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.     

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.     

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.     

Of moths and men: Theo Lang and the persistence of Richard Goldschmidt's theory of homosexuality, 1916-1960

Using an analogy between moths and men, in 1916, Richard Goldschmidt proposed that homosexuality was a case of genetic intersexuality. As he strove to create a unified theory of sex determination that would encompass animals ranging from moths to men, Goldschmidt's doubts grew concerning the association of homosexuality with intersexuality until, in 1931, he dropped homosexuality from his theory of intersexuality. Despite Goldschmidt's explicit rejection of his theory of homosexuality, Theo Lang, a researcher in the Genealogical-Demographic Department of the Institute for Psychiatric Research in Munich, revived it, maintained Goldschmidt's association with it, and argued on its behalf in publications from 1936 to 1960. Lang's appropriation of Goldschmidt's theory did not depend on his resolution of the difficulties Goldschmidt had found with his own theory. Lang and Goldschmidt, I argue, had fundamentally different scientific and social commitments that allowed one to reject this theory of homosexuality and the other to accept it.     

The Development of Francis Galton's Ideas on the Mechanism of Heredity

Galton greeted Darwin's theory of pangenesis with enthusiasm, and tried to test the assumption that the hereditary particles circulate in the blood by transfusion experiments on rabbits. The failure of these experiments led him to reject this assumption, and in the 1870s he developed an alternative theory of heredity, which incorporated those parts of Darwin's theory that did not involve the transportation of hereditary particles throughout the system. He supposed that the fertilized ovum contains a large number of hereditary elements, which he collectively called the “stirp,” a few of which are patent, developing into particular cell types, while the rest remain latent; the latent elements can be transmitted to the next generation, while the patent elements, with rare exceptions, cannot since they have developed into cells. The problem with this theory is that it does not explain the similarity between parent and child unless there is a high correlation between latent and patent elements. Galton probably came to realize this problem during his subsequent statistical work on heredity, and he quietly dropped the idea that patent elements are not transmitted in Natural Inheritance (1889). Galton thought that brothers and sisters had identical stirps, and he attributed differences between them to variability in the choice of patent elements from the stirp, that is to say to developmental variability. He attributed the likeness of monozygotic twins to the similarity of their developmental environment. Galton's twin method was to track the life history changes of twins to see whether twins who were similar at birth diverged in dissimilar environments or whether twins who were dissimilar at birth converged in similar environments. It is quite different from the modern twin method of comparing the similarities between monozygotic and dizygotic twins, on the assumption that monozygotic twins are genetically identical whereas dizygotic twins are not. It has been argued that Galton foreshadowed Weismann's theory of the continuity of the germ-plasm, but this is only true in a weak sense. They both believed that the inheritance of acquired characters was either rare or impossible, but Galton did not forestall the essential part of Weismann's theory, that the germ-plasm of the zygote is doubled, with one part being reserved for the formation of the germ-cells. This revised version was published online in July 2006 with corrections to the Cover Date.     

Galton's legacy to research on intelligence

In the 1999 Galton Lecture for the annual conference of The Galton Institute, the author summarizes the main elements of Galton's ideas about human mental ability and the research paradigm they generated, including the concept of 'general' mental ability, its hereditary component, its physical basis, racial differences, and methods for measuring individual differences in general ability. Although the conclusions Galton drew from his empirical studies were seldom compelling for lack of the needed technology and methods of statistical inference in his day, contemporary research has generally borne out most of Galton's original and largely intuitive ideas, which still inspire mainstream scientific research on intelligence.     

A Life More Ordinary: The Dull Life but Interesting Times of Joseph Dalton Hooker

The life of Joseph Dalton Hooker (1817–1911) provides an invaluable lens through which to view mid-Victorian science. A biographical approach makes it clear that some well-established narratives about this period need revising. For example, Hooker’s career cannot be considered an example of the professionalisation of the sciences, given the doubtful respectability of being paid to do science and his reliance on unpaid collectors with pretensions to equal scientific and/or social status. Nor was Hooker’s response to Darwin’s theories either straightforward or contradictory; it only makes sense as carefully crafted equivocation when seen in the context of his life and career. However, the importance of Hooker’s life is ultimately its typicality; what was true of Hooker was true of many other Victorian men of science.     

Causal (mis)understanding and the search for scientific explanations: a case study from the history of medicine

In 1747, James Lind carried out an experiment which proved the usefulness of citrus fruit as a cure for scurvy. Nonetheless, he rejected the earlier hypothesis of Bachstrom that the absence of fresh fruit and vegetables was the only cause of the disease. I explain why it was rational for James Lind not to accept Bachstrom's explanation. I argue that it was the urge for scientific understanding that guided Lind in his rejection and in the development of his alternative theory that humidity was the primary cause of the disease. Central in this process was the search for causal mechanisms which could provide understanding of how the disease developed and which fitted in with the knowledge of the time. Given that the relevant background knowledge and statistical methods were not yet available to Lind, he was right to prefer his own explanation to that of Bachstrom. Although his explanation turned out to be wrong, and Bachstrom's right, from a historical point of view it offered deeper causal understanding of both the development of the disease and the preventive and curative effects of fresh vegetable food. This case study illustrates how the search for causal mechanisms can not only be enlightening, but also very misleading.     

"Describing our whole experience": the statistical philosophies of W. F. R. Weldon and Karl Pearson

There are two motivations commonly ascribed to historical actors for taking up statistics: to reduce complicated data to a mean value (e.g., Quetelet), and to take account of diversity (e.g., Galton). Different motivations will, it is assumed, lead to different methodological decisions in the practice of the statistical sciences. Karl Pearson and W. F. R. Weldon are generally seen as following directly in Galton’s footsteps. I argue for two related theses in light of this standard interpretation, based on a reading of several sources in which Weldon, independently of Pearson, reflects on his own motivations. First, while Pearson does approach statistics from this “Galtonian” perspective, he is, consistent with his positivist philosophy of science, utilizing statistics to simplify the highly variable data of biology. Weldon, on the other hand, is brought to statistics by a rich empiricism and a desire to preserve the diversity of biological data. Secondly, we have here a counterexample to the claim that divergence in motivation will lead to a corresponding separation in methodology. Pearson and Weldon, despite embracing biometry for different reasons, settled on precisely the same set of statistical tools for the investigation of evolution.     

Biology and war--American biology and international science

The German-born American scientist Jacques Loeb (1859-1924) was one of the most important promoters of experimental biology around 1900. He was best known for his physico-chemical explanations of psychological processes and his biotechnological approach to artificial parthenogenesis. At the start of the First World War, Loeb was deeply troubled by the deterioration of the international scientific community and the growing alienation of his German and American colleagues. The aim of this paper is to examine Jacques Loeb's activities aimed at advancing scientific internationalism before, during, and after the war. Loeb, for example, tried to negotiate the publication of German authors in American journals during the war, at a time when this was categorically rejected by publishers. Immediately after the war, he tried to create a specific system aimed at disseminating scientific literature and funding selected European colleagues, in order to overcome what he considered reactionary and hegemonic forces within German scientific institutions. His correspondence with eminent scientists from all over the world (amongst them Albert Einstein, Richard Goldschmidt, Otto Meyerhof, Otto Warburg, Paul Ehrlich, Wolfgang Ostwald, Wilhelm Roux, and Ross Harrison) will serve as a source for the analysis. Special emphasis will be placed on the question how Jacques Loeb integrated epistemology, his particular world view, and his social commitment into the workings of his own life and how he tried to extend his scientific goal of controlling biological systems to the sphere of international science.     

Built for speed,not for comfort. Darwinian theory and human culture

Darwin believed that his theory of evolution would stand or fall on its ability to account for human behavior. No species could be an exception to his theory without imperiling the whole edifice. The ideas in the Descent of Man were widely discussed by his contemporaries although they were far from being the only evolutionary theories current in the late nineteenth century. Darwin's specific evolutionary ideas and those of his main followers had very little impact on the social sciences as they emerged as separate disciplines in the early Twentieth Century. Not until the late twentieth century were concerted, sophisticated efforts made to apply Darwinian theory to human behavior. Why such a long delay? We argue that Darwin's theory was rather modern in respects that conflicted with Victorian sensibilities and that he and his few close followers failed to influence any of the social sciences. The late Twentieth Century work takes up almost exactly where James Baldwin left off at the turn of the century.     

The interface of natural theology and science in the ethology of W. H. Thorpe

Conclusion It should be clear by now the extent to which many features of Thorpe's interpretation of animal behavior and of the animal mind rested, at bottom, not simply on conventional scientific proofs but on interpretive inferences, which in turn rested on a willingress to make extensions of human experience to animals. This, in turn, rested on his view of evolution and his view of reality. And these were governed by his natural theology, which was the fundamental stratum of his intellectual experience.Contrary to the scientific ethos, which restricts theory choice to scientific issues alone, Thorpe's career suggests that the actual reasons for theory choice among scientists often are not limited to science, but are multiple and may sometimes be difficult to discover. It is largely because Thorpe took a public part in the natural theology enterprise that we can know something about his religious beliefs and so can see their probable influence on his scientific decisions. Similar beliefs of other scientists are sometimes harder to get at. Most may be practically beyond discovery, for the ethos of science has discouraged public professions of personal belief in relation to scientific work.¹⁰¹ Yet does it seem plausible that, for example, the restriction of self-consciousness to humans by some scientists is a purely scientific decision?¹⁰² Surely not, any more than that the strong influence of natural theology on Thorpe's thought means that he was not a good scientist. His natural theology may have led him into incautious enthusiasms regarding the animal mind — such as the potential if unrealizable linguistic ability of chimpanzees — through a bias in favor of the continuity of emergents in a progressive evolutionary system, just as it led him to advocate animal consciousness long before the recent upsurge of interest, but the scientific integrity of his work overall is unimpeachable. And yet, that work is not comprehensible historically as science alone. Personal philosophy must not be discounted in writing the history of recent science. This somewhat obvious conclusion (obvious to historians of science) needs emphasis, for we are still prone to think that the sciences of our own time provide their own internal dynamic that is in itself sufficient to account for their content and development.     

Determinants of scientific output: an in-depth view of the productivity of tropical botanist and conservationist, Luis Diego Gómez Pignataro

Bibliometric studies have found that male researchers have their greatest productivity around the age of 40, that female researchers produce less than their male colleagues, that incentives for collaboration are slow to affect productivity and that, just like humans, research institutes become larger, less productive, more expensive to maintain and less able to raise money as they grow old. Almost invariably, these conclusions come from statistical studies of large numbers of European and American scientists, and there are practically no studies about tropical researchers. We present an in-depth analysis of the productivity of an internationally recognized tropical botanist and conservationist, Luis Diego Gómez Pignataro, based on the totality of his published work and on our own knowledge, as co-workers and friends, of the life frame in which that scientific output was produced. His life output departs from the expected pattern in that he had the highest productivity before reaching the expected peak productivity age, and that when he reached it his productivity fell and never recovered. Furthermore, marriage did not produce the expected fall in productivity. A close analysis of his life indicates that in the middle of his career he switched to intense teaching and conservation activities, and this better explains why his output of scientific research articles was low afterwards. This switch may occur in other tropical scientists.     

Darwin and Mendel: who was the pioneer of genetics?

Although Mendel is now widely recognized as the founder of genetics, historical studies have shown that he did not in fact propose the modern concept of paired characters linked to genes, nor did he formulate the two "Mendelian laws" in the form now given. Furthermore, Mendel was accused of falsifying his data, and Mendelism has been met with scepticism because of its failure to provide scientific explanation for evolution, to furnish a basis for the process of genetic assimilation and to explain the inheritance of acquired characters, graft hybridization and many other facts. Darwin was the first to clearly describe almost all genetical phenomena of fundamental importance, and was the first to present a developmental theory of heredity--Pangenesis, which not only greatly influenced many subsequent theories of inheritance, particularly those of de Vries, Galton, Brooks and Weismann, but also tied all aspects of variation, heredity and development together, provided a mechanism for most of the observable facts, and is supported by increasing evidence. It has also been indicated that Darwin's influence on Mendel, primarily from The Origin, is evident. The word "gene" was derived from "pangen", itself a derivative of "Pangenesis" which Darwin had coined. It seems that Darwin should have been regarded as the pioneer, if not of transmissional genetics, of developmental genetics and molecular genetics.     

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.     

Education or degeneration: E. Ray Lankester, H. G. Wells and the outline of history

This paper uses the friendship and collaboration of Edwin Ray Lankester (1847-1929), zoologist, and Herbert George Wells (1866-1946), novelist and journalist, to challenge the current interpretation of late Victorian concern over degeneration as essentially an intellectual movement with little influence in contemporary debates over social and political problems. Degeneration theory provided for Lankester and Wells the basis both for a personal bond and for an active programme of social and educational reform. I trace the construction of Lankester's account of degeneration, initially as empirical 'fact' and later as ideologically inflected theory, and the reciprocal relationship between this theory and his critique of the British university system. I use Wells's Outline of history (1920) to illustrate the profound influence of Lankester's degenerationist worldview on Wells's scientific and socio-political thought. Lankester's synthesis of his theory and his critique led the two men to reject eugenics as an unscientific and ideologically incompatible solution to the problem of national deterioration. Instead, they campaigned for the reform of scientific education as a means of keeping mankind from physical, intellectual and cultural degeneration.     

W. K. Brooks's role in the history of American biology

Conclusion The results of this study indicate that the reputation of W. K. Brooks was aided significantly by historical circumstances. The first of these factors was the unique historical role of Johns Hopkins University in American graduate education. The second was the impact of European experimentalism on American biologists and the consequent increase of experimentation in this country.Johns Hopkins, as an institution, greatly aided in the selection, nurture, and placement of Brooks's students. To these institutional forces, Brooks did add direction toward marine biology and facilities for marine research. Also, his teaching methods—which were reinforced by his own natural quietness and his poor health—did encourage self-reliance: Brooks simply could not dominate over the day-to-day activities of his students.The impact of European experimentalism was largely responsible for giving American biologists new approaches to problems which were beginning to assume major importance in biology. Several of Brooks's students, notably E. B. Wilson, T. H. Morgan, and Ross Harrison, were involved in this transfer of approaches and problems to America. In addition, a large number were influenced by working at the Marine Biological Laboratory at Woods Hole, where many of these new approaches were being used—in some cases for the first time, in this country. Both of these historical circumstances detract from Brooks's personal importance as an influential and directing force.That Brooks allowed his students to pursue their own research with comparative freedom is indisputable. Perhaps this is the criterion for an outstanding teacher. But the fact remains that none of his best students followed Brooks's own line of investigation or his own method of research. It is less important here to evaluate Brooks as a teacher than to understand his influence on the direction of biological thought in the twentieth century. This study suggests that his influence was less important in terms of setting a direction for research than has previously been believed. What it is apparent that Brooks accomplished was the setting forth of biological topics in a larger context through his insistence on the relevance of philosophy to scientific research. How much this directly influenced his students, especially those outstanding individuals who later made important advances, is difficult to determine. This paper has tried to show that, in terms of available evidence, Brooks does not seem to have had the profound influence on early twentieth-century biology that some historians have claimed.     

Darwin and the Galápagos

Charles Darwin's historic visit to the Galápagos Islands in 1835 represents a landmark in the annals of science. But contrary to the legend long surrounding Darwin's famous Galápagos visit, he continued to believe that species were immutable for nearly a year and a half after leaving these islands. This delay in Darwin's evolutionary appreciation of the Galápagos evidence is largely owing to numerous misconceptions that he entertained about the islands, and their unique organic inhabitants, during the Beagle voyage. For example, Darwin mistakenly thought that the Galápagos tortoise–adult specimens of which he did not collect for scientific purposes–was not native to these islands. Hence he apparently interpreted reports of island-to-island differences among the tortoises as analogous to changes that are commonly undergone by species removed from their natural habitats. As for Darwin's finches, Darwin initially failed to recognize the closely related nature of the group, mistaking certain species for the forms that they appear, through adaptive radiation, to mimic. Moreover, what locality information he later published for his Galápagos finch specimens was derived almost entirely from the collections of three other Beagle shipmates, following his return to England. Even after he became an evolutionist, in March of 1837 (when he discussed his Galápagos birds with the eminent ornithologist John Gould), Darwin's theoretical understanding of evolution in the Galápagos continued to undergo significant developments for almost as many years as it took him to publish the Origin of Species (1859). The Darwin-Galápagos legend, with its romantic portrait of Darwin's 'eureka-like' insight into the Galápagos as a microcosmic 'laboratory of evolution', masks the complex nature of scientific discovery, and, thereby, the real nature of Darwin's genius.     

On Presenting Results of Statistical Analyses in Scientific Journals

In many biological and other scientific journals, a reader's understanding of a paper to the argument of which statistical methods and analyses are important is often impeded by confusions of terminology and ambiguities of symbols. This is not solely because statistics is a difficult subject for biologists! If an editor were to formulate and make known a code of statistical symbols, abbreviations, and technical terms that in his journal will be regarded as part of the normal language of science, an author could use these without need for explanation each time. Every author would remain free to depart from the code, provided that he defined clearly his own usages. Such a policy, supported by the journal's referees, would do much to remove the frequent necessity for a reader to guess an author's meaning. Similarly considerations apply to the use of statistical software packages, where there is an evident need for an author to declare what software (if any) he has used, in much the same way as, by established custom, he will carefully specify his experimental materials and methods where these in any respect differ from the obvious. The present paper is written to stimulate constructive debate, and in no way to dogmatize on the merits or faults of particular statistical methods. Its underlying spirit is that the author of a scientific communication has a duty to describe the making of his observations, the conduct of his computations, and the performance of his computations with a clarity that would permit their repetition by another scientist who has access to the appropriate facilities and resources.