Avery’s et al. ’s 1944 paper provides the first direct evidence of DNA having gene-like properties and marks the beginning of a new phase in early molecular genetics (with a strong focus on chemistry and DNA). The study of its reception shows that on the whole, Avery’s results were immediately appreciated and motivated new research on transformation, the chemical nature of DNA’s biological specificity and bacteria genetics. It shows, too, that initial problems of transferring transformation to other systems and prominent (...) criticism of its results nurtured skepticism. Avery’s experiment was downplayed and neglected particularly by many of those scientists who worked in the new fields of biochemical and biophysical genetics, genetic phage, and TMV research. This was not due to the fact that the implications of the paper could not be connected to generally accepted knowledge. Contrary to a widespread belief, the assumed uniformity of DNA as opposed to proteins was not used as an argument against the validity of Avery’s et al.’s finding. The indifference rather reflected, among other things, the disciplinary gap between the chemically oriented microbiologists and the old and new geneticists who remained committed to genetic and physical methods (in particular x-ray studies) and clung to the assumption that proteins were the sole carriers of biological specificity. The responses to Avery’s et al.’s paper show how different research interests in the areas between microbiology, genetics, and biochemistry interacted with the prejudices, dogmas, individual farsightedness or short-sightedness, and scientific authority during a pivotal period of early molecular biology. (shrink)

Until the 1930s Germany had been the international leader in biochemistry, chemistry, and areas of biology. After WWII, however, molecular biology as a new interdisciplinary scientific enterprise was scarcely represented in Germany for almost 20 years. Three major reasons for the low performance of molecular biology are discussed: first, the forced emigration of Jewish scientists after 1933, which not only led to the expulsion of future distinguished molecular biologists, but also to a strong decline of ''dynamic biochemistry'', a field which (...) contributed greatly to molecular biology. Second, German university structures that strongly impeded interdisciplinary research. Third, the international isolation and self-isolation of German scientists that was a major obstacle to the implementation of new fields of research developed elsewhere. Despite the fact that there was no official boycott against Germany as there had been after WWI and despite the Cold War policy of integrating Germans into the West, as a consequence of National Socialism and WWI for many years only very few German scientists gained access to the international community of molecular biologists. Max Delbruck played an important role in helping the Germans establish modern, mostly molecular, biology because he retained strong connections to Germany. Most importantly, it required a new generation of young scientists who had received part of their training in the US to establish modern molecular biology at German universities and Max Planck Institutes. (shrink)

Chemistry and biochemistry in Germany was notably affected by the dismissal and emigration of Jewish scientists. The expulsion of Jewish scientists aided to significantly reduce the international regard for German science, particularly in biochemistry, physical chemistry, and quantum chemistry, after 1945. In most cases remaining scientists adjusted quickly after 1933 to the new political circumstances, with a few exceptions. A number of them even actively supported the politics of National Socialism. This fact as well as the common stance to forget (...) the 12 years of National Socialist rule complicated the exchange of international scientific knowledge after 1945 and delayed affiliation of the weakened fields of research to the level of international research. (shrink)

The article recalls the anti-molecular transformation of biology 100 hundred years ago. The author recounts protein chemist Wolfgang Pauli’s announcement of a new era of biomedical research in 1905. Colloidal chemistry was supposed to be the center of the era described by Pauli. The author discusses the aspects that remained from the three decades in which colloidal science exerted a great influence on biological and biochemical research.

The encounter between two fundamentally different approaches in seminal research in molecular biology-the problems, aims, methods and metaphysics - is delineated and analyzed. They are exemplified by the microbiologist Oswald T. Avery who, in line with the reductionist mechanistic metaphysics of Jacques Loeb, attempted to explain basic life phenomena through chemistry; and the theoretical physicist Max Delbrück who, influenced by Bohr’s antimechanistic views, preferred to explain these phenomena without chemistry. Avery’s and Delbrück’s most important studies took place concurrently. Thus analysis (...) of their contrasting approaches lends itself to examination of the Weltanschauungen view concerning the role of fundamental (metaphysical) assumptions in scientific change, that is, the view that empirical research cannot be neutral in regard to the worldviews of the researchers. This study shows that the initial ostensible disparity (non-integratibility) of the two approaches lasted for just a short time. Ironically it was a student of Delbrück’s school, James Watson, who (with Crick) proposed a chemical model, the DNA double helix, as a solution to Delbrück’s problem. The structure of DNA has not been seriously challenged over the past half century. Moreover, Watson’s and Crick’s work did not call into question the validity of Delbrück’s research, but opened it up to entirely new approaches. The case of Avery and Delbrück demonstrates that after initial obstacles were overcome the different fundamental attitudes and the resulting research practices were capable of integration. © 2008 Stazione Zoologica Anton Dohrn. (shrink)

Three early 20th-century attempts at unifying separate areas of biology, in particular development, genetics, physiology, and evolution, are compared in regard to their success and fruitfulness for further research: Jacques Loeb’s reductionist project of unifying approaches by physico-chemical explanations; Richard Goldschmidt’s anti-reductionist attempts to unify by integration; and Sewall Wright’s combination of reductionist research and vision of hierarchical genetic systems. Loeb’s program, demanding that all aspects of biology, including evolution, be studied by the methods of the experimental sciences, proved highly (...) successful and indispensible for higher level investigations, even though evolutionary change and properties of biological systems up to now cannot be fully explained on the molecular level alone. Goldschmidt has been appraised as pioneer of physiological and developmental genetics and of a new evolutionary synthesis which transcended neo-Darwinism. However, this study concludes that his anti-reductionist attempts to integrate genetics, development and evolution have to be regarded as failures or dead ends. His grand speculations were based on the one hand on concepts and experimental systems that were too vague in order to stimulate further research, and on the other on experiments which in their core parts turned out not to be reproducible. In contrast, Sewall Wright, apart from being one of the architects of the neo-Darwinian synthesis of the 1930s, opened up new paths of testable quantitative developmental genetic investigations. He placed his research within a framework of logical reasoning, which resulted in the farsighted speculation that examinations of biological systems should be related to the regulation of hierarchical genetic subsystems, possibly providing a mechanism for development and evolution. I argue that his suggestion of basing the study of systems on clearly defined properties of the components has proved superior to Goldschmidt’s approach of studying systems as a whole, and that attempts to integrate different fields at a too early stage may prove futile or worse. © 2011 Elsevier Inc. (shrink)