Description

This article is from the Scientific Skepticism FAQ, by Paul Johnson Paul@treetop.demon.co.uk with numerous contributions by others.

1.9.1: Did Mendel fudge his results? (scientific skepticism)

Gregor Mendel was a 19th Century monk who discovered the laws of
inheritance (dominant and recessive genes etc.). More recent analysis
of his results suggest that they are "too good to be true". Mendelian
inheritance involves the random selection of possible traits from
parents, with particular probabilities of particular traits. It seems
from Mendel's raw data that chance played a smaller part in his
experiments than it should. This does not imply fraud on the part of
Mendel.

First, the experiments were not "blind" (see the questions about
double blind experiments and the experimenter effect). Deciding
whether a particular pea is wrinkled or not needs judgement, and this
could bias Mendel's results towards the expected. This is an example
of the "experimenter effect".

Second, Mendel's Laws are only approximations. In fact it does turn
out that in some cases inheritance is less random than his Laws state.

Third, Mendel might have neglected to publish the results of `failed'
experiments. It is interesting to note that all 7 of the
characteristics measured in his published work are controlled by
single genes. He did not report any experiments with more complicated
characteristics. Mendel later started experiments with a more complex
plant, hawkweed, could not interpret the results, got discouraged and
abandoned plant science.

See "The Human Blueprint" by Robert Shapiro (New York: St. Martin's,
1991) p. 17.

 

Continue to:

• prev: 1.9: How much fraud is there in science?
• Index
• next: 1.10: Are scientists wearing blinkers?

Share and Enjoy

Tags

science, engineering, scientific skepticism, skeptics, Conspiracy Theory