The Case of the Midwife Toad

Kammerer is usually held up as an example of scientific fraud, but I'm not so sure. His midwife toads may have had a genetic plasticity that was completely beyond the understanding of the day, but which he hit with an extreme and obsessive degree of artificial selection. Hence his results might have been real, but their meaning badly misunderstood by both sides at the time. We'll never know for sure.

This is a fascinating book for anyone interested in the history of science, particularly the history of evolutionary biology. There is much food for thought about fraud, the perception of fraud, scientific politics, and the impact of wider politics on scientists and their thinking.

I'd strongly recommend it to anyone interested in such show more topics, but it may be a bit hard to find. show less

Arthur Koestler found the idea of evolution by natural selection unsatisfying, if not disturbing, and spent years trying to promote non-selectionist mechanisms. In this book, he attempted to resurrect Paul Kammerer's reputation along with what he saw as his neo-Lamarckian views. In so doing, he had to battle against the evidence that Kammerer faked the results in the famous midwife toad experiment. Chief among the alternative explanations that Koestler promotes are that someone else at Kammerer's lab injected the single remaining specimen with India ink to make it appear that the toad had developed nuptial pads. As a hypothesis with no evidence to support it, Koestler's opinion must be regarded as untestable speculation.

On the positive show more side, Koestler delves deeply into the relevant correspondence and other evidence in an attempt to tease out the explanation for the alleged fraud. Likewise, he offers a detailed account of Kammerer's life and career, and offers a popularized account of the historical controversy. On the negative side, Koestler is far from an objective observer. He goes to great lengths to present Kammerer as an unfortunate victim of scientific orthodoxy of his day, particularly as represented by British and American scientists. Knowledgeable scientists will find Koestler's interpretations labored, convoluted, and less-than-plausible, and his arguments for a non-Darwinian mechanisms weak and unconvincing. Unfortunately, Koestler lacks the necessary scientific knowledge to make a convincing case. What's more, he was insufficiently grounded in evolutionary science to characterize the opposing views accurately. Bateson (whom he paints as an orthodox Darwinian) held heretical ideas of his own, including his view that saltation accounted for evolutionary change. Meanwhile, as Gliboff (2006) noted in her paper in Biology Reviews, "Koestler also exaggerated the threat that Kammerer's results posed to the theory of natural selection, for most of them can be explained in selectionist terms." Far from being a "Lamarckian" in the modern sense, Kammerer sought to reconcile Darwinian selection with genetics, while paying due credit to the very effects of environment that Darwin invoked. As a side note, one can note that a notable gap in Koestler's account lies in his omission of Kammerer's outlandish claims to have modified reproductive modes of lizards and salamanders by maintaining them under altered conditions.

This book enjoyed some popular attention when it first came out, but is unreliable as a disinterested guide to the controversy, much less to the relevant science involved. Koestler sought to use the Kammerer incident in an attempt to discredit modern evolutionary science, and in this respect his book is better regarded as a polemic than as a guide to the historical controversy. show less

Read as a teenager, and still memorable and inspirational for its focus on questioning evidence, scientific methods, and controversies of evolutionary biology. It reinforced my early interest in history of science, philosophy of science, and scientific culture, today better wrapped up in the academic subject STS (Science and Technology Studies).

An attempt to exonerate a famous scientist accused of fraud. It works well, gradually introducing evidence and maintaining interest. Personally, I felt the author withheld some information until later in the book to try to bolster his case. I remain unconvinced,but somewhat doubtful and enjoyed the read

Koestler's take on the scientific controversy of Paul Kammerer. Extremely well written and terribly interesting (if you like mysteries, biology, or philosophy of science). Worth it just for the way Koestler writes.

Just to be clear, no one here, including Koestler, a non-scientist, was disputing the fact of evolution. The debate was about the mechanisms of evolution.

The latest research suggests that Kammerer was not a fraud but rather made an extraordinary discovery about midwife toads. Extraordinary claims require remarkable proof, so that strong doubt about his unverified claim was fully appropriate. His Lamarckian view of the mechanism of evolution, which he was attempting to prove, was wrong, although recent advances show that epigenetic mechanisms may be heritable, uncommon in higher organisms and unrelated to our toad.

Koestler gives a history of Kammerer's attempt to deceive evolutionary biologists by faking frog speciments using ink.