Gilbert S F
Martin Biological Laboratories, Swarthmore College, Pennsylvania 19081, USA.
Am J Med Genet. 1998 Mar 5;76(2):168-82.
As we construct the fusion of medical embryology and medical genetics, it is important to be aware of how the history of genetics has been written to exclude embryology. This article looks at the rhetoric of genetics and how that rhetoric fits a paradigm of supersessionism. Supersessionism is often seen in the history of religion when one sect claims superiority to the original sect from whence it emerged. Such supersessionism portrays embryology as a failed research program, one that genetics now has saved. In some instances, biblical references have alluded to the failed nature of embryology. Although this article does not criticize the data of genetics, it takes issue with the historiography used by geneticists and seeks to show that the mergers between genetics and embryology are those between two equal partners and not between an inferior and superior member.
在构建医学胚胎学与医学遗传学的融合时，重要的是要意识到遗传学的历史是如何被书写以排除胚胎学的。本文探讨了遗传学的修辞以及这种修辞如何符合取代主义的范式。取代主义在宗教历史中经常出现，当一个教派声称比其起源的原始教派更优越时。这种取代主义将胚胎学描绘成一个失败的研究项目，而遗传学现在拯救了它。在某些情况下，圣经参考文献暗示了胚胎学的失败性质。虽然本文不批评遗传学的数据，但它对遗传学家使用的历史编纂学提出质疑，并试图表明遗传学与胚胎学之间的合并是两个平等伙伴之间的合并，而不是一个 inferior 和 superior 成员之间的合并。 （注：原文中“inferior”和“superior”未明确给出对应准确中文，暂保留英文）
