Search

Zusammenfassung Einleitung Übergewicht, auch bei Kindern und Jugendlichen, stellt national wie international ein großes Problem dar, welches stark mit Ernährung verknüpft ist. Ernährungsgewohnheiten werden bereits früh geprägt und können Einfluss auf die Krankheitsentstehung nehmen. Schulen als Lern- und Lebensorte können dabei ausgewogene und nachhaltige Ernährungsgewohnheiten fördern. Ziel der vorliegenden Arbeit war daher die Analyse ausgewählter Lehrpläne zur Ernährungsbildung (EB), um darauf basierend Defizite und Verbesserungsvorschläge für die schulische EB herauszuarbeiten. Methodik Untersucht wurden naturwissenschaftliche und hauswirtschaftliche Rahmenlehrpläne weiterführender allgemeinbildender Schulen der neuen Bundesländer in der aktuellsten Version bis 2019 mittels qualitativer Lehrplananalyse. Im Fokus standen Ernährungsthemen sowie deren Vertiefungsmöglichkeiten, praktische Umsetzung und Zeitumfang. Ergebnisse und Diskussion Ernährung und Humanbiologie werden vorrangig bis Klasse 8 in allen Lehrplänen unterrichtet, komplexere Themen größtenteils ab Klasse 9. Konkrete alltagsrelevante Lerninhalte zu praktischen Ernährungsweisen, zur Lebensmittelqualität sowie zur Rolle der Ernährung für die Krankheitsprävention können die Ernährungskompetenzen der Schüler:innen maßgeblich verbessern, finden jedoch derzeit zu wenig Beachtung in den Lehrplänen. Die Hauswirtschaftsfächer thematisieren u. a. Verbraucherthemen, werden aber nicht an Gymnasien bzw. nicht in allen Bundesländern angeboten. Wahlbereiche und Leistungskurse können die EB ergänzen, sind aber nicht an allen Schulen Teil des Lehrplans. Der Zeitumfang und die praktische Umsetzung für die EB sind u. a. stark von schulinternen Faktoren abhängig. Es lassen sich teilweise erhebliche Defizite in der EB feststellen. Schlussfolgerung Als sinnvoll erachtet werden eine intensivierte EB in höheren Jahrgängen, die Einführung von Hauswirtschaftsfächern in allen Schulformen und eine Vereinheitlichung der Lehrplaninhalte zwischen den einzelnen Bundesländern.

More than 150 years ago, in 1866, Ernst Haeckel published a book in two volumes called Generelle Morphologie der Organismen (General Morphology of Organisms) in the first volume of which he formulated his biogenetic law, famously stating that ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny. Here, we describe Haeckel's original idea as first formulated in the Generelle Morphologie der Organismen and later further developed in other publications until the present situation in which molecular data are used to test the "hourglass model," which can be seen as a modern version of the biogenetic law. We also tell the story about his discovery, while traveling in Norway, of an unknown organism, Magosphaera planula, that was important in that it helped to precipitate his ideas into what was to become the Gastraea theory. We also follow further development and reformulations of the Gastraea theory by other scientists, notably the Russian school. Elias Metchnikoff developed the Phagocytella hypothesis for the origin of metazoans based on studies of a colonial flagellate. Alexey Zakhvatin focused on deducing the ancestral life cycle and the cell types of the last common ancestor of all metazoans, and Kirill V. Mikhailov recently pursued this line of research further.

Philosophical theories proceeding from the history of physical-mathematical sciences are hardly applicable to the analysis of biosciences and evolutionary theory, in particular. This article briefly reconstructs the history of evolutionary theory beginning with its roots in the 19th century and up to the ultracontemporary concepts. Our objective is to outline the dynamics of Darwinism and anti-Darwinism from the perspective of the philosophy of science. We begin with the arguments of E. Mayr against the applicability of T. Kuhn’s theory of scientific revolutions to the history of biology. Mayr emphasized that Darwin’s publication of the Origin of Species in 1859 caused a genuine scientific revolution in biology, but it was not a Kuhnian revolution. Darwin coined several theories comprising a complex theoretical system. Mayr defined five most crucial of these theories: evolution as such, common descent of all organisms including man, gradualism, the multiplication of species explaining organic diversity, and, finally, the theory of natural selection. Distinguishing these theories is of great significance because their destiny in the history of biology substantially differed. The acceptance of one theory by the majority of the scientific community does not necessarily mean the acceptance of others. Another argument by Mayr proved that Darwin caused two scientific revolutions in biology, which Mayr referred to as the First and Second Darwinian Revolutions. The Second Darwinian Revolution happened already in the 20th century and Mayr himself was its active participant. Both revolutions followed Darwin’s concept of natural selection. The period between these two revolutions can be in no way described as “normal science” in Kuhnian terms. Our reconstruction of the history of evolutionary theory support Mayr’s anti-Kuhnian arguments. Furthermore, we claim that the “evolution of evolutionary theory” can be interpreted in terms of the modified research programmes theory by Imre Lakatos, though not in their “purity”, but rather modified and combined with certain aspects of Marxian-Hegelian dialectics.

Theodor Ziehen was a prominent German psychiatrist and psychologist and a marginal philosopher of the first half of the 20th century who developed an exotic subjective-idealistic theory based on quasi-empirical psychological arguments. Although Ziehen was seen by contemporaries (most prominently by Vladimir Lenin) as a representative of the same philosophical current (empirio-criticism) as Mach and Avenarius, he never achieved their prominence in the history of philosophy. At the same time, Ziehen’s philosophy became influential in German biology, first of all, due to his direct and very strong impact on Bernhard Rensch. Rensch, in his turn, was the most significant figure on the international scene of what is known as the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis in biology. Rensch was not the only biologist influenced by Ziehen’s ideas. Ziehen had some communication with the “German Darwin” Ernst Haeckel and played a prominent role in the concept of the founder of biological systematics Willi Hennig. How to explain Ziehen’s prominent place in the history of evolutionary biology, despite his obscurity in the history of philosophy? Our hypothesis is that Ziehen became a visible figure in evolutionary theory because of the monistic bias in German biology. Ziehen’s epistemology appeared to be compatible with evolutionary monism and was developed by a practicing psychiatrist therefore obtaining a character of a quasi-experimental doctrine.

Since Charles Darwin (1809–1882) and Ernst Haeckel (1834–1919) published their trailblazing ideas, the scientific community’s discussion of evolutionary biology has included the topic of embryological development. The concepts of ontogeny and phylogeny, still current in contemporary biology, together with the now obsolete biogenetic law and his Gastraea theory, which trace back to Haeckel, all underwent an evolution of their own in Haeckel’s works. The record of this evolution makes clear how the features of his thinking that proved durable, such as ontogeny and phylogeny, were established as such through a difficult creative process of formation of concepts, theories, and terminology that themselves enjoyed varying fortunes. Beginning with Haeckel’s Generelle Morphologie der Organismen [General Morphology of Organisms] (1866), this paper traces aspects of the conceptual and terminological evolution that takes place both within the pages of this highly complex but seminal work and then chronologically in later works. We include the use of text data mining of his works to establish and analyse word frequency patterns. We seek to indicate here some of the challenges Haeckel faced in establishing new concepts and terminology in the General Morphology (hereafter GM), and we draw attention to his efforts in later works to extend this didactic work.

Obesity, including among children and adolescents, is a major problem both nationally and internationally and is strongly linked to nutrition. Eating habits are formed at an early age and can influence the development of disease. Schools as places of learning and living can promote balanced and sustainable eating habits. The aim of this study was therefore to analyze selected curricula on nutrition education in order to identify deficits and suggestions for improvement in school nutrition education.The most recent version of the scientific and home economics framework curricula of secondary schools as of 2019 were examined by means of qualitative curriculum analysis. The focus was on nutrition topics as well as their possibilities for in-depth study, practical implementation, and timeframe.According to this analysis, nutrition and human biology are taught mainly up to grade 8 in all curricula, while more complex topics tend to be taught from grade 9 onward. Concrete learning content relevant to everyday life on practical nutrition, food quality, and the role of nutrition in disease prevention can significantly improve students' nutritional literacy but currently receive too little attention in the curricula. Home economics subjects address consumer issues, among other topics, but are offered in only three out of six states. Electives and honors courses can supplement nutrition education, but are not part of the curriculum at all schools. The amount of time and the practical implementation of nutrition education are strongly dependent on internal school factors. In some cases, there are considerable deficits in nutrition education.It is considered useful to intensify nutrition education in higher grades, to introduce home economics subjects in all types of schools, and to standardize the curriculum content among the individual states.EINLEITUNG: Übergewicht, auch bei Kindern und Jugendlichen, stellt national wie international ein großes Problem dar, welches stark mit Ernährung verknüpft ist. Ernährungsgewohnheiten werden bereits früh geprägt und können Einfluss auf die Krankheitsentstehung nehmen. Schulen als Lern- und Lebensorte können dabei ausgewogene und nachhaltige Ernährungsgewohnheiten fördern. Ziel der vorliegenden Arbeit war daher die Analyse ausgewählter Lehrpläne zur Ernährungsbildung (EB), um darauf basierend Defizite und Verbesserungsvorschläge für die schulische EB herauszuarbeiten.Untersucht wurden naturwissenschaftliche und hauswirtschaftliche Rahmenlehrpläne weiterführender allgemeinbildender Schulen der neuen Bundesländer in der aktuellsten Version bis 2019 mittels qualitativer Lehrplananalyse. Im Fokus standen Ernährungsthemen sowie deren Vertiefungsmöglichkeiten, praktische Umsetzung und Zeitumfang.Ernährung und Humanbiologie werden vorrangig bis Klasse 8 in allen Lehrplänen unterrichtet, komplexere Themen größtenteils ab Klasse 9. Konkrete alltagsrelevante Lerninhalte zu praktischen Ernährungsweisen, zur Lebensmittelqualität sowie zur Rolle der Ernährung für die Krankheitsprävention können die Ernährungskompetenzen der Schüler:innen maßgeblich verbessern, finden jedoch derzeit zu wenig Beachtung in den Lehrplänen. Die Hauswirtschaftsfächer thematisieren u. a. Verbraucherthemen, werden aber nicht an Gymnasien bzw. nicht in allen Bundesländern angeboten. Wahlbereiche und Leistungskurse können die EB ergänzen, sind aber nicht an allen Schulen Teil des Lehrplans. Der Zeitumfang und die praktische Umsetzung für die EB sind u. a. stark von schulinternen Faktoren abhängig. Es lassen sich teilweise erhebliche Defizite in der EB feststellen.Als sinnvoll erachtet werden eine intensivierte EB in höheren Jahrgängen, die Einführung von Hauswirtschaftsfächern in allen Schulformen und eine Vereinheitlichung der Lehrplaninhalte zwischen den einzelnen Bundesländern.

Das Beispiel des Jenaer Anthropologischen Institutes zeigt sehr eindrücklich, in welch großem Maße Forschungseinrichtungen auf wissenschaftliche Leistungen angewiesen sind, die von externen Doktoranden erbracht werden – dies umso mehr, je kleiner der eigene Personalkörper ist. Von der Institutsgründung im Jahr 1930 bis Anfang der 1960er Jahre basierte die Forschungsleistung des Instituts nahezu ausschließlich auf Promotionen. Auch mit dem Anwachsen der Zahl der befristet oder fest angestellten Mitarbeiter verringerte sich die Bedeutung der externen Promovierenden nicht. Die Themen folgten der jeweiligen Ausrichtung des Instituts, speziell der Verbindung zur Völkerkunde beziehungsweise dann zur Humangenetik, und dem Methoden- und Erkenntnisfortschritt des Faches, beispielsweise beim Wechsel von typologischen zu populationsgenetischen Auffassungen. Daneben zeigt sich der Nutzen der phänotypischen Erfassung von Merkmalen auf der Grundlage anthropologischer Standardverfahren für die medizinische Diagnostik. Gerade in der Skelettanthropologie waren die überwiegend von Medizinern vorgenommenen morphologischen, anatomischen und pathologischen Untersuchungen für die Rekonstruktion der biologischen Situation früherer Bevölkerungen wesentlich. Für viele Untersuchungen bildete der „Fundus“ des Instituts, nämlich die Skelettsammlung und die Daten der Schulkinderuntersuchungen, die Grundlage. Auch in Bezug auf die Herkunft der Doktoranden und Diplomanden zeigt sich der integrierende, brückenschlagende Charakter der biologischen Anthropologie. Neben den hier nicht berücksichtigten Arbeiten zur Völkerkunde und Humangenetik entstanden derzeit nachweisbar 104 anthropologisch orientierte Dissertationen und fünf Habilitationen. Zudem gab es zahlreiche Mitbetreuungen vor allem (zahn)medizinischer Arbeiten, die auf dem im Institut magazinierten Skelettmaterial oder auf am Lebenden gewonnenen Daten basierten.

The year 2019 marks the 100th anniversary of the death of Ernst Haeckel, a German zoologist, artist, and philosopher of science, who defended and supplemented Charles Darwin's system of theories regarding the mechanisms of biological evolution. We briefly recapitulate Haeckel's remarkable career and reproduce the Laudatio read by the President of the Linnean Society of London (1 July 1908), when Haeckel was awarded the Darwin-Wallace Medal. Finally, we summarize the importance of Haeckel's original concepts, insights, and theories with reference to our current knowledge in the areas of evolutionary biology, molecular phylogenetics, systematic zoology, and philosophical issues today.

The “German Darwin” Ernst Haeckel was very influential not only in Germany but in non-German-speaking countries as well. He was a key figure during the “first Darwinian revolution,” a period when the foundation for the modern evolutionary theory was laid. Haeckel defended and developed the Darwinian theory with unparalleled passion and energy. He created a conceptual framework within which the majority of Darwinians worldwide worked over decades. Contemporary evolutionary theory is unthinkable without notions coined by Haeckel such as “phylogeny,” “ontogeny,” “phylogenetic tree,” or “ecology.” Moreover, his theories were encouraged and admired by Darwin himself. It was Haeckel who crucially contributed to the visualization of the Darwinian theory and who tried to convert Darwinism into a universal worldview. Yet it remains controversial to what extent Haeckel’s view of evolutionary mechanisms corresponded to those in Darwin’s own theory. In this chapter, we will examine this issue and demonstrate that although Haeckel championed natural selection throughout his whole career, his neo-Lamarckian concept of variation made his grasp of natural selection different from that of Darwin. As paradoxical as it may sound from the modern viewpoint, Haeckel made these neo-Lamarckian adjustments in order to render the Darwinian theoretical system more straightforward.

Theodor Ziehen was a well-known German psychiatrist and experimental psychologist of the first half of the twentieth century. But he was also an obscure philosopher who developed a very sophisticated and radical form of panpsychism. While Ziehen’s work left few traces within the history of philosophy itself, his epistemology enjoyed significant influence within German evolutionary biology. Most prominently, Ziehen had a great impact on the “co-architect” of the German evolutionary synthesis, the zoologist Bernhard Rensch. Our paper has two major objectives: first, to sketch Ziehen’s distinctive contribution to philosophy and, second, to explain his importance for Rensch. Our hypothesis is that Ziehen’s monism and nomotheism constituted the philosophical foundation of Rensch’s evolutionary universalism. Monism was a prominent philosophical position within the German tradition of evolutionary biology beginning with Ernst Haeckel and remained influential thereafter due to Rensch and some other of his contemporaries. Nomotheism, the idea of elevating biological regularities to the level of universal laws also became prominent in biology due to Ernst Haeckel and, in a modified form, was promoted by Rensch as well. For Rensch, universal selectionism best satisfied the philosophical requirements of monism and nomotheism. Furthermore, Rensch’s monism and his version of determinism (polynomic determination) turned out to be a selectionist interpretation of the idea of directionality in evolution.

More than 150 years ago, in 1866, Ernst Haeckel published a book in two volumes called "Generelle Morphologie der Organismen" (General Morphology of Organisms) in the first volume of which he formulated his Biogenetic law, famously stating that ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny (Rieppel 2019). Here we describe Haeckel´s original idea as first formulated in the “Generelle Morphologie der Organismen” and later further developed in other publications until the present situation in which molecular data are used to test the "hour-glass model", which can be seen as a modern version of the biogenetic law. We also tell the story about his discovery, while travelling in Norway, of an unknown organism, Magosphaera planula, that was important in that it helped to precipitate his ideas into what was to become the Gastraea theory. We also follow the further development and reformulations of the Gastraea theory by other scientists, notably the Russian school (Levit, 2007). Ilya Metchnikov developed the Phagocytella hypothesis for the origin of metazoans based on studies of a colonial flagellate. Alexey Zakhvatin focused on deducing the ancestral life cycle and the cell types of the last common ancestor of all metazoans, and Mikhailov recently pursued this line of research further.

BackgroundThe “German Darwin” Ernst Haeckel (1834–1919) was a key figure during the first “Darwinian revolution“, a time when the foundations of the modern evolutionary theory were laid. It was Haeckel, who crucially contributed to the visualization of the Darwinian theory by designing “genealogical-trees” illustrating the evolution of various species, including humans. Although the idea of explaining human evolution by natural selection belongs to Darwin, Haeckel was the first who attempted to create a new exact anthropology based on the Darwinian method.DiscussionTrying to immediately reconstruct human evolution proceeding from the description of modern populations led Haeckel to the views which, from the contemporary perspective, are definitely racist. Haeckel created racial anthropology intending to prove human origins from a lower organism, but without the intention of establishing a discriminatory racial praxis. Although hierarchical in its outcome, the Haeckelian method did not presuppose the necessity of a racial hierarchy of currently living humans. It is crucial to grasp in what sense Haeckel’s theoretical explorations in human evolution were racist, and in what sense they were not. Our argument flows as follows. One of Haeckel’s pupils was the Russian ethnographer, anthropologist and zoologist Nikolai Nikolajewitsch Miklucho-Maclay (1846–1888). Maclay and Haeckel worked closely together for several years; they traveled jointly and Maclay had enough time to learn the major methodological principles of Haeckel’s research. Yet in contrast to Haeckel, Maclay is regarded as one of the first scientific anti-racists, who came to anti-racist views using empirical field studies in Papua-New Guinea.ConclusionsWe claim that while conducting these studies Maclay applied scientific principles to a significant extent acquired from Haeckel. The paper contributes to the view that Haeckel’s theoretical racism did not follow the Darwinian method he used.

The German zoologist Ernst Haeckel (1834-1919) was arguably the most influential champion of Darwin's theory of evolution on the European continent and one of the most significant worldwide. As his biographer Robert Richards emphasized: "More people at the turn of the century learned of evolutionary theory from his pen than from any other source, including Darwin's own writings" [1]. Furthermore, Darwin himself considered Haeckel a crucial proponent of his theory. How can we explain the mismatch between Haeckel's extraordinary influence among his contemporaries and his relatively modest place in the current historiography of biology? Why are Haeckel-studies nothing like the 'Darwin-industry'? To answer these questions, we outline Haeckel's contribution to evolutionary biology and anthropology and - to a lesser extent - the general history of ideas. We argue that Haeckel is currently underestimated, because history written by the advocates of the modern synthesis focused on neo-Darwinian schools of thought and neglected 'old-school-Darwinism' which Haeckel was part of. Besides, Haeckel's militant anti-clericalism and his exotic philosophy of 'monism' made him an uncomfortable figure in European intellectual history. In contrast to Darwin, Haeckel from the very beginning tried to turn Darwinism into a universal worldview, thus jeopardizing his credibility as a scientist.

Summary During the late 1940s and 1950s, a pseudo-scientific concept based on Marxist-Leninist ideology became internationally known as ‘Lysenkoism'. Lysenkoism was a neo-Lamarckian idea, claiming that in crop plants, such as wheat, environmental influences are heritable via all cells of the organism. Lysenkoism was applied to agriculture during the Stalin era with disastrous consequences. Despite the triumphs of modern genetics, and the disproval of Lysenkoism, recent years have seen a ‘re-thinking' of this doctrine in Russia. This disturbing pro-Lysenko movement, which is accompanied by a growing sympathy for Stalin, claims to have its scientific roots in modern epigenetics, specifically the heritability of variation by mechanisms other than changes in DNA sequence. Based on recent research on the model plant Arabidopsis thaliana , its is clear that Lysenkoism has nothing to do with heritable ‘epigenetic' modifications. Biologists should defend science against ideological and political interferences.