Claude Bernard's non reception of Darwinism

The aim of this paper is to explain why, while Charles Darwin was well recognized as a scientific leader of his time, Claude Bernard never really regarded Darwinism as a scientific theory. The lukewarm reception of Darwin at the Académie des Sciences of Paris and his nomination to a chair only after 8 years contrasts with his prominence, and Bernard's attitude towards Darwin's theory of species evolution belongs to this French context. Yet we argue that Bernard rejects the scientific value of Darwinian principles mainly for epistemological reasons. Like Darwin, Bernard was interested in hereditary processes, and planned to conduct experiments on these processes that could lead to species transformation. But the potential creation of new forms of life would not vindicate Darwinism since biologists can only explain the origin of morphotypes and morphological laws by the means of untestable analogies. Because it can be the object neither of experiments nor of any empirical observation, phylogeny remains out of science's scope. Around 1878 Bernard foresaw a new general physiology based on the study of protoplasm, which he saw as the agent of all basic living phenomena. We will analyze why Bernard regarded Darwinism as part of metaphysics, yet still referred to Darwinians in his latter works in 1878. Basically, the absence of a scientific reception of Darwinism in Bernard's work should not obscure its philosophical reception, which highlights the main principles of Bernard's epistemology.

Paleopathology of the skull of Santorio Santorio, father of modern clinical experimental physiology

The University of Padua (Italy) preserves the skull of Santorio Santorio, father of the modern clinical experimental physiology. A recent study performed with modern anthropological methods and medical instruments (CT scan) revealed the presence of a lobular formation in the left temporal bone, with an irregular morphology, internal bone sequestrum, a well-defined non-continuous sclerosis and both internal and external thinning of the cranial plate. Three oval depressions observed in the cranial vault, edentulism and moderate osteoarthritis of the temporomandibular joint were also investigated. The lobular formation was an epidermoid cyst and the oval depressions were the result of other cysts. The edentulism was consistent with some metabolic deficiency or disease, whilst the osteoarthritis appeared to be the result of antemortem tooth loss. This study allowed to investigate a complex and peculiar palaeopathological picture, linked to a piece of the history of the University of Padua.

Making a French Connection: Darwin, Brown-Séquard and the Epilepsy Studies

While French biologists were turning a cold shoulder to On the Origin of Species in the 1860s, Charles Darwin was earnestly pursuing a professional connection with one French physiologist in particular: Charles Brown-Séquard. Darwin had been closely following Brown-Séquard's startling experiments on guinea pigs, which demonstrated that experimentally induced epilepsy could pass from parent to offspring. In Darwin's mind, Brown-Séquard had produced the most convincing evidence to date that acquired traits could be inherited. Darwin saw opportunities in Brown-Séquard and his work. If Brown-Séquard realized the evolutionary implications of his experiments, and then endorsed the Origin in Paris, Darwin could be well on his way to securing a French audience for his theories. Darwin quickly mobilized his powers of correspondence to make this French connection, but Brown-Séquard received Darwin's advances with caution. A connection with Darwin could be useful in London and America, where he was increasingly spending time, but to publicly support Darwin would be professionally damaging back home in Paris. This paper examines the dance of letters between Darwin and Brown-Séquard, the politics of citation, and the delicacy of sustaining a transnational biological career between France and Britain in the 1860s. This paper casts a new perspective on an old debate in the history of biology. I show that from within the "heavy cloud" of anti-evolutionary thought in France (Stebbins 1988), there existed a live wire between Brown-Séquard and Darwin. I argue that British evolutionary theory in the age of Darwin was built, in part, with French participation.

The right tool and the right place for the job: the importance of the field in experimental neurophysiology, 1880-1945

This paper seeks to contribute to understandings of practice and place in the history of early American neurophysiology by exploring research with jellyfish at marine stations. Jellyfish became a particularly important research tool to experimental physiologists studying neurological subjects at the turn of the twentieth century. But their enthusiasm for the potential of this organism was constrained by its delicacy in captivity. The discovery of hardier species made experimentation at the shore possible and resulted in two epicenters of neurophysiological research on the American East Coast: the Marine Biological Laboratory and the Carnegie Institution's Dry Tortugas Laboratory. Work done in these locations had impacts on a wide range of physiological questions. These centers were short lived-researchers at the MBL eventually focused on the squid giant axon and the Tortugas lab closed after the death of Mayer-but the development of basic requirements and best practices to sustain these organisms paints an important picture of early experimental neurophysiology. Marine organisms and locations have played an integral role in the development of experimental life sciences in America. By understanding the earliest experimental research done at these locations, and the organisms that lured researchers from the campus to the coastline, we can begin to integrate marine stations into the larger historical narrative of American physiology.