Human genetics in troubled times and places

Abstract The development of human genetics world-wide during the twentieth century, especially across Europe, has occurred against a background of repeated catastrophes, including two world wars and the ideological problems and repression posed by Nazism and Communism. The published scientific literature gives few hints of these problems and there is a danger that they will be forgotten. The First World War was largely indiscriminate in its carnage, but World War 2 and the preceding years of fascism were associated with widespread migration, especially of Jewish workers expelled from Germany, and of their children, a number of whom would become major contributors to the post-war generation of human and medical geneticists in Britain and America. In Germany itself, eminent geneticists were also involved in the abuses carried out in the name of ‘eugenics’ and ‘race biology’. However, geneticists in America, Britain and the rest of Europe were largely responsible for the ideological foundations of these abuses. In the Soviet Union, geneticists and genetics itself became the object of persecution from the 1930s till as late as the mid 1960s, with an almost complete destruction of the field during this time; this extended also to Eastern Europe and China as part of the influence of Russian communism. Most recently, at the end of the twentieth century, China saw a renewal of government sponsored eugenics programmes, now mostly discarded. During the post-world war 2 decades, human genetics research benefited greatly from recognition of the genetic dangers posed by exposure to radiation, following the atomic bomb explosions in Japan, atmospheric testing and successive accidental nuclear disasters in Russia. Documenting and remembering these traumatic events, now largely forgotten among younger workers, is essential if we are to fully understand the history of human genetics and avoid the repetition of similar disasters in the future. The power of modern human genetic and genomic techniques now gives a greater potential for abuse as well as for beneficial use than has ever been seen in the past

Evolution of the vertebrate jaw: comparative embryology and molecular developmental biology reveal the factors behind evolutionary novelty

It is generally believed that the jaw arose through the simple transformation of an ancestral rostral gill arch. The gnathostome jaw differentiates from Hox-free crest cells in the mandibular arch, and this is also apparent in the lamprey. The basic Hox code, including the Hox-free default state in the mandibular arch, may have been present in the common ancestor, and jaw patterning appears to have been secondarily constructed in the gnathostomes. The distribution of the cephalic neural crest cells is similar in the early pharyngula of gnathostomes and lampreys, but different cell subsets form the oral apparatus in each group through epithelial–mesenchymal interactions: and this heterotopy is likely to have been an important evolutionary change that permitted jaw differentiation. This theory implies that the premandibular crest cells differentiate into the upper lip, or the dorsal subdivision of the oral apparatus in the lamprey, whereas the equivalent cell population forms the trabecula of the skull base in gnathostomes. Because the gnathostome oral apparatus is derived exclusively from the mandibular arch, the concepts ‘oral’ and ‘mandibular’ must be dissociated. The ‘lamprey trabecula’ develops from mandibular mesoderm, and is not homologous with the gnathostome trabecula, which develops from premandibular crest cells. Thus the jaw evolved as an evolutionary novelty through tissue rearrangements and topographical changes in tissue interactions