The world learned of the heated dispute about the methodology of the early works by Davenport and Rosanoff claiming Mendelian transmission patterns for mental handicap and psychiatric illness in a bold headline in the New York Times on Sunday, November 9, 1913: ENGLISH EXPERT ATTACKS AMERICAN EUGENIC WORK. I here focus on the debate surrounding Rosanoff's 1911 study where he presented evidence that the neuropathic constitution, including, among its manifestations, dementia praecox, and manic-depressive illness, was an autosomal recessive trait. The “English expert,” David Heron, a student of Pearson's, launched the debate in his 1913 paper which argued that Rosanoff's field work methods were biased, his clinical assessments sloppy, his phenotype far too broad, and his statistical approach flawed. Both Davenport, Rosanoff's mentor, and Rosanoff vigorously defended their methods. Behind this sometimes personal debate was the long simmering controversy about the relative validity of Biometrical genetic (represented by Heron and Pearson) and Mendelian genetic (represented by Rosanoff and Davenport) models for genetic transmission in plants, animals and, especially, humans. A review suggests that most of Heron's criticisms were valid. This episode presages later controversies within psychiatric genetics, for example between twin and linkage researchers in the 1980s and 1990s.

中文翻译：

---

孟德尔主义者和生物统计学家在精神病学遗传学中争论的开端：David Heron、Karl Pearson、Abraham Rosanoff 和 Charles Davenport 1913-1914

全世界都知道了关于达文波特和罗萨诺夫早期作品方法论的激烈争论，他们在纽约时报的一个大胆的标题中声称孟德尔传播模式用于精神障碍和精神疾病1913 年 11 月 9 日，星期日：英语专家攻击美国的优生学工作。在此，我将重点关注围绕 Rosanoff 1911 年研究的辩论，他在该研究中提出证据表明神经病性体质，包括其表现中的早发性痴呆和躁狂抑郁症，是一种常染色体隐性遗传特征。“英语专家”，皮尔逊的学生大卫赫伦，在他 1913 年的论文中发起了辩论，认为罗萨诺夫的实地工作方法有偏见，他的临床评估马虎，他的表型过于广泛，他的统计方法有缺陷。罗萨诺夫的导师达文波特和罗萨诺夫都大力捍卫他们的方法。在这种有时是个人辩论的背后，是关于生物特征遗传（以 Heron 和 Pearson 为代表）和孟德尔遗传（以 Rosanoff 和 Davenport 为代表）模型在植物、动物，尤其是人类中遗传传播的相对有效性的长期酝酿争议。一项评论表明，赫伦的大部分批评都是有效的。这一事件预示着后来精神遗传学领域的争议，例如 1980 年代和 1990 年代双胞胎和连锁研究人员之间的争议。