Journal of the History of Biology最新文献

This paper develops the concept of bioheritage. It does so by considering the work of a local and distinct breed of sheep, the Sambucana, detailing how this sheep has enabled the integration of otherwise centrifugal relations between markets for the meat, cheese, and wool derived from the many other sheep that have traversed the same locality over the past three centuries. Such integration binds bodies, memory, and consumption in a manner that illustrates the distinctiveness of bioheritage and advances understanding of wider social and cultural processes.

DNA methylation is a quintessential epigenetic mechanism. Widely considered a stable regulator of gene silencing, it represents a form of "molecular braille," chemically printed on DNA to regulate its structure and the expression of genetic information. However, there was a time when methyl groups simply existed in cells, mysteriously speckled across the cytosine building blocks of DNA. Why was the code of life chemically modified, apparently by "no accident of enzyme action" (Wyatt 1951)? If all cells in a body share the same genome sequence, how do they adopt unique functions and maintain stable developmental states? Do cells remember? In this historical perspective, I review epigenetic history and principles and the tools, key scientists, and concepts that brought us the synthesis and discovery of prokaryotic and eukaryotic methylated DNA. Drawing heavily on Gerard Wyatt's observation of asymmetric levels of methylated DNA across species, as well as to a pair of visionary 1975 DNA methylation papers, 5-methylcytosine is connected to DNA methylating enzymes in bacteria, the maintenance of stable cellular states over development, and to the regulation of gene expression through protein-DNA binding. These works have not only shaped our views on heritability and gene regulation but also remind us that core epigenetic concepts emerged from the intrinsic requirement for epigenetic mechanisms to exist. Driven by observations across prokaryotic and eukaryotic worlds, epigenetic systems function to access and interpret genetic information across all forms of life. Collectively, these works offer many guiding principles for our epigenetic understanding for today, and for the next generation of epigenetic inquiry in a postgenomics world.

This paper analyses the forgotten concept of "sperm-force" proposed by George Newport (1803-1854). Newport is known for his comprehensive microscopic examinations of sperm and egg interaction in amphibian fertilization between 1850 and 1854. My work with archival sources reveals that Newport believed fertilization was caused by sperm-force, which the Royal Society refused to publish. My reconstruction chronologically traces the philosophical and experimental origins of sperm-force to Newport's 1830s entomological work. Sperm-force is a remnant of Newport's speculations on the creation of the active individual. I argue that sperm-force was rooted in British interpretations of German Naturphilosophie, which demonstrates Continental influences on mid-Victorian embryology, particularly the role of male generative power. This context provides further evidence that British versions of Romantic science fostered sophisticated experimental work. The refusal by Paleyite stalwarts of natural theology to publish Newport's ideas illustrates the institutional resistance to German pantheistic and vitalistic influences. This reconstruction of sperm-force's philosophical foundation and its reception offers new understandings of mid-Victorian attitudes toward the inheritance of mind and body. It situates Newport's work within the nineteenth century's scientific project to assign stereotypical genders to the gametes.

While women's participation at research stations has been celebrated as a success story for women in science, their experiences were not quite equal to that of men scientists. This article shows how women interested in practicing marine science at research institutions experienced different living and research environments than their male peers; moreover, it illustrates how those gendered experiences reflected and informed the nature of their scientific practices and ideas. Set in Roscoff, France, this article excavates the work and social worlds of a Russian scientist, Natalie Karsakoff (1863-1941), and a British émigré in France, Anna Vickers (1853-1906), to show how a small group of single women who studied algae created a "central bureau of feminine algology." The social aspects of this bureau, and the physical space and support funded by Vickers, allowed these women scientists to both participate in male-dominated practices of science and lend evidentiary support to an ecological category that emphasized benign coexistence rather than struggle. This study adds an empirical case of single women scientists managing successful careers in science and contributing to science through publication and research.

The progress towards mathematization or, in a broader context, towards an increased "objectivity" is one of the main trends in the development of biological systematics in the past century. It is commonplace to start the history of numerical taxonomy with the works of R. R. Sokal and P. H. A. Sneath that in the 1960s laid the foundations of this school of taxonomy. In this article, I discuss the earliest research program in this field, developed in the 1920s by the Russian entomologist and biometrician Eugen (Evgeniy Sergeevich) Smirnov. The theoretical and methodological grounds of this program are considered based on the published works of Smirnov as well as some archival sources. The influence of Smirnov's evolutionary (mechano-Lamarckian) convictions on the development of this project of "exact systematics" is analyzed as well as the author's attempts to establish a novel concept of "mathematical essentialism" in animal taxonomy. The probable causes of the failure of Smirnov's project are viewed from both externalist and internalist perspectives, including the opposition to the use of quantitative methods in biology by some of the Lysenkoist ideologists in the USSR. A brief comparison of Smirnov's research program with that developed 40 years later by Sokal and Sneath is provided.

The upheavals of late eighteenth century Europe encouraged people to demand greater liberties, including the freedom to explore the natural world, individually or as part of investigative associations. The Moravian Agricultural and Natural Science Society, organized by Christian Carl André, was one such group of keen practitioners of theoretical and applied scientific disciplines. Headquartered in the "Moravian Manchester" Brünn (nowadays Brno), the centre of the textile industry, society members debated the improvement of sheep wool to fulfil the needs of the Habsburg armies fighting in the Napoleonic Wars. Wool, as the raw material of soldiers' clothing, could influence the war's outcome. During the early nineteenth century, wool united politics, economics, and science in Brno, where breeders and natural scientists investigated the possibilities of increasing wool production. They regularly discussed how "climate" or "seed" characteristics influenced wool quality and quantity. Breeders and academics put their knowledge into immediate practice to create sheep with better wool traits through consanguineous matching of animals and artificial selection. This apparent disregard for the incest taboo, however, was viewed as violating natural laws and cultural norms. The debate intensified between 1817 and 1820, when a Hungarian veteran soldier, sheep breeder, and self-taught natural scientist, Imre (Emmerich) Festetics, displayed his inbred Mimush sheep, which yielded wool extremely well suited for the fabrication of light but strong garments. Members of the Society questioned whether such "bastard sheep" would be prone to climatic degeneration, should be regarded as freaks of nature, or could be explained by natural laws. The exploration of inbreeding in sheep began to be distilled into hereditary principles that culminated in 1819 with Festetics's "laws of organic functions" and "genetic laws of nature," four decades before Gregor Johann Mendel's seminal work on heredity in peas.

In the first decades of the twentieth century, the process of photosynthesis was still a mystery: Plant scientists were able to measure what entered and left a plant, but little was known about the intermediate biochemical and biophysical processes that took place. This state of affairs started to change between the two world wars, when a number of young scientists in Europe and the United States, all of whom identified with the methods and goals of physicochemical biology, selected photosynthesis as a topic of research. The protagonists had much in common: They had studied physics and chemistry (although not necessarily plant physiology) to a high level; they used physicochemical methods to study the basic processes of life; they believed these processes were the same, or very similar, in all life forms; and they were affiliated with institutions that fostered this kind of study. This set of cognitive, methodological, and material resources enabled these protagonists to transfer their knowledge of the concepts and techniques from microbiology and human biochemistry, for example, to the study of plant metabolism. These transfers of knowledge had a great influence on the way in which the biochemistry and biophysics of photosynthesis would be studied over the following decades. Through the use of four historical cases, this paper analyzes these knowledge transfers, as well as the investigative pathways that made them possible.

Historians and biologists identify the debate between mechanists and vitalists over the nature of life itself with the arguments of Driesch, Loeb, and other prominent voices. But what if the conversation was broader and the consequences deeper for the field? Following the suspicions of Joseph Needham in the 1930s and Francis Crick in the 1960s, we deployed tools of the digital humanities to an old problem in the history of biology. We analyzed over 31,000 peer-reviewed scientific papers and learned that bioexceptionalism participated in a robust discursive landscape throughout subfields of the life sciences, occupied even by otherwise unknown biologists.