Journal of the College of Physicians and Surgeons Pakistan 2009, Vol. 19 (10): 649-654 649

INTRODUCTION

In 1911, Fisher discovered that Mendel's original resultsall fell within the limits of probable error. Latter on, in1936 Fisher gave a detailed statistical analysis ofMendel's data.1

The Mendel-Fisher controversy has recently beenmentioned.2 Gregor Mendel is indeed commonlyregarded as the father of genetics; nevertheless, therehas been an ongoing debate on what was frequentlymentioned in Mendel's famous article entitled'Experiments in Plant Hybridization'.3 The communi-cation did not assess the complexities of statistics thatMendel used. It demonstrated that even legends suchas Mendel (and Charles Darwin as well) have been thesubject of controversial argument in the advancedworld.4

Noticeably, Fisher's last student, Edwards previouslyopined on Mendel’s work, defending Fisher: The latterspainstaking analysis and defense of Mendel’s integrityhas been incorrectly reported as having exposed ascientific fraud of major proportions.5

As aforementioned, Mendel's "Experiments in Plant-Hybridization",2 originally presented in 1865, became

the groundwork of modern genetics. Nevertheless, theimportant issue is as follows. Did Mendel's researchfollow the rigors of valid scientific investigation, or wasMendel's data too good to be true? Leading expertspresent their wrapping-up on the famous controversysurrounding the confrontation by Fisher's analysis in1936 to Mendel's research findings.5

There is another work that demonstrates that the mostfamous scientists in the history have all used their gutfeelings, convictions, perception and profound under-standing of the processes they investigated, to onedegree or the other, to reach their conclusions.6 In fact,science is really an amalgamation of subjective andobjective outlooks. Likewise, there has been acontroversy as to Mendel’s use of subjectivity in his worksince Fisher ‘pointed out’ in 1936.6

Indeed, it appears that Fisher discovered that Mendel'sresearch finding was too good to be true. Unfortunately,Fisher used too many 'excuses' to protect Mendel. Sucha keen effort on Fisher’s part could be due to the factthat Fisher himself is a strong believer of eugenics.

A paper by Chong-Ho (Alex) Yu evaluated the wealthand convolution of the ideas about probability with animportance on the associations between Fisherian andother probability hypotheses.7

Although the dominant statistical and probabilisticapproach is the Fisherian tradition, the application ofFisherian significance testing of the null hypothesisalong with its probabilistic inference has been anongoing debate. Dr. Yu demonstrated the viewpoints

ABSTRACTThis review article aims to discuss and analyze the background and findings regarding Fisher-Mendel Controversy inGenetics and to elucidate the scientific argument and intellectual integrity involved, as well as their importance in a fairsociety, and the lesson of Western falls as learned. At the onset of this review, the kernel of Mendel-Fisher Controversy isdissected and then identified. The fact of an organizational restructuring that had never gone towards a happysynchronization for the ensuing years since 1933 is demonstrated. It was at that time after Fisher succeeded Karl Pearsonnot only as the Francis Galton Professor of Eugenics but also as the chief of the Galton Laboratory at University College,London. The academic style of eugenics in the late 19th and early 20th centuries in the UK is then introduced. Fisher’sideology at that time, with its effects on the human value system and policy-making at that juncture are portrayed.Bioethical assessment is provided. Lessons in history, the emergence of the Eastern phenomenon and the decline of theWestern power are outlined.

Key words: Bioethics. Controversy. Eugenics. Fisher. Western fall.

Department of Research, New York College of TraditionalChinese Medicine, Mineola, NY, USA.

Correspondence: Dr. Bing H. Tang, 182-01 Union Tpke Flushing,NY, 1136645, USA.Email: prof.bing@gmail.com

Received October 17, 2008; accepted May 05, 2009.

Fisher-Mendel Controversy in Genetics: Scientific Argument,Intellectual Integrity, A Fair Society, Western Falls

and Bioethical Evaluation Bing H. Tang

REVIEW ARTICLE

that can sway the forum of an interesting topic in thehistory of science - but less well-known is the key playerbehind this spectacularly interesting history ofinferences.

Kernel of Mendel-Fisher controversy: Fisher wasindeed very merciful to Gregor Mendel, even if Fisherestablished that Mendel was not quite honest inexplaining the outcomes of his own geneticsstudies.1,6-8 He constructed the notion that physicalproperties of species were subject to heredity. Incollecting proof for his academic opinion, Mendelexperimented a fertilization study in order to go afterseveral age groups of axial and terminal flowers todetect how particular genes were approved from onegeneration to another.7

Fisher (1936) discovered that Mendel's researchoutcomes were so near to the expected replica that theremaining portion of the size presented would beexpected merely by a chance in less than once in10,000 occasions if the replica were real.1 It was quitesurprising that notwithstanding this refutation, Fisherdescribed Mendel as an experienced and successfulteacher who might well have adopted a style ofpresentation suitable for the lecture-room without feelingunder any obligation to complete his story byunessential details, as lucidly pointed out by Yu.7 Indealing with how Mendel expressed 'incorrectly' abouthis own research data, Fisher noted that "Mendel tookexcessive and unnecessary liberties with facts".7 Yu,also clearly illustrated that in demonstrating why Mendelwas 'incorrect' about his own research data, Fisher evenhinted at Mendel being deceived by some assistant’smistake.7 This author (Tang) has searched hitherto; andfound neither the proof of such an assistant's name, northe assistant’s research 'mistake' on this particularscientific event.

On the other hand, Fisher treated Darwin, but notPearson, in a similarly polite manner as he treatedMendel.7,9 The very reason for Fisher's so doing,possibly, was due to Fisher's highly flavored Darwinianpoint of reference. It is noted that in probability models,especially on the subject of a pre-set alpha level, thereare different opinions between Fisher and Pearson.Other focuses of dissimilarities still exist between both ofthem on topics such as type I and II error rates.7-11

It appears that Fisher held a double standard meting outone treatment to Pearson on the one hand, and anotherto Mendel and Darwin. Both Fisher and Pearson werenot only statisticians but geneticists as well. This author(Tang) agrees with Yu that Fisher had already heavilytaken on Mendelian genetics and Darwinianevolutionary models. It is noted that one of Fisher'scareer targets was to fuse biostatistics, Mendelism, andDarwinism together.7,12-14

This can be traced back as far as to an era of the late19th century. At that time, Mendel gave a clear responseto one of the major issues of evolution. The issue mainlyat that time was, whether the variation of a trait inhumans, is genetic or not. Mendel did respond to thiswith his presentation of an elementary structure of thegenetic theory.7 Indeed, Mendel's theory was forgottenfor quite a long-time until it was re-visited and re-elaborated by de Vries in 1900. Whether or not, de Vriesreally did understand Mendel's original theory is still adifferent but open question, but it is really beyond thecurrent scope of this author's writing.16

Fisher worked at Rothamsted on evolution, and onincorporating Mendelian theory with Darwin's hypo-thesis of natural selection. His first academicallytheoretical paper was On the Dominance Ratio.17 Also,he worked in partnership with E. B. Ford on the study ofassortment in wild populations. Fisher's concepts onevolution were incorporated together in the book ofGenetical Theory of Natural Selection.18 Hamilton ratedthis book as second in importance in evolution theory toDarwin's Origin. It introduced the fundamental theoremof natural selection which caused the argument betweenFisher and others much later as reviewed in BennettNatural Selection.19 Merely two reviews are nowadaysavailable on JSTOR. Both stress the chapters on humanpopulations — N. M. Grier in Social Forces Dec (1930)JSTOR and A. B. Hill in JRSS No. 1 (1931) JSTOR.20, 21

Fisher argued that Mendelism with its outlook of specificlegacy, did not disagree with Darwinism; on the contrary,he felt that Mendelism with its vision can rely onDarwinism. Fisher, with Sewall Wright and J. B. S.Haldane, is by and large regarded as one of thedesigners of The Modern Synthesis.

An organizational restructuring never goingtowards a happy synchronization: In 1933, Fishersucceeded Karl Pearson not only as the Francis Galton,Professor of Eugenics but also the chief of the GaltonLaboratory at University College, London. Fisher hadmuch more respect for Galton than for his disciple. It isnoteworthy that Galton, a cousin of Darwin, rebuffed theconcept of minute variations in traits as an evolutionarydrive. Nevertheless, Galton has still been regarded asthe pioneer of biometrics due to his contribution ofstatistical methods to the subject of biological evolution.One of Galton's famous contributions is his concept ofregression toward the mean. Eventually, even thoughFisher was Karl Pearson's natural successor in bothstatistics and eugenics, Fisher did not become heir tothe entire academic territory as the original Departmentof Applied Statistics was then divided off and headed byPearson's son, E. S. Pearson. Such an organizationalrestructuring indeed did not go towards a happysynchronization. Noticeably, the relationship betweenFisher and members of E. S. Pearson's department,

650 Journal of the College of Physicians and Surgeons Pakistan 2009, Vol. 19 (10): 649-654

Bing H. Tang

particularly, the most important theorist within thisdepartment, Jerzy Neyman, steadily worsened.

The following is a brief summary. Opposing Darwin’sinitial standpoint that evolution is a consequence ofgathered minute variations of traits, biologists who werein favour of Mendel's genetic theory afterward proposedthe contrary: evolution is indeed led by mutation. Inaddition, evolution is broken in nature. Noticeably, by theend of the 19th and the early 20th centuries, twocontrasting disciplines of theories were established.They were the Mendelians and the biometricians.7

The aforementioned miscellaneous opinions of theevolutionary and genetic hypotheses are relevant to thedevelopment of probabilistic and statistical inferences.Specifically, due to the concepts of the never-endingpopulation in the Fisherian discipline, as well as theportrayal of separate data sets in the Pearsoniandiscipline, they can well be drawn back to theirrespective original positions in biological sciences.22

The academic style of eugenics in the late 19th andearly 20th centuries: In fact, Fisher's fusion ofMendelism, Darwinism, and biometrics is connected tothe academic style of eugenics; an alternative ofMendelism, in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.7,14

During that time period, Westerners highly favouredeugenics, i.e. applied genetics. Several researcherswere dedicated to interpreting the reason that Westerncivilizations were much 'better' than others, along withfinding the best way for them to conserve and defendtheir established civilizations. Based on Darwinism, thefittest species appear to be the ones who are physicallymost powerful and could replicate more offspring.Darwinism was able to explain the concept that the Westwas physically more powerful and thus had the"mandate destiny" because nature had chosen it as thesuperior. Nevertheless, there was still some dissentingvoices, such as that of Karl Pearson, along with thosefrom Mendelians and biometricians. All those inputsconstitute dispute, and have been regarded as anobstruction to the development and forward movementof Darwinism.7 It appears that the late 1990s was a timefor revisiting and reconsidering many aspects of thep < 0.05 relic from Fisher's work,23,24 if not "the Fishercontroversy" per se that this author is referring to.

The arguments involved in the current controversy:1. Initially, Galton was convinced that intelligence alongwith other valued human characteristics were inheritedinstead of being affected by the environmental factor. Inorder to promote intelligence and put off feeble-mindedness, Galton promoted so-called "good"marriages, the argument being that such marriageswould result in the production of extremely bright malesand ensure supply of cohorts. This notion of Galton'sconcept of eugenics can be traced back to CharlesDarwin's 1859 book, The Origin of Species.25

2. In fact, evolutionary theory came into issue in the firstplace. Under such a theory, the human race wasclassified as "fit" and "unfit". Eugenics turned out to bethe scientific community's calling at that time. Inaddition, there was another factor of social control thatmust be considered as well.

3. Galton accorded that "social control may improve orimpair the racial qualities of future generations whetherphysically or mentally." Darwin quoted Galton repeatedlyin his next book, The Descent of Man. Galton andDarwin agreed with each other that intellect and bravery,along with other fine as well as disagreeable emotionswere affected by family education.26 On the other hand,characteristics, for example, mental disorder wasinclined to be taken over. With respect to medical care,social Darwinists believed it provided the "fragile" withan augmented capacity to stay alive. With medical care,the “weak” people could hopefully be prevented frombeing eradicated by nature.

4. There are evidences as following that are consideredas Fisher's 'misconducts' or 'misconcepts'. Generallyspeaking, it is essential for one, especially for a scientist,to persist in one's real faith in the incomprehensive. Fora scientist, the incomprehensible must soon becomecomprehensible; otherwise, one would cease to exploreit in the first place. That being said, there is still thematter of the mainstream philosophy of science.

This mainstream philosophy of science has to be furtherassessed for the following question. On what base doessuch a philosophy depend? It relies on the view ofknowledge as justified and on real faith and it associateswith the epistemology based on this view.

That having been said, as per the current analysis, whatFisher had done right and wrong appears to be able tobe identified as outlined here even without employingthe rational belief change theory, the way Pilpel didphilosophically.27

What this author has done is to merely apply theprinciple of justice to bioethics, without even touchingthe rational belief change theory in philosophy asPilpel did.

Fisher's opinions were not in conformity with themainstream philosophy of science. For argument’ssake, this author feels that there is little difference in thephilosophy of science between Fisher's days and thecurrent time. Even if there is some difference in thephilosophy of science between these two differentgenerations (cohorts), the bioethical principles are veryseldom altered.

Bioethical considerations are employed not only inscientific research but also in policy-making. Most ofFisher's research supplied a response to the issue thatwas critically considered by Western policy makers andresearchers. This author envisages that people are

Journal of the College of Physicians and Surgeons Pakistan 2009, Vol. 19 (10): 649-654 651

Fisher-Mendel controversy in genetics

652 Journal of the College of Physicians and Surgeons Pakistan 2009, Vol. 19 (10): 649-654

Bing H. Tang

people, and should not be classified as either 'high' or'low' class. Such a classification seriously violates theprinciple of justice in bioethics.

Based on the Mendelian-Darwinian-Biometrician fusion,Fisher ‘advised’ that the only way to ‘guarantee’enhancement of the country (the UK) was to increasethe reproduction of 'high-class people', according toBrenner-Golomb.7,14 Indeed, Hilter's Nazism and thenotion of a better race have a strong foot print ofDarwinism. This was discussed in the documentary byBenjamin Stein.27 However, it is important to emphasizethat this notion is not the original intent of Darwin.

Pilpel suggests that the objective of Fisher’s paper is notto reject Mendel or Mendelism, but to rescue Mendelfrom the misinterpretations forced upon him by the anti-Darwinian camp.28 Fisher wanted to synthesizebiometrics and Mendelism, so he could not side with thebiometricians to discredit Mendel.

In a fair society, classifing people as ‘high-class’ and‘lower-class’ does involve serious bioethical issues.John Rawls, a British philosopher, viewed that theethical quandaries of a fair society cannot be solved bypassing on merely to ‘present time.’ Rather, history mustbe considered for a complete perspective. There are noexemptions for scientific, public health, genetic or evenmedical dilemmas.17

For argument’s sake, with the spread of Western cultureto the East, particularly from last century, theconfrontation between the Eastern understanding ofnature and the Western manipulation-of-nature basedagriculture, is a typical example of confrontation in thehumble opinion of this author (Tang). This confrontationhas ended up in an awareness of the benefits ofsmallholder agriculture, where farmers' agriculturalpractices are incorporated with their cultural persuasionand performance. In this context, along with theassociation of religion and agriculture, it has constructedthe ground of prevailing the field of research within thegeneral scope of agricultural philosophy.29 The latter isa vigorous and robust example of the rebuilding of amind with farsighted imagination, based on ancientwisdom. One can also visualize the sustainability ofChristianity and Buddhism in the context of religion andagriculture, considering the latter as a field of appliedscience.

Lessons in history: the emergence of the easternphenomenon and the decline of the western power:Western power was at its acme towards the late 19th

century. At that peak, Western standards of religion,science, technology, morality, and education wereemphasized almost everywhere – not only that, theseWestern standards were even accepted as beingsuperior to that of the East. A little more than half acentury later, there was a weakening of this West power

and Japan was elevated to the position of a financialand economic superpower. This was followed by theemergence of the other four Asian dragons (Singapore,Hong Kong, South Korea and Taiwan) on the Asianplatform. Empires do fall. Many may call it "the AmericanCentury". Nevertheless, during the past hundred years,there was an obvious transfer away from Westerndominance to other emerging powers. Under thetelescopic examination of Edward Gibbon's historicalassessment, Rome 331, along with America and Europe2006 appear to have more than a few issues sharedtogether, not even to mention that there are still moreproblems up to this time.30,31

The fall of Rome was indeed an ordinary andunavoidable outcome. It is among the unblemished andunbroken constructions of another city that one mightstart to stretch one’s metaphor for a potentialcomplication that might be repeatedly recorded: thehistory of the fall of the West, signifying a distinctivecomplexity of faiths and organizations that was initiatedwith the Greeks and was established with the crossingof the Romans into Europe embraced Christianity andthen crossed into the New World with Columbus.31

The concept of Western fall is hardly a recent one. Afterthe end of the First World War, a retired Germanschoolteacher, Oswald Spengler published his famousbook entitled Der Untergang des Abendlandes, (TheDecline of the West).32 Spengler’s characteristichypothesis is that human developments cross periods.At any rate, occurrences since the end of the SecondWorld War have initially tended to damage thereputation of Spengler's key concept of a Westerndecline. After all, his notion has turned out to be far moreconvincing and persuasive in representing the history ofthe 20th century as a portion of a stretched outoccidental ascendancy.33

As aforementioned, Oswald Spengler (1880-1936) isbest known for The Decline of the West, in which headvocated his trail breaking philosophy of world historyand infiltrating diagnosis of the catastrophe ofmodernism. Drawing upon Spengler's personal papers,John Farrenkopf proceeds to present a courageousexplanation of the fruition of Spengler's political concept,unveiling a stage in the years prior to Germany'soverthrow in World War I in which Spengler was aconventional supporter of the semi-democratization ofthe Second Reich.34 John Farrenkopf investigatesSpengler's association to German historicism, hisposition in the German traditions of cultural cynicismand real politics without moral consideration and hisserious attitude concerning Nazism. It appears to beimpossible to recognize Spengler without a greaterrecognition of the historicism (and Goethe) that filteredthrough his worldview at that time. John Farrenkopf’scontribution through his book is long past due.35

Journal of the College of Physicians and Surgeons Pakistan 2009, Vol. 19 (10): 649-654 653

Fisher-Mendel controversy in genetics

Noticeably, the uncomplicated truths presented byAdam Smith have raised more people above the povertyline in the last about 30 years than all the governmentassistance programs of all the nations in the world in thesame period. Zakaria records that in 2007, the PewGlobal Attitudes Survey polled citizens in 47 nations inorder to understand the degree to which they haveoptimistic outlooks concerning free trade and openmarkets.35 The US came in last in this poll, after everyother nation. He further observes that in the 6-7 yearssince the survey has been done, no nation has seen assluggish a growth as the US. His conclusion is that othernations are rising relative to the US, and that this hasbeen occurring since WW-II.

The weakness of his book appears to be as follows. Herefers to the "West" as Western Europe and the US.Such a definition appears to be flawed, and S.Hutingon modified his to comprise southern regions inLatin America and Eastern European nations.Furthermore, there are still more recent works onWestern decline other than those mentioned above.36-38

The end-of-the-West theorists foresee an augmentationin the attractiveness of religion as an answer to thedeficiency of ethical along with moral confidences andthe collapse of acknowledged values.36 Those theoristswho foresee the end of Western civilization differ onvarious issues. Nevertheless, they see Russia as anoverpass between the East and the West as the worldmoves on its way towards a global civilization.

The idea of decline is indeed a theory about the natureand meaning of time. The words "decadence” and"degeneracy”, so widely used to by politicians andcultural commentators three or more generations ago,are rarely the key words of current political debate.

Echoing the reduction in college courses on Westerncivilization, Marshall Sahlins targets to hasten thetendency by decreasing "Western Civilization" to abouttwo hours per week. He refers to Nietzsche saying thatimmeasurable problems are similar to cold baths; oneought to get into and out of them as promptly aspossible. The bottomless issue at this juncture is theprimeval Western phantom of an antisocial and pre-social human nature: a hypothetically inborn self-centeredness that is symbolized in our natural myths asthe foundation or vengeance of cultural order.Nonetheless, these Western concepts of nature andculture overlook the one acknowledge worldwide truth ofhuman society i.e. emblematically structured kinshiprelationships. Sahlins thus concludes in his book thatWestern society has been built on a wicked andincorrect view of human nature.39

That having been said, D. Scott’s analysis of East-Westcountres is illustrated via reflection of objective yetsubjective structured notions for the international systemand international economy in the 21st century. There are

three models that are to be evaluated. There are ‘PacificCentury’, ‘China Century’ and the ‘Asian Century’.40

Generally speaking there seems to be a generalconsensus on the decline of Western power.

CONCLUSION

In this author's observation, it appears that the currentassessment of the link between eugenics/Darwinsim,and the overly forgiving manner by Fisher is correct.Indeed, Hilter's Nazism and the notion of a better raceappear to have a burly trail of Darwinism. Nevertheless,it is important to emphasize that it is not the original aimof Darwin.

To sum up the entire problem of the Mendel-Fishercontroversy, it is not due to Darwinism alone. It isnoteworthy that under the Mendelian-Darwinian-Biometrician fusion, Fisher ‘advised’ that the lonemanner to ‘guarantee’ enhancement of the country (theUK) was to increase the reproduction of 'high-classpeople.' Therefore, the problem appears to be theideology behind Fischer's theory, which is not merelyagainst the principle of justice in bioethics, but, as well,gives birth to certain policies and their affects.

Acknowledgment: Thanks are due to Professor RobertMatthews and Dr. Chong-Ho (Alex) Yu for theirrespective critical readings, and to Dr. Shui-Tein Chen,Head of Systemic Biology Laboratory, Institute ofBiological Chemistry, Academia Sinica, Taipei, Taiwan,along with Dr. Yemen Chen, President of New YorkCollege of Traditional Chinese Medicine, NY, USA fortheir respective encouragement as well.

REFERENCES1. Bokhari FA, Sami W. Did mendel cheat? J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad

2007; 19:96.

2. Magnello ME. Karl Pearson's mathematization of inheritance:from ancestral hereidity to Mendelian genetics (1895-1909). AnnSci 1996; 55:35-94.

3. Franklin A, Edwards AWF, Fairbanks Dl, Hartl Dl, Seidenfeld T.Ending the Mendel-Fisher controversy. Pittsburgh: University ofPittsburgh Press; 2008.

4. Edwards AW. Are Mendel's results really too close? Biol Rev CambPhilos Soc 1986; 61:295-312.

5. Fisher, RA. Has Mendel's work been rediscovered? Annals ofScience 1936; 1:115-7.

6. Gruber MHJ. The subjectivity of scientists and the bayesianapproach. Technometrics 2002; 44:292-93.

7. Yu CH. Balkanization and unification of probabilistic inferences.San Diego: American Educational Research Association; 2005. p.1-24.

8. Press SJ, Tanur JM. The subjectivity of scientists and thebayesian approach. New York: John Wiley & Sons; 2001.

9. Aldrich J. Keynes among the statisticians. History of PoliticalEconomy 2008; 40:265-316.

10. Tang BH. Support with clarity: a proper trend in medical statistics.J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad 2006; 18:81-4.

11. Tang B. Biostatistics with neurosurgical importance. J Neurosurg2008; 108:1256-61; author reply 1262-4. Comment on:J Neurosurg 2005; 103:593-6.

12. Howie D. Interpreting probability: controversies anddevelopments in the early twentieth century. Cambridge (UK):Cambridge University Press; 2002.

13. Provine WB. The origins of theoretical population genetics.Chicago: The University of Chicago Press; 2001.

14. Brenner-Golomb NRA. Fisher's philosophical approach toinductive inference. In: Keren G, Lewis C, editors. A handbookfor data analysis in the behavioral sciences: statistical issues.Hillsdale (NJ): Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1994. p. 283-307.

15. Senn S. Ethical considerations concerning treatment allocationin drug development trials. Stat Methods Med Res 2002; 11:403-11.

16. Corcos AF, Monaghan FV. Role of de Vries in the rediscovery ofMendel's paper. II. Did de Vries really understand Mendel'spaper? Journal Hered 1987; 78:275-6.

17. Fisher RA. On the dominence ratio. Proceedings Royal Soc Edinburgh1930; 42:321-41.

18. Fisher RA. The genetical theory of natural selection: a completevariorum edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1999.

19. Bennett JH. Natural Selection, heredity and eugenics. Oxford:Clarendon Press; 1983.

20. Grier N. Human Population. Social Forces 1930; 9:295-96.

21. Fisher RA. The genetical theory of natural selection. J RoyalStat Soc 1931; 94:98-100.

22. Yu CH. History of science and statistical education: examplesfrom Fisherian and Pearsonian schools. Proceedings of theAmerican Statistical Association, Statistical Education. Section[CD-ROM]. Alexandria (VA): American Statistical Association; 2004.

23. Abelson RP. Statistics as principled argument. Hillsdale (NJ):Lawrence Eribaum Associates; 1995.

24. Chow SL. Précis of statistical significance: rationale, validity andutility. Behav Brain Sci 1998; 21:169-94; discussion 194-239.

25. Darwin C, Quammen D, editors. On the origin of species. NewYork: Sterling Publishing; 2008.

26. Darwin C, Brix HJ, editors. Descent of man. New York: PrometheusBooks; 1997.

27. Frankowski N. Expelled: no intelligence required [video-cassette]; 2008.

28. Pilpel A. Statistics is not enough: revisiting Ronald A. Fisher'scritique (1936) of Mendel's experimental results (1866). Stud HistPhilos Biol Biomed Sci 2007; 38:618-26.

29. Lindsay F. Religion and agriculture: sustainability in Christianityand Buddhism. Australia: Institute for International Development;2005.

30. Gibbon E. The history of the decline and fall of the RomanEmpire. New York: Penguin Group; 1996.

31. Ferguson N. Empire falls: politics and power. [Online]. 2006; [4pages]. Available from: http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2006/10/empire200610

32. Spergler O, Atkinson CF. The decline of the west. New York:Arnold A. Knopf Publisher; 1996.

33. Ferguson N. The triumph of the east. [Online]. 2006. Availablefrom: http://www.newstatesman.com/200606260034

34. Farrenkopf J. Prophet of decline: spengler on world history andpolitics. Baton Rouge (LA): Louisiana State Univeristy Press; 2001.

35. Zakaria F. The post-American world. New York: W. W. Norton;2009.

36. Brander BG. Staring into chaos: explorations in the decline ofwestern civilization. Dallas (TX): Spence Publishing; 1998.

37. Buchanan PJ. The death of the west. New York: St. Martin's Press;2002.

38. Herman A. The idea of decline in western history. New York:Free Press; 2007.

39. Sahlins M. The western illusion of human nature: with reflectionson the long history of hierarchy, equality and the sublimation ofanarchy in the west, and comparative notes on otherconceptions of the human condition. Chicago: Prickly ParadigmPress; 2008.

40. Scott D. The 21st century as whose century? J World Sys Res 2008;2:96-118.

654 Journal of the College of Physicians and Surgeons Pakistan 2009, Vol. 19 (10): 649-654

l l l l lOl l l l l

Bing H. Tang