Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T04:06:07.185Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Disturbing Dogmas: Biologists and the History of Biology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 October 2013

Eva Jablonka  and
Marion J. Lamb
Eva Jablonka
Affiliation:
Cohn Institute for the History and Philosophy of Science and Ideas, Tel Aviv University E-mail: [email protected]
Marion J. Lamb
Affiliation:
Cohn Institute for the History and Philosophy of Science and Ideas, Tel Aviv University E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The attitude of biologists to the history of their discipline varies. For some, a hazy knowledge of the recent past is all that is necessary to provide an explanatory basis for their work. They take it for granted that everything of value from the less recent past has been appropriately incorporated into present-day thinking. Other biologists see history as an integral part of their research: the historical roots of accepted facts and theories help in the evaluation of present positions. These biologists bring to history their specialized knowledge, which can be an advantage, but often they also bring an agenda that biases what they investigate and how they present it. We illustrate this by describing our own foray into history, which was motivated by findings in cell biology that suggested that some accepted views about heredity and evolution were wrong.

Type
Research Article
Information
Science in Context , Volume 26 , Issue 4: Approaches, Styles, and Narratives: Reflections on Doing History of Science , December 2013 , pp. 557 - 571
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bateson, Patrick, and Mameli, Matteo. 2007. “The Innate and the Acquired: Useful Clusters or a Residual Distinction from Folk Biology?” Developmental Psychobiology 49:818–831.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Birkhead, Tim. 2008. “Does it Matter that Researchers Miscite the Literature?” Times Higher Education Supplement, 4th January. <www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storyCode=400029> (last accessed July 20, 2013).+(last+accessed+July+20,+2013).>Google Scholar
Bowler, Peter J. 1989. Evolution: The History of an Idea. Berkeley CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Buss, Leo W. 1983. “Evolution, Development, and the Units of Selection.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 80:1387–1391.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cain, Arthur J. 1982. “Porcupine Biology.” Nature 297:707–709.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crick, Francis H. C. 1958. “On Protein Synthesis.” Symposia of the Society for Experimental Biology 12:138–163.Google ScholarPubMed
Darlington, Cyril D. 1959. Darwin's Place in History. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Dawkins, Richard. 1976. The Selfish Gene. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dunn, Leslie C. 1965. A Short History of Genetics. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Fleck, Ludwik. [1935] 1979. Genesis and Development of a Scientific Fact, edited by Trenn, Thaddeus J. and Merton, Robert K., translated by Bradley, Fred and Trenn, Thaddeus J.. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Futuyma, Douglas J. 1982. “A Synthetic History of Biology.” Science 216:842–844.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gillispie, Charles C. 1958. “Lamarck and Darwin in the History of Science.” American Scientist 46:388–409.Google Scholar
Greenberg, Steven A. 2009. “How Citation Distortions Create Unfounded Authority: Analysis of a Citation Network.” BMJ 2009:339:b2680.Google Scholar
Holliday, Robin. 1987. “The Inheritance of Epigenetic Defects.” Science 238:163–170.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jablonka, Eva. 1994. (In Hebrew) History of Heredity. Tel Aviv: Ministry of Defense Publishing House.Google Scholar
Jablonka, Eva, and Lamb, Marion J.. 1989. “The Inheritance of Acquired Epigenetic Variations.” Journal of Theoretical Biology 139:69–83.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jablonka, Eva, and Lamb, Marion J.. 1995. Epigenetic Inheritance and Evolution: The Lamarckian Dimension. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jablonka, Eva, and Lamb, Marion J.. 2005. Evolution in Four Dimensions: Genetic, Epigenetic, Behavioral, and Symbolic Variation in the History of Life. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jablonka, Eva, and Lamb, Marion J.. 2011: “Changing Thought Styles: The Concept of Soft Inheritance in the 20th Century.” In Vérité, Widerstand, Development: At Work with / Arbeiten mit / Travailler avec Ludwik Fleck, edited by Egloff, Rainer and Fehr, Johannes, 119–156. Collegium Helveticum Heft 12. Zurich: Collegium Helveticum.Google Scholar
Jablonka, Eva, Lachmann, Michael, and Lamb, Marion J.. 1992. “Evidence, Mechanisms and Models for the Inheritance of Acquired Characters.” Journal of Theoretical Biology 158:245–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacob, François. 1973. The Logic of Living Systems. London: Allen Lane.Google Scholar
Kirkwood, Thomas B. L., and Cremer, Thomas. 1982. “Cytogerontology since 1881: A Reappraisal of August Weismann and a Review of Modern Progress.” Human Genetics 60:101–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kottler, Malcolm J. 1974. “From 48 to 46: Cytological Technique, Preconception, and the Counting of Human Chromosomes.” Bulletin of the History of Medicine 48:465–502.Google ScholarPubMed
Lawrence, Peter A. 2007. “The Mismeasurement of Science.” Current Biology 17:R583–R585.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lawrence, Peter A. 2008. “Lost in Publication: How Measurement Harms Science.” Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics 8:9–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maynard Smith, John. 1966. The Theory of Evolution, 2nd edition. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
Maynard Smith, John. [1982] 1993. “Storming the Fortress.” New York Review of Books 29 (8): 41–42. Reprinted in Did Darwin Get It Right? by John Maynard Smith, 8–14. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
Mayr, Ernst. 1959. “Where Are We?” Cold Spring Harbor Symposia on Quantitative Biology 24:1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayr, Ernst. 1972. “Lamarck Revisited.” Journal of the History of Biology 5:55–94.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mayr, Ernst. 1982. The Growth of Biological Thought. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Medawar, Peter. [1963] 1991. “Is the Scientific Paper a Fraud?” Listener 70, 12th September. Reprinted in The Threat and the Glory by Peter Medawar, 228–233. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Medawar, Peter. [1968] 1972. “Lucky Jim.” New York Review of Books 10 (6). Reprinted in The Hope of Progress by Peter Medawar, 101–109. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
Olby, Robert. 1985. The Origins of Mendelism, 2nd edition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Ruse, Michael. 1985. “Admayration.” Quarterly Review of Biology 60:183–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sen, George L., and Blau, Helen M.. 2006. “A Brief History of RNAi: The Silence of the Genes.” FASEB Journal 20:1293–1299.Google Scholar
Simpson, George Gaylord. 1982. “Autobiology.” Quarterly Review of Biology 57:437–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sirks, Marius J., and Conway Zirkle. 1964. The Evolution of Biology. New York: Ronald Press.Google Scholar
Watson, James D. 1968. The Double Helix. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson.Google Scholar
Witkowski, Jan A. 1980. “Dr. Carrel's Immortal Cells.” Medical History 24:129–142.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed