| PERSPECTIVES

Weaving a Tapestry from Threads Spun by Geneticists:

The Series Perspectives on Genetics, 1987–2008
William F. Dove1
McArdle Laboratory for Cancer Research, Department of Oncology and Laboratory of Genetics, University of Wisconsin–Madison,
Wisconsin 53705

ABSTRACT The Perspectives column was initiated in 1987 when Jan Drake, Editor-in-Chief of GENETICS, invited Jim Crow and William
Dove to serve as coeditors of “Anecdotal, Historical, and Critical Commentaries.” As the series evolved over 21 years, under the
guidance of Crow and Dove, the input of stories told by geneticists from many countries created a panorama of 20th-century genetics.
Three recurrent themes are visible: how geneticists have created the science (as solitary investigators, in pairs, or in cooperative groups);
how geneticists work hard, but find ways to have fun; and how public and private institutions have sustained the science of genetics,
particularly in the United States. This article ends by considering how the Perspectives series and other communication formats can
carry forward the core science of genetics from the 20th into the 21st century.

I NSPIRED by Jan Drake, then Editor-in-Chief of GENETICS,

James Crow and I (Figure 1A), both of the University
of Wisconsin–Madison, founded the Perspectives column in
genetics, carrying out research on controlled replication in
organisms ranging from bacteriophage to protists to mam-
mals (Furth et al. 1979; Moser et al. 1990; Burland et al.
1987. Dedicated to presenting vignettes of the history of 1993; Dove et al. 1998; Irving et al. 2014). My extensive
genetics, the series created a veritable tapestry of stories of contacts in genetics reflect that range of interests. Fortu-
the science, as told by geneticists themselves. The loom on itously, from 1986 to 2006, I led Wisconsin’s Genetics Collo-
which these stories were woven stretched back through quium on current issues in research, bringing many of the
the 20th century. The two editors’ work was greatly facil- leading geneticists in the world to the university’s campus
itated by the fact that, between them, they had known at Madison to lecture and then engage in critical roundtable
many of the major figures of 20th-century genetics. For discussions with the doctoral students on the evolving craft of
example, Crow, who was born in 1916, the year in which genetics.
GENETICS was founded, personally knew many of the geneticists Many a Perspectives article by an established geneticist
active in population and evolutionary genetics in that was triggered by an early report published in GENETICS
century. Crow’s research interests were broad, bridging when the salient issue was perceived only in outline. Each
mutational issues from Drosophila (Mukai et al. 1972) to year, Crow and I would scan the table of contents of
humans (Crow and Abrahamson 1997), and important pop- GENETICS for articles published 5, 10, 15, 25, or 50 years
ulation genetic issues in evolution (Hiraizumi et al. 1960). previously. We supplemented this process by noting the
Further, Crow taught general genetics at Wisconsin from anniversaries of classics in genetics earmarked in A. H.
1948 until his nominal retirement in 1986. Drake recognized Sturtevant’s history (Sturtevant 1965) and trying to recruit
the vast treasure of stories that Crow had developed, once appropriate articles for Perspectives to commemorate those an-
saying “Someone should attach a recording device around
niversaries. This rolling process generated an ever-flowing
Jim’s neck to capture his stories!” A generation younger,
stream of invitations to geneticists who were present at the
I, in contrast, had extensive research experience in molec-
birth of a topic and had come to preside over its maturation.
ular biology and development, as heavily influenced by
Some of these writers were tapped when speaking at Wisconsin’s
Copyright © 2016 by the Genetics Society of America
Genetics Colloquium. Other authors came into the fold
doi: 10.1534/genetics.116.191155 from Crow’s and my networks of colleagues, centered in
1
Address for correspondence: McArdle Laboratory for Cancer Research, University of
Wisconsin–Madison, 1111 Highland Ave., Madison, WI 53705-2275. E-mail: dove@
Wisconsin but extending worldwide to Japan, China, Eng-
oncology.wisc.edu land, Scotland, Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, and the

Genetics, Vol. 203, 1011–1022 July 2016 1011

 Figure 1 (A) Bill Dove, Jan Drake, and
Jim Crow at the 1992 GSA Meeting in
St. Paul, Minnesota. (B) Lucy Shapiro
and Dale Kaiser at the fete for Francois
Jacob in Crete, 1991. (C) Charley Steinberg
and Kirsten Fischer-Lindahl, Basel Institute
of Immunology, 1984. (D) Norman
Horowitz, Ed Lewis, and Ray Owen in
the Caltech Athenaeum, 1998. (E)
David Perkins, kneeling to study a post-
er at the 1992 GSA Meeting in St. Paul,
Minnesota. (F) Welcome Bender and
Eric Lander deep in conversation, per-
haps about chromosome walks in meta-
zoans, at the 1992 GSA Meeting in St.
Paul, Minnesota.

Soviet Union. With both patience and gentle prodding, arti- to have fun; and how public and private institutions have sus-
cles came forward “when time permitted.” Frequently an au- tained the science of genetics, particularly in the United States.
thor found, not surprisingly, that the Perspectives article Most of the cited articles in what follows were contributions to
attracted a broader response than the primary research re- Perspectives. Each selected comment represents a small sample
port that triggered it. In the Crow–Dove collaboration, it of the original article, and the cited articles are an arbitrary
helped that we were within easy reach of one another, subset of the 1987–2008 Crow–Dove Perspectives series. The
working in neighboring buildings on the campus. Shep- interested reader can gain access to the collection of Crow-Dove
herding so many articles involving authors around the Perspectives essays in reverse chronological order on the
globe led to occasional lapses. Our good working relation- GENETICS website: http://www.genetics.org/collection/
ship allowed us to move forward with a simple mea culpa crow-dove-perspectives.
(Dove and Susman 2012).
Overall, the 1987–2008 Perspectives series is neither a
How Geneticists Have Functioned
history nor a textbook of genetics. Instead, it constitutes
an ensemble of stories varying in technical detail. The As solitary investigators
stories are personal, however; many sense the starting Much of the popular perception of scientific progress is
point and creative pulse of the geneticist by which the tied up with the Great Man theory of history, namely
science of genetics is generated and regenerated. Here, extraordinary individuals who were major but largely
I choose to comment on three recurrent themes: how ge- solitary pathfinders. Examples that come to mind include
neticists have functioned as solitary investigators, in pairs, or Galileo, Newton, Darwin, Pasteur, Einstein, and, in genet-
in cooperative groups; how geneticists work hard but find ways ics, Mendel and McClintock. There are, however, other

1012 W. F. Dove
exemplary individuals of this class who are far less well induction of b-galactosidase, instead of simple positive in-
known. Tom Nagylaki, for example, elucidated the forma- duction. Werner Maas described Szilard’s career as that of a
tive body of theoretical research carried out in apparent “lone wolf.”
isolation by the French scholar Gustave Malecot: [Szilard and his junior colleague Aaron Novick] began
Seldom does a doctoral dissertation substantially ad- their entry into biology by taking the Phage Course at Cold
vance its field. Nevertheless, just such a rare dissertation, Spring Harbor in 1947, which at that time was taught by Max
Delbruck . . . Szilard spent a great deal of his time visiting
Theorie mathimatique de 1’hiriditi mendilienne general- other scientists in the quest for obtaining information about
isie, was submitted fifty years ago, to the Faculty of Sci- questions that interested him. He was very purposeful dur-
ences of the University of Paris, by Gustave Malecot . . . ing these visits. As an example, during a party in Bernard
Despite the breadth, depth, originality, power, and ele- Davis’s apartment . . . Szilard suddenly appeared . . . [He]
gance of the contributions of this great French theoret- took over a bedroom and invited each guest, in turn, in
ical population geneticist, much of his work is known for a private chat, quizzing them on their latest work and
even now only to a small minority of researchers in his findings, suggesting new experiments and novel interpreta-
area (Nagylaki 1989). tions, and reporting how these might relate to the work of
others (Maas 2004).
In a similar vein, but in an example in which the history
The genetics of Esherichia coli, initiated by Josh and Esther
of genetics collided with a larger force in political history,
Lederberg, provided a platform from which Julius Adler
Jim Crow contrasted the story of the Russian plant genet-
carved out his own solitary niche. Julius described an epiph-
icist Vavilov with that of his Japanese contemporary Kihara.
any that occurred while he was studying the general biology
Each created comprehensive collections of wild varieties of
of micro-organisms with C. B. van Niel at the Hopkins Marine
their plant species of interest. Vavilov, however, became
Station:
entangled with the political force of Lysenkoism unleashed
by Stalin. But my greatest accomplishment was to make a decision
on my research subject as an independent scientist. I wanted
On January 26, 1943, Nikolai Ivanovitch Vavilov, near to study behavior, but which behavior of which organism?
starvation, died in a Soviet prison hospital. He was 55, at The Marine Station has a grand library with journals dating
what should have been the peak of his career . . . Genetics back to nearly the beginning. There I found the ‘ancient’
was fated to be caught up in the two most devastating (1880s) publications of Wilhelm Pfeffer on the chemotactic
European dictatorships of the century. Hitler’s notorious behavior of bacteria. I decided that was it! (Adler 2011)
racist policies deprived Germany and the world of
some of our greatest minds and clouded human genetics Sandy Parkinson has described the beginnings of Julius’s
for decades. Stalin, by supporting Lysenko’s bizarre adventure:
Lamarckism, set Soviet genetics a generation behind.
[Hermann Muller] had spent four years in Russia, from Motile microorganisms exhibit surprisingly sophisticated
1933 to 1937, at Vavilov’s invitation. He had gone there sensory behaviors . . . These behaviors came to light in the
with high hopes for an expanded, well supported genet- pioneering work of Engelmann, Pfeffer, and others in the
ic research program and had come back thoroughly dis- 1880s . . . but were largely overlooked until Julius Adler . . .
couraged. Geneticists had been disappearing—18 of initiated work on the chemotaxis system of Escherichia coli
Vavilov’s staff members were arrested between 1934 . . . Adler chose E. coli primarily for the genetic methods that
and 1940—and the program was devastated . . . could be brought to bear on the problem, reasoning that the
flow of sensory information through stimulus transduction
[Vavilov’s] downfall came from the ambitious Trofim components should be amenable to genetic dissection much
Lysenko, who . . . had attracted [Stalin’s] attention with like a conventional biochemical pathway . . . The mutants
the technique of vernalization, by which cold treatment of isolated during those early days of E. coli chemotaxis were
seeds altered development in a way said to hasten maturity widely disseminated to workers in the chemotaxis field and
and increase yields. Vavilov actually promoted Lysenko by have served to define most of the known components of the
praising these results. By this time Vavilov was being criti- sensory transduction machinery: receptors, transducers,
cized for failing to produce the hoped-for increases in agri- signaling elements and flagellar switching components . . .
cultural productivity. His method of collecting wild relatives [We] owe special thanks to Julius Adler for having the fore-
of cultivars from around the world would yield only slow sight to pick an organism with good genetics (Parkinson
(but certain) improvement. Lysenko, with his naive La- 1987).
marckian views, promised quick results. The debates were
vigorous and even Muller got into the act . . .[asking] what Adler’s (2011) memoir “My Life With Nature” gives a
hope there could be for a proletarian revolution when the broad view of the ways in which this niche has grown from
poor had suffered generations of bad environments, its solitary beginnings.
which on a Lamarckian interpretation would have ruined The Perspectives series provides several personal stories in
their genetic potential. The answer is not recorded (Crow which a solitary investigator created a new niche by reinven-
1993).
tion of one’s self. Lee Hartwell made the transition from the
Another example of the solitary pioneer was Leo Szilard, molecular analysis of macromolecular synthesis in bacteria
who, after critical contributions to atomic physics, gained to his pioneering study of the cell cycle, thanks to yeast ge-
prominence in biology, playing a role in steering Jacob netics (Hartwell 1991). His overview of his studies of genes
and Monod to consider a “double-negative” model for the controlling the cell cycle further illustrated reinvention. To

Perspectives 1013
understand the uniform terminal phenotype that defined strong personal loyalties as he gave and received, should
each of his extensive collection of “cell cycle (cdc) mutants” have been warped in the land of his birth must remain a
in Saccharomyces cerevisiae, and the deduction of the depen- matter for regret.’ (Crow 2008)
dent pathway of the action of the genes involved, Hartwell Jim Crow once testified that “A person with my name should
and Ted Weiner proposed that: know something about the status of African-Americans in
It is likely that the dependent relations between many the United States.” His article on Just combined this lifelong
events of the cell cycle are due to . . . controls . . . We have commitment with his appreciation of the exceptional soli-
termed these control points in the cell cycle ‘checkpoints’ tary scientist.
(Hartwell 1991).
In pairs
Thus, two decades after the isolation of the first cell cycle
mutants, investigators began to turn attention to checkpoints. Indeed, the mode of the solitary investigator, plowing a
Gerry Fink illustrated a different mode of reinvention: taking unique, distinctive furrow in isolation, is far from the rule
the lessons learned from yeast genetics to develop the genetic in the history of genetics. Far more striking and common is the
analysis of plant biology in Arabidopsis (Fink 1988). In his fact that progress is often made by pairs of investigators. The
“Notes of a Bigamous Biologist” he explained how he made creative partnerships of Watson and Crick, Meselson and
the transition from a fast-growing to a slower species: Stahl, Brenner and Crick, Jacob and Monod, and Crow and
Kimura are well-known examples. Several articles in the Per-
Although the duration of the Arabidopsis life cycle seems spectives series display important but more nuanced examples
at first interminable to the microbial geneticist, it becomes
less of a psychological shock as one learns to initiate exper- of what we might well call the “Power of Two.”
iments in parallel rather than in series. Once this new
rhythm has been acquired, the results arrive in the rapid The Mom and Pop Editorial Shop: Indeed, the operation of
succession to which microbial geneticists are accustomed GENETICS during much of the Crow–Dove era involved the
(Fink 1988).
complementary efforts of Jan and Pamela Drake. In his sayonara
In contrast to the isolation of Vavilov by political forces, as Editor-in Chief, Jan painted a picture of the intimacy involved
Jim Crow’s final Perspectives article on Edmund Just (1883– in what came to be called the ‘Mom and Pop Editorial Shop’:
1941), “Just and Unjust,” illuminated the institutional and . . .authors all over the world could be harassed directly from
community prejudice of the 1930s that isolated this extraor- our office at any hour of the day. Some authors retaliated by
dinarily able biologist. Crow wrote: phoning us during European or Australian working hours. The
distant ring of the editorial office phone in the middle of our
Just . . . was one of the greatest biologists of the early 20th night was uncannily like a baby’s cry in its ability to rouse us
century, but being AfroAmerican, he never had a position that abruptly and fully. Once awakened, we would often stay in the
permitted full development of his research talent . . . Just was editorial office, secure in the knowledge that no author could
a superb technician and extremely careful worker. He set see us working in our pajamas (Drake 1998).
rigorous standards for experimentation and was openly crit-
ical of experiments that did not meet his standards. Further-
more, he trusted his observations and did not hesitate to
point out disagreements with others. The most notable of Fostering Neurospora: Examples that were particularly
these was a difference with [his Woods Hole colleague]
Jacques Loeb . . . Loeb had argued that the development of
prominent early in the century involved husband–wife combi-
the egg was initiated by two steps, a cytolysis, induced in the nations in which one member of the creative pair, commonly
laboratory by butyric acid, followed by a quenching produced the wife, held an academic position of lower stature. Joshua
by hypertonic sea water. Just showed that, with careful at- and Esther Lederberg, mentioned earlier, were one example.
tention to concentrations, sea water alone was sufficient. Another was that of David and Dorothy (Dot) Perkins, who
Unfortunately for Just, Loeb’s earlier friendship changed together established a focal point for the development of
to enmity. One of the few opportunities that Just had [to Neurospora genetics. Rowland Davis described their partnership:
move from his teaching position at Howard University] for a
position in a research environment occurred in 1923. Just [Dot’s] involvement with David’s genetic studies deep-
was being considered for a position at the Rockefeller In- ened with time, yet her publications reflect the indepen-
stitute for Medical Research. Naturally Loeb’s advice was dence with which she worked. She sought increasingly to
sought and his reply left no uncertainty. tie up loose ends . . . It is a tribute to both David and Dot that
David did not co-author publications that were truly her
[Frank] Lillie [of the University of Chicago and Woods work, nor did either one hesitate to co-author articles on
Hole] must have known Just better than any other American which they clearly collaborated (Davis 2007).
scientist . . . In his . . . restrained way, he said ‘An element of
tragedy ran through all Just’s scientific career due to the
limitations imposed by being a Negro in America . . .The
numerous grants for research did not compensate for failure Cell biology meets molecular genetics: Carolyn Silflow and
to receive an appointment in one of the large universities or
research institutes . . . In Europe he was received with uni- Pete Lefebvre represent an academically coequal husband–
versal kindness, and made to feel at home in every way . . . wife pair. Their research pairing in the 1980s reflected the
That a man of his ability, scientific devotion, and of such emergent necessity in that era to combine expertise in the

1014 W. F. Dove
genetic analysis of cellular phenotypes with sophisticated the way development and morphogenesis are regulated for
molecular analysis of the genotype. The rich biology of the reliability in relatively harsh or changing environments. Use
protist Chlamydomonas invited study of motility at a molec- of cellular oscillators revealed by traveling waves and the
expression of genes in batteries, triggered by different extra-
ular level. Silflow and Lefebvre combined mutant analysis cellular signals, are cases in point. Comparisons of eukaryotes
based on motility phenotypes with genetic mapping based and prokaryotes may give insights that would come from
on restriction site polymorphisms in natural isolates (Ranum neither examined alone (Kaiser 1993).
et al. 1988; Lefebvre and Silflow 1999):
[the scarcity of RFLPs for many cloned probes . . . was
solved] when an undergraduate student in our laboratories, Meiosis in pairs: The magic created by an interaction between
Christian Gross, discovered a field isolate of Chlamydomo-
nas (strain S1-D2) that is completely interfertile with the two independent investigators extended around the world in a
laboratory strains, but that shows an exceptionally high landmark investigation of meiosis in Drosophila by Larry Sandler
frequency of RFLPs . . . (Lefebvre and Silflow 1999). and Dan Lindsley. They normally operated at the distance
between Seattle (Sandler) and San Diego (Lindsley), but
Lefebvre and Silflow have amplified their Power of Two by
got together for a joint sabbatical in Rome during which they
their effort with others to create a self-sustaining Chlamydo-
isolated a series of Drosophila mutants affected in the process
monas community for the study of the cytoskeleton, basal
of meiosis. Scott Hawley has described how their initiative was:
body, cellular motility, and photosynthesis. They summarized
this group process in their Perspective: one of the earliest examples of a systematic search for, and
study of, mutations affecting a complex regulatory process in
Starting 20 years ago with a small roomful of enthusiasts at higher eukaryotes. The decision to search for meiotic muta-
the Chlamydomonas/Euglena session, held annually for part of tions in natural populations was based on the assumption
1 day at the American Society for Cell Biology meetings, the that recessive mutations would be found as heterozygotes in
Chlamydomonas meetings have grown to attract more than natural populations at a frequency equal to the square root of
200 participants every 2 years (Lefebvre and Silflow 1999).
their mutation rate, a frequency high enough to be detected
in screens (Hawley 1993).

Microbes pair to simulate metazoan development: Some-

times, the Power of Two pertains as much to the subject matter Mentoring new leaders for molecular immunology: The
as to the investigators. One theme in metazoan development is final example of the Power of Two illustrates a rare mode of
lineage determination involving asymmetric cell division, while interaction that normally flies below the radar of histories of
a contrasting theme is the creation of cellular differences through science. Charley Steinberg published only rarely but served as
cell–cell interaction. The interaction between Lucille (Lucy) mentor to many of the talented junior members of Niels Jerne’s
Shapiro and Dale Kaiser illustrates a choice of a complementary Basel Institute of Immunology who became leaders in molecular
pair of microbial species to illuminate the two sides of this con- immunology (Figure 1C). Under Charley’s guidance, these ment-
trast (Figure 1B). Working in parallel at Stanford, Lucy and Dale ees solved several of the major problems in the somatic genetics
have investigated these basic issues in developmental biology of the adaptive immune system. As summarized by Gillian Wu
through the high-resolution lens of the molecular genetics of
and Kirsten Lindahl, one of his mentees, Louis Du Pasquier, said:
microbes. Lucy investigates the mechanisms and consequences
of asymmetric cell division in Caulobacter, summarizing an early A mentor listens to the babblings of a scientist trying to
stage in these studies in her Perspectives article with Bert Ely: figure out the data. Charley would hand us a chalk and say:
‘Start from the beginning, I am a simpleton, I don’t know
A critical part of our strategy to dissect Caulobacter’s temporal anything about this area, explain it to me.’ And by explain-
and spatial control of development was the establishment of a ing it to him, you would begin to understand it yourself. A
system for genetic analysis. Accordingly, one of the first objec- silent Charley made you think . . . Charley helped me when I
tives . . . was the isolation of a generalized transducing phage was confronted with strange results—explaining to me why
which would facilitate exchange of genetic material between the bacteriophage I used was likely not the one whose name
Caulobacter strains (Ely and Shapiro 1989). was written on the label . . . (Wu and Lindahl 2001)
Dale investigates multicellular co-operation in Myxobacter, Gillian and Kirsten also quoted Charley near the end of his
connecting these studies back a century to Roland Thaxter (Kaiser life:
1993). His interests expand the notion of the Power of Two
If I had it to do all over again, I would not change. I
by seeking commonality at a higher biological level between prevented a lot of atrocities in my day. I have nothing to
prokaryotic myxobacteria and eukaryotic cellular slime molds: apologize for (Wu and Lindahl 2001).
Slime molds and myxobacteria are found in the same
habitats, and are often isolated from the same soil samples
by enrichment culture. Both feed on bacteria in the soil . . . In co-operative groups
The observed evolutionary convergence of these two dispa-
rate groups is presumably a consequence of natural selection Neither solitary workers nor significant pairs, however, are
in a common habitat . . . Perhaps there are also rules about the whole story of progress in genetics. A major contribution to

Perspectives 1015
the substratum on which 20th-century genetics developed This story illustrates ways in which geneticists interact
was the creation of open co-operative groups of investigators. across organisms on issues that lie at the core of the science.
The logistical barriers to genetic analysis in maize were I shall return to this point at the end of this essay.
addressed early by this strong spirit of co-operation. Lee Kass,
Christophe Bonneuil, and Ed Coe described the birth of the
How Geneticists Work Hard Yet Have Fun
first such group:
Jim Crow’s creative life gives a vibrant example of the synergy
At the 1932 International Congress of Genetics held in
Ithaca, New York, Rollins Adams Emerson . . . gave an
between working hard and engaging fully in a hobby. From
opening address titled, ‘The Present Status of Maize Ge- an early age, Crow’s consuming hobby was music. He de-
netics.’ In his introduction he declared, ‘I cannot refrain scribed to me why he had settled upon playing the viola:
from noting here a very real advantage experienced by “Because string quartets are always looking for a violist.”
students of maize genetics . . . I am aware of no other group Hartl and Greenberg Temin described Crow’s lifelong in-
of investigators who have so freely shared with each other
volvement with music, telling a tale from his graduate days
not only their materials but even their unpublished data.
The present status of maize genetics, whatever of note- that illustrates this fun-loving spirit:
worthy significance it presents, is largely to be credited A memorable incident from Crow’s [graduate student]
to this somewhat unique, unselfishly cooperative spirit days in the University [of Texas-Austin] Orchestra melded
of the considerable group of students of maize genetics.’ his musical and scientific activities. One day he left his viola
(Kass et al. 2005) in the lab, so that he could pick it up later on his way to a
concert. One of his lab mates took the opportunity to
The paradigm established by the maize group has been stealthily place thousands of anesthetized fruit flies inside
replicated by a number of organism-specific groups, each the viola, timing it so that as Crow began to play at the
holding regular conferences as discussed above for Chlamy- performance, the flies gradually awakened and fluttered
domonas. The success of these organism-specific groups has up out of the F-holes. He often recounted this as ‘one of
garnered significant conference support from the Genetics the diabolically cleverest jokes that anyone ever perpe-
trated.’ (Hartl and Greenberg Temin 2014)
Society of America (GSA) and research support from the
National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the National Sci- The powerful influence of a life-long passionate interest in
ence Foundation (NSF). Perhaps the epitome of group ac- an activity outside the laboratory is also illustrated in the life
tion has been that involving the nematode Caenorhabditis of Guido Pontecorvo, which spanned the destruction of Jewish
elegans. As Jonathan Hodgkin summarized in his article life by Fascism in Italy, World War II, and the migration of
“Early Worms”: scientists to the United Kingdom and the United States. His
genetics research started in Edinburgh in 1940 with Hermann
A final advantage . . . has been the establishment of a
group of enthusiastic and dedicated workers. All of Muller (who had escaped from Stalin’s USSR to Edinburgh),
the early genetic work was due to [Sydney] Brenner, and then matured as a leader in fungal and mammalian cell
but the appeal of the system was such that more genetics in Glasgow and London. His pervasive influence in
and more disciples began to accumulate. As with the 20th-century genetics shows up in Perspectives articles on
mutant strains, so with the scientists: almost every worker bacterial genetics (Cavalli-Sforza 1992) and mammalian de-
in the field has an intellectual pedigree that traces back to a
single source. Moreover, most of the early workers had a velopmental genetics (Waelsch 1989). His colleague Bernard
common background in either bacterial or phage genetics - Cohen has captured Ponte’s lifelong bond to the plant life of
especially T4. . . The ‘phage’ influence colored a lot of the the Swiss Alps:
early work, for example, the emphasis on powerful selec-
Almost invariably, Ponte’s overseas academic visits
tions and rare events, the usefulness of conditional
were to places near alpine zones. This reflected his in-
mutants . . . and the need for long-term storage (Hodgkin
terest in alpine plants, which grew from early enthusiasm
1989).
for the Italian Alps . . . With Leni, his Swiss wife, he built a
The spirit of sharing strains goes beyond the organism- small chalet in the Valais region of Switzerland and, from
specific co-operative groups. In his article, Frank Stahl this base, made long-term studies of the ecology of al-
pines and compiled a major [unpublished] photographic
described the 30-year history of Robin Holliday’s molecu- archive. The chalet guest book . . . is an impressive record
lar model of genetic recombination. The model was chal- of the friends who enjoyed their hospitality. Although
lenged with experiments made possible by strains of a Leni predeceased Guido, this did not stop him from
range of organisms exchanged among geneticists. Stahl spending much of every summer and part of each winter
concluded: in the chalet, often fending for himself, gardening on a 45
degree slope despite hip prostheses and entertaining in
The junction is there, [except . . .]; mismatch correction the evenings a succession of guests and ‘gerisitters.’
contributes to conversion, [except . . .]. That’s an impres- (Cohen 2000)
sive record, really. Robin’s model was the lightning rod
for 30 years of research, and its central assumptions, Jim Crow established an abiding connection with Japanese
though modified, have survived every strike. Congratula- genetics, about which he wrote several Perspectives article. His
tions, Robin!” (Stahl 1994) article on Hitoshi Kihara not only described Kihara’s vast

1016 W. F. Dove
importance in collecting wild species [but] also described to practical agriculture and horticulture—this just at the
Kihara’s life outside science: time when the claims of genetics could no longer be ig-
nored. [William] Castle moved his animals to Forest Hills,
Kihara had a life-long interest in athletics. As a student he soon be joined by the noted plant geneticist Edward Murray
was active in many sports. His book of photographs . . . shows East from the Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station.
him involved in baseball, archery, racing, and javelin throw-
ing. He was a skilled skier and traveled with the Kyoto Castle’s early work at Harvard was concerned with verte-
University Alpine club to the snowy heights of Japanese brate embryology, but with the rediscovery of Mendel’s laws
mountains. in 1900, his interest soon shifted to mammalian genetics . . .
Most of his papers dealt with the genetics of mice, rats, rab-
. . . Kihara led the Japanese ski team at the Winter Olym- bits and guinea pigs, but he also wrote on the genetics of
pics in 1960 and 1964. [On a visit to Mishima] I went to a horses, sheep and humans, and on race crossing and hybrid
large public gathering at which Miss Mishima was to be vigor. His textbook on Genetics and Eugenics went through
chosen. And who turned out to be the judge to select the four editions. Late in life he became interested in the genetics
most personable and comely young woman? Kihara, of of the Palomino horse. His last two papers, both on horses,
course (Crow 1994). were published in 1961 when he was 94 years old. His first
paper, on the plants he had collected while teaching in Ot-
One last colorful example of ways that geneticists find ways
tawa, had been published in 1893, 68 years earlier.
to have fun was described by Scott Hawley in his aforemen-
tioned article on the mutational dissection of meiosis in Dro- At the Sixth International Congress of Genetics held in
Ithaca, New York, in 1932, there were 399 participants from
sophila by Larry Sandler and Dan Lindsley: the United States, including Castle, East and 32 of their
The [meiotic] mutations were recovered from wild pop- students . . . The early days of the GSA featured leaders who
ulations collected in and around Rome at such locales as a had trained at the Bussey: . . . 1932 L. C. Dunn Columbia;
winery in Salaria and the city’s wholesale fruit market. Larry 1933 R. A. Emerson Cornell; 1934 Sewall Wright Chicago;
. . . claimed for years that the collections were made entirely 1935 D. F. Jones Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Sta-
by Dan ... while Larry conversed with the vintners or the tion; 1936 P. W. Whiting Pennsylvania; 1937 E. M. East
fruit merchants. Larry also claimed that while the fruit sell- Harvard; 1938 L. J. Stadler Missouri (Weir 1994).
ers were initially suspicious of Dan and his butterfly net,
they were reassured by Larry’s claims, in the vernacular, that The Bussey Institution closed in 1938 when the Harvard Board of
this was the only therapy that Dan’s physicians at the asy- Overseers rejected the nomination of Raymond Pearl for its
lum found effective. Dan did not speak Italian and was thus director, on the basis of dispute over scientific rigor (Goldman
fortunately unaware of these conversations (Hawley 1993). 2002). From that point, the university leadership in the de-
velopment of genetics in the United States moved westward,
often driven by agricultural issues. Thus, the public universi-
ties from Cornell through the Midwest to California are each
How Public and Private Institutions Have Sustained reflected in articles in the Crow–Dove Perspectives series that
the Science of Genetics in the United States deal with, for example, issues in the genetics of corn, toma-
The science of genetics has developed along several distinct toes, and potatoes.
institutional tracks in the 20th century. The Perspectives series has Caltech
given life to the role of some of these universities and indepen-
dent research institutes in the United States, while illustrating Caltech, recruiting Morgan and Sturtevant in 1926, became a
the key roles of particular individuals in shaping them. mecca for Drosophila genetics. Caltech then reinvented itself
Universities are the established seats for the creation of under George Beadle in 1946 (Horowitz et al. 2004) by
new knowledge. Indeed, numerous private and public uni- recruiting a range of geneticists including Max Delbruck,
versities hosted the contributors to this “genetics century.” who created a bacteriophage “church.” My article, “Paradox
Some of these large universities provided homes for the clus- Found” (Dove 1987), described the philosophical culture
ters of investigators with complementary interests and tal- generated by Delbruck, the intellectual impact of the physi-
ents. Frequently, a university supported genetics from a cist Richard Feynman, and the doctoral research of the
commitment to agriculture—the improvement of plants afore-mentioned Charley Steinberg. Caltech’s geneticists
and animals. John Weir’s article appreciated the formative contributed many articles to the Crow–Dove series. First, Nor-
influence of the Bussey Institution at Harvard University on man Horowitz (1998), Ed Lewis (1995), and Ray Owen (Owen
American genetics in the earliest decades of the 20th century 1989; Owen 2000) (Figure 1D), then Bob Edgar (2004), and
(Weir’s 1994). even Alfred Sturtevant (2001) posthumously contributed.
Beyond the universities, many of the centers that supported
The Bussey Institution
the flowering of genetics in the 20th century were indepen-
From a movement led by the physicist Wallace Sabine, a dent research institutions. Marine biological stations gave
Graduate School of Applied Science was organized [at Har- opportunities for biologists from universities to mingle.
vard] in 1906 to replace the undergraduate Lawrence Sci-
entific School. As part of the reorganization in 1908, Bussey Flanking the United States are the Woods Hole Marine Bio-
became a graduate school for advanced instruction and logical Laboratory on Cape Cod, Massachusetts, and the
research in scientific problems that relate and contribute Hopkins Marine Station in Pacific Grove, California. Random

Perspectives 1017
collisions outside the departmental structures of universities Beyond these two marine biological stations, two other
seeded several of the new initiatives in the growth of 20th- independent research centers, the Jackson Laboratory (JAX)
century genetics. and the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory (CSHL), each estab-
lished a center of excellence in genetics. These centers con-
Marine biological stations: Woods Hole and tinue to maintain strong outreach initiatives that bond them
Pacific Grove
with investigators around the world.
Alfred Sturtevant described the importance of Woods Hole for The Jackson Laboratory
the emergence of genetics in the United States:
Elizabeth Russell described the way that the worldwide role
[Morgan] came back [to Woods Hole] in 1890 and spent a
of JAX enabled it to survive a disastrous fire in 1947 and
very high proportion of the summers here for the rest of his
life. 1897 was the year in which the ‘Young Turks’ took over develop into the mecca for mouse genetics that it has become:
the laboratory and its management, and Morgan was one of Would there ever again be a Jackson Laboratory? C. C.
the new trustees elected at the time of that change . . . it Little never doubted. He called us together in Ellsworth, on
really was a revolution in terms of the management of sci- the mainland not far from the Island, assured mouse box-
entific organizations. The director . . . C. O. Whitman [pro- changers that they still had jobs, and assigned responsibil-
moted the idea] that a scientific organization should be ities to staff and research assistants. When he viewed the
owned and managed by the people who were working in ashes around the wreck of the old Lab, he said, ‘Now we can
it. He resisted any plans to fit this laboratory under the wing see the sea.’ . . . We also needed to build up animal resources
of any other organization, any university, or any foundation. to supply critical needs of researchers in other institutions.
This was a new idea, and it was a very difficult one to Where would the necessary mice come from? . . . Almost
implement. One of the reasons he was able to do it was that immediately after the fire, a very welcome pile of letters
he had this extraordinary group of people working here began to pour in. Investigators who had recently received
and, as it happened, they came from different universities. pedigreed mice from the Jackson Laboratory, and geneti-
Whitman was at Chicago, Wilson was at Columbia, Morgan cists who maintained inbred mouse colonies stemming from
at that time was at Bryn Mawr, and Conklin was at Pennsyl- our stocks, wrote to offer ‘starts’ of almost all the strains we
vania. They were all first-rate people and they got along had lost, plus some valuable new types . . . The 1947 fire
very well together, and the fact that they came from differ- came at a propitious time for the scientific community. Just
ent universities was a great strength in the organization as large numbers of researchers were coming to depend on
(Sturtevant 2001). animals from outside suppliers, disruption by the fire fo-
cused attention on the importance of selecting the right
Dianna Kenney and Gary Borisy (2009) described the animals for a particular project. The Laboratory’s losses in
connection to the emergence of Drosophila genetics provided the fire, and rescue by gifts from other mouse geneticists,
to Morgan by the Woods Hole center. Garland Allen (1978, gave the staff a heightened sense of genetic responsibility. In
see footnote 108 on p. 147) has quoted Morgan: addition to contributing through their own research, they
now wanted to apply genetic know-how to guarantee ready
I was, of course, familiar with the important paper of availability and continuity of pertinent, genetically uniform,
Castle, Carpenter, Clarke, Mast and Barrows and used it in well-characterized mice for the growing biomedical re-
my lecture on experimental zoology (Castle et al. 1906). search community. The Laboratory had added a new phase
to its scientific mission (Russell 1987).
The Hopkins Marine Station, an outpost of Stanford Uni-
versity in Pacific Grove, California, has played a formative role
in introducing molecular biologists to the biological richness The Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory
of microorganisms. Jay Dunlap (2008) emphasized the role of
this institution in bringing together investigators interested As described in the article by Phil Hartman, the focus of CSHL
in circadian biology. A major force at this Station was the on genetics developed in the research of Milislav Demerec,
Dutch microbiologist C. B. van Niel. As H. A. Barker and first with Drosophila and then with Salmonella:
Robert E. Hungate summarized: Exactly fifty years ago my father-in-law, Milislav Demerec,
coauthored a GENETICS paper on X-ray-induced chromo-
[van Niel] did not believe in directing the research of his somal breaks in Drosophila. . . . Then, exactly 25 years
younger associates . . . As a consequence, the range of phe- ago, he authored a paper on bacterial genetics. . . .Why this
nomena investigated in his laboratory was exceedingly migration from eukaryote to prokaryote, the opposite of
wide and included . . . biology of caulobacteria, cultivation present-day trends? What happened during those interven-
of free-living spirochetes, induction of fruiting bodies in ing 25 years? This is mainly the story of a man deeply in-
myxobacteria, . . . and the thermodynamics of living systems volved in a search for the structure of the gene and who, at
(Barker and Hungate 1990). the same time, quietly developed two institutions at Cold
One can trace at least indirectly to C. B. van Niel three Spring Harbor that emerged under his leadership as a hub of
what is now known as molecular genetics.
initiatives discussed above: Julius Adler’s choice of E. coli to
study chemotactic behavior, Lucy Shapiro’s choice of caulo- In the latter part of 1941 Demerec became Acting Director
[of the Laboratory] and in 1943 [also] Director of the De-
bacteria to study asymmetric cell division, and Dale Kaiser’s partment of Genetics of the Carnegie. This move consoli-
choice of myxobacteria to study cellular interactions. He cre- dated activities of the two institutions at Cold Spring Harbor,
ated a unique environment for microbiology in Pacific Grove. much to the benefit of each . . .The consolidation added to

1018 W. F. Dove
 Demerec’s duties because he quietly supervised every- The 30th anniversary of this influential course was celebrated
thing from budgets to mowing the grass to maintaining by a reunion, described in an article by Peter Sherwood:
aging laboratory buildings to arranging purchase of lab-
oratory land along Bungtown Road . . . he had to do much ‘It’s hard to imagine where we’d be today without yeast,’
of it himself. There were also formal annual reports to be says Watson, who kicked off the reunion on a Friday eve-
written and compiled, both for the Carnegie . . . and for the ning with opening remarks.
Biological Laboratory . . . Demerec’s Carnegie research sec- Owing to the prodigious talents and dynamic, fun-loving
tion includes the names of 62 people in the 19 years he was personalities of [Fred] Sherman and [Gerry] Fink, the Cold
Carnegie Director; few people are listed more than 2 years Spring Harbor Yeast Genetics Course rapidly became a
in a row. This is an indication of the flow and vitality of classic. ‘I found Fred’s deadpan sense of humor always hi-
the laboratory and the man. [Al Hershey] has said, ‘When larious and still do. I found Gerry’s electric intellect and his
it came to decisions of importance to research, to the lab- love of yeast genetics to be energizing and still do,’
oratory, or to science at large, he seemed to call on an remarked Ira Herskowitz during the reunion (Sherwood
infallible instinct.’ Perhaps that’s because he had an infal- 2001).
lible instinct about honest people, upon which all the rest
depends (Hartman 1988). The abiding impact of JAX and CSHL on the science of
The political independence of CSHL was signaled by the genetics cannot be underestimated.
failed recruitment of Hermann Muller, who had disavowed The research substratum
his support of Stalinist Russia to return to the United States.
The substratum on which genetics developed in the 20th
Diane Paul described this scenario:
century included private and government organizations
In 1939, Demerec told Frank Blair Hanson, of the and modes of interaction among active geneticists. The Per-
Rockefeller Foundation, that ‘it would be impossible to spective series cast light on interesting ways that key
place Muller in a State institution in this country and
that most privately endowed institutions would also re- individuals, communities, and organizations facilitated this
ject him. His long residence in Russia and his widely emergent science of genetics.
known book on Communism would militate against his In the United States, research support from the NIH and the
acceptance here.’ . . . Demerec suggested placing Muller NSF rests on the principle of peer review in study sections. This
at Cold Spring Harbor. This was attractive for another principle depends greatly on the operation of each study
reason: Muller could be his own boss and thus avoid
conflict with others, as was assumed would occur in a section. In a grateful tribute to one of the many outstanding
university department. But . . . the deal fell through, in study section secretaries, Jim Crow and Ray Owen described
large part as a result of the Carnegie trustees’ ‘fear of the special qualities that Kay Wilson brought to the early NIH
Muller’s past political background.’ (Paul 1988) Genetics Study Section:
CSHL’s focus on genetics combined with its public spirit of What did she do that was so great? In the first place, she did
outreach to become instrumental after World War II in the her homework. She made a point of getting acquainted with
growth of two worldwide “schools” that generated major ad- people applying for grants. Often, if something was not clear
vances in genetics: the Phage Group and the Yeast Group. she would call the applicant and straighten it out before the
meeting, or she would call an appropriate person for addi-
The Phage Group formed around the leadership of Delbruck, tional expert advice. The day before the meeting she met
who with his disciples taught a hands-on course each summer with the Study Section Chairman and sometimes others, and
from 1946 to 1970. As described graphically by Millard they went over each application. Thus, there were very few
Susman: surprises for her or for the chairman during the meeting.

Students participating in the Phage Course carried At the meeting itself, she said little. She regarded it as the
home a great deal more than a handful of useful tech- chairman’s job to run the show. But she sat at his side and, by
niques. They felt that they had been initiated into the whispered comments or penciled notes, called attention to
community of biologists. The course featured seminars by points that needed to be brought out. She made sure that
leaders in the field, and the students could sit and drink things that were supposed to be confidential stayed that
beer with them on the porch at Blackford Hall or chat with way (Crow and Ray Owen 2000).
them on the beach (Susman 1995). The intersection between the peer review principle and the
I shared with the Belgian geneticist Rene Thomas the spirit of co-operation within groups of geneticists comes into
stimulating experience of teaching the 1970 Phage Course. high contrast in the review of proposed publications. As Crow
Then, in 1999 my laboratory joined with those of the British has described, reviewers vary greatly, as do their reviews:
cancer biologist Chris Potten and the American mammalian Much of the success of any journal, then and now, depends
biologist Jeff Gordon to initiate a hands-on course in the on the quality of its reviewers. GENETICS had good ones,
genetics and biology of the laboratory mouse at The Jackson often leaders in the field. [The mutual dislike between
Laboratory. Years later, I find satisfaction in seeing the emer- Sturtevant and Dobzhansky was well-known.] But on one
gence of leaders who came to know one another as neophytes occasion Sturtevant did make his feelings known, although
with characteristic subtlety. GENETICS had received two
in a hands-on course. manuscripts. One was by a young cytogeneticist and the
After 1970, under the directorship of Jim Watson, the other by Dobzhansky. Sturtevant reviewed both. His reply
Phage Course at CSHL gave way to the Yeast Genetics Course. was essentially as follows: The first paper is careful work by

Perspectives 1019
 a serious, deserving young scientist, but it does not quite connect with progress in the genetics of Neurospora (not a
measure up to GENETICS standards. I say, reject with regret. member of the Security Council). Figure 1F illustrates how
The Dobzhansky paper must surely be published. But it is Eric Lander, developing the genetic map of the mouse, had
too long for its content and generally overstated. I say, ac-
cept with regret (Crow 2006). deep commonality with Welcome Bender, who had carried
out a “chromosome walk” in Drosophila. In continuing to
The tensions involved in the review of an individual re- support the Perspectives series, Jan Drake, Jim Crow, and I
search report are amplified when public policy is at stake. In aimed to provide a platform on which geneticists at large
the aftermath of the atomic bombing in World War II, the could converse, in the absence of the annual general GSA
United States Government convened a panel of geneticists to meeting (Figure 1A).
evaluate the genetic risks of radiation. Crow described the Ironically, the transition to a focal organization of genetical
pitched battles that took place on this panel (majorly between research coincided with the period when developmental
Muller’s and Wright’s views of the nature of detrimental mu- geneticists were discovering myriad hidden links in the de-
tant alleles) and the way in which the chairman, the mathe- velopmental programs used by distinct animal genera. Thus,
matician Warren Weaver, solved conflicts among strongly the science itself is undergoing a degree of synthesis as its
held positions: practitioners are diverging into different methodological
In what at first appeared to be a strange decision, [the head streams. In the 21st century, geneticists are creating methods
of the National Research Council Detlev] Bronk appointed as that transcend individual species, the classic model systems:
chairman of the genetics committee, not a geneticist but a efficient random mutagenesis by ethylnitrosourea, targeted
mathematician, Warren Weaver. The decision turned out to genomic editing by CRISPR/Cas, and an increasing number of
be providential. He had an enormous influence on the di- ways to group gene activities into functional clusters. Growth
rection of biological research. One of his early decisions was
to shift Rockefeller funds away from the physical sciences of the science of genetics and its partnership with genomics
and toward biology, particularly those areas that made the has led to an explosion in understanding the structure and
greatest use of physics, chemistry, and mathematics. Weaver evolution of populations of living and extinct creatures. Mu-
was not only instrumental is helping to found the science we tational analysis, now commonly reaching molecular resolu-
now call ‘molecular biology,’ but is credited with coining the tion, satisfies the demand of experimental biologists to perturb a
term as well (Crow 1995).
system to help understand its logic. Will this extensive radi-
ation into many branches of evolutionary and experimen-
tal biology make the science of genetics fade as a separate
discipline?
Summary: Sustaining the Core Science of Genetics as
An understanding of a biological process of interest re-
it Evolves
quires an organism that displays that process and acquires at
During the first part of the 20th century, the science of least the rudiments of genetic analysis; for instance, muta-
genetics addressed basic issues in transmission and physio- tional perturbation by genomic editing. The science of genet-
logical genetics, shared among organisms. By the end of the ics, evolving along these lines, can serve the community of
century, however, the growing power of molecular genetic investigators interested in evolution, or those focused on a
analysis in the established “model organisms” focused much particular biological process, whether newly described or
of the support of the GSA, NIH, and NSF on the set of organ- previously known as displayed by a member of the Security
isms with sophisticated molecular genetic analysis, each Council. Geneticists can promote development of genetic
representing an individual phylum. Gerry Fink referred to analysis in new organisms of biological interest; they can
this set of organisms as the “Security Council”: bring to light new genetic phenomena; and they can promote
the integration of the information garnered by the reductionist
With this volume, GENETICS announces that Arabidopsis
has joined the Security Council of Model Genetic Organisms paradigm of 20th-century genetics. For example, each of these
. . . the standard to which all other organisms are compared transcendent issues at the core of genetics was foreshadowed
. . . The idea is that an intense concentration on the genetics by particular articles in the Crow–Dove Perspectives series: the
of one of the representatives [of a phylum] provides a win- emergence of C. elegans genetics (Hodgkin 1989), the phe-
dow on the biology of all the other species in that phylum nomenon of paramutation (Chandler and Alleman 2008),
(Fink 1998).
understanding the basis for convergence of function between
Geneticists increasingly came to see themselves as fly, two phyla (Kaiser 1993), and the respective determinative
worm, mouse, or other organism-centered geneticists. Focus- and homeostatic roles of positive and negative feedback
ing effort on a particular species has led to explorations loops elucidated by “the grandfather of systems genetics”
wonderfully deep into the biological space occupied by that Rene Thomas (Brenner et al. 1990).
species. The GSA plays an essential role in supporting the core
This diaspora has been reflected in the disappearance of science of genetics going forward. Its journals, GENETICS and
the general GSA meeting. Figure 1E illustrates how the 1992 G3, provide a direct route to primary research data for inves-
general GSA meeting organized by Silflow and Lefebvre in tigators worldwide, across species. The Perspectives column
St. Paul, Minnesota, served the needs of David Perkins to creates a tapestry of personal stories that embody the distinct

1020 W. F. Dove
culture of the geneticist. I look forward to observing the pat- Davis, R. H., 2007 Tending Neurospora: David Perkins, 1919–
terns along which this fabric grows. 2007, and Dorothy Newmeyer Perkins, 1922–2007. Genetics
175: 1543–1548.
Dove, W., and M. Susman, 2012 Retrospective. James F. Crow
Acknowledgments (1916–2012). Science 335: 812.
Dove, W. F., 1987 Paradox found. Genetics 115: 217–218.
Adam Wilkins has gone beyond the call of editorial duty Dove, W. F., R. T. Cormier, K. A. Gould, R. B. Halberg, A. J. Merritt
to give critical advice. His contribution even preceded the et al., 1998 The intestinal epithelium and its neoplasms: ge-
netic, cellular and tissue interactions. Philos. Trans. R. Soc.
Crow–Dove effort when he created the “Roots” column
Lond. B Biol. Sci. 353: 915–923.
as the former Editor of BioEssays. The GENETICS edito- Drake, J., 1998 The Mom and Pop Editorial Shop. Genetics 148:
rial office has been a flexibly helpful partner throughout. 1409–1411.
In Wisconsin, Ilse Riegel and Alexandra Shedlovsky have Dunlap, J. C., 2008 Salad days in the rhythms trade. Genetics
critiqued matters of style, while Linda Clipson has en- 178: 1–13.
Edgar, B., 2004 The genome of bacteriophage T4: an archeolog-
hanced the quality of images and graphics. Readers of
ical dig. Genetics 168: 575–582.
the articles in this series will appreciate the care invested Ely, B., and L. Shapiro, 1989 The molecular genetics of differen-
by each author. Finally, on the occasion of his centennial, I tiation. Genetics 123: 427–429.
raise a toast to Jim Crow. He will live forever in the hearts Fink, G. R., 1988 Notes of a bigamous biologist. Genetics 118:
of those privileged to work with him, and in the minds of 549–550.
Fink, G. R., 1998 Anatomy of a revolution. Genetics 149: 473–
those who will enjoy reading the articles of the Perspec-
477.
tives series. Furth, M. E., J. L. Yates, and W. F. Dove, 1979 Positive and neg-
ative control of bacteriophage lambda DNA replication. Cold
Spring Harb. Symp. Quant. Biol. 43(Pt 1): 147–153.
Literature Cited Goldman, I. L., 2002 Raymond Pearl, smoking and longevity. Ge-
netics 162: 997–1001.
Adler, J., 2011 My Life with Nature. Annu. Rev. Biochem. 80: 42– Hartl, D. L., and R. Greenberg Temin, 2014 James F. Crow. Avail-
70. able at: http://www.nasonline.org/publications/biographical-
Allen, G. E., 1978 Thomas Hunt Morgan: The Man and His Science, memoirs/memoir-pdfs/crow-james.pdf. Accessed May 16, 2016.
Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ. Hartman, P. E., 1988 Between Novembers: Demerec, Cold Spring
Barker, H. A., and R. E. Hungate, 1990 Cornelius Bernardus Van Harbor and the gene. Genetics 120: 615–619.
Niel 1897–1985, pp. 389–423, in Biographical Memoirs, Na- Hartwell, L. H., 1991 Twenty-five years of cell cycle genetics.
tional Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C. Available at: Genetics 129: 975–980.
http://www.nap.edu/read/1652/chapter/19#389. Accessed: Hawley, R. S., 1993 Meiosis as an “M” thing: twenty-five years of
May 9, 2016. meiotic mutants in Drosophila. Genetics 135: 613–618.
Brenner, S., W. Dove, I. Herskowitz, and R. Thomas, 1990 Genes Hiraizumi, Y., L. Sandler, and J. F. Crow, 1960 Meiotic drive in
and development: molecular and logical themes. Genetics 126: natural populations of Drosophila melanogaster. III. Populational
479–486. implications of the Segregation-Distorter locus. Evolution 14:
Burland, T. G., L. Solnica-Krezel, J. Bailey, D. B. Cunningham, and 433–444.
W. F. Dove, 1993 Patterns of inheritance, development and Hodgkin, J., 1989 Early worms. Genetics 121: 1–3.
the mitotic cycle in the protist Physarum polycephalum. Adv. Horowitz, N. H., 1998 T.H. Morgan at Caltech: a reminiscence.
Microb. Physiol. 35: 1–69. Genetics 149: 1629–1632.
Castle, W. E., F. W. Carpenter, A. H. Clark, S. O. Mast, and W. M. Horowitz, N. H., P. Berg, M. Singer, J. Lederberg, M. Susman et al.,
Barrows, 1906 The effects of inbreeding, cross-breeding, and 2004 A centennial: George W. Beadle, 1903–1989. Genetics
selection upon the fertility and variability of Drosophila. Proc. 166: 1–10.
Am. Acad. Arts Sci. 41: 731–786. Irving, A. A., K. Yoshimi, M. L. Hart, T. Parker, L. Clipson et al.,
Cavalli-Sforza, L. L., 1992 Forty years ago in “Genetics”: the un- 2014 The utility of Apc-mutant rats in modeling human colon
orthodox mating behavior of bacteria. Genetics 132: 635–637. cancer. Dis. Model. Mech. 7: 1215–1225.
Chandler, V., and M. Alleman, 2008 Paramutation: epigenetic in- Kaiser, D., 1993 Roland Thaxter’s legacy and the origins of mul-
structions passed across generations. Genetics 178: 1839–1844. ticellular development. Genetics 135: 249–254.
Cohen, B. L., 2000 Guido Pontecorvo (“Ponte”), 1907–1999. Ge- Kass, L. B., C. Bonneuil, and E. H. Coe, 2005 Cornfests, com-
netics 154: 497–501. fabs and cooperation: the origins and beginnings of the
Crow, J. F., 1993 N. I. Vavilov, martyr to genetic truth. Genetics maize genetics cooperation news letter. Genetics 169:
134: 1–4. 1787–1797.
Crow, J. F., 1994 Hitoshi Kihara, Japan’s pioneer geneticist. Ge- Kenney, D. E., and G. G. Borisy, 2009 Thomas Hunt Morgan at the
netics 137: 891–894. marine biological laboratory: naturalist and experimentalist. Ge-
Crow, J. F., 1995 Quarreling geneticists and a diplomat. Genetics netics 181: 841–846.
140: 421–426. Lefebvre, P. A., and C. D. Silflow, 1999 Chlamydomonas: the cell
Crow, J. F., 2006 Perspectives - Interesting reviewers. Genetics and its genomes. Genetics 151: 9–14.
173: 1833–1834. Lewis, E. B., 1995 Remembering Sturtevant. Genetics 141: 1227–
Crow, J. F., 2008 Just and unjust: E. E. Just (1883–1941). Genet- 1230.
ics 179: 1735–1740. Maas, W., 2004 Leo Szilard: a personal remembrance. Genetics
Crow, J. F., and S. Abrahamson, 1997 Seventy years ago: muta- 167: 555–558.
tion becomes experimental. Genetics 147: 1491–1496. Moser, A. R., H. C. Pitot, and W. F. Dove, 1990 A dominant mu-
Crow, J. F., and R. D. Owen, 2000 Kay Wilson and the NIH ge- tation that predisposes to multiple intestinal neoplasia in the
netics study section. Genetics 155: 1–5. mouse. Science 247: 322–324.

Perspectives 1021
Mukai, T., S. I. Chigusa, L. E. Mettler, and J. F. Crow, Sherwood, P. W., 2001 The Yeast Genetics Course at Cold Spring
1972 Mutation rate and dominance of genes affecting viability Harbor Laboratory: thirty years and counting. Genetics 157:
in Drosophila melanogaster. Genetics 72: 335–355. 1399–1402.
Nagylaki, T., 1989 Gustave Malecot and the transition from Stahl, F. W., 1994 The Holliday junction on its thirtieth anniver-
classical to modern population genetics. Genetics 122: 253– sary. Genetics 138: 241–246.
268. Sturtevant, A. H., 1965 A History of Genetics, Cold Spring Harbor
Owen, R., 1989 Irwin and the beginnings of immunogenetics. Laboratory Press, Cold Spring Harbor, NY.
Genetics 123: 1–4. Sturtevant, A. H., 2001 Reminiscences of T. H. Morgan. Genetics
Owen, R., 2000 Karl Landsteiner and the first human marker 159: 1–5.
locus. Genetics 155: 995–998. Susman, M., 1995 The Cold Spring Harbor Phage Course (1945–
Parkinson, J. S., 1987 Doing behavioral genetics with bacteria. 1970): a 50th anniversary remembrance. Genetics 139: 1101–
Genetics 116: 499–500. 1106.
Paul, D., 1988 H. J. Muller, communism, and the Cold War. Ge- Waelsch, S. G., 1989 In praise of complexity. Genetics 122: 721–
netics 119: 223–225. 725.
Ranum, L. P., M. D. Thompson, J. A. Schloss, P. A. Lefebvre, and C. Weir, J. A., 1994 Harvard, agriculture, and the Bussey Institution.
D. Silflow, 1988 Mapping flagellar genes in Chlamydomonas Genetics 136: 1227–1231.
using restriction fragment length polymorphisms. Genetics Wu, G. E., and K. F. Lindahl, 2001 Memories of a mentor: Charley
120: 109–122. Steinberg. Genetics 157: 927–932.
Russell, E. S., 1987 A mouse phoenix rose from the ashes. Genet-
ics 117: 155–156. Communicating editor: A. S. Wilkins

Jim Crow, Ilse Riegel and Bill Dove (1996)

James F. Crow, Jan Drake and Bill Dove (2006)

1022 W. F. Dove