The Philosophical Dullness of Classical Ecology, and a Levinsian Alternative

Ecology has had a lower profile in Biology & Philosophy than one might expect on the basis of the attention ecology is given in public discussions in relation to environmental issues. Our tentative explanation is that ecology appears theoretically redundant within biology and, consequently, philosophically challenging problemsrelated to biology are commonly supposed to be somewhere else, particularly in the molecular sphere. Richard Levins has recognized the genuine challenges posed by ecology for theoretical and philosophical thinking in biology. This essay sets the stage for appreciating his work; it was preceded by four articles published in Biology & Philosophy 15(2),and is followed by a personal reminiscent.     

Ernst Mayr,naturalist: His contributions to systematics and evolution

Ernst Mayr's scientific career continues strongly 70 years after he published his first scientific paper in 1923. He is primarily a naturalist and ornithologist which has influenced his basic approach in science and later in philosophy and history of science. Mayr studied at the Natural History Museum in Berlin with Professor E. Stresemann, a leader in the most progressive school of avian systematics of the time. The contracts gained through Stresemann were central to Mayr's participation in a three year expedition to New Guinea and The Solomons, and the offer of a position in the Department of Ornithology, American Museum of Natural History, beginning in 1931. At the AMNH, Mayr was able to blend the best of the academic traditions of Europe with those of North America in developing a unified research program in biodiversity embracing systematics, biogeography and nomenclature. His tasks at the AMNH were to curate and study the huge collections amassed by the Whitney South Sea Expedition plus the just purchased Rothschild collection of birds. These studies provided Mayr with the empirical foundation essential for his 1942Systematics and the Origin of Species and his subsequent theoretical work in evolutionary biology as well as all his later work in the philosophy and history of science. Without a detailed understanding of Mayr's empirical systematic and biogeographic work, one cannot possibly comprehend fully his immense contributions to evolutionary biology and his later analyses in the philosophy and history of science.     

No evolution,no heredity,just development—Julius Schaxel and the end of the Evo–Devo agenda in Jena, 1906–1933: a case study

Julius Schaxel is an almost forgotten figure in the history of early twentieth century biology. By focusing on his life and work, I would like to illustrate several central developments in that period of history of biology. Julius Schaxel was an early representative and organizer of theoretical biology, discussing and criticizing both Wilhelm Roux’s mechanism and Hans Driesch’s vitalism. In addition to his theoretical work, Schaxel also did experimental research on developmental issues to support his critique. In this paper, special emphasis is made on the negotiating practice of Schaxel, which he used to establish a new area of biological research and a new audience for that area. In contrast to these new fields, Schaxel can be also portrayed as the endpoint of a research tradition investigating ontogeny and phylogeny together, which today is called Evo–Devo. Following Garland Allen’s dialectical processes that led to the decline of the Evo–Devo research agenda, Schaxel’s example is used to investigate these processes.     

Fröhlich's Coherent Excitations & The Cancer Problem—A Retrospecive Overview of His Guiding Philosophy

The guiding philosophy underlying Fröhlich's approach to biology from the side of theoretical physics is summarized, and illustrated, in the context of his prediction of (dynamic) coherent excitations in living systems, based on their dielectric and elastic properties, and far-from-equilibrium (nonlinear) character. His envisaged role of these coherent excitations in cell division and its control is outlined, together with the associated implications for cancer—as understood both at the time of his work and subsequently.     

William Astbury and the biological significance of nucleic acids, 1938-1951

Famously, James Watson credited the discovery of the double-helical structure of DNA in 1953 to an X-ray diffraction photograph taken by Rosalind Franklin. Historians of molecular biology have long puzzled over a remarkably similar photograph taken two years earlier by the physicist and pioneer of protein structure William T. Astbury. They have suggested that Astbury's failure to capitalize on the photograph to solve DNA's structure was due either to his being too much of a physicist, with too little interest in or knowledge of biology, or to his being misled by an erroneous theoretical model of the gene. Drawing on previously unpublished archival sources, this paper offers a new analysis of Astbury's relationship to the problem of DNA's structure, emphasizing a previously overlooked element in Astbury's thinking: his concept of biological specificity.     

Where Does Pattee’s “How Does a Molecule Become a Message?” Belong in the History of Biosemiotics?

Recalling the title of Yoxen’s classical paper on the influence of Schrödinger’s book, I analyze the role that the work of H. Pattee might have played, if any, in the development of Biosemiotics. I take his 1969 paper “How does a molecule become a message?” (Developmental Biology Supplement) as a first target due to several circumstances that make it especially salient. On the one hand, even if Pattee has obviously developed further his ideas on later papers, the significance of this one springs out right from the title, the journal and date of publication and, of course, its content. On the other, this paper in particular has been somehow rediscovered recently and not only within the frame of biosemiotics (eg, in history and philosophy of biology by E.F. Keller). Following the parallelism with Yoxen’s perspective, I contend that Pattee’s work was relatively influential with respect to a good amount of attempts to rethink living systems within theoretical biology around the 70s. This influence diminished together with the decay or even collapse of those attempts under the impact of molecular biology as it was being developed those years. Eventually, Pattee’s work has been taken up again. Notwithstanding, it is quite clear that Pattee himself was not intending to contribute specifically to Biosemiotics and that he was probably unaware of any such discipline, at least until recently. Then, we should as well ask (as Yoxen wonders with respect to Schrödinger) to which extent Pattee’s influence has been a direct one or rather an indication of the relevance of his ideas and the resonance of his hypotheses with those of biosemiotics. For this task I will sketch a few points of convergence and divergence and examine the work of some authors who either address directly this issue or have contributed significantly to build up the history of Biosemiotics.     

To err and win a nobel prize: Paul Boyer,ATP synthase and the emergence of bioenergetics

Paul Boyer shared a Nobel Prize in1997 for his work on the mechanism of ATPsynthase. His earlier work, though (whichcontributed indirectly to his triumph),included major errors, both experimental andtheoretical. Two benchmark cases offer insightinto how scientists err and how they deal witherror. Boyer's work also parallels andillustrates the emergence of bioenergetics inthe second half of the twentieth century,rivaling achievements in evolution andmolecular biology. This revised version was published online in July 2006 with corrections to the Cover Date.     

Charles Manning Child (1869-1954): the past, present, and future of metabolic signaling

Charles Manning Child's work focused on metabolic gradients and their influence on organismal development. Early in the 20th century, his work had considerable currency, but by the second half of the century he had become little more than a historical footnote. Yet today Child's ideas are once again topical. While there were issues of cause and effect that Child and his students were never able to address adequately, in hindsight the extent of his eclipse hardly seems warranted. In fact, the demise of Child's theories may have resulted from larger changes in the nature of biology in the early 20th century. Child frequently studied planarians, hydroids, and other animals that are capable of asexual, agametic reproduction, and his theories most clearly apply to such organisms. In contrast, Thomas Hunt Morgan, initially one of Child's competitors in studies of regeneration, later developed the field of transmission genetics based on fruit flies, which can only reproduce via gametes. Child's theories and model systems were largely casualties of the success of Morgan's mechanistic paradigm. Nevertheless, in modern biology metabolic gradients, recast in terms of redox signaling, have become central to understanding both normal and pathological development.     

Darwin,Wallace, and Huxley,and Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation

Conclusion Publication of the Vestiges and the rather primitive theory of evolution it expounded thus played a significant role in the careers of Darwin and Wallace. In addition, in spite of his poor opinion of the Vestiges, it presented Huxley with a convenient topic for critical discussion and the opportunity to focus more attention on the subject of evolution. The dynamic interactions among these leading figures of nineteenth-century natural science helped spur the development of more sophisticated models of evolution.Darwin had a proper appreciation of Chambers's contribution to evolutionary thought, although he fully recognized the shortcomings of this work. He understood the importance of allowing fresh ideas about organic change to be ventilated. However, he was primarily concerned with his own theory and viewed all developments in evolutionary biology from this perspective. If he did not give full consideration to Chambers and his book early on, it was due mainly to his feeling that the concepts in the Vestiges were very different from his own; he was therefore reluctant to embrace them as the forerunners of his own theory. As a scholar, he was also troubled by the scientific errors in the book. However, the record demonstrates that he attempted to make amends for any oversight on his part. His generous letter to Chambers's daughter, and his gracious treatment of Chambers during the brief time the latter lived in London, are ample proof of that.The attacks of Huxley, Sedgwick, and other prominent natural historians and geologists at the time, the problems inherent in Chambers's evolutionary theory, and the publication of the Origin, are the major reasons why the Vestiges became a neglected work. Nevertheless, Chambers's contribution will always stand out because, together with those of other late eighteenth- and early nineteenth-century predecessors of Darwin, it laid the foundations of modern evolutionary thought and, more importantly, helped prepare the scientific community for the more fully developed ideas of Darwin and Wallace.     

The genius of Wilhelm Hofmeister: the origin of causal-analytical research in plant development

Friederich Wilhelm Benedikt Hofmeister (1824-1877) stands as one of the true giants in the history of biology and belongs in the same pantheon as Darwin and Mendel. Yet by comparison, he is virtually unknown. If he is known at all, it is for his early work on flowering plant embryology and his ground-breaking discovery of the alternation of generations in plants, which he published at age 27 in 1851. Remarkable as the latter study was, it was but a prelude to the more fundamental contributions he was to make in the study of plant growth and development expressed in his books on plant cell biology (Die Lehre von der Pfanzenzelle, 1867) and plant morphology (Allgemeine Morphologie der Gewächse, 1868). In this article we review his remarkable life and career, highlighting the fact that his scientific accomplishments were based largely on self-education in all areas of biology, physics, and chemistry. We describe his research accomplishments, including his early embryological studies and their influence on Mendel's genetic studies as well as his elucidation of the alternation of generations, and we review in detail his cell biology and morphology books. It is in the latter two works that Hofmeister the experimentalist and biophysicist is most manifest. Not only did Hofmeister explore the mechanisms of cytoplasmic streaming, plant morphogenesis, and the effects of gravity and light on their development, but in each instance he developed a biophysical model to integrate and interpret his wealth of observational and experimental data. Because of the lack of attention to the cell and morphology books, Hofmeister's true genius has not been recognized. After studying several evaluations of Hofmeister by contemporary and later workers, we conclude that his reputation became eclipsed because he was so far ahead of his contemporaries that no one could understand or appreciate his work. In addition, his basically organismic framework was out of step with the more reductionistic cytogenetic work that later came in vogue. We suggest that the translation of the cell and morphology books in English would help re-establish him as one of the most notable scientists in the history of plant biology.     

Methodology of biological thought in works of V. N. Beklemisheva (1890-1862)

During his work in Perm University (1918-1932) Vladimir Nikolaevich Beklemishev created theoretical and methodological foundations for the concepts of constructive morphology and structure of the living cover of the Earth. His conclusions about topical problems of general biology are still valuable for biological thinking.     

Federico Delpino and the foundation of plant biology

In 1867, Federico Delpino, with his seminal work Pensieri sulla Biologia Vegetale (Thoughts on Plant Biology) established plant biology by defining it not in the broad general sense, namely as the science of living beings, but as a branch of natural science dedicated to the study of plant life in relation to the environment. Today, the figure and achievements of this outstanding plant scientist is almost unknown. In the following pages, I will concisely describe the main realizations of Federico Delpino and outline the significance of his work for modern plant science.Key words: Charles Darwin, evolution, history of botany, myrmecophily, plant biology, plant intelligence, plant-insect     

N.K. Kol'tsov's Theory of Synthetic Biology

The state of theoretical biology in the twentieth century is characterized, as well as the appearance and development of N.K. Kol'tsov's scientific program, his original methodology of interdisciplinary synthesis, and, based on it, the concept of theoretical biology.     

The Philosophical Origins of Mitchell's Chemiosmotic Concepts

Mitchell's formulation of the chemiosmotic theory of oxidative phosphorylation in 1961 lacked any experimental support for its three central postulates. The path by which Mitchell reached this theory is explored. A major factor was the role of Mitchell's philosophical system conceived in his student days at Cambridge. This system appears to have become a tacit influence on his work in the sense that Polanyi understood all knowledge to be generated by an interaction between tacit and explicit knowing. Early in his life Mitchell had evolved a simple philosophy based on fluctoids, fluctids and statids which was developed in a thesis submitted for the z at the University of Cambridge, England. This aspect of his work was rejected by the examiners and became a tacit element in his intellectual development. It is argued from his various publications that this philosophy can be traced as an underlying theme behind much of Mitchell's theoretical writing in the 50's leading, through his notion of vectorial metabolism, to the formulation and amplification of the chemiosmotic theory in the sixties. This philosophy formed the basis for Mitchell of his understanding of biological systems and gave him his unique approach to cell biology. This revised version was published online in July 2006 with corrections to the Cover Date.     

N.K. Kol'tsov's theory of synthetic biology

The state of theoretical biology in the twentieth century is characterized, as well as the appearance and development of N.K. Kol'tsov's scientific program, his original methodology of interdisciplinary synthesis, and, based on it, the concept of theoretical biology.     

Nicolas Rashevsky's Mathematical Biophysics

This paper explores the work of Nicolas Rashevsky, a Russian émigré theoretical physicist who developed a program in “mathematical biophysics” at the University of Chicago during the 1930s. Stressing the complexity of many biological phenomena, Rashevsky argued that the methods of theoretical physics – namely mathematics – were needed to “simplify” complex biological processes such as cell division and nerve conduction. A maverick of sorts, Rashevsky was a conspicuous figure in the biological community during the 1930s and early 1940s: he participated in several Cold Spring Harbor symposia and received several years of funding from the Rockefeller Foundation. However, in contrast to many other physicists who moved into biology, Rashevsky's work was almost entirely theoretical, and he eventually faced resistance to his mathematical methods. Through an examination of the conceptual, institutional, and scientific context of Rashevsky's work, this paper seeks to understand some of the reasons behind this resistance. This revised version was published online in July 2006 with corrections to the Cover Date.     

The proximate/ultimate distinction in the multiple careers of Ernst Mayr

Ernst Mayr's distinction between “ultimate” and “proximate” causes is justly considered a major contribution to philosophy of biology. But how did Mayr come to this “philosophical” distinction, and what role did it play in his earlier “scientific” work? I address these issues by dividing Mayr's work into three careers or phases: 1) Mayr the naturalist/researcher, 2) Mayr the representative of and spokesman for evolutionary biology and systematics, and more recently 3) Mayr the historian and philosopher of biology. If we want to understand the role of the proximate/ultimate distinction in Mayr's more recent career as a philosopher and historian, then it helps to consider hisearlier use of the distinction, in the course of his research, and in his promotion of the professions of evolutionary biology and systematics. I believe that this approach would also shed light on some other important “philosophical” positions that Mayr has defended, including the distinction between “essentialism: and “population thinking.”     

Foreword to ‘Multiscale structural biology: biophysical principles and mechanisms underlying the action of bio-nanomachines’, a special issue in Honour of Fumio Arisaka’s 70th birthday

This issue of Biophysical Reviews, titled ‘Multiscale structural biology: biophysical principles and mechanisms underlying the action of bio-nanomachines’, is a collection of articles dedicated in honour of Professor Fumio Arisaka’s 70th birthday. Initially, working in the fields of haemocyanin and actin filament assembly, Fumio went on to publish important work on the elucidation of structural and functional aspects of T4 phage biology. As his career has transitioned levels of complexity from proteins (hemocyanin) to large protein complexes (actin) to even more massive bio-nanomachinery (phage), it is fitting that the subject of this special issue is similarly reflective of his multiscale approach to structural biology. This festschrift contains articles spanning biophysical structure and function from the bio-molecular through to the bio-nanomachine level.     

Discursive Formation,Ethnographic Encounter,Photographic Evidence: The Centenary of Durkheim's Basic Forms of Religious Life and the Anthropological Study of Australian Aboriginal Religion in His Time

Historical research on the work of Émile Durkheim has often been confined to textual analysis aiming to reconstruct his research in the context of anthropological discourses at the turn of the 20th century. As radical changes in the visual culture of the late 19th century shaped the formation of anthropology as an academic discipline, the ambition of this article is to elaborate the ways Durkheim's use of ethnographic data and visual material formed the foundation of the theoretical and methodological design of his approach to religion. By tracing features in his Basic Forms that emphasize visual material and prioritize religious practice, I submit that the photographic evidence given in Spencer and Gillen's account of Aboriginal religion allowed Durkheim to theorize religion primarily through ritual. Photography, as a visual means of representation, enhanced the study of religion by focusing on ritual without necessarily demanding consideration of its mythical narratives and cosmological accounts. Based on a thorough analysis of his Basic Forms, this article argues that Durkheim used the photographs of the Aborigines of Central Australia systematically and that this use of photographs consequently guided his ethnographic depiction and his selection of theoretical concepts and methodological procedures.     

Anecdotal, Historical and Critical Commentaries on Genetics: The Szilard Hypothesis on the Nature of Aging Revisited

This year marks the 50th anniversary of a nearly forgotten hypothesis on aging by Leo Szilard, best known for his pioneering work in nuclear physics, his participation in the Manhattan Project during World War II, his opposition to the nuclear arms race in the postwar era, and his pioneering ideas in biology. Given a specific set of assumptions, Szilard hypothesized that the major reason for the phenomenon of aging was aging hits, e.g., by ionizing radiation, to the gene-bearing chromosomes and presented a mathematical target-hit model enabling the calculation of the average and maximum life span of a species, as well as the influence of increased exposure to DNA-damaging factors on life expectancy. While many new findings have cast doubt on the specific features of the model, this was the first serious effort to posit accumulated genetic damage as a cause of senescence. Here, we review Szilard's assumptions in the light of current knowledge on aging and reassess his mathematical model in an attempt to reach a conclusion on the relevance of Szilard's aging hypothesis today.