Aronson, Lester R. "The Case of The Case of the Midwife Toad," Behavior Genetics 5 (April,
1975), pp. 115-125.
Here we have a representative of orthodox biology attacking Koestler's book and "setting the
record straight." This is necessitated by the success of Koestler's book and because Koestler was
such a persuasive writer that Aronson considers it a shame he has chosen to write a defense of an
"obviously" guilty man. "I was familiar with this amazing story, for it was regularly told to
biology students an object lesson. In essence, falsifying evidence is just about the worst sin that a
scientist can commit since such actions threaten to destroy the very heart of the scientific
system." (p. 115)
Aronson does not make the same mistake that Gould makes: he suggests that Kammerer never
thought that the midwife toad was good evidence for Lamarckianism. At best, the development
of the pad would have been an atavism. I mention this because Gould makes much of it.
What this article says most and best is that young professionals and laymen should beware of the
popularizers of pseudoscience. Aronson here plays the part of the historian-gatekeeper, the
science watcher, who must rewrite history so as to prevent misinterpretations of the sort that