Search

Focuses on external versus internal explanations of the Darwinian revolution. Genesis of the evolutionary theory and its reception; Impact of society on science; Argument that because Darwin's contemporaries lived in such a competitive and individualistic society, they were prone to accept a theory that exhibited these same characteristics; Competition between Darwin and A. R. Wallace.

At the turn of the twentieth century, biologists such as Oscar Riddle, Thomas Hunt Morgan, Frank Lillie, and Richard Goldschmidt all puzzled over the question of sexual difference, the distinction between male and female. They all offered competing explanations for the biological cause of this difference, and engaged in a fierce debate over the primacy of their respective theories. Riddle propounded a metabolic theory of sex dating from the late-nineteenth century suggesting that metabolism lay at the heart of sexual difference. Thomas Hunt Morgan insisted on the priority of chromosomes, Frank Lillie emphasized the importance of hormones, while Richard Goldschmidt supported a mixed model involving both chromosomes and hormones. In this paper, I will illustrate how the older metabolic theory of sex was displaced when those who argued for the relatively newer theories of chromosomes and hormones gradually formed an alliance that accommodated each other and excluded the metabolic theory of sex. By doing so, proponents of chromosomes and hormones established their authority over the question of sexual difference as they laid the foundations for the new disciplines of genetics and endocrinology. Their debate raised urgent questions about what constituted sexual difference, and how scientists envisioned the plasticity and controllability of this difference. These theories also had immediate political and cultural consequences at the turn of the twentieth century, especially for the eugenic and feminist movements, both of which were heavily invested in knowledge of sex and its determination, ascertainment, and command. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper has three principal aims: first, through a detailed analysis of the hypotheses and assumptions underlying Weismann's and Morgan's disagreement on the nature of animal regeneration, it seeks to readdress the imbalance in coverage of their discussion, providing, at the same time, a fascinating case-study for those interested in general issues related to controversies in science. Second, contrary to Morgan's beliefs according to which Weismann employed a speculative and unempirical method of scientific investigation, the article shows that Weismann performed experiments, made observations and proposed 'undogmatic' theories open to refutation. Third, through the reconstruction of Weismann's and Morgan's disagreement, this study illustrates how biology, during the very late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, was undergoing important changes. I argue that this controversy clearly and convincingly demonstrates how some important epistemic assumptions became increasingly problematic for some members of the younger generations of biologists. At the end of my discussion I will also argue that Weismann and Morgan both had strong well-grounded arguments supporting their conclusions; for this reason I suggest a few factors ('taken-for-granted' beliefs or assumptions) that could explain why their disagreement was doomed to remain unresolved. In particular, I will analyze their diverse explicative interests, their different theoretical concerns and their distinct use of the available evidence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Keywords: COVID-19; Pygmy People; Baka; Indigenous health; Poverty; Cameroon EN COVID-19 Pygmy People Baka Indigenous health Poverty Cameroon 403 405 3 01/12/22 20211201 NES 211201 Forest-dependent populations are affected by environmental pressures that include deforestation and forest degradation. COVID-19, Pygmy People, Baka, Indigenous health, Poverty, Cameroon Any rational solution to these issues must consider the potential dangers of the COVID-19 pandemic as an opportunity to take stock of the unprecedented pressures on African Pygmy populations and other Indigenous groups, and provide measured and adequate support for these most vulnerable people on Earth. [Extracted from the article]

An editorial is presented in which the editor announces the appointments of Karen Rader, Roberts Richards, and Bruno Strasser to the editorial board and the appointment of Mark Borrello as book review editor, and outlines the online editorial manuscript submission process for contributors.

During the Middle Ages Aristotle's treatises were accessible to intellectuals via translations and commentaries. Among his works on natural philosophy, the zoological books received relatively little scholarly attention, though several medieval commentators carefully studied Aristotle's investigations of the animal kingdom. Averroes completed in 1169 a commentary on an Arabic translation of Aristotle's Parts of Animals and Generation of Animals. In 1323 Gersonides completed his supercommentary on a Hebrew translation of Averroes' commentary. This article examines how these two medieval commentators interpret the first book of Aristotle's Parts of Animals, at the center of which stand methodological questions regarding the study of animals. Aristotle's discussion of classification is presented by Averroes and Gersonides in light of an epistemological debate concerning the requisite method for scientific inquiries and discoveries. Sense perception is contrasted with rational reasoning, and ultimately a combined method is proposed, sense perception maintaining supremacy. These commentators outline a clear link between the systematic arrangement of animal species as offered by Aristotle, and his subsequent logical demonstrations which, according to them, form the core of biological investigations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Rudolf Leuckart's 1851 pamphlet Ueber den Polymorphismus der Individuen (On the polymorphism of individuals) stood at the heart of naturalists' discussions on biological individuals, parts and wholes in mid-nineteenth-century Britain and Europe. Our analysis, which accompanies the first translation of this pamphlet into English, situates Leuckart's contribution to these discussions in two ways. First, we present it as part of a complex conceptual knot involving not only individuality and the understanding of compound organisms, but also the alternation of generations, the division of labor in nature, and the possibility of finding general laws of the organic world. Leuckart's pamphlet is important as a novel attempt to give order to the strands of this knot. It also solved a set of key biological problems in a way that avoided some of the drawbacks of an earlier teleological tradition. Second, we situate the pamphlet within a longer trajectory of inquiry into part-whole relations in biology from the mid-eighteenth century to the present. We argue that biological individuality, along with the problem-complexes with which it engaged, was as central a problem to naturalists before 1859 as evolution, and that Leuckart's contributions to it left a long legacy that persisted well into the twentieth century. As biologists' interests in part-whole relations are once again on the upswing, the longue durée of this problem merits renewed consideration. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses various published reports within the issue, including one by Laura Cameron and David Matless that examines ecological transnationalism, one by Etienne Benson that discusses bureaucratic dimensions of biological research and one by Karen Brown that examines rabies in 20th century South Africa.

Early in his career Thomas Hunt Morgan was interested in embryology and dedicated his research to studying organisms that could regenerate. Widely regarded as a regeneration expert, Morgan was invited to deliver a series of lectures on the topic that he developed into a book, Regeneration (1901). In addition to presenting experimental work that he had conducted and supervised, Morgan also synthesized and critiqued a great deal of work by his peers and predecessors. This essay probes into the history of regeneration studies by looking in depth at Regeneration and evaluating Morgan’s contribution. Although famous for his work with fruit fly genetics, studying Regeneration illuminates Morgan’s earlier scientific approach which emphasized the importance of studying a diversity of organisms. Surveying a broad range of regenerative phenomena allowed Morgan to institute a standard scientific terminology that continues to inform regeneration studies today. Most importantly, Morgan argued that regeneration was a fundamental aspect of the growth process and therefore should be accounted for within developmental theory. Establishing important similarities between regeneration and development allowed Morgan to make the case that regeneration could act as a model of development. The nature of the relationship between embryogenesis and regeneration remains an active area of research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Points out that the Darwinian revolution is still in progress, and changes that are going on are reflected in the contemporary historical and philosophical literature, including that written by scientists. Development of a new ontology as a consequence of the realization that species are individuals; Provision of a clear distinction between the roles of history and of laws of nature.

Argues that historians of science should abandon any notion of a Darwinian revolution and that other historiographies can be developed, especially by younger people in the years ahead. View that the historiographic themes of "evolution" and "revolution" need replacing because they perpetuate mid-Victorian scientists' history of science; Development of a historiography of origins and species, of cosmologies, and ontologies, as an alternative.

Examines some significant attempts at broadening the historiographic horizon concerning the immediate context to Charles Darwin's intellectual enterprise. Argument that a multi-faceted European debate on the transformation of life forms had already occurred in Europe around the 1800; Solutions proposed by naturalists active in different national contexts.

Reflects on the propriety of the phrase "Darwinian revolution" and on the author's experience working in the Darwin Archive. Author's claim that knowledge of the extinction of species was at the top of the list of causes promoting evolutionary thinking; Additional claim that the fate of evolutionary ideas from the 1790s through the 1850s can be viewed in terms of generational shifts.

Sums up a number of points made by Peter J. Bowler concerning the response to Darwinism in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Claim that a proper understanding of the theory's impact must take account of the extend to which what are now regarded as the key aspects of Darwin's thinking were evaded by his immediate followers; Potential challenges to this position.

Explains that the book "The Darwinian Revolution," by Michael Ruse, gives an overview of the revolution as understood at the time of the writing in 1979. Factors involved, from straight science to philosophical methodology, and to religious influences and challenges; Impact of social factors, not the least of which was the professionalization of science in Britain in the 19th century.

Attempts a critical examination of scholarly understanding of the historical event referred to as "the Darwinian Revolution." Focus on some of the major scholarly works that have appeared since the publication in 1979 of Michael Ruse's "The Darwinian Revolution: Science Red in Tooth and Claw"; Need for broader perspectives of the revolution that include recognizing that it does not map a one-to-one correspondence with the history of evolution.

Synthetic biology is the engineering view on biotechnology that ultimately aims at fulfilling the quest of building an artificial cell. From the very first attempts of synthesizing life, this subject has made an impact on the media through, very often, misleading headlines and news. We review here the historical journalistic approach on synthetic biology and related disciplines, from the early twentieth century to the lastest achievements on designing protocells or genome reduction. However, it would be very naive to consider the research community and the media to be unidirectionally linked, with the latter being mere displayers (and disrupters) of the research “reality”. On the contrary, the research community has also received a strong influence from the media, as evidenced by statements from researchers, common metaphors and, even, a trend to unconsciously develop shared techno-social paradigms. We conclude that, beyond overstatements from researchers and journalists’ misunderstandings, both communities provide strong feedback to each other and, together, contribute to define the dream that synthetic biologists are aiming for. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]