Journal of the History of Biology最新文献

By the mid-1960s, nonhuman primates had become key experimental organisms for vaccine development and testing, and was seen by many scientists as important for the future success of this field as well as other biomedical undertakings. A major hindrance to expanding the use of nonhuman primates was the dependency on wild-captured animals. In addition to unreliable access and poor animal health, procurement of wild primates involved the circulation of infectious diseases and thus also public health hazards. This paper traces how the World Health Organization (WHO) became involved in the issue of primate supply, and shows how by the late 1960s concerns for vaccine development and the conservation of wildlife began to converge. How did the WHO navigate public health and animal health? What characterized the response and with what implications for humans and animals? The paper explores how technical standards of care were central to managing the conflicting concerns of animal and human health, biological standardization, and conservation. While the WHO's main aim was to prevent public health risks, I argue that imposing new standards of care implied establishing new hierarchies of humans and animals, and cultures of care.

Focusing on the relationship between two important scientists in the development of ecological thought during the first half of the twentieth century, this paper argues that Yale limnologist G. E. Hutchinson's adoption of the biogeochemical approach in the late 1930s builds on the 1920s work of the Russian scientist V. I. Vernadsky. An analysis of Hutchinson's scientific publications shows that he first referred to Vernadsky in 1940, on two different occasions. This article analyzes the dynamics of Hutchinson's formulation of the biogeochemical approach, providing historical context and linking its early application to the existing limnological tradition.

The Vrolik ethnographical collection consisted of roughly 300 skulls, mummified heads, skeletons, pelvises, wet-preserved preparations, and plaster models, collected by Gerard Vrolik (1775-1859) and his son Willem (1801-1863). Most prominent in this collection were the skulls, of which 177 remain in the collection of present-day Museum Vrolik. These skulls-a troubling heritage of colonialism and scientific racism-are the central subjects of this paper, which considers the changing meanings and values of these skulls for racial science over approximately 160 years, between ± 1800 and 1960. These shifting meanings are analysed using the skulls themselves as primary sources, including the labels, numbers and handwriting present on them or their stands. Central topics addressed will be matters of classification, hierarchy, scientific bias, and disciplinary development of racial anthropology from the study and collection of idealized national types to a quantitative craniometry of populations. This paper demonstrates that during 160 years of study of this same set of crania, the skulls of white European origin gradually lost racial relevance and were increasingly normalized, whereas the skulls of dark-skinned people of African descent continued to be categorized in a typological racial scheme and as such were increasingly othered.

This paper examines the contributions of Daniel S. Lehrman (1919-1972) to animal behavior studies. Though widely cited as a critic of the early ethological program presented by Konrad Lorenz and Niko Tinbergen, other significant aspects of Lehrman's career and research have not received historical attention. In this paper, I offer a fuller account of Lehrman's work by situating his debate with ethologists within the larger context of Lehrman's early scholarly development under G. K. Noble and T. C. Schneirla, by examining his scientific research on the ring-dove as well as his epistemological views about the best way to understand animal behaviour, and by presenting his leadership in institution and network-building of interdisciplinary approaches to animal behavior. This essay highlights Lehrman's impact on the evolution of ethology, endocrinology, and developmental biology.

Theodosius Dobzhansky was one of the principal 'founding fathers' of the modern 'synthetic theory of evolution' and the 'biological species' concept, first set forth in his classic book, Genetics and the Origin of Species (1937). Much of the discussion of Dobzhansky's work by historians has focused on English-accessible sources, and has emphasized the roles of the Morgan School, and figures such as Sewall Wright, and Leslie C. Dunn. This article uses Dobzhansky's Russian articles that are unknown to English-speaking readers, and his late 1920s to early 1930s correspondence with colleagues and friends in the Soviet Union, to clarify some of the Russian influences on Dobzhansky's evolving evolutionary views, particularly the development of his views on species and speciation. For Dobzhansky, as for Darwin, the problem of species and speciation was crucial for his theoretical explanation of evolution.