Dobzhansky was born on January 25, 1900,[3] in Nemirov, Russian Empire (now Nemyriv, Ukraine), the only child of Grigory Dobzhansky, a mathematics teacher, and Sophia Voinarsky.[2]: 59 He was given an unusual name, Theodosius, because he was born after his middle-aged parents prayed for a child to St. Theodosius of Chernigov. In 1910 the family moved to Kiev.
At high school, Dobzhansky collected butterflies and decided to become a biologist.[4]: 163 In 1915, he met Victor Luchnik who convinced him to specialize in beetles instead. Dobzhansky attended the University of Kiev, where he then studied until 1924 specializing in entomology.[8] He then moved to Leningrad (today St. Petersburg) to study under Yuri Filipchenko, where a Drosophila melanogaster laboratory had been established.
On August 8, 1924, Dobzhansky married geneticist Natalia "Natasha" Sivertzeva, who was working with Ivan Schmalhausen in Kiev. The Dobzhanskys had one daughter, known under her married name as Sophie Coe, an anthropologist, food historian, and author, primarily known for her work on the history of chocolate.
Before immigrating to the United States, Dobzhansky published 35 scientific works on entomology and genetics.
America
Dobzhansky immigrated to the United States in 1927 on a work–study scholarship from the International Education Board of the Rockefeller Foundation. Upon arriving in New York City on December 27, he joined the Drosophila Group at Columbia University working alongside Thomas Hunt Morgan and Alfred Sturtevant. Their work provided crucial information on Drosophila cytogenetics.[9] Additionally, Dobzhansky and his team helped establish Drosophila pseudoobscura, within the genus Drosophila, as a favorable model organism in evolutionary-biological studies ever since they published their influential works.[10][11][12] Dobzhansky's original mindset (after studying alongside Yuri Filipchenko), was that there were serious doubts on using data obtained from phenomena happening in local populations (microevolution) and phenomena happening on a global scale (macroevolution). Filipchenko also believed that there were only two types of inheritance: Mendelian inheritance of variation within species, and Non-Mendelian inheritance of variation in a macroevolutionary sense. Dobzhansky later stated that Filipchenko "bet on the wrong horse".[13]
Dobzhansky's work in the field of evolutionary genetics, with the help of Sewall Wright, integrated standards of the theoretical, natural historical, and experimental work.[9]
Dobzhansky's research and studies allowed him to travel the world and receive honorary degrees in Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Denmark, England, Germany, Italy, Japan, and Sweden.[23]
Genetics and the Origin of Species
Theodosius Dobzhansky published three editions of his book Genetics and the Origin of Species. Although the book was meant for people with a background in biology, it was easily understood.[24] In the fields of genetics and evolution, Dobzhansky's book is acknowledged as one of the most important books ever written. With each revision of Genetics and the Origin of Species, Dobzhansky added new material on crucial, up to date topics, and removed material he deemed to be no longer crucial. His book sparked trends in genetic research and theory.[25]
The first edition of Genetics and the Origin of Species (1937) highlighted the most recent discoveries in genetics and how they applied to the concept of evolution.[24] The book starts by addressing the problem of evolution and how modern discoveries in genetics could help find a solution. The book covers the chromosomal basis of Mendelian Inheritance, how the effects from changes in chromosomes greater than gene mutations are common and acceptable, and how mutations form racial and specific differences.[26] Dobzhansky explained how three levels could describe the processes of evolutionary population genetics: (1) the origin of raw materials by mutations of genes and chromosomes, (2) the changes in populations by changes in frequencies and combinations of mutations, (3) the fixation of changes by reproductive isolation.[25] To support his writing and research, the bibliography was twenty-eight pages long with around six hundred sources.[26]
In Dobzhansky's second edition of Genetics and the Origin of Species (1941), four years had gone by and he was able to add more research and advancements made in genetics. Around half of the new research he found was added to the last two chapters in his book: Patterns of Evolution, and Species as Natural Units. In the second to last chapter, Patterns of Evolution, Dobzhansky explained how on the path to a new adaptation, a method could be used to where a species could go through a less adaptive stage. The last chapter, Species as Natural Units, Dobzhansky explained some of the contributions made in genetics to what was called "the new systematics." Dobzhansky's second edition of the book also had twice as many sources in the bibliography than the first edition.[24]
In the third revision of Genetics and the Origin of Species (1951), Dobzhansky rewrote all ten chapters on: Isolating Mechanisms, Mutation in Populations, Organic Diversity, Heredity and Mutation, Race Formation, Selection, Adaptive Polymorphism, Hybrid Sterility, Species as Natural Units, and Patterns of Evolution. Dobzhansky decided to remove the chapter on Polyploidy in the third edition.[27] The new chapter on Adaptive Polymorphism highlighted Dobzhansky's research since the second edition. He included precise, quantitative evidence on effective natural selection in laboratory and free populations.[25]
Debate about race
Theodosius Dobzhansky and Ashley Montagu debated the use and validity of the term "race" over a period of many years without reaching an agreement. Montagu argued that "race" was so laden with toxic associations that it was a word best eliminated from science completely. Dobzhansky argued that science should not give in to the misuses to which it had been subjected, and that the concept of animal and plant races has been important in biology; the modern synthesis used the concept for describing the diverging biological populations differing in gene frequencies. This was done in hopes that its foundation in population genetics would undermine the deeply ingrained social prejudices associated with "race".[28]
His concern with the interface between humans and biology may have come from different factors. The main factor would be the race prejudice that contributed in Europe that triggered WWII. His concern also dealt with religion in human life which he speaks about in his book The Biology of Ultimate Concern in 1967. "The pervasiveness of genetic variation provides the biological foundation of human individuality".[4] Dobzhansky talks about in great detail that "human nature has 2 dimensions: the biological, which mankind shares with the rest of life, and the cultural, which is exclusive to humans."[4] Both of these are believed to have come from "biological evolution and cultural evolution".[4]
Dobzhansky sought to put an end to the pseudoscience that purports genetic makeup to determine race, and thus rank in society. Harrison E. Salisbury wrote in a New York Times review of Dobzhansky's book Heredity and the Future of Man that Dobzhansky could not, together with other scientists, agree upon what defines a race. Dobzhansky stated that a true bloodline for man could not be identified. He did not believe that a person's genetic makeup decided whether or not he would be a great man but rather that man "has the rare opportunity 'to direct his evolution'".[29]
By 1975, his leukemia had become more severe, and on November 11 he traveled to San Jacinto, California, for treatment and care. Working until his last day as a professor of genetics, Dobzhansky died (from heart failure) on December 18, 1975, in Davis, California.[9] He was cremated, and his ashes were scattered in the Californian wilderness.[citation needed]
Dobzhansky, Th. 1981. Dobzhansky's Genetics of Natural Populations I-XLIII. R.C. Lewontin, J.A. Moore, W.B. Provine & B. Wallace, eds. Columbia University Press, New York. (reprints the 43 papers in this series, all but two of which were authored or co-authored by Dobzhansky)
Dobzhansky, Th. Wrote a recension of "The origin of races" by the anthropologist Carleton S. Coon.[33] Dobzhansky rejected Coon's theory of independent origin of identical mutations, but he did agree that selection favored a sapiens-like genotype in all proto-human populations, and expressed the theory that all sapiens-alleles existed at a low frequency in all erectus-populations, and that the statistical composition of the gene pool shifted from erectus to sapiens in multiple populations independently.
^Adams, M., ed. (1994). The Evolution of Theodosius Dobzhansky : essays on his life and thought in Russia and America. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press. ISBN978-0-691-03479-9.
^ abVucinich, Alexander (1995). "Review of The Evolution of Theodosius Dobzhansky: Essays on His Life and Thought in Russia and America". Slavic Review. 54 (3): 778–779. doi:10.2307/2501792. JSTOR2501792. S2CID165064587.
^King, Robert (2012-12-06). Dobzhansky T, Powell JR:Drosophila pseudoobscura and its American relatives, D. persimilis and D. miranda. Hand Book of Genetics. Edited by: King RC. 1975, New York: Plenum, 3: 537-587. ISBN9781461571483.
^Powell, Jeffrey R. (1997). Progress and prospects in evolutionary biology : the Drosophila model. New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN978-0195076912.
^Shermer, M.; Sulloway, F.J. (2000). "The grand old man of evolution". Skeptic. 8 (1): 76–82.
^Jackson, John P. (2001). ""In Ways Unacademical": The Reception of Carleton S. Coon's "The Origin of Races"". Journal of the History of Biology. 34 (2): 247–285. doi:10.1023/A:1010366015968. JSTOR4331661. S2CID86739986.