Étienne Geoffroy St.‐Hilaire: father of “evo‐devo”?

SUMMARY In the early decades of the nineteenth century, the most important disagreement among comparative anatomists was not evolution versus "special creation" but between advocates of "transcendental morphology" and those of teleological anatomy—form versus function. In France this dichotomy was represented by the 1830–1832 public debate between Geoffroy St.-Hilaire (form) and Cuvier (function). Geoffroy's aim was to establish links of homology (known to him as "analogies") between the four "embranchements" into which Cuvier had divided the animal kingdom. Despite the fanciful nature of some of his homologies, Geoffroy, who was guided by his " principe de connections ," set in motion a school of morphology, some of whose conclusions, notably the homology of the dorsal surface of segmented invertebrates with the ventral surface of vertebrates, has been corroborated by recent studies in developmental genetics.     

L.S. Vygotsky and Reform of Today's School

The name Lev Semenovich Vygotsky is by now very well known to scholars and scientists in many of the humanities, especially to psychologists and educators and even teachers in some countries. Although Vygotsky died almost sixty years ago, considerable interest may be observed at the present time in his theoretical views and in how these views influence the process of improving and even reforming modern education. What are the reasons for such a paradoxical circumstance? I submit that these reasons are to be found, first, in the profoundly hypothetical nature of Vygotsky's views; they have therefore required a long time to be empirically confirmed and substantiated. Second, there is a discrepancy between these views and the needs and requirements of education in preceding decades. It was only about ten years ago that our Russian education began to sense a general need for a new and substantial reform. One of the pillars of these reforms was Vygotsky's views, which concentrated the ideas of many other outstanding people in our education in the first third of this century (for example, the ideas of Blonskii, Shatskii, and others).     

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.     

From the laboratory to the patient and back--an interview with Marc Mareel. Interview by Marc E. Bracke

The career of Marc Mareel is a synthesis of scientific research and clinical activity. During his medical studies, he already made his first enthusiastic steps in research via experimental work on avian developmental biology. Later, during his training as a radiotherapist, he founded his own laboratory for experimental cancer research. There he built up his international reputation as a pioneer in invasion research. Although invasion is the hallmark of tumor malignancy, he also kept an open mind about invasion in non-cancer conditions, such as in placental behavior, developmental biology, immunology and parasitology. His contribution to our understanding of invasion mechanisms has been both technical and conceptual. A number of assays have been developed in his lab, such as the embryonic chick heart and collagen gel invasion models, that have been (and still are) useful for many other research teams. He also contributed to the discovery of a number of key elements in the process of invasion, such as the stromal influence (including its extracellular matrix) and the cadherin family of cell-cell adhesion molecules. Concerning metastasis formation, he developed the original concept that a number of interacting eco-systems are implicated, such as the primary tumor, regional lymph nodes, the bone marrow and the (pre)metastatic niches in distant organs. Since his retirement, Marc Mareel has continued to integrate clinical practice with research creativity. He favours the idea of translational research bringing the results of laboratory findings to medical applications, and exploiting the feedback to the laboratory. The team in the Laboratory of Experimental Cancer Research at Ghent University currently consists of about 25 collaborators, who continue to appreciate his inspiring ideas and suggestions.     

The histologist Sigmund Freud and the biology of intracellular motility

Sigmund Freud, the acclaimed founder of psychoanalysis, invested nine years of his early scientific effort investigating animal histology, cell biology and basic neuroscience prior to concentrating on human nervous and mental disorders. Through his histological studies Freud provided coherent evidence suggesting that the protoplasm consists of a contractile fibrillary network, the present-day cytoskeleton; he was one of the original founders of the fibrillary theory on the structure of the protoplasm. Concerning the biology of the cell nucleus, Freud appears to have been the first author who documented movements of nucleoli in nerve cells, a phenomenon presently referred to as nuclear rotation. In certain instances, Freud's observations antedate later views by more than half a century and are important to our current understanding of cell structure and basic processes of intracellular motility.     

Robert Chambers and Thomas Henry Huxley, Science Correspondents: The Popularization and Dissemination of Nineteenth Century Natural Science

Robert Chambers and Thomas Henry Huxley helped popularize science by writing for general interest publications when science was becoming increasingly professionalized. A non-professional, Chambers used his family-owned Chambers' Edinburgh Journal to report on scientific discoveries, giving his audience access to ideas that were only available to scientists who regularly attended professional meetings or read published transactions of such forums. He had no formal training in the sciences and little interest in advancing the professional status of scientists; his course of action was determined by his disability and interest in scientific phenomena. His skillful reporting enabled readers to learn how the ideas that flowed from scientific innovation affected their lives, and his series of article in the Journal presenting his rudimentary ideas on evolution, served as a prelude to his important popular work, Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation. Huxley, an example of the new professional class of scientists, defended science and evolution from attacks by religious spokesmen and other opponents of evolution, informing the British public about science through his lectures and articles in such publications as Nineteenth Century. He understood that by popularizing scientific information, he could effectively challenge the old Tory establishment -- with its orthodox religious and political views -- and promote the ideas of the new class of professional scientists. In attempting to transform British society, he frequently came in conflict with theologians and others on issues in which science and religion seemed to contradict each other but refused to discuss matters of science with non-professionals like Chambers, whose popular writing struck a more resonant chord with working class readers. This revised version was published online in July 2006 with corrections to the Cover Date.     

A perspective on Peter Mitchell and the chemiosmotic theory

In 1991 Peter Mitchell wrote a last article that summarised his views on the origin, development and current status of his chemiosmotic ideas. I here review some of his views of that time on structures and mechanisms of several key bioenergetic components in relation to the subsequent advances that have been made.     

Humboldt as mediator: Schleiden and Mohl contra Liebig

Justus Liebig's book Die organische Chemic in ihrer Anwendung auf Agricultur und Physiologie aroused strong opposition from scientists who felt that they were being attacked. A polarization arose particularly between Hugo von Mohl (1805-1872) and Matthias Jacob Schleiden (1805-1881) on one side, and Justus von Liebig (1803-1873) and his followers on the other side. The debate did not have the character of a purely scientific controversy, however, because social aspects also played a role. Alexander von Humboldt (1769-1859), who held the esteem of both parties, was able to intervene successfully to mediate this conflict. His task appeared at first difficult, but it turned out that both groups had a common enemy, the representatives and followers of the 'Romantic philosophy of nature'. Humboldt, who self-deprecatingly called himself a 'fossil', was forced to recognize that many of his friends and acquaintances, who stood nearer to, or even belonged among the founders of Naturphilosophie, for example, Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph von Schelling (1775-1854) and Johann Bernhard Wilbrand (1779-1846), were also under attack. Although he had earlier been inspired by the concerns and ideas of Schelling's Naturphilosophie, he now distanced himself from them in order to mediate between modern, experimental scientists.     

Interactive learning and action: realizing the promise of synthetic biology for global health

The emerging field of synthetic biology has the potential to improve global health. For example, synthetic biology could contribute to efforts at vaccine development in a context in which vaccines and immunization have been identified by the international community as being crucial to international development efforts and, in particular, the millennium development goals. However, past experience with innovations shows that realizing a technology’s potential can be difficult and complex. To achieve better societal embedding of synthetic biology and to make sure it reaches its potential, science and technology development should be made more inclusive and interactive. Responsible research and innovation is based on the premise that a broad range of stakeholders with different views, needs and ideas should have a voice in the technological development and deployment process. The interactive learning and action (ILA) approach has been developed as a methodology to bring societal stakeholders into a science and technology development process. This paper proposes an ILA in five phases for an international effort, with national case studies, to develop socially robust applications of synthetic biology for global health, based on the example of vaccine development. The design is based on results of a recently initiated ILA project on synthetic biology; results from other interactive initiatives described in the literature; and examples of possible applications of synthetic biology for global health that are currently being developed.     

Evolution and development: Past, present, and future

The paper tries to set right certain ideas about the history of evolutionary developmental biology. The main point is, that we had to enface the dominance of a comparative approach towards evolutionary developmental biology before 1900, which even later on was effective in Russia, for example, till the 1930s. The problem of the experimentalist approach set against this tradition was and is that there is no concept of gestalt that may allow to integrate the former comparative views and the modern mechanistic interpretations. We argue, that it would be wrong just to describe the comparative tradition as being outdated, as it may allow to get the framework for a dynamical concept of Gestalt that may integrate the ideas of morphogenesis and pattern formation worked out in evo-devo recently.     

The "sensational" power of movement in plants: A Darwinian system for studying the evolution of behavior

Darwin's research on botany and plant physiology was a landmark attempt to integrate plant movements into a biological perspective of behavior. Since antiquity, people have sought to explain plant movements via mechanical or physiological forces, and yet they also constructed analogies between plant and animal behavior. During the Renaissance and Enlightenment, thinkers began to see that physiochemical explanations of plant movements could equally apply to animal behavior and even human thought. Darwin saw his research on plant movements as a strategic front against those who argued that his theory of evolution could not account for the acquisition of new behavioral traits. He believed that his research explained how the different forms of plant movement evolved as modified habits of circumnutation, and he presented evidence that plants might have a brain-like organ, which could have acquired various types of plant sensitivity during evolution. Upon publication of The Power of Movement in Plants, his ideas were overwhelmingly rejected by plant physiologists. Subsequently, plant biologists came to view the work as an important contribution to plant physiology and biology, but its intended contribution to the field of evolution and behavior has been largely overlooked.     

The Authoring of Observational Cinema: Conversations with Colin Young

Based on a series of conversations with Colin Young that have taken place over more than thirty years, this article explores how a certain set of practical and institutional circumstances, in combination with a series of philosophical and aesthetic ideas about the nature of cinema, first led to the emergence over the late 1960s and early 1970s of the approach to ethnographic filmmaking that would become known as “Observational Cinema.” Although it was those whom Colin Young trained, inspired or simply influenced who worked out the practical filmmaking applications of his ideas, it was he who initially formulated the foundational concepts underpinning this approach to ethnographic filmmaking. As such, although he has been a “filmmaker-maker” rather than a filmmaker himself, Colin Young has a rightful claim to be considered, in the sense defined by Roland Barthes, as the original “author” of Observational Cinema.     

Falsifications and corroborations: Karl Popper's influence on systematics

Over the last three decades, the philosophy of Karl Raimund Popper has had a strong influence on the field of systematic biology. Unequivocally, no other philosopher's work has had such an influence during this formative period in systematics. Much, but not all, of the early discourse on Popper and systematics dealt with the philosophical basis of systematics as a science. More recently Popper's work has been discussed in the systematics literature in relation to specific methodologies such as parsimony and maximum likelihood. In this paper, we provide the reader with a concise summary of Popper's ideas relevant to systematics, review the systematic literature invoking or declining Popper's importance to the field, and make a recommendation for the future course of philosophical thinking in systematics. We try to make clear various authors' interpretations of Popper's work and how those interpretations have impacted systematic thought. Although the reader may come away from this review with a clearer idea of Popper's relevance or lack thereof, our primary hope is that the reader will be compelled to question him- or herself about the philosophical basis of the systematic work that he or she does, and to delve into the literature herein cited. We begin by presenting a synopsis of Popper's philosophical views to allow those views to be placed in the context of systematics.     

Darwin,Cuvier and Geoffroy: comments and questions

In writing, in the Origin of Species, of 'two great laws' on which organic beings are formed, 'Unity of Type' and 'Conditions of Existence', Darwin was referring to the famous opposition between Cuvier and Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, first stated publicly in the spring of 1830. After a brief statement of the chief points at issue in the debate, I raise the question of Darwin's attitude to the disagreement and the views of the two protagonists. There are numerous earlier, and some later, references to Cuvier and Geoffroy in the Darwin archives, notebooks, marginalia and correspondence. An examination of these materials suggests a shift in Darwin's sympathies, from Geoffroy to Cuvier. However, some of Geoffroy's principles are retained, and, in adopting Cuvier's phrase 'conditions of existence', Darwin partly alters its meaning. Finally, since originally, and in its adoption by such writers as Whewell and Owen, the expression 'conditions of existence' was interpreted as entailing design or final cause, I consider the vexed question of Darwin's attitude to teleology.     

Mendel, the empiricist

In contemporary texts in biology and genetics, Mendel is frequently portrayed as a theorist who was the father of classical genetics. According to some authors, he created his theory of inheritance to explain the results of his experimental hybridizations of peas. Others have proposed that he designed and carried out his experiments to demonstrate the correctness of a theory of inheritance he had already developed. We disagree strongly with these views of Mendel. Instead, we have come to regard him as an empirical investigator trying to discover the empirical natural laws describing the formation of hybrid peas and the development of their offspring over several generations. We have supported our view with an analysis of portions of Mendel's paper and his letters to Carl N ageli.     

Some of the best online Darwin resources

Ask most men or women in the street who Charles Darwin was and the chances are that they will know something of the work he did: the work that has revolutionised our understanding of the living world and our place in it. The 200th centenary of his birth was in February 2009. Over the 150 years since the publication of his seminal work On the Origin of Species by means of Natural Selection, the quality of his scientific thinking, experimenting and writing — leading to the formulation of his ideas about evolution — has had the single most profound impact on the development of modern biology. During this year a number of dedicated Darwin websites have been created and this edition of Webwatch describes a small number of the best of them.     

Duty or dream? Edwin G. Conklin's critique of eugenics and support for American individualism

This paper assesses ideas about moral andreproductive duty in American eugenics duringthe early twentieth century. While extremeeugenicists, including Charles Davenport andPaul Popenoe, argued that social leaders andbiologists must work to prevent individuals whowere ``unfit' from reproducing, moderates,especially Edwin G. Conklin, presented adifferent view. Although he was sympathetic toeugenic goals and participated in eugenicorganizations throughout his life, Conklinrealized that eugenic ideas rarely could meetstrict scientific standards of proof. Withthis in mind, he did not restrict his eugenicvision to hereditary measures. Relying onhis experience as an embryologist, Conklininstead attempted to balance more extremeeugenic claims – that emphasized the absolutelimits posed by heredity – with his own view of``the possibilities of development.' Throughhis critique he argued that most human beingsnever even begin to approach their hereditarypotential; he moderated his own eugenicrhetoric so that it preserved individualopportunity and responsibility, or what hasoften been labeled the American Dream.     

Interview with Sydney Brenner

The following text is an edited version of a recent interview with Sydney Brenner who has been at the forefront of many developments in molecular biology since the 1950s. It provides a participant’s view on current issues in the history and epistemology of molecular biology. The main issue raised by Brenner regards the relation of molecular biology to the new field of systems biology. Brenner defends the original programme of molecular biology—the molecular explanation of living processes—that in his view has yet to be completed. The programme of systems biology in contrast he views as either trivial or as not achievable since it purports to deal with inverse problems that are impossible to solve in complex living systems. Other issues covered in the conversation concern the impact of the human genome sequencing project, the commercial turn in molecular biology and the contested disciplinary status of the science.     

Rethinking Woodger’s Legacy in the Philosophy of Biology

The writings of Joseph Henry Woodger (1894–1981) are often taken to exemplify everything that was wrongheaded, misguided, and just plain wrong with early twentieth-century philosophy of biology. Over the years, commentators have said of Woodger: (a) that he was a fervent logical empiricist who tried to impose the explanatory gold standards of physics onto biology, (b) that his philosophical work was completely disconnected from biological science, (c) that he possessed no scientific or philosophical credentials, and (d) that his work was disparaged – if not altogether ignored – by the biologists and philosophers of his era. In this paper, we provide the first systematic examination of Woodger’s oeuvre, and use it to demonstrate that the four preceding claims are false. We argue that Woodger’s ideas have exerted an important influence on biology and philosophy, and submit that the current consensus on his legacy stems from a highly selective reading of his works. By rehabilitating Woodger, we hope to show that there is no good reason to continue to disregard the numerous contributions to the philosophy of biology produced in the decades prior to the professionalization of the discipline.