 By mid-twentieth century, and especially after the discovery of DNA’s structure (which apparently also explained its function), researchers began to forget or at least ignore questions about morphogenesis and epigenesis (see, for example, Olby 1974, Judson 1979). Instead they asked how, actually, genes give rise to differentiated form? Somehow that works, seemed to be the answer. Genetics predominated over what C.H. Waddington referred to as the epigenetics of development (Waddington 1942). Of course not everyone ignored development, but it became a seriously neglected field and even professional societies and journals that had focused on “embryology” shifted to “developmental genetics” (Oppenheimer 1967). When Robert Briggs and Thomas King cloned frogs in the 1950s and John Gurdon extended the research in the 1960s, it seemed that nuclear transfer could come from only early stages of development. Furthermore, the resulting clones were like their donors from whom the nuclei came rather than like the mothers from whom the eggs came (Briggs &amp; King 1952; Gurdon &amp; Colman 1999; McLaren 2000). Apparently development brings differentiation that is unidirectional. Preformationist/ predeterminist thinking prevailed. Epigenetic development and regulatory response to environmental conditions seemed to have strict limits for those adopting the mid-twentieth-century predeterminist emphasis.