Richard Goldschmidt : hopeful monsters and other ‘ heresies

Presidency of the International Congress of Genetics (TIMELINE). For historians of science, Goldschmidt’s enduring reputation as a ‘scientific heretic’ presents several challenges as we seek to understand his role in twentieth century biology. His positive contributions to genetics made him an important and respected scientist during the first half of the twentieth century. However, his controversial rejection of the classical, particulate gene concept and gradual evolution put him at odds with many leading biologists in the United States. Why did he lose faith in the classical gene and neoDarwinian evolution? Answering this relatively straightforward historical question is complicated by the fact that Goldschmidt’s negative reputation among scientists remains strong. Histories that do not begin with the assumption that Goldschmidt was and is a ‘heretic’ run the risk of appearing as if they are defending his science. Indeed, several biologists in the past 25 years have tried to rehabilitate his theories, as they extol the merits of some aspect of his work. I have no desire to rehabilitate or defend all of Goldschmidt’s science, but I believe that his reputation as a heretic obscures important features of his life and work. In this article, I emphasize the development of his controversial views, as well as his broader scientific ambition of integrating evolutionary biology, developmental biology and genetics.