h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

You did the whole affair justice, Dmitri! I learnt about this in the mid-eighties when I was doing a lot of reading on evolution. It was clear to me that the whole thing had been misrepresented from the start, that indeed even if the frogs had regrown nuptial pads, it wouldn't be Lamarckism as such. And I also saw that there was no need for such animosity against 'Lamarckism' from the side of entrenched Darwinists. I'd hold my options open for some kind of action back onto the genome from things an animal experienced in its life … how else to have such things as inherited behavioural patterns? Back when I became interested in the issue, there was not yet such a term as 'epigenetics' but I wasn't at all surprised when scientists started entertaining the thought. Basically in genetics, there are genes - but genes alone don't do a thing, they need to be switched on and off - at exactly the right times and places. So … something that determines which genes get switched on and off when and where, is not itself in the genome but determines what happens with the genes in the genome. Of course the genes themselves can code for things … mechanisms … that eventually determine how genes get expressed, so there can be complex, multilevel feedback. But indeed, it can happen that a genetic pathway becomes blocked … such that for instance the frogs retain the genes for making nuptial pads, but that whole process gets blocked and the frogs stop making the pads, but the genes are still there, and a change in environment/living conditions may remove the 'block' so the genes are expressed again. And the gene blocker/unblocker might very well get inherited.

Now … whether Kammerer actually did discover that in his experiments, is another thing. I'm not sure. I think he might have stumbled upon something … but as for tampering the specimens? Part of me thinks he wouldn't have done that. Part of me … scientists have indeed got carried away with their enthusiasm so as to fudge results to make them more representative of what they were sure 'should' be the case. For instance, Gregor Mendel's ratios of colours in his pea experiments appear to be 'too perfect'. But we celebrate Mendel while Kammerer is forgotten. His suicide also seems pretty darn suspicious …

But anyways, thanks for writing this article, as I've said, you've presented the issue most fairly. We await more experiments, maybe even a repeat of the froggy work … though I must say I don't much like animals being experimented on!

Hi, Willem - thanks for reading this! I value your feedback, because I know you understand the issues involved better than the general public.

What you've said is about the way I understood it, too - there is obviously some interactivity between genetic and biochemical signals and the environment. I hope that biologists will figure out a way to determine these things experimentally without unduly inconveniencing the creatures. Midwife toads have feelings, too....

You might see if you can get hold of the book in a library - I'm guessing there may be translations. Koestler's an old favourite writer of mine for many reasons.

Koestler does discuss Mendel at length. After speculating wonderingly on the failure of scientists to spot such an obvious fiddle, he writes this, which made me laugh:

'In the heat of a controversy concentrated on one particular aspect of a problem, scientists are apt to behave as if they were wearing blinkers, just as ordinary mortals.'