Speaking out about the social implications of science: the uneven legacy of H. J. Muller

H. J. Muller (1890-1967) was unusual as a scientist because he spoke out on numerous occasions about the uses and abuses of genetics in society. In this article, I follow Muller's efforts to do so and the consequences that they had on his career, his productivity as a research scientist, and his reputation. The shifting sites of Muller's work--which ranged from Columbia University to Texas, from Berlin to Moscow and Leningrad, from Madrid to Edinburgh, and from Amherst to Indiana University--made his activism unusual. Muller paid a price for his activism, and his reputation today is still marred by what most historians would consider risky judgments and reversals of position about genetics and society. My analysis is not a defense but rather an evaluation of the circumstances that led him to these positions and an analysis of the consequences of challenging society when scientists believe their science is being ignored or abused.     

L.S. Vygotsky: In Memoriam

On the night of 11 June, death took from the ranks of our country's outstanding scientists Professor Lev Semenovich Vygotsky. In him Soviet psychology has lost not only a great scientist and brilliant educator, not only a person with remarkable personal qualities, but also one of those people whose appearance in our science has been of tremendous importance for its development, whose life and death are as much a part of the history of psychological knowledge as of his personal biography. Indeed, the system of theoretical psychological ideas Vygotsky created requires an understanding of the biography of its creator to be fully grasped. Yet the opposite is also true: only analysis of this system can provide the real key to understanding the personality of the deceased.     

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.     

The bacteriophage, its role in immunology: how Macfarlane Burnet's phage research shaped his scientific style

The Australian scientist Frank Macfarlane Burnet-winner of the Nobel Prize in 1960 for his contributions to the understanding of immunological tolerance-is perhaps best recognized as one of the formulators of the clonal selection theory of antibody production, widely regarded as the 'central dogma' of modern immunology. His work in studies in animal virology, particularly the influenza virus, and rickettsial diseases is also well known. Somewhat less known and publicized is Burnet's research on bacteriophages, which he conducted in the first decade of his research career, immediately after completing medical school. For his part, Burnet made valuable contributions to the understanding of the nature of bacteriophages, a matter of considerable debate at the time he began his work. Reciprocally, it was while working on the phages that Burnet developed the scientific styles, the habits of mind and laboratory techniques and practices that characterized him for the rest of his career. Using evidence from Burnet's published work, as well as personal papers from the period he worked on the phages, this paper demonstrates the direct impact that his experiments with phages had on the development of his characteristic scientific style and approaches, which manifested themselves in his later career and theories, and especially in his thinking regarding various immunological problems.     

The model of development of science by the example of limnology

Limnology--the science about lakes is the young and relatively closed area of studies; its existence is owing to several hundreds of scientists. The International Society of Limnologists holds its meetings since 1922. We used materials of these meetings to find out the main stages of development of this science; among these stages there were both fast and relatively calm periods. Based on analysis of these data, we constructed a model of development of the science, the same data being used for tuning and verification of the model. We have suggested that the main regularities and of development of limnology can be extrapolated to other sciences. The main "acting person" in the model is population of scientists. Each scientist, with some probability, can propose new ideas as well as use in his elaborations some particular complex of the already accumulated knowledge and ideas. The model also takes into consideration how the scientific information is spreading, specifically some individual peculiarities of model scientists, such as age, experience, communicability. After the model parameters had been chosen in such a way that is described adequately the development of limnology, we performed a series of experiments by changing some of the characteristics and obtained rather unexpected results published preliminary in the short work (Levchenko V. F and Menshutkin V. V. Int. J. Comp. Anticip. Syst., 2008, vol. 22, p. 63-75) and discussed here in the greater detail. It is revealed, that the development of science is passing irregularly and sharply decelerated at low level of scientists communication and absence of scientific schools, and that the age of "scientific youth" of scientist begins usually only after 40 years.     

The Use and Abuse of Sir Karl Popper

Karl Popper has been one of the few philosophers of sciences who has influenced scientists. I evaluate Popper's influence on our understanding of evolutionary theory from his earliest publications to the present. Popper concluded that three sorts of statements in evolutionary biology are not genuine laws of nature. I take him to be right on this score. Popper's later distinction between evolutionary theory as a metaphysical research program and as a scientific theory led more than one scientist to misunderstand his position on evolutionary theory as a scientific theory. In his later work Popper also introduced what he took to be improvements of evolutionary theory. Thus far these improvements have had almost no influence on evolutionary biology. I conclude by examining the influence of Popper on the reception of cladistic analysis.     

Model of development of science by the example of limnology

Limnology—the science about lakes—is the young and relatively closed area of studies; its existence is owing to several hundreds of scientists. The International Society of Limnologists holds its meetings since 1922. We used materials of these meetings to find out the main stages of development of this science; among these stages there were both fast and relatively calm periods. Based on analysis of these data, we constructed a model of development of the science, the same data being used for tuning and verification of the model. We have suggested that the main regularities and mechanisms of development of limnology can be extrapolated to other sciences. The main “acting person” in the model is population of scientists. Each scientist, with some probability, can propose new ideas as well as use in his studies some particular complex of the already accumulated knowledge and ideas. The model also takes into consideration how the scientific information is spreading, as well as some individual peculiarities of model scientists, such as age, experience, communicability. After the model parameters had been chosen in such a way that is described adequately development of limnology, we performed a series of experiments by changing some of the characteristics and obtained rather unexpected results published preliminary in the short work (Levchenko, V.F. and Menshutkin, V.V., Int. J. Comput. Anticip. Syst., 2008, vol. 22, pp. 63–75) and discussed here in the greater detail. It is revealed that development of science occurs irregularly and is sharply decelerated at low level of communication between scientists and the absence of scientific schools, while the age of “scientific youth” of scientist usually begins only after 40 years.     

The co-ordination of a RTD project at European level: difficulties and traps by the different steps

When a scientist wants to set up and co-ordinate a Research and Technical Development (RTD) project for the first time, he is confronted with a certain number of factors, which, generally, are completely unknown. To co-ordinate a research project, it is not sufficient to have, as starting point, a set of interesting and innovative scientific themes. In fact, after the first preparatory steps, he is confronted with a number of difficulties such as the sinking of the project before it is put forward for financing. The different visions from the scientific and industrial partners are sometimes completely opposite (4): so it is necessary to understand and to assess the requirements of every participant. The industrial partner approach is, for example, linked to this assessment, bearing in mind that his involvement is indispensable for the viability of the project. First of all, this work aims to warn scientists who wish to start up in such an adventure, and secondly serve as a 'vademecum for the co-ordinator' in order to achieve successful completion of work that requires big investments in energy and time.     

Marvelling at the Marvel: The Supposed Conversion of A.D. Darbishire to Mendelism

The so-called “biometric-Mendelian controversy” has received much attention from science studies scholars. This paper focuses on one scientist involved in this debate, Arthur Dukinfield Darbishire, who performed a series of hybridization experiments with mice beginning in 1901. Previous historical work on Darbishire’s experiments and his later attempt to reconcile Mendelian and biometric views describe Darbishire as eventually being “converted”' to Mendelism. I provide a new analysis of this episode in the context of Darbishire’s experimental results, his underlying epistemology, and his influence on the broader debate surrounding the rediscovery and acceptance of Mendelism. Iinvestigate various historiographical issues raised by this episode in order to reflect on the idea of “conversion” to a scientific theory. Darbishire was an influential figure who resisted strong forces compelling him to convert prematurely due to his requirements that the new theory account for particularly important anomalous facts and answer the most pressing questions in the field. This revised version was published online in July 2006 with corrections to the Cover Date.     

Scientific personae in American psychology: three case studies

This paper studies the constellations of attitudes--sentimental, moral, epistemological, and social--that three leading psychologists active in turn-of-the-twentieth-century America took to be essential to the production of scientific knowledge. William James, G. Stanley Hall, and Edward Titchener located the virtues and traits proper to the scientific frame of mind, and combined them into normative images of the man of science, or, 'scientific personae' as I use the term here. I argue that their competing formulations of the scientific ethos informed their psychological practice and epistemological commitments. James, Hall, and Titchener mobilized their representations of the man of science in order to reconfigure the field of psychology and redefine its boundaries, as well as to promote forms of sociability and define the proper role of scientists both within the academy and in the wider polity.     

Pieter Hendrik Nienhuis: Aquatic Ecologist and Environmental Scientist

Prof. Dr. Pieter Hendrik (Piet) Nienhuis worked for almost 40 years in all aspects of aquatic ecology and environmental science and retired on 31 October 2003. He can be characterised as a distinguished scientist, shaped in an applied estuarine and aquatic research ambience of the former Delta Institute for Hydrobiological Research (DIHO) in Yerseke in the Netherlands. His appointment as a full professor at the Radboud University Nijmegen offered him a challenging step from monodisciplinarity in ecology, via multidisciplinarity in the application of ecological knowledge in river science to interdisciplinarity in environmental science and management. This paper describes his education, teaching activities, research, scientific publications, science management, and significance for various scientific disciplines. He made important contributions to biosystematics of angiosperms and algae, the ecology of seagrasses, nutrient cycling and eutrophication in estuarine ecosystems, and the integrated modelling of the ecological functioning of estuaries. Subsequently, he paid much attention to environmental problems in river basins, ecological rehabilitation and sustainable development. His work influenced the view of ecologists, aquatic scientists and water managers in the Netherlands as well as abroad, in particular regarding the drawbacks of compartmentalization of the estuaries and the importance of connectivity and morphodynamics in river systems. In hindsight, it appears as a logical line that he gradually moved from estuarine ecological research that became increasingly driven by societal and environmental problems to the field of environmental science and management.     

Joseph Dalton Hooker's Ideals for a Professional Man of Science

During the 1840s and the 1850s botanist Joseph Hooker developeddistinct notions about the proper characteristics of aprofessional man of science. While he never articulated theseideas publicly as a coherent agenda, he did share his opinionsopenly in letters to family and colleagues; this privatecommunication gives essential insight into his and his X-Clubcolleagues' public activities. The core aspiration of Hooker'sprofessionalization was to consolidate men of science into adutiful and centralized community dedicated to nationalwell-being. The nation in turn owed the scientific community forits ministration. When the government bestowed funds and statuson men of science it was rewarding science – not purchasing it. His proposed reforms were piecemeal, immediate, and above allpractical. He harbored no taste for vast millenariantransformation, and rested his conception of scientificprofessionalism upon a respectable High Victorian foundation ofpatronage and pillars of duty, reciprocity, intimacy, andinequality. The process of professionalization he envisioned wasas much shrewd compromise between existing interests as avindication of principle. His power and prestige from themid-1850s onward gave him considerable ability to carry out hisreform program, although his general success did occasion someundesired consequences for the status of natural-historypursuits. This revised version was published online in July 2006 with corrections to the Cover Date.     

Uncertain legislator: Georges Cuvier's laws of nature in their intellectual context

Conclusion We should now be able to come to some general conclusions about the main lines of Cuvier's development as a naturalist after his departure from Normandy. We have seen that Cuvier arrived in Paris aware of the importance of physiology in classification, yet without a fully worked out idea of how such an approach could organize a whole natural order. He was freshly receptive to the ideas of the new physiology developed by Xavier Bichat.Cuvier arrived in a Paris also torn by many overlapping debates on the nature of classification, and in particular that between the natural and artificial systems. The very validity of the enterprise of classification was questioned in many quarters. Cuvier's achievement on his entry into the Parisian world of science was not simply to establish himself as a highly competent anatomist: far more important, he also began to use ideas from many different specialties to change completely the notion of what was involved in natural history.¹²⁴ At the same time that he himself swung away from the guiding image of the field naturalist as the ideal of the specialty, he took ideas from the new physiology to answer questions about the order of the animal world, and from comparative anatomy to resurrect extinct creation — and to come to conclusions from that creation about the history of the forms of life and the manner of their succession. He showed himself able to alter the relationships between natural history and many other fields of study in a way that implied, rightly or wrongly, his own complete mastery over such a movement. Partly he was able to do this because the ideas he borrowed were not themselves logically articulated and thus could be easily adapted and refocused for many different specific purposes. The value of the heuristic possibilities inherent in the idea of life, for example, far outweighed its inability to generate full systems of classification. Cuvier also consistently refused to consider in science matters relating to the first causes of events. Freed from the consideration of first-order phenomena, he was able to use second-order explanations across a far wider field of applicability. Personal doubts about the validity of a theology that had used science in order to bolster its own claims were combined here with the strong influence of the Kantian critique of the limits of human reason.¹²⁵ Cuvier's characteristic mode of procedure was that of intellectual appropriation and a bold capacity for altering the relationships between different fields of knowledge, rather than, with the exception of taxonomy, the technique of expanding their subject matter. His claims to originality came, first, from this reappropriation and reorientation and, second, from the sheer scope of his work, which aimed at nothing less than the cataloging and classification of all animate objects.¹²⁶ They rested also on his acute use of his assertion of a certain relationship with the past of his subject. Very often he would present this history in such a way as to obscure his own intellectual genealogy, and often too he would give differing accounts of the priority of use of an idea in order to distract attention from the questionable exactitude of his own claims to originality. Cuvier came to Paris at precisely the time when society and institutions were most profitably malleable for a newcomer; it was also a time when many scientific disciplines had reached a stage advanced in terms of their factual content, yet relatively inadequate in conceptual organization. They were ripe for takeover by large-scale organizing ideas such as the animal economy and the subordination of characteristics. Paleontology is a particularly good example of a specialty in this particular form of underdevelopment in 1795.Cuvier paid a high price for his initial success. His electic applications of large-scale organizing ideas tended to mean that little of his own work had complete coherence at all levels. Ideas, as we have seen, that proved capable of providing a complete reform of the larger groups of the animal kingdom were incapable of producing its detailed working-out in the taxonomy of smaller groups, which had to be supplied from observed analogical correlations. Further, his physiological approach to classification involved the breakdown of strict correspondence between organs and functions, which left the way open for workers such as Geoffroy St. Hilaire gradually to tilt the balance away from the study of the correlations of hierarchies of functions, and toward morphology as the basis of the order of nature. Cuvier's brilliant appropriations from physiology from the beginning, therefore, contained the seeds of conflict with Geoffroy.Cuvier's eclectic approach made it very nearly impossible for him to present a clear idea of the ways in which the life sciences could be said to be lawful. In spite of his efforts to assimilate them to the position of the physical sciences in this respect, he was forced in the end to accord only an ambiguous status as laws to observational correlations. From this area of failure came much of the attempt to give his own two laws — the correlation of parts and the subordination of characteristics — predictive qualities, particularly in relation to paleontological research.It is not surprising that Cuvier's title as the legislator of natural history should represent more a claim than a reality. How, then, was he able to emerge as the leading French naturalist of his day? First of all must be adduced the sheer scale of his undertakings. Then comes his expertise as a practical anatomist, and the range of different topics toward which he turned his interest. His collaborators cannot be given credit for his output nor, as we have seen, for slavish adherence to his ideas. Cuvier was able to successfully claim to have dominated the underdeveloped specialties, such as paleontology, and turned them into a major heuristic input into both geology and comparative anatomy; but in other fields, such as physiology, he appropriated concepts and encouraged research but made little impact on the field himself. His attempts in 1812 to head off, or neutralize and absorb the growth of morphological studies landed him in a dangerously rigid position, which despite his encouragement of the new physiological research under the Restoration made further elaboration of his own conceptual underpinnings almost impossible.Cuvier's authority in the scientific world would in any case have been great because of his substantive achievement in taxonomy, but the rest of his work had enough ambiguities and dislocations for it to need the support of his political and social power. Cuvier's detractors seized on a vital fragment of the truth when they accused him of finding the political dimension all-important: it obscured the disjunctions in his theories and at the same time gave him the authority to make new claims for the status of the observational sciences - and for their relations of power with their surrounding specialties. Cuvier's science both thrived on and was halted by the power games of intellectual appropriation, manipulation of the past to confirm the present, and continual claims for hegemony.     

On being a (modern) scientist: risks of public engagement in the UK interspecies embryo debate

In 2006, a small group of UK academic scientists made headlines when they proposed the creation of interspecies embryos – mixing human and animal genetic material. A public campaign was fought to mobilize support for the research. Drawing on interviews with the key scientists involved, this paper argues that engaging the public through communicating their ideas via the media can result in tensions between the necessity of, and inherent dangers in, scientists campaigning on controversial issues. Some scientists believed that communicating science had damaged their professional standing in the eyes of their peers, who, in turn, policed the boundaries around what they believed constituted a “good” scientist. Tensions between promoting “science” versus promotion of the “scientist”; engaging the public versus publishing peer-reviewed articles and winning grants; and building expectations versus overhyping the science reveal the difficult choices scientists in the modern world have to make over the potential gains and risks of communicating science. We conclude that although scientists' participation in public debates is often encouraged, the rewards of such engagement remain. Moreover, this participation can detrimentally affect scientists' careers.     

Obituary Fumio Oosawa 1922–2019

Prof. Fumio Oosawa passed away in Nagoya on March 4, 2019, at the age of 96. As two of his former students we, like a great many scientists both in Japan and around the world, were much inspired and influenced by him. We have, at the request of the journal, penned this note to describe some of his major scientific contributions and also provide the readers of Biophysical Reviews with an idea of the remarkable personality and character traits that he displayed throughout his life. Fumio Oosawa (or Oosawa-san as he preferred to be called) was a physicist who initially entered the area of biophysics through studies in the field of condensed matter phenomena. Although a remarkable human being, he was, first and foremost, one of the leading scientists of his generation, making many original contributions that could, by any measure, be described as scientific breakthroughs. Therefore, before providing a short biography of his life in and around science, we thought it most appropriate to begin this Letter by first summarizing his major scientific contributions.     

Problems in the Psychology of Development (Reading O. Mandel'shtam)

In August of this year, our regular author V.P. Zinchenko celebrated his sixtieth birthday. The editorial board asked him to give an interview about his view of the contemporary science of psychology. Vladimir Petrovich preferred a series of articles on the eternal problems of developmental psychology. We publish the first of these articles, written in the genre of an essay on scientific themes, in this journal issue. But the editorial board did not abandon its request, and hopes that his interview on the science of psychology will be published in the journal. The editorial board congratulates V.P. Zinchenko on his birthday and wishes him success in his scientific work.     

Thirty years of fun with antenna pigment-proteins and photochemical reaction centers: A tribute to the people who have influenced my career

The author summarizes the research contributions to photosynthesis made by him, his graduate and postdoctoral students, visiting scientists and by his collaboration with other photosynthesis workers during 1964–1994. The development of isolation procedures and biochemical/biophysical characterization of antenna pigment-proteins and photochemical reaction centers are described together with the author's education and experiences as a scientific researcher. Some anecdotes hopefully add insight into what it was like to be in this area of science during the period.     

Mirko Drazen Grmek: the genesis of scientific fact and archaeology of disease

Professor Mirko Drazen Grmek (Krapina 1924--Paris 2000) was one of the most prominent Croatian scientists. Work in history of science directed him to the crossroads of various fields placing his approach in anthropological perspective. Two models will serve as illustrations of his main theories. The historical reconstruction of scientific discovery (mostly on examples of 17th century) will be presented as well as Grmek's ideas on a concept of disease. The introduction of the term "memoricide" within his activities during aggression on Croatia is mentioned.     

Still going strong: Leeuwenhoek at eighty

At age 80, Antony van Leeuwenhoek was a world-famous scientist who came from a prosperous Delft family with a heritage of public service. He continued that tradition by serving in paid municipal offices. Self-taught, he began his scientific career in his 40s, when he began making hundreds of tiny single-lens microscopes. Pioneering the use of now-common microscopic techniques, he was the first human to see microbes and microscopic structures in animals, plants, and minerals. Over 50 years, he wrote only letters, more than 300 of them, and published half of them himself. More than a hundred were published in translation in the Royal Society’s Philosophical Transactions. Today, Leeuwenhoek is considered in the lesser rank of scientists and is not well known outside of his homeland. Recent archival research in Delft has contributed new information about his life that helps to contextualize his science, but much remains to be learned.