RECORDS —
of the

GENETICS SOCIETY OF AMERICA

    
 
    

=

   
 

“ARMY
MEDICAL.
“HAN BB USL
~ LIBRARY 4

ee

.

 
    

  

.

 

NuMBER NINETEEN ”
GOLDEN JUBILEE EDITION

0 ‘THE First Hate Century of MENDELISM 1950

 

PUBLISHED BY: THE SECRETARY-TREASURER
1950 ©
21

applications for biological research projects leading to the dis-
bursement of about $4,000,000 in the year. The total budget and
contracts of the N.R.C. amount to about $8,500,000 yearly. Dr.
Bronk also spoke of the Research and Development Board and
the proposed National Science Foundation, and made it clear that
their functions would not overlap those of the N.R.C., but instead
would supplement the work of the latter. He spoke also ofa
problem for the future that is of particular concern to all scien-
tists, namely, the need for research on the problem of the tre-
mendous volume of scientific publication and the consequently
difficult dissemination of the results of scientific research. There
is a crucial need for a committee to work on this problem of
adequate abstracting and indexing.

A proposal was made to the Division by Dr. Walter C. Russell
that each society represented be asked to appoint a committee
to make proposals to the N.R.C. of desirable activities for it to
undertake, keeping in mind that the N.R.C. is not heavily endowed
but must find support for its program from government, industry,
or non-profit organizations with large funds. This seems most
worth while, and is recommended to the Genetics Society for con-
sideration.

a Signed: BENTLEY GLASS
Representative of the

Genetics Society
1947-1949

President T.M. Sonneborn, as the representative of the Society on
thé Editorial Board of Genetics, proposed that the Society furnish
Genetics with 1350 lithoprinted copies of the abstracts for binding with a

subsequent issue of Genetics. A motion to adopt this proposal was made

and seconded, A substitute motion, that the abstracts should be printed
nthe Records of the Society, but not in Genetics, was not carried. The

original motion was approved.

* H.B. Glass gave an account of the work of the Committee to counter-

ct antigenetics propaganda, much of which is contained in the following

report of the Committee.

   
 
 

Report of the Committee to Counteract Anti-Genetic Propaganda

Because it could not be said to speak officially for the views
of the Genetics Society as a whole, the Committee to Counteract
Anti-Genetics Propaganda has limited itself to the activities of its
individual members. The Committee has had no formal meeting,
because of the impossibility of getting together, since one mem-
ber (Dobzhansky) was in Brazil until recently. Collaboration has,
therefore, involved a very considerable correspondence. The
members of the committee have published severally in the past
year the following publications on the Lysenko controversy:
22

R.G. Cook
1. Walpurgis Week in the Soviet Union. The Scientific Monthly,
68: 367-372. June, 1949. :
2. Lysenko's Marxist Genetics: Science or Religion, J. Hered.,

40: 169-202. July, 1949.

3. Lysenko’s Brother Escapes to the U.S. J. Hered., 40:251

September, 1949.

Th. Dobzhansky
1. Marxist Biology, French Style. (A review of Biologie et

Marxisme, by Marcel Prenant), J. Hered., 40:78-79,

March, 1949,

2. The Suppression of a Science. Bull. Atom. Scientists,

5:144-146, May, 1949.

H.J. Muller
1. The Destruction of Science in the U.S.S.R. Sat. Rev. Lit.,
31:13-15, 63-65. December 4, 1948.
2, Back to Barbarism — Scientifically. Sat. Rev. Lit.,

31: 8-10. December 11, 1948.

3. Genetics in the Scheme of Things. Proc. 8th Int. Congr.

Genetics, pp. 96-127. 1949.

4. It Still Isn’t a Science. A Reply to George Bernard Shaw.

Sat. Rev. Lit., 32:11-12, 61. April 16, 1949.

5. The Russian Counterrevolution against Biological Science.

(A review of Conway Zirkle’s “The Death of a Science in

Russia”), New York Herald Tribune. December 11, 1949,
Bentley Glass

1, Dialectical Materialism and Scientific Research. (A review
of “The New Genetics in the Soviet Union,” by P.S. Hudson and

R.H. Richens). Quart. Rev. Biol., 23:333-335. Dec. 1948.

2. The Science of Biology Today, by Trofim Lysenko. A review,

Science, 109: 404-405. April, 1949.

3. Science and Freedom (in press),

The Committee has also been active in securing suitable pub-|
lication of informative articles written by others on Soviet science,
the relation of politics to science, or the importance of scientific
freedom. First of these was the publication in Science of the
speech by Kaftanov, Commissioner of Higher Education in the
U.S.S.R. (In support of Michurin’s Biological Theory in Higher
Institutions of Learning, Science, 109:90-92. 1949). This was sub-
mitted by Muller: and the Chairman of the Committee, due to his
position on the Editorial Board of the A.A.A.S., was able to assure
its publication. The Chairman of the Committee was also able to
assure prompt publication of the paper by Richard Goldschmidt,
“Research and Politics,” (Science, 109:219-227. 1949). There was
more delay in the publication of the Statement of the Governing
Board of the A.I1.B.S. (Science, 110:124-125. 1949), because of
opposition based on the reluctance of some individuals to the
23

‘further airing of the controversy and a fear on their part that
this might lead to even further worsening of the relations be-
tween political authorities and scientists elsewhere. The view
that an official statement of an organization representing the
great majority of biological scientists in the United States
ought in any case to be published in such an organ as Science
eventually prevailed, after the combined efforts of R.E, Cleland,
Chairman of the Governing Board of the A.1.B.S., and of the
Chairman of the present Committee.

The Committee has considered in correspondence how the
publications dealing with the attack on genetics might be more
widely circulated. In the absence of any funds at the Committee's
disposal, the matter has rested with individual members to pay
for and distribute reprints of their own contributions to the sub-
ject. Any future Committee of the Genetics Society to deal with
these matters might well be given limited funds for the cost of
obtaining and distributing such reprints more widely.

The Committee would like to call the attention of the mem-
bers of the society to two excellent b ooks on the situation which
have recently been published. These are Julian H. Huxley's
“Heredity East and West” (Schumann, $3.00) and Conway Zirkle’s
“The Death of a Scienee in Russia” (University of Pennsylvania
Press, $3.75). In addition, the full text ofthe 1948 controversy in
Moscow has been published in English by International Pub-
lishers, New York ($5.00), acting for the Russian authorities,
entitled “The Situation in Biological Science”.

The members of the Committee were not in unanimous agree-
ment upon all points of their policy and procedure. For example,
in connection with the case of Dr. Spitzer, a chemist, not on tenure,
who was dismissed from the faculty of Oregon State College after
having written a letter to Chemical and Engineering News in
support of Lysenko, the Committee was unable to agree upona
statement to be made public. This was largely due to the multi-
ple nature of the issues which investigation of the case showed
to have been involved, since it appeared that the letter concerning
Lysenko had not actually been the main ground for dismissal.

In spite of these differences of opinion within the Committee,
it has been questioned whether the Committee has been sufficiently
representative of the Society as a whole in opinions upon the
questions at issue. A new Committee ought to be clearly in-
structed regarding its functions and limitations of power. In par-
ticular, it would seem to be desirable for the Genetics Society to
express clearly whether a majority feels that it is important to
keep up a vigorous program of education of the public concerning
the attacks which have been and are continuing to be made on
genetics, or whether it is their opinion that these attacks are
more apt to subside or fail if they do not participate. The Com-
mittee has definite information that the attack on genetics has

 
24

during the past year assumed disastrous proportions in the Soviet
satellite countries and in the Soviet zone of Germany, that pres-
sure against genetics is being intensified by the Communist
Party in Western countries, and that many educated persons are
being influenced thereby.

This issue cannot be evaded. Like the atomic physicists,
whose Bulletin has featured the genetics controversy during 1949,
we are right in the middle of the greatest battle of our time for
freedom of the human mind. All the tricks of a powerful and
and sometimes devilishly effective propaganda machine are being
and increasingly will be, brought into play to discredit genetics.
The Society should give urgent consideration to the course of
action it should follow in this unique, and most serious situation,

Robert C. Cook
Theodosius Dobzhansky
H.J. Muller

Bentley Glass, Chairman

It was moved and seconded that a committee of nine members in-
cluding the Executive Committee be appointed for a period of one year
and that this committee be empowered to speak and act for the Society o1
matters of public concern in which the Society has a vital interest.

After considerable discussion of this motion, it was moved and
seconded that the motion be tabled until the annual meeting in 1950.
Motion lost. *

An amendment to the motion was then moved and seconded, that the
committee carefully consider alternate proposals with regard to pro-
visions for a committee to speak for the Society in matters affecting the
freedom of science and report a definite plan for consideration at the
next meeting in September. Until this meeting the committee should not
speak for the Society; carried. The original motion was then passedas.
amended. .

The following motion of W.R. Singleton was seconded and carried;
that the Genetics Society of America make plans for celebrating in 1950.
a half century of progress in the science of genetics; and that a com-
mittee be appointed promptly to execute such plans. The year 1950
might well be called the Golden Jubilee year or some other appropriate
designation. A part, although by no means all, of such a celebration Q
would be a commemorative program at the 1950 meeting. This should bi
planned in conjunction with the Program Committee for the 1950 meeting

It was moved by H.H. Plough that the Society extend a vote of ;
thanks to the local representatives for the New York meetings, Drs. |
A.E, Mirsky and A.W. Pollister, for their efficient efforts in making ;
these meetings a success. Motion was seconded and carried by accla- |
mation. Meeting adjourned.

M.R. IRWIN, Secretary.
84
Mutation after Fifty Years -- L.J. Stadler, University of Missouri

4:30 p.m., Ohio State Museum, Large Auditorium, The Heritage of
Mendel -- Hugo Iltis, Mary Washington College

Tuesday Evening, September 12

8:00 p.m., Ohio State Museum, Large Auditorium, Joint Session with the:
American Society of Human Genetics

Old and New Pathways in Human Genetics -- L.H. Snyder, Univer-.
sity of Oklahoma

Wednesday Morning, September 13

9:00 a.m., Ohio State Museum, Large Auditorium, The Physical Basis ofj
the Gene, L.C. Dunn, Chairman :

feller Institute

The Chemistry of Chromosomes and Nuclei -- A.E. Mirsky, Rockés
Medical Re se

Cytochemical Measurements in the Study of the Gene --
~ T, Caspersson and Jack Schultz, Karolinska Institute, Stockho}j

Genetics and Immunology -- M.R. Irwin, University of Wisconsir

Wednesday Afternoon, September 13

1:30 p.m., Ohio State Museum, Large Auditorium, The Physiology of thdll
Gene, M. Demerec, Chairman

Chemical Genetics -~ G.W. Beadle, California Institute of Tech-
nology
Remarks on Cell Heredity -- Boris Ephrussi, University of Parisa

Genetic Studies in Bacteria -- Joshua Lederberg, University of
Wisconsin

The Role of the Genes in Cytoplasmic Inheritance -- T.M. Sonnebgj
Indiana Univ
sity
104

was found that the incidence of the tumor phenotype is controlled pri-:
marily by a recessive or semidominant factor located in Chromosome:
2. The tumor incidence was 39/283 when chromosome 2 from the tumor
stock was homozygous and 1/266 when this chromosome was heterozy-
gous in one experiment. The daily and the total tumor incidence was |
higher in females than in males from the same cultures. The data
suggested a decreased incidence of tumors in crowded cultures. The ::
percentage of flies bearing tumors decreased when supplementary live
yeast was not added both to the stock medium and a smaller amount of
stock medium for which brewers yeast was omitted. When a constant
number of larvae was given diminished nutrition for different numbers:
of days, there was a decrease in incidence with an increased length of
starvation. For example, 317 of 434 flies had tumors when given
optimum nourishment, but only 145 of 417 had tumors when the available
yeast was decreased for 6 days.

HIMES, M.H., Columbia University, New York, N.Y.: Studies on
the chemical nature of “sticky chromosomes”. — It has been stated by»
several cytologists, in particular Darlington, that stickiness of chromo-=
somes is caused by depolymerization of desoxyribose nucleic acid (DNA).
The author has sought evidence for the validity of this statement by
using cytochemical methods for detecting differences between normal
chromosomes and both genetically and experimentally induced sticky ,
chromosomes. The material consisted of microsporocytes of Zea mays
homozygous for the sticky gene and Allium cepa root tips treated with =
ethylene glycol and hot water. Two cytochemical tests for depolymeri-
zation of DNA were used. The first consisted of photometric determi-
nations of the amounts of methyl green and Feulgen dyes combined with
the chromosomes. It has previously been shown that the relative stain-
ability by these two dyes depends on the degree of polymerization of
DNA. No difference in methyl green - Feulgen ratios was found “$
where differences in chromosome morphology occured, indicating no -{
depolymerization of the type that characterizes degenerating nuclei. The
second method involved a study of the relative rate of loss of DNA stains
ability following three different treatments - hot water, HCl and tri- "
chloracetic acid hydrolysis, and desoxyribonuclease digestion - which’
are known to cause depolymerization of DNA in vitro. The loss of
methyl gree and Feulgen staining capacity after these treatments was ,
the same in normal and sticky chromosomes. No evidence was found, :
therefore, to support Darlington's statement that stickiness of chromo-
somes is due to depolymerization of DNA.

 

HINTON, T. and J, ELLIS, Amherst College, Amherst, Mass.: A-
nucleic acid requirement in Drosophila correlated with a position effect:
A comparative study was made of the nutritional requirements of two. “a
strains of Drosophila melanogaster grown under aseptic conditions on.aj
chemically defined medium. The two strains differ genetically in that
one (Oregon-R) has the wild-type gene sequence while the other (Inver:

 
114

Mc DONOUGH, E.S. and MARY ROWAN, Marquette University,
Milwaukee, Wis.: A study of the effects of crystalline desoxyribon-
uclease on the salivary gland chromosomes of Drosophila Melanogaster,
Desoxyribonuclea se, free from proteolytic activity, crystallized and x
assayed by Dr. Michael Laskowski after the methods of Kunitz, was used,
in the study. The enzyme solution, containing 1 microgram of crystal-|
line desoxyribonuclease per ml. in 0.2M. borate buffer pH7, was made _
0.025M in respect to MgSO,. Smeared chromosomes were inéubated in’
this solution for varying lengths of time at 37°C. Chromosomes treate;
with buffer alone or with boiled enzyme-buffer were used as controls. “
Those digested for 1-15 minutes showed a gradual reduction in content’
of desoxyribonucleic acid as measured by the intensity of the Feulgen |
reaction, while controls gave a brilliant stain even after 2 hours treat- *
ment. Treatment for 15 minutes or longer resulted in Feulgen negative,
chromosomes. Examination with a phase-contrast microscope showed
that the structural continuity was not destroyed and banded regions
were still present in chromosomes exposed to the enzyme. Chromo-~
somes treated for as long as 2 hours were similar in appearance to”
untreated ones; the bands seemed to be as numerous and at least as
distinct. The granule-like structures, which appeared within the
Feulgen-positive bands of control chromosomes, were discernible after
digestion with desoxyribonuclease. These experiments add to the grow:
ing mass of evidence that desoxyribonucleic acid in itself is not an :
essential structural component of the chromosome and brings into
question in this regard its relation to the gene.

 

 

 

McQUATE; J.T., Indiana University, Bloomington, Ind.: Chromo-~
some loss occasioned by ultraviolet treatment of Drosopaile spermato-
Zoa. “Adult males with a marked Y-chromosome, * ty yl", were treated
with filtered ultraviolet light (ranging from 2537 to 33408 froma Hanovia
lamp, and mated to females containing achaete (ac). As y3.y! contains4
the normal allele of achaete, the ac? i in the regular F) males was cover=4
ed. Among a total of 19,309 F, males 23 achaete exceptions were 7
obtained which were sterile, while there was only one sterile achaete —
exception among 8,046 control F, males. This difference has less thar
2% probability of occurrence by chance. Such males represent the loss
of the paternal X or of all or part of both arms of y3.¥!, This must *
have been caused either by breakage leading to acentric and dicentric *
chromosomes, or by lagging, However, breakage of the y3.¥! chromo
some with “healing”, so as to form surviving chromosomes with a
terminal deletion, thus lacking y3, was not induced to an appreciable
extent. This would have given fertile achaete exceptions, since xl
would have been prese.it. There were only two of these among the Fy
males from treated fathers and one among the controls — approximate];
0.01% in both cases. Hence breakage if induced is usually followed by ®
union of broken ends. As an index of the treatment’s genetic effectivnes
FY females were tested for X-chromosome lethals, Eighty-eight lethals
were detected in 7,530 treated chromosomes (1.2%); in the control