Life in the laboratory: public responses to experimental biology

Leaving the Academic Niche–Rhoda Erdmann (1870–1935) and the Democratization of Tissue Culture Research

In the years after Ross Harrison published his pivotal paper on nerve fiber regeneration in 1907, researchers following his line of research presented tissue culture techniques as an extremely sensitive, difficult, and almost occult methodology. When Philip R. White published a manual on tissue culturing in 1954, he declared that he wanted to disenchant this formerly mystified field of study. With a similar aim Rhoda Erdmann had published a comparable manual more than 30 years before in 1922. Her intention was to offer a book that would make the method “a common property of those who want to do biological research in the future.” When science was about to move from little science to big science, Erdmann tried to democratize tissue culture knowledge. Rhoda Erdmann was in many aspects an extraordinary scholar deviating from the norm. She was one of the few women in the field, working as a low-level assistant at the Robert Koch Institute in Berlin before she took the opportunity to work as a research fellow with Ross Harrison in Yale. She was imprisoned during the First World War on the accusation of being a German spy. After she could return to Germany in 1919, she established a laboratory for experimental cell research in Berlin. In 1929 she was one of the first women to be appointed a professor in Germany. The paper focuses Erdmann’s attempts at distributing practical tissue culturing knowledge. Based on her and other scholars’ research work on nutrient media for cell cultures, and the attempts to optimize these basic tools for different species, this contribution examines the hypothesis that this work constituted an academic niche for underprivileged scientists. The paper analyzes whether Erdmann, due to her extraordinary characteristics, had to use certain niches in the academic world (topics, places, techniques, communities) to pursue her research, and whether her attempts at democratizing her techniques can also be read as an attempt to move out of the niche to gain academic recognition.

Erasing Borders: A Brief Chronicle of Early Synthetic Biology

Synthetic Biology is currently presented as an emergent field involving the application of engineering principles to living matter. However, the scientific pursuit of making life in a laboratory is not new and has been the ultimate, if somewhat distant, aim of the origin-of-life research program for many years. Actually, over a century ago, the idea that the synthesis of life was indispensable to fully understand its nature already appealed to material scientists and evolutionists alike. Jacques Loeb proposed a research program from an engineering standpoint, following a synthetic method (experimental abiogenesis) and based on his mechanist vision of living beings, which he considered true chemical machines. Early synthetic biology endeavors, such as the premature experiments by Alfonso L. Herrera in Mexico, Stéphane Leduc in France, and John B. Burke in United Kingdom, were easily ridiculed on both scientific and ideological grounds. However, in retrospect, all those attempts should be considered as legitimate and sincere anti-vitalistic efforts to cross the apparent border between inert and living matter.

From Mephistopheles to Isaiah: Jacques Loeb, technical biology and war

In 1917, the German-American scientist Jacques Loeb (1859-1924) published a short essay, entitled 'Biology and War', that summarized his disagreement with World War I. He was deeply saddened by the break-up of the international scientific community as a consequence of the actions of bellicose politicians. These actions were in direct opposition to his efforts to promote social reform, mechanistic biology and scientific internationalism. The aim of this paper is to examine Loeb's activities aimed at these efforts before, during and after the war. It attempts to explain how Loeb's scientific work was formed, what was special about it and why it was both successful and attacked. Particular emphasis is placed on how Loeb reacted to the War and the subsequent forced disintegration of his international scientific network. Loeb's attempts to integrate his interpretation of biology into post-war Europe's approach to the life sciences is analysed in connection with his social commitment. It is argued that his emigration to the USA, the circumstances of World War I, the reaction of his German colleagues to it and the demolition of the international scientific community changed: (1) Loeb's feelings towards his old home; (2) the direction of his scientific endeavours; and (3) his engagement in science politics. His correspondence with eminent scientists from all over the world serves as a key to Loeb's efforts in the context of the social elements of scientific networks and perceptions.

Scientific exchange: Jacques Loeb (1859-1924) and Emil Godlewski (1875-1944) as representatives of a transatlantic developmental biology

The German-American physiologist Jacques Loeb (1859-1924) and the Polish embryologist Emil Godlewski, jr. (1875-1944) contributed many valuable works to the body of developmental biology. Jacques Loeb was world famous at the beginning of the twentieth century for his development and demonstration of artificial parthenogenesis in 1899 and his experiments on regeneration. He served as a role model for the younger Polish experimenter Emil Godlewski, who began his career as a researcher like Loeb at the Zoological Station in Naples. Following Godlewski's first visit to Naples in 1901 a close relationship between the two scientists developed. Until Loeb's death in 1924 the two exchanged ideas via correspondence that was only interrupted during the First World War. The aim of the paper is to examine the transatlantic transfer of knowledge in the field of biological experimentation that was fostered by these two protagonists. Using a modification of Bruno Latour's model of the 'Circulatory System of Science' as a heuristic tool, different mechanisms of scientific exchange are displayed. With the help of Loeb's and Godlewski's correspondence the role of scientific communities, methods, allies, the public and institutions in the process of knowledge transfer are analysed. Preconditions for success and failure in transferring science are examined.