The Practitioner of Science: Everyone her Own Historian

Carl Becker's classic 1931 address ``Everyman his own historian'holds lessons for historians of science today. Like the professional historians he spoke to, we are content to displaythe Ivory-Tower Syndrome, writing scholarly treatises only forone another, disdaining both the general reader and our naturalreadership, scientists. Following his rhetoric, I argue thatscientists are well aware of their own historicity, and wouldbe interested in lively and balanced histories of science. It isironic that the very professionalism that ought to equip us towrite such histories has imposed on us a powerful taboo that rendersus unable to do so. We who count ourselves sophisticated in describing the effects ofsocial forces upon past scientists have been remarkably unconsciousof the ways our own practices are being shaped by our need (and perhapsmore importantly, the needs of our teachers' teachers) to distinguish ourselves from scientists who write history. Our fear of presentism ingeneral and Whig history in particular is really a taboo, that is, anexcessive avoidance enforced by social pressure. It succeeds at makingour work distinct from histories written by scientists, but at the awful cost of blotting out the great fact of scientific progress.Scientists may be misguided in expecting us to celebrate great men,but they are right to demand from historians an analysis of the processof testing and improvement that is central to science. If progress in general is a problematic term, we could label the process ``emendation.' This revised version was published online in July 2006 with corrections to the Cover Date.     

Non-Immunologic Factors in Allergic Diseases

Many different explanations of the mechanism of asthma and other allergic diseases have been offered. Of these, the immunologic concept has gained the greatest acceptance. During the past 25 years, a renewed attempt to place the diagnosis and treatment of allergic diseases on a firm scientific basis has yielded many fundamental facts and principles in such varied fields as immunology and psychiatry, but no one of these disciplines affords a satisfactory approach to the practical management of the individual patient. There is a vast gap between scientific fact and medical practice. The need at present is less for basic principles than for their rational application to diagnosis and treatment. This requires a broad knowledge of the basic sciences, and utilization of that which is applicable.     

Pasteur, Pastorians, and the dawn of immunology: the importance of specificity

Throughout his career, the problems that attracted Louis Pasteur almost invariably involved considerations of specificity of structure and/or of action. Thus, his work on asymmetric crystals showed that chemical form not only specifies crystalline structure, but affects the affinity of ferments as well. In his studies of diseases of silkworms, of beer, and of wine, he could unerringly distinguish with the microscope the specific agents of disease. From this emerged his concept of the specificity of species and against the nonspecificity of spontaneous generation, whence the germ theory of disease. It was in the new field of immunology, however, where the manifestations of an exquisite specificity were most clearly seen. Here, Pasteur's vaccines worked because he chose the specific pathogen in order to induce a specific immunity, and he succeeded each time. But the two most prominent Pastorian successors in immunology, Elie Metchnikoff and Jules Bordet, were not equally successful. Although each contributed significantly to the birth of immunology, each advanced a theory that neglected the principle of specificity and paid a price in consequence. Metchnikoff's phagocytic theory of immunity could not survive the demonstrable specificity of humoral antibodies, while Bordet's physical adsorptive concept of the antibody-cell interaction quickly fell to Paul Ehrlich's demonstration of the stereochemical determination of immunological specificity.     

Definition of the real domain of the history of sciences and exploring the relationship with the philosophy of science

The specific field of the history of science is the study and explanation of the origin and transformation of the structures of scientific knowledge. The historian of science should render understandable the reality of scientific research. The relationships between the history of science and the philosophy of science are examined stating that (1) the philosophical theories on the development of science have a scientific content only as much as they may be compared with the results of the history of science, and (2) the philosophy of science does not refer to an immediate historical reality but to an intellectual reconstruction of the past.     

TOWARDS AN ORTHOGRAPHY OF BIRD SONG.

The classical conception of the progress of science is that of amassing observations, classifying them, proceeding from classification to general principle, and thence to theory. But this conception of science can be more properly applied to natural history than to the physical sciences. The advance of the physical sciences depends so much on the apparatus of measurement that very often a happy accident, which releases to a dozen laboratories a new technique, will affect not only the field of future exploration but even the current scientific theory in that field.     

The history of resistant rickets: A model for understanding the growth of biomedical knowledge

Two essential periods may be identified in the early stages of the history of vitamin D-resistant rickets. The first was the period during which a very well known deficiency disease, rickets, acquired a scientific status: this required the development of unifying principles to confer upon the newly developing science of pathology a doctrine without which it would have been condemned to remain a collection of unrelated facts with very little practical application. One first such unifying principle was provided by the notion of hygiene; while the blanket explanations provided by this notion alone were much too general to enable rickets to achieve scientific status, it did point out the need to look for specific external causes for the disease and to examine the life-style and dietary habits of the patients. The second phase of the conceptualization of the disease was the assumption of a specific cause — that is, using concepts developed in the area of infectious diseases. This was made possible by fundamental similarities between deficiency and infectious diseases, in spite of their apparent differences. Both types of illness have some of the characteristics of what Georges Canguilhem calls the ontological representation of disease⁷⁷ as opposed to dysharmonic representations, which primarily concern the endocrine diseases. It is precisely this shift from one to the other manner of perceiving ill health that enabled the identification of the vitamin D-resistant rickets. Conceptualization of the notion of vitamin D resistancy required that the conditions causing the disease be looked for within the organism rather than outside it; this was thus the first time that endocrine concepts were applied to studying the physiology of vitamin D.The history of resistant rickets therefore represents an interesting model for understanding the growth of biomedical knowledge. It allows the development of a number of more general ideas on the question of the relationship between biology and medicine and on the thorny problem of specificity in medical thinking. As far as this topic is concerned it can be seen that there was an ongoing exchange between medical and biological thinking during the initial period up until 1937, and that one could deny any such specificity in medical thinking during this same period. Albright, for example, used human diseases as spontaneously produced models for experimental biology. It was also more feasible for an experimental biologist to administer toxic doses than for a clinician to do so.     

The history of science and the introduction of plant genetics in Mexico

The emergence and development of 'national sciences' in Latin American countries were not, until very recently, part of the agenda of historians of science because the 'traditional' history of sciences was not interested in the scientific activity of peripheral areas. The history of science is a recent discipline in Mexican historiographic studies. The methodological interest in the history of science, the creation of schools and institutes that deal with it, the establishment of particular chairs, the organization of national societies, and the publication of books and periodicals are all very recent. It is important to carry out studies in the history of science that examine the development of Mexican science introducing the 'local' context, and study how this development has influenced the formation of scientific societies and the development of scientific disciplines in the country. We want to explore the introduction of genetics in Mexico as applied to agriculture between 1930 and 1960. This matter has not been investigated in Mexico and therefore this work would represent one of the first studies of this subject and one of the first studies in the general field of Mexican scientific history.     

Harold Varmus [interview by Karen Birmingham

He may have stepped away from the hottest seat in biomedical research, but Nobel Laureate Harold Varmus shows no signs of withdrawing from the frontline of the biomedical research community, and he still displays the inimitable combination of political astuteness and scientific expertise that made his reign as director of the United States National Institutes of Health so successful. Varmus spoke to Nature Medicine for the first in a series of profiles that the journal will run on scientists that make a difference to biomedical research.     

The immune system: a key concept for the history of immunology

The definition of immunology as the science of the immune system that emerged in the 1960s provides a sound basis for both reconstructing its past and constructing its future. The choice of this point in time of course involves important consequences, on the one hand, sociological and institutional, epistemological and conceptual on the other. I will attempt to demonstrate that this perspective allows us to assess the history of immunology in an innovative way while elucidating in the process some of its theoretical paradoxes.     

The Professionalization of Science Studies: Cutting Some Slack

During the past hundred years or so, those scholars studying science have isolated themselves as much as possible from scientists as well as from workers in other disciplines who study science. The result of this effort is history of science, philosophy of science and sociology of science as separate disciplines. I argue in this paper that now is the time for these disciplinary boundaries to be lowered or at least made more permeable so that a unified discipline of Science Studies might emerge. I discuss representative problems that stand in the way of such an integration. These problems may seem so formidable in the abstract that no one in their right mind would waste their time trying to bring about a unified field of Science Studies. However, those of us who limit ourselves to the study of the biological sciences have already formed a society in which workers from all disciplines can share their expertise -- the International Society for the History, Philosophy and Social Studies of Science.     

Pain, paradox, and value

The author argues that "as soon as one begins to study the understanding and management of pain in science, human medicine, and veterinary medicine, one begins to encounter a variety of apparent paradoxes." He contends that these paradoxes, ten of which he identifies and discusses in this essay, are based on flawed philosophical and valuational assumptions underlying science and medicine. Rollins concludes that, as social morality increasingly has an impact on science, a new ideology will evolve that is more receptive to the moral universe and more capable of a "coherent vision of pain, one which acknowledges that the medical notion of adequacy of anaesthesia is as much a moral as a scientific one."     

Heterochronic parabiosis: historical perspective and methodological considerations for studies of aging and longevity

Pairing two animals in parabiosis to test for systemic or circulatory factors from one animal affecting the other animal has been used in scientific studies for at least 150 years. These studies have led to advances in fields as diverse as endocrinology, immunology, and oncology. A variation on the technique, heterochronic parabiosis, whereby two animals of different ages are joined to test for systemic regulators of aspects of aging or age‐related diseases also has almost a century‐long scientific history. In this review, we focus on the history of heterochronic parabiosis, methodological considerations and caveats, and the major advances that have emerged from those studies, including recent advances in our understanding of stem cell aging.     

The Spatial Turn: Geographical Approaches in the History of Science

Over the past decade or so a number of historians of science and historical geographers, alert to the situated nature of scientific knowledge production and reception and to the migratory patterns of science on the move, have called for more explicit treatment of the geographies of past scientific knowledge. Closely linked to work in the sociology of scientific knowledge and science studies and connected with a heightened interest in spatiality evident across the humanities and social sciences this ‹spatial turn’ has informed a wide-ranging body of work on the history of science. This discussion essay revisits some of the theoretical props supporting this turn to space and provides a number of worked examples from the history of the life sciences that demonstrate the different ways in which the spaces of science have been comprehended.     

Philip R. White (1901–1968)—a tribute

The groundbreaking research carried out by Philip R. White in the 1930s and 1940s played a critical early role in the development of modern plant biotechnology and the production of biotech crops. He gained instant fame and became a historical figure early in his career by becoming the first person to attain unlimited growth of cultured plant tissues. White was one of the best known and most influential figures of his generation in plant cell culture research. His tireless and lifelong efforts to promote the use of plant cell culture systems inspired a generation of scientists and stimulated much scientific activity. White was not only a brilliant and visionary scientist but also a highly principled man who spoke courageously about the great moral and political issues of his day. He was admired as much for his science as for his humanity. His belief that plant cell culture research was not well represented at national and international meetings, and his deeply held conviction that science had to be international and without borders in order to be of service to humankind led to the founding of the International Association for Plant Biotechnology in 1963, currently the largest forum for the international plant biotechnology community. This tribute honors and celebrates Philip R. White for his inspiring science, for his kind and generous mentoring of young scientists, for his advocacy of plant cell culture research and its applications, for his promotion of international scientific exchange and cooperation, and for his leadership in the founding of the International Association for Plant Biotechnology.     

School of the school of Leon Abgarovich Orbeli

In 2007, L. A. Orbeli would have been 125. He was distinguished by extremely wide scientific interrests; he created one of the most numerous and fruitful scientific schools. He authored prominent achievements in physiology of autonomic nervous system, evolutionary physiology, sensory physiology, renal physiology, physiology of underwater labor. Orbeli paid much attention to the scientific-organizational activity, he was academician-secretary of the Division of Biological Sciences of the USSR Academy of Sciences, President of the Society of Physiologists, Biochemists and Pharmacologists, Editor-in-Chief of the USSR Physiological Journal, etc. Principles of the scientific scholl founded by Orbeli are service to science and society, propity to scientific ethics, humanity.     

Models and Myths of Science: Views of the Elephant

I discuss selected philosophies of science in terms of the roleof rationalism in science and the reality status of the productsof scientific reasoning. A model is then presented in whichI argue that creativity in science involves the mental manipulationof images which are later compared to the shared empirical experienceof the scientific community. The assimilation of a scientificconcept involves a re-creation of the concept through a similarmanipulation of images and empirical experience. The processof recreation can distort the original concept. The result ofthis process of creation and recreation is neither an objectivediscovery of truth nor a subjective invention of truth but aninteractive reality composed of the inquiring human mind andan objectively unknowable nature. Since the model or myth ofscience we accept influences many aspects of the science-societyinteraction, the model I present here as well as models presentedby others ought to be carefully evaluated through the studyof the history of science.     

Paul Ehrlich--in search of the magic bullet

In 2004, we celebrate the 150th anniversary of the birth of Paul Ehrlich, considered the founder of immunology. His life and work can be divided into three creative periods: first, he developed histological staining, then he accomplished his ground-breaking work on immunology, and eventually invented chemotherapy. Paul Ehrlich can be perceived as a man whose success was not the consequence of a will to power, but of his substantial interest in science.     

Francisco Varela (1946-2001): filling the mind--brain gap: a life adventure

One of the most eminent neuroscientists recently passed away in Paris. Professor Francisco Varela was a scholar that approached science with a remarkably broad and integrative perspective, deeply contributing to a diversity of fields, from mathematics to epistemology, from immunology to neuroscience. He was strongly influenced by Buddhism and actively participated in unraveling the relationship between science and spirituality. This article introduces a special edition of Biological Research dedicated to the memory of this great man. It contains a collection of valuable contributions by various authors who collaborated with Varela at different moments of his outstanding scientific career. Their articles cover most of the fields in which he made contributions.