Biopolym. Cell. 1996; 12(1):29-41.
Some paradigms of molecular biology and genetics and the history of sciences
1Golubovsky M. D.
  1. St. Petersburg Branch of the Institute for the History of Science and Technology named after S. I. Vavilov, RAS
    Universitetskaya naberezhnaya, 5., Saint-Petersburg, Russian Federation, 199164


Using some examples of perception of new discoveries in the field of general and molecular genetics we compared two approaches to the understanding of science development – classicaland nontraditional one. Firstapproach imagines a science development as a process of step by step accumulation of new facts which are obtained according to some universally recognized criteria. Nontraditional approach sees an essence in the regular change of conceptions and scientific paradigms. New hypothesis are usually put forward and accepted or neglected according to some personal individual criteria and paradigm adopted. A core of G. Mendel discovery is not afield of new facts but the new paradigm about nature of heredity and methods of its investigation. This mendelian paradigm determined the accumulation and interpretation of knowledge in the field of general and molecular genetics. At the same time a lot of facts which did not correspond to the paradigms of chromosomal theory of inheritance were usually neglected or rejected. Some controversies connected with the birth of mobile genetics and understanding of science development are briefly discussed.


[1] Feyerabend P. Selected works about methodology of science. M.: Progress, 1986.
[2] The erring mind ?: Variety non-scientific knowledge. M.: Politizdat, 1990.
[3] Polanyi M. Personal Knowledge. M.: Mir, 1986.
[4] Kuhn TS The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. M.: Progress, 1977
[5] Shreyder YUL. Computer as a tool for knowledge representation. Priroda. 1986; 10.
[6] Lubischev AA. On the nature of hereditary factors. Izv Biol. Instiute Perm. Univ. 1925;4:142 .
[7] Golubovsky MD. Critical studies in genetics. Aleksandr Aleksandrovich Lubischev. L.: Nauka, 1982;52—64.
[8] Lubischev AA. Lessons from the history of science. Inventor. 1975; 8—9.
[9] Vol'kenshteyn MB. Treatise on pseudoscience. Khimiiya i zhyzn. 1975;8.
[10] Golubovsky MD. Classical and modern genetics: evolution of views on genetic variability. Evolutionary biology: Trudy St. Petersburg, of the Society of Naturalists. 1995;90(16):7—47.
[11] Golubovsky MD. The fate of Mendel's discoveries and principles of beauty. Znanie -sila. 1982;9(7).
[12] Johansen V. Elements precise doctrine of variability and heredity. Selkhozgiz, 1933.
[13] Wallic C. Nobel prize-winning Barbara McClintock Honoring a Modern Mendel'. Amirika. 1984;6.
[14] Keller EF. A feeing for the organism. The life and work of Barbara McClintock. New York: Freeman and Company, 1983.
[15] Green MM. Annals of mobile DNA elements in Drosophila: the impact and influence of Barbara McClintock. New York: McClinctock Heritage, 1990: 117—22.
[16] Khesin RB. Genome instability. Moscow, Nauka, 1984; 472 p.
[17] Golubovsky MD. Mobile elements, not of mutation, evolution (Book review Khesin RB. Genome instability. Moscow, Nauka, 1984; 472 p.) Genetika. 1985:9(10).
[18] Genomes' evolution. M.: Mir, 1986.
[19] Schields R. Pastoral synteny. Science. 1994; 365:297-8.
[20] Crick F. Split genes and RNA splicing. Science. 1979;204(4390):264-71.
[21] Doolittle WF, Sapienza C. Selfish genes, the phenotype paradigm and genome evolution. Nature. 1980;284(5757):601-3.
[22] Orgel LE, Crick FH. Selfish DNA: the ultimate parasite. Nature. 1980;284(5757):604-7.
[23] Salyamon LS Some determinants of the perception of a new science again. Scientific discovery and its perception. M. Nauka, 1971;95-115.
[24] Frolov BL. Opening and perception of petroglyphs glacial epoch. Scientific discovery and its perception. M. Nauka,194—235.