nazi Germany had, and still does have, on the rest of the world. How far did the Nazi idea spread? Also, there are still some people with swastikas tattoos and those that still follow parts of Hitler’s ideas. What are the current thoughts on these people? Is there a thought that another movement such as the Holocaust could ensue or are these people causing the fear of eugenics that is in a large portion of the nation? http://www.davidduke.com/general/whatever-happened-to-eugenics_29.html

My question this week is coming from the book Controlling Human Heredity. I was wondering if there were any specific tests that were done to prove that traits such as "alcoholism" were actually able to be passed down genetically or if people would just blindly believe what they were told for the most part? When I was reading it seemed that there wasn't much evidence for most of what people were told and therefore they did not know that NOT all of traits can be passed from from parents to offspring.