This dissertation examines the history of the creation and development of the concept of anticipation, a pattern of heredity found in several diseases (e.g. Huntington’s disease and myotonic dystrophy), in which an illness manifests itself earlier and often more severely in successive generations. It reconstructs major arguments in twentieth-century debates about anticipation and analyzes the relations between different research communities and schools of thought. Developments in cutting-edge medicine, biology, and genetics are analyzed; many of these developments were centered in Britain, but saw significant contributions by people working in France, Germany, Switzerland, the Netherlands and North America. Chapter one traces precursor notions in psychiatric and hereditarian thought from 1840 to the coining of the term ‘anticipation’ by the ophthalmologist Edward Nettleship in 1905. Key roles in the following chapters are played by several figures. Prior to World War II, these include: the neuropathologist F.W. Mott, whose advocacy during 1911- 1927 led to anticipation being called “Mott’s law”; the biometrician and eugenicist Karl Pearson, who opposed Mott on methodological and political grounds; and two politically and theoretically opposed Germans – Ernst Rüdin, a leading psychiatrist and eugenicist who came to reject anticipation, and Richard Goldschmidt, a geneticist who offered a peculiar Mendelian explanation. The British psychiatrist and human geneticist, Lionel Penrose, makes a first interwar appearance, but becomes crucial to the story after World War II due to his systematic dismissal of anticipation, which discredited the notion on orthodox Mendelian grounds. The final chapters highlight the contributions of Dutch neurologist Christiaan Höweler, whose 1980s work demonstrated a major hole in Penrose’s reasoning, and British geneticist Peter Harper, whose research helped demonstrate that expanding trinucleotide repeats accounted for the transgenerational worsening without contradicting Mendel and resurrected anticipation as scientifically legitimate. Reception of the concept of anticipation is traced across the century through the examination of textbooks used in different fields. This dissertation argues against established positions regarding the history of the concept, including claims that anticipation’s association with eugenics adequately explains the rejection of the notion after 1945. Rejected, in fact, by many eugenicists from 1912, anticipation was used by physicians until the 1960s.