How do scientists generate knowledge in groups, and how have they done so in the past? How do epistemically motivated social interactions influence or even drive this process? These questions speak to core interests of both history and philosophy of science. Idealised models and formal arguments have been suggested to illuminate the social epistemology of science, but their conclusions are not directly applicable to scientific practice. This paper uses one of these models as a lens and historiographical tool in the (...) examination of actual scientific collectives. It centres on the analysis of two episodes from the history of photosynthesis research of the late nineteenth- to mid-twentieth centuries, which display a wide and coordinated intellectual diversity similar to Kitcher’s “division of cognitive labour”. The concept, I argue, captures important aspects of the photosynthesis research communities, but the underlying process unfolded in ways that differ from the model’s assumption in interesting ways. The paper unravels how the self-organised interplay of cooperation and competition, and the dynamics of individual and collective goals within scientific communities were influential factors in the generation of knowledge. From there, some thoughts are developed on how historical and philosophical approaches in the analysis of science can productively interact. (shrink)

In the first decades of the twentieth century, the process of photosynthesis was still a mystery: Plant scientists were able to measure what entered and left a plant, but little was known about the intermediate biochemical and biophysical processes that took place. This state of affairs started to change between the two world wars, when a number of young scientists in Europe and the United States, all of whom identified with the methods and goals of physicochemical biology, selected photosynthesis as (...) a topic of research. The protagonists had much in common: They had studied physics and chemistry (although not necessarily plant physiology) to a high level; they used physicochemical methods to study the basic processes of life; they believed these processes were the same, or very similar, in all life forms; and they were affiliated with institutions that fostered this kind of study. This set of cognitive, methodological, and material resources enabled these protagonists to transfer their knowledge of the concepts and techniques from microbiology and human biochemistry, for example, to the study of plant metabolism. These transfers of knowledge had a great influence on the way in which the biochemistry and biophysics of photosynthesis would be studied over the following decades. Through the use of four historical cases, this paper analyzes these knowledge transfers, as well as the investigative pathways that made them possible. (shrink)

Historians and philosophers of twentieth-century life sciences have demonstrated that the choice of experimental organism can profoundly influence research fields, in ways that sometimes undermined the scientists’ original intentions. The present paper aims to enrich and broaden the scope of this literature by analysing the career of unicellular green algae of the genus Chlorella. They were introduced for the study of photosynthesis in 1919 by the German cell physiologist Otto H. Warburg, and they became the favourite research objects in this (...) field up to the 1960s. The paper argues that dealing with Chlorella’s high metabolic flexibility was crucial for the emergence of a new conception of photosynthesis, as a plastic, integrated system of pathways. At the same time, it led to new collaborations between physiologists and phycologists, both of whom started to re-orient their studies in ecologically informed directions. Following Chlorella’s trail, hence, not only elucidates how experimental organisms forced scientists to change their conceptual approaches and techniques, but also provides insight into the interaction of different lines of research of mid-twentieth century plant sciences. (shrink)

Berichte zur Wissenschaftsgeschichte, Volume 45, Issue 3, Page 291-300, September 2022.

Berichte zur Wissenschaftsgeschichte, Volume 45, Issue 3, Page 291-300, September 2022.

The history of twentieth-century life sciences is not exactly a new topic. However, in view of the increasingly rapid development of the life sciences themselves over the past decades, some of the well-established narratives are worth revisiting. Taking stock of where we stand on these issues was the aim of a conference in 2015, entitled “Perspectives for the History of Life Sciences”. The papers in this topical collection are based on work presented and discussed at and around this meeting. Just (...) as the conference, the collection aims at exploring fields in the history of life sciences that appear understudied, sources that have been overlooked, and novel ways of engaging with this material. The papers convened in this collection may not be representative of the field as a whole; but we feel that they do indicate some elements that have received emphasis in recent years, and may become more central in the years to come, such as the history of previously neglected contexts and domains of the life sciences, the question of continuity and change on the level of practices, the history of complexity and diversity in twentieth-century life sciences and the reconsideration of the relationship between history and philosophy of life sciences. (shrink)

We investigate the context of discovery of two significant achievements of twentieth century biochemistry: the chemiosmotic mechanism of oxidative phosphorylation and the dark reaction of photosynthesis. The pursuit of these problems involved discovery strategies such as the transfer, recombination and reversal of previous causal and mechanistic knowledge in biochemistry. We study the operation and scope of these strategies by careful historical analysis, reaching a number of systematic conclusions: even basic strategies can illuminate “hard cases” of scientific discovery that go far (...) beyond simple extrapolation or analogy; the causal–mechanistic approach to discovery permits a middle course between the extremes of a completely substrate-neutral and a completely domain-specific view of scientific discovery; the existing literature on mechanism discovery underemphasizes the role of combinatorial approaches in defining and exploring search spaces of possible problem solutions; there is a subtle interplay between a fine-grained mechanistic and a more coarse-grained causal level of analysis, and both are needed to make discovery processes intelligible. (shrink)

ZusammenfassungDie Erforschung der Antarktis galt um 1900 als eine der letzten großen Herausforderungen im Zuge der Erschließung der Welt. Viele Nationen beteiligten sich daran, darunter das deutsche Kaiserreich. So fanden im Jahrzehnt vor dem Ersten Weltkrieg auch zwei deutsche Antarktisexpeditionen statt: von 1901 bis 1903 unter der Leitung von Erich von Drygalski und in den Jahren 1911/12 unter der Leitung Wilhelm Filchners. Die Forschung hat das Verhältnis zwischen den Unternehmen der verschiedenen Nationen bislang oftmals mit einem Fokus entweder auf Wettbewerb (...) oder Zusammenarbeit beschrieben. Dieser Aufsatz zeigt, dass internationale Kooperation und Konkurrenz die deutsche Antarktisexploration in spannungsreicher Gleichzeitigkeit prägten. Dabei nutzten die Akteure von Beginn an beide Interaktionsmodi als argumentative Ressourcen und verfolgten bewusst und situativ variabel Handlungsoptionen nach sowohl kompetitiven als auch kooperativen Logiken. Die Akteure bemühten sich darum, keinen der beiden Modi überwiegen zu lassen, sondern ein Gleichgewicht zu wahren, um die sowohl aus Wettbewerb als auch aus Zusammenarbeit entstehenden Vorteile für sich nutzen zu können. Gerade die genauen Kriterien der Konkurrenz wurden dabei zum Teil in der Schwebe gehalten, um sich hier alle Möglichkeiten offen zu halten. Bei der retrospektiven Bewertung ihrer Expeditionen durch die deutsche Öffentlichkeit gelang es ihnen jedoch nicht, die Deutungshoheit über Erfolg und Misserfolg der Unternehmen zu gewinnen: Weder der Verweis auf erfolgreiche Kooperationen, noch auf den Sieg im Wettbewerb um wissenschaftliche Leistungen konnte in der öffentlichen Wahrnehmung im deutschen Kaiserreich die Niederlage beim Erreichen möglichst südlicher Breiten ausgleichen. (shrink)

The Future of the Histories of Science and Knowledge. This essay addresses the relationship between the history of science and the history of knowledge, particularly in view of the situation in Germany. This relationship has become a controversial issue, culminating in the suggestion that the history of science suffers of irremediable shortcomings and, hence, ought to be replaced by the less problematic history of knowledge. The essay raises doubt in this analysis, while a more comprehensive discussion will be presented in (...) a special issue on this topic, to be published in this journal next year. (shrink)

We investigate the context of discovery of two significant achievements of twentieth century biochemistry: the chemiosmotic mechanism of oxidative phosphorylation and the dark reaction of photosynthesis. The pursuit of these problems involved discovery strategies such as the transfer, recombination and reversal of previous causal and mechanistic knowledge in biochemistry. We study the operation and scope of these strategies by careful historical analysis, reaching a number of systematic conclusions: even basic strategies can illuminate “hard cases” of scientific discovery that go far (...) beyond simple extrapolation or analogy; the causal–mechanistic approach to discovery permits a middle course between the extremes of a completely substrate-neutral and a completely domain-specific view of scientific discovery; the existing literature on mechanism discovery underemphasizes the role of combinatorial approaches in defining and exploring search spaces of possible problem solutions; there is a subtle interplay between a fine-grained mechanistic and a more coarse-grained causal level of analysis, and both are needed to make discovery processes intelligible. (shrink)

Falsification no longer is the cornerstone of philosophy of science; but it still looms widely that scientists ought to drop an explanatory hypothesis in view of negative results. We shall argue that, to the contrary, negative empirical results are unable to disqualify causally explanatory hypotheses—not because of the shielding effect of auxiliary assumptions but because of the fact that the causal irrelevance of a factor cannot empirically be established. This perspective is elaborated at a case study taken from the history (...) of plant physiology: the formaldehyde model of photosynthesis, which for about sixty years dominated the field—despite the fact that in these sixty years all the attempts to conclusively demonstrate even the presence of formaldehyde in plants failed. (shrink)

In the years 1919 to 1923, Otto Warburg published four papers that were to revolutionise the field of photosynthesis. In these articles, he introduced a number of new techniques to measure the rate of photosynthesis, put forward a new model of the mechanism and added a completely new perspective to the topic by attempting to establish the process’s efficiency in terms of the light quantum requirement. In this paper I trace the roots of Warburg’s series of contributions to photosynthesis research (...) by exploring three different contexts of inspiration: Warburg’s own research into cell respiration, his father’s work on the quantum yield of photochemical reactions in general and the photosynthesis work carried out by Richard Willstätter and Arthur Stoll. When these influences are considered together, it becomes clear that Warburg implemented a Building Block Strategy in his research: rather than inventing his photosynthesis model from scratch, he availed himself of fragments from other contexts, which he then recombined in a new and innovative way. This way of working is considered to be standard practice in scientific research. (shrink)

Summary Colourful plant images are often taken as the icon of natural history illustration. However, so far, little attention has been paid to the question of how this beautiful colouring was achieved. At a case study of the eighteenth-century Nuremberg doctor and botanist, Christoph Jacob Trew, the process of how illustrations were hand-coloured, who was involved in this work, and how the colouring was supervised and evaluated is reconstructed, mostly based on Trew's correspondence with the engraver and publisher of his (...) books, Johann Jacob Haid in Augsburg. Furthermore, the question of standardizing colours, their uses and their recipes is discussed at two examples of the same time period: the colour charts of the Bauer brothers, arguably the most renowned botanical draughtsmen of the period, and the colour tables by the Regensburg naturalist, Jacob Christian Schaeffer. Hand-colouring botanical illustrations, it is argued, was far from a straightforward task but confronted botanists and their employees with a plethora of practical and methodological problems, to which different solutions were developed in the course of time. Analysing these problems and solutions reveals some new and interesting aspects of the practices of eighteenth-century botany and of the production of scientific illustrations in general. (shrink)

At first glance botanical illustrations of the eighteenth century might be interpreted as being naturalistic portraits of living plants. A more detailed investigation, however, reveals that the pictures were meant to communicate typical features of plant species in the way of a model. To this end, botanists of the period gave botanical draughtsmen specialist training; copying earlier examples and standardised motives from drawing books was a common part of this training. The practice of copying elements of previously published drawings and (...) integrating them into new pictures was also widespread. However, only carefully selected elements were taken over, and even these were improved in terms of their correctness and appropriateness to the new context. This procedure was a strategy that eighteenth-century botanists used so that they would present an illustration that met their own requirements more satisfactorily than existing depictions. From this perspective, botanical illustrations can serve as historical sources on the working practices of eighteenth-century botanists and draughtsmen, which are usually not mentioned in textual sources. (shrink)

The Religious War of Science. Historical Argumentation in the Academic Speeches of Emil DuBois‐Reymond (1818–1896). Among the protagonists of the “laboratory revolution” (Cunningham/Williams) in 19th‐century physiology were the self‐proclaimed ‘organic physicists’ (“organische Physiker”), who shared a mechanistic conception of life processes. One of their key figures was the physiologist Emil DuBois‐Reymond (1818–1896) who not only excelled in the field of neuroscience but also became known, over the decades of his active career, as an orator at the Berlin Academy of Sciences (...) and Humanities. In his academic speeches, DuBois‐Reymond regularly commemorated heroes of the history of science. On closer inspection, these references went far beyond paying the usual homage to precursors: This paper argues that DuBois‐Reymond made use of episodes from the history of science as a means to legitimate his own reductionist research programme and, at the same time, decry idealistic natural philosophy and vitalistic positions. Drawing upon biblical rhetorics, DuBois‐Reymond systematically construed experimental physiology as the culmination of a teleological development, and, hence, organic physicists as the incarnation of scientific ‘redeemers’. According to him, the success of ‘organic physics’ displayed the peak of an inevitable development. (shrink)

Research has shown that there has often been overlap between the humanities and the sciences. This essay brings to the fore a prominent borderline case in cultural history, where the mix of disciplines that could contribute to its study became an issue of debate. It examines the attempts made by botanists throughout the nineteenth century, culminating around 1900, to call into question the monopoly of the humanities on cultural history. Botanists argued that botanical objects, such as the original forms of (...) ancient grains, were important historical sources, and the renowned Georg Schweinfurth even advocated a new concept of “culture” that prioritized the sciences. The essay argues that this development is part of the period’s discourse on the origins of human civilization, which included more and less productive encounters between the botanical study of the migration and development of plants over time and the study of human history. (shrink)

This paper investigates the relationship between the eminent 19th-century naturalists Charles Darwin and Carl Vogt. On two separate occasions, Vogt asked Darwin for permission to translate some of the latter’s books into German, and in both cases Darwin refused. It has generally been assumed that Darwin turned down Vogt as a translator because of the latter’s reputation as a radical libertine who was extremely outspoken in his defence of scientific materialism and atheism. However, this explanation does not fit the facts, (...) since, on closer investigation, Darwin not only gave serious consideration to engaging Vogt as the German translator of two of his books, albeit ultimately rejecting him, but he also collaborated with Vogt on the French editions of his works. In this paper we argue that this was not because Darwin was unaware of Vogt’s personality and blunt writing style; rather, Darwin seems to have decided that the benefits he would gain from their association would clearly outweigh the risk of offending some of his readers: in working with Vogt, who was not only a knowledgeable scientist but also an avowed adherent of Darwinism, Darwin could be assured of the scientific quality of the translation and of an edition that would not distort his central concepts – both of which were by no means matters of course in 19th-century translations of scientific works. (shrink)

Name der Zeitschrift: Naharaim Jahrgang: 11 Heft: 1-2 Seiten: 5-11.

Abstract[I] want to single out one phenomenon that could be called the ‘politics of sources’. It points to the extent to which the histories that both scientists and historians can write are artifacts of the available sources. The Rockefeller Foundation not only opened its archives very early on for historical work but also invested a lot in making the archives readily available for historical exploration. During the 1980s, many young historians took advantage of this opportunity. Thus, in a relatively early (...) phase of the professional historiography of molecular biology, one could have gained the impression that the development of the new biology as a whole was a bio‐politically directed enterprise of the Rockefeller Foundation sustained by the vision that social processes could ultimately be controlled by biological processes. (shrink)

The paper uses the example of historical paper research in Vienna around 1900 in order to analyze the dynamics of scientific cooperation between the natural sciences and the humanities. It focuses on the Vienna-based plant physiologist Julius Wiesner (1838–1916), who from 1884 to 1911 studied medieval paper manuscripts under the microscope in productive cooperation with paleographers, archaeologists and orientalists (Josef Karabacek, Marc Aurel Stein, Rudolf Hoernle). The paper examines why these cooperations succeeded and how they developed over time. Here we (...) distinguish between two forms of cooperation: while Wiesner initially worked only reactively, in a “closed cooperation”, he later entered into “open cooperations”, in which both parties defined research questions and methods. This form of cooperation proved particularly successful, but at the same time was especially demanding because, in addition to contributing one’s own skills, it required considerable “interlocking expertise” (Andersen 2016). This was favored because the historical auxiliary sciences were in a phase of upheaval. Wiesner contributed his knowledge of technical microscopy and developed a genuine interest in historical questions, while the humanists were prepared to open themselves to scientific processes and ultimately acknowledged Wiesner as a historian of paper in his own right. (shrink)

ZusammenfassungDie Studie analysiert die Dynamik wissenschaftlicher Kooperation zwischen Natur- und Geisteswissenschaften an einem Beispiel aus der historischen Papierforschung in Wien um 1900. Im Mittelpunkt steht der Wiener Pflanzenphysiologe Julius Wiesner (1838–1916), der ab 1884 (und bis 1911) mittelalterliche Papiermanuskripte unter dem Mikroskop prüfte. Dies erfolgte in produktiver Zusammenarbeit mit Paläographen, Archäologen und Orientalisten (Josef Karabacek, Marc Aurel Stein, Rudolf Hoernle). Der Aufsatz untersucht, warum dies gelang und wie die Zusammenarbeit sich entwickelte. Wir unterscheiden dabei zwei Formen der Kooperation: Während Wiesner (...) anfangs nur reaktiv zuarbeitete, in einer „geschlossenen Kooperation“, trat er später in „offene Kooperationen“ ein, in der beide Parteien die Fragen definieren und geeignete Methoden entwickeln. Diese Form der Kooperation erwies sich als besonders erfolgreich – zugleich war sie besonders anspruchsvoll, denn neben fachlicher Expertise erforderte sie erhebliche „Integrationsexpertise“ (Andersen 2016). Dies wurde begünstigt durch die lokale Konstellation in einer Umbruchphase der historischen Hilfswissenschaften. Wiesner konnte seine Kenntnisse der technischen Mikroskopie einbringen und gewann ein genuines Interesse an den historischen Fragen, während die Geisteswissenschaftler bereit waren, sich naturwissenschaftlichen Verfahren gegenüber zu öffnen und Wiesner letztlich als Papierhistoriker eigenen Rechts anzuerkennen. (shrink)