Science,philosophy, and politics in the work of J. B. S. Haldane, 1922–1937

This paper analyzes the interaction between science, philosophy and politics (including ideology) in the early work of J. B. S. Haldane (from 1922 to 1937). This period is particularly important, not only because it is the period of Haldane's most significant biological work (both in biochemistry and genetics), but also because it is during this period that his philosophical and political views underwent their most significant transformation. His philosophical stance first changed from a radical organicism to a position far more compatible with mechanical materialism. The primary intellectual influence that was responsible for this shift was that of F. G. Hopkins. Later, Haldane came to accept Marxism and its official metaphysics, dialectical materialism, a move that let him accept the materialist conception of the world while still maintaining a resolute distance from mechanism. Throughout all these changes, what is most obvious is the influence of science on Haldane's philosophical views. An influence in the opposite direction is far less apparent.Parts of this paper are extracted from a longer work which concerns the interactions between philosophy and science throughout Haldane's scientific career (Sarkar forthcoming). The general conclusions reached here, from a consideration of Haldane's work only from 1922 to 1937 (see Section 6), remain the same for the rest of his life, as is detailed in the longer work. Thanks are due to R. S. Cohen, J. F. Crow, A. R. Fersht, J. Maynard Smith, R. C. Olby, D. Paul, M. Ruse, J. Stachel and S. Sturdy for helpful discussions and comments and criticism of the positions outlined in this paper. This is Contribution No. BTBG-92-4 from the Theoretical Biology Group, Boston University.     

Symposium on J.-L. Dessalles’s Why we Talk (OUP, 2007): Precis by J.-L. Dessalles,commentaries by E. Machery,F. Cowie,and J. Alexander,Replies by J.-L. Dessalles

This symposium discusses J.-L. Dessalles's account of the evolution of language, which was presented in Why we Talk (OUP 2007).     

An Issue of Originality and Priority: The Correspondence and Theories of Oxidative Phosphorylation of Peter Mitchell and Robert J.P. Williams, 1961–1980

In the same year, 1961, Peter D. Mitchell and Robert R.J.P. Williams both put forward hypotheses for the mechanism of oxidative phosphorylation in mitochondria and photophosphorylation in chloroplasts. Mitchell’s proposal was ultimately adopted and became known as the chemiosmotic theory. Both hypotheses were based on protons and differed markedly from the then prevailing chemical theory originally proposed by E.C. (Bill) Slater in 1953, which by 1961 was failing to account for a number of experimental observations. Immediately following the publication of Williams’s hypothesis and before his own was published, Mitchell initiated a correspondence. Examination of the letters shows the development of a dispute based on the validity of the proposals, who should have priority and particularly whether Mitchell had drawn on Williams’s work without acknowledgement. We have concluded that Mitchell’s proposals were original (a view still questioned by Williams) although it is evident that prior to the correspondence Williams had considered and rejected a proposition similar to Mitchell’s theory. However, a major cause of the dispute was the difference in disciplinary backgrounds of Mitchell, a microbial biochemist and Williams, a chemist.