Mendel's Challenges

Today, Gregor Mendel is honored as the "Father of Genetics," yet it is ironically tragic that he was largely overlooked during his lifetime, nearly losing the recognition of his groundbreaking contributions.

Bronowski eloquently recounted Mendel's life as a cautionary tale for future generations who approach it with an open mind. Born into a farming family in what is now Austria, Mendel learned gardening from his father. After suffering a serious injury, his father sold the family farm to fund Mendel's education, leading him to the priesthood to continue his studies, where he adopted the name Gregor. Initially unsuccessful as a university student and teacher, he eventually became a monk at Brunn Monastery, located in present-day Czech Republic. His passion for gardening ultimately led him to become a 'kitchen-garden naturalist.'

Mendel's research on pea plant hybridization allowed him to be the first to theorize the particulate nature of inheritance regarding phenotypic traits. For instance, the color of seeds does not blend in offspring but instead reverts to the original colors in successive generations. While others had observed similar phenomena, they lacked the insight into the distinct nature of inheritance.

Mendel's findings were published in the Journal of the Brno Natural History Society in 1866, yet they remained largely ignored for over three decades. Bronowski noted that had Mendel been a professional scientist, he might have shared his results in a more accessible journal for biologists in France and Britain. Even Karl Nageli, a Swiss botanist who received copies of Mendel’s work, seemingly dismissed it as "an unknown writing in an unknown journal."

Had Mendel's theories gained traction during his lifetime, they might have challenged the prevailing Lamarckian views on inheritance and provided an early boost to Darwin's evolutionary theory. This would have spared pioneering female biologist Edith Saunders of Newnham College significant time rediscovering Mendel’s principles.

Is This Academic Snobbery?

Those with established scientific reputations who encountered Mendel's work either overlooked it or failed to grasp its revolutionary implications. This neglect may partly stem from an intellectual elitism that some academics embody, fostering an attitude of superiority. It is indeed unjust to think, "If we can’t, no one else can."

While many scholars exhibit humility, a sense of superiority persists among some, leading to a dereliction of their scientific responsibilities. When academics disregard valuable ideas from individuals without formal credentials, they hinder the collective growth of knowledge that scientists are meant to champion.

In response to Mendel’s findings, Nageli reportedly challenged him to replicate his work using hawkweeds, which not only undermined Mendel’s research but also indicated Nageli's belief in Mendel's fallibility.

In contrast, intellectual giants like Einstein exemplified true humility. He collaborated with Satyendra Nath Bose, an Indian physicist, to develop ideas that had initially been rejected by a scientific journal. Nageli’s failure to appreciate Mendel’s brilliance highlights the necessity of recognizing greatness in others, which often requires a greater understanding of one's own abilities.

Srinivasa Ramanujan, a clerk with no formal academic qualifications, might have remained unknown had it not been for the insight and humility of mathematician G.H. Hardy. Similarly, Jean-François Champollion, who deciphered hieroglyphics, and Michael Ventris, who decoded the Linear B script, achieved monumental successes despite lacking formal academic credentials. Unlike Mendel, these individuals were recognized for their genius during their lifetimes.

Mendel's experience underscores the growing rift between academic and non-academic scholars, a divide that is increasingly evident in the technical language employed by contemporary academic journals.

Are Humble Academics an Anomaly?

When technical jargon dominates the discourse, the core ideas often become secondary. Utilizing keywords relevant to a field can enhance an article's visibility among journal editors, primarily due to the sheer volume of electronic submissions and adherence to established standards.

> It is essential to maintain a filter to eliminate submissions lacking credibility. Many academic journals predominantly publish material that is technically sound and submitted by individuals affiliated with academic institutions, often upon the recommendation of referees. While precise language is crucial to avoid misunderstandings, the fundamental idea—the golden egg—should always take precedence. Ultimately, the essence of an idea matters more than the complexity of its presentation. If academic circles continue to dismiss valuable contributions from non-academic sources, they risk stifling progress, as happened with Gregor Mendel.

Even the peer-review process and the prestige of an academic journal do not guarantee the quality of ideas published. Recent scandals involving scientific misconduct highlight this issue. A Wikipedia page cataloging numerous incidents under "List of Scientific Misconduct Incidents" serves as a reminder that such events do not undermine the scientific process itself; rather, they reinforce the notion that science thrives on logic and evidence. Misconduct reveals that scientists, too, are human and susceptible to moral failings. Ultimately, the focus must remain on the ideas driving human progress.

Stephen Jay Gould, a prominent American paleontologist, emphasized the importance of ideas over presentation. He sought to bridge the gap between professional and general audiences, drawing on traditions from Galileo to Darwin that are often overlooked today. Similarly, Imre Lakatos revitalized this notion in his seminal work on mathematical logic, Proofs and Refutations.

Now may be the time to embrace simplicity and encourage lay scholars to engage in discourse. While it is challenging to filter out noise from valuable insights, prioritizing ideas based on their merit, rather than the credentials of their authors, is essential for intellectual growth. Shouldn't we embrace humility and look beyond the technical jargon or academic titles to acknowledge valuable contributions?

A Comprehensive Review of Literature vs. A Narrow Approach

In academic writing, reviewing existing literature is a common practice. When crafting a thesis, this often takes the form of a literature review or an introductory section. During this process, it is easy to dismiss what consensus deems unworthy. While brevity is important, failing to explain why certain ideas are excluded can perpetuate misconceptions among readers, allowing invalid concepts to persist.

1. Examine All Works, Including the Outlandish

   It is customary to reference previously published material when developing a topic. However, many limit their sources to peer-reviewed journals. While it is prudent to prioritize quality, should we not also consider intriguing ideas from broader audiences? Engaging with diverse perspectives can foster knowledge expansion.

2. Critique and Dismiss Absurd Ideas with Context

   It is our responsibility to explain why we reject certain ideas. While natural selection will ultimately weed out the untenable, a more inclusive approach leads to a holistic review rather than a superficial one that dismisses unconventional knowledge.

As a society, we must reevaluate the growing divide between academic and non-academic scholarship, even though no easy solutions exist. Shouldn't a well-articulated idea published in a broader forum, like Medium, hold equal merit to one found in a specialized journal? A wider audience could illuminate ideas, akin to the saying that "sunshine is the best disinfectant." This article, while critical, serves as a call to action to consider these issues more deeply.

Bibliographic Notes

[1] J. Bronowski (1973) The Ascent of Man, BBC, London, pp 380–388 [2] R. M. Henig (2001) The Monk in the Garden, Houghton Mifflin, Boston [3] D. J. Fairbanks (2022) Gregor Mendel: His Life and Legacy, Prometheus, USA [4] W D Allmon (2009) The Structure of Gould in Stephen Jay Gould, ed. by W D Allmon, P H Kelly & R M Ross, Oxford University Press, New York, pp 28–35 [5] I. Lakatos (1976) Proofs and Refutations: The Logic of Mathematical Discovery, a classic in philosophy of mathematics

> (This essay is based on the presentation “Crossing Knowledge Boundaries” delivered by the author at the ISAA Conference held at the National Library, Canberra, Australia, on September 22, 2022)