Skip to main content
The Cambridge History of Science
  • Export citation
  • Recommend to librarian
  • Recommend this book

    Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this book to your organisation's collection.

    The Cambridge History of Science
    • Online ISBN: 9781139056007
    • Book DOI:
    Please enter your name
    Please enter a valid email address
    Who would you like to send this to? *
  • Buy the print book

Book description

This book in the highly respected Cambridge History of Science series is devoted to the history of the life and earth sciences since 1800. It provides comprehensive and authoritative surveys of historical thinking on major developments in these areas of science, on the social and cultural milieus in which the knowledge was generated, and on the wider impact of the major theoretical and practical innovations. The articles are written by acknowledged experts who provide concise accounts of the latest historical thinking coupled with guides to the most important recent literature. In addition to histories of traditional sciences, the book covers the emergence of newer disciplines such as genetics, biochemistry and geophysics. The interaction of scientific techniques with their practical applications in areas such as medicine is a major focus of the book, as is its coverage of controversial areas such as science and religion, and environmentalism.


'… Volume 6 … together with the others of the same series, will serve as a useful reference source.'

Source: Nuncius: Journal of the Material and Visual History of Science

    • Aa
    • Aa
Refine List
Actions for selected content:
Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Send to Kindle
  • Send to Dropbox
  • Send to Google Drive
  • Send content to

    To send content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about sending content to .

    To send content to your Kindle, first ensure is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

    Note you can select to send to either the or variations. ‘’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

    Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

    Please be advised that item(s) you selected are not available.
    You are about to send:

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.

Page 1 of 2

  • 1 - Introduction
    pp 1-12
  • DOI:
  • View abstract
    This chapter provides an introduction to the history of life and earth sciences in the modern period in order to help the reader understand the new developments in the historiography of science. Scientists have often worried about initiatives that explore the social dimension of how scientific knowledge is created, fearing that the search for social context ends up treating science as no more objective than any other belief or value system. The amount of attention focused on Charles Darwin by historians of evolutionism, for instance, reflects English-speaking scientists' greater commitment to the genetical theory of natural selection as the defining feature of their field. By the opening of the twentieth century, France, Britain, and the United States were "catching up" in the biomedical sciences, which were also developing in Japan as it "Westernized". Since 1940, the world of biomedical sciences has been transformed by the two forms of investment - from governments and from industry.
  • 2 - Amateurs and Professionals
    pp 13-33
  • DOI:
  • View abstract
    Science in the nineteenth century changed from an area of learning in which it was exceptional for people to be paid to pursue it into one in which large numbers were receiving instruction in schools and universities with the expectation of making their living from it; science had turned into a substantial profession. Until the 1880s amateur came to acquire a derogatory overtone, especially in the United States. Amateurs were classified as "researchers", "practitioners", and "cultivators". Naturalists collected because it was the time-honored route to take, and one could not record if one could not distinguish what one discovered and ideally put a name to it. The life sciences were about to be polarized by the emergence of the academic discipline of biology. It is significant that a parallel cleavage did not take place in geology, which, even when substantially professionalized, retained links with its amateur following.
  • 3 - Discovery and Exploration
    pp 34-59
  • DOI:
  • View abstract
    By the act of discovery, people lay claim to possession; but by the act of exploration, people acquire the means for trading. Historians view the nineteenth century as one of excitement for Europeans, who, having mapped their own continent, looked for new worlds to conquer. Unlike his contemporary military surveyors, navigators, naval surgeons, and collectors, Alexander von Humboldt was interested less in solving empirical problems than in determining interconnections between phenomena. His observations focused on movement, change, and distribution, and succeeded in linking previously separate disciplines of geography and history, and the new "global physics". Napoleon's invasion of Egypt, accompanied by a celebrated mission of savants, gave science an imperial presence. The English were also keen to associate science, exploration, and strategic interest from the Asiatic Society of Bengal to the austral Pacific. Voyages and expeditions shared a commitment to internationalism, and involved the mobilization of people, resources, equipment, publicity, and authority.
  • 4 - Museums
    pp 60-75
  • DOI:
  • View abstract
    Plentiful raw material awaits historians in museums' records, in the scientific literature, and even in the physical evidence of collections and buildings. This chapter focuses on the zoological activity of major natural history museums. It discusses the museums prior to 1792, Paris's museums during the period 1793-1809 and its impact, the museum movement from 1860 to 1901, and the era of dioramas and diversity from 1902 to 1990. Museums were the focus for a new type of science that came to the fore around 1800 based on the analysis of large bodies of information by professional scientists. During the second half of the eighteenth century, collections of natural specimens rapidly increased in number and in size. The Museum d'Histoire Naturelle, founded by the revolutionary government in Paris in 1793, became the model for new science. The Paris achievement was imitated most effectively where an avid naturalist teamed up with a generous monarch.
  • 5 - Field Stations and Surveys
    pp 76-89
  • DOI:
  • View abstract
    Europeans built their own field stations and conducted their own national surveys in the latter half of the nineteenth century. One of the major preoccupations of these European naturalists was to understand the vexing but wonderful phenomenon of biogeographical distribution. With a long and vested interest in nature through the cabinet tradition and the new museum craze, Europeans represented a ready market for naturalists who were willing to venture into the still dangerous New World to bring back or to send back specimens for exhibit or commercial sale. The most important government-sponsored survey for its influence on the early development of American science was the U.S. Exploring Expedition sent out under the guidance of Charles Wilkes in 1838. Most of the early field stations in Europe were either adjunct summer laboratories for universities (French stations) or were directed to address fisheries-related problems.
  • 6 - Universities
    pp 90-107
  • DOI:
  • View abstract
    Universities have been important to biology not merely by providing it with a home. Particular features of the university setting had a substantial impact on both the proliferation of new fields in the nineteenth century and the central questions that came to characterize those fields. The life sciences found their earliest home within the medical faculty in the form of anatomy and botany. By the mid-eighteenth century, anatomy theaters had become the norm at German universities, but thereafter anatomical institutes as sites for research began to replace them. This chapter looks at how the status of various fields has been shaped by two kinds of patronage: the supply of funding for research and the demand for particular kinds of expert or knowledge. For new fields in the life sciences, one principal route into the universities was via medicine; botany and physiology developed within the universities primarily via the medical connection.
  • 7 - Geological Industries
    pp 108-125
  • DOI:
  • View abstract
    This chapter addresses the relation between geology and industry from four perspectives, namely, mining schools, government surveys, private surveys, and industrial science. It first discusses institutions that served as intermediaries between science and commerce. Mining schools have been regarded as one of the birthplaces of geology. As with European mining schools, geological surveys were government institutions. The idea behind their establishment was straightforward: Geologists possessed specialized knowledge that might aid in the location, identification, and evaluation of mineral resources. Then, the chapter addresses the settings and conditions in which geologists worked directly for private enterprise. This commercial practice goes back at least to the late eighteenth century, when mineral surveyors or engineers, as they were sometimes styled, became actively involved in searching for coal, iron, or other resources. Historians and scientists agree that industry aided the development of geology at its most basic level: exploration.
  • 8 - The Pharmaceutical Industries
    pp 126-140
  • DOI:
  • View abstract
    Pharmaceutical industries are one of the most research-intensive industries. The discovery of the alkaloids was among the most significant therapeutic advances of the early nineteenth century. This stimulated a search for active principles in other medicinal plants, and eventually this would contribute to the development of the pharmaceutical industry. The rise of synthetic dyestuff industry in the nineteenth century also figured prominently in the growth of pharmaceutical manufacturing. In addition to the discovery of alkaloids and the growth of the chemical industry, the therapeutic application of advances in bacteriology and immunology in the late nineteenth century also stimulated the pharmaceutical industry. Wartime exigencies often stimulated growth in the pharmaceutical industry. For example, the pharmaceutical industry in Russia grew significantly in the wake of the Crimean War. Regulation of the pharmaceutical industry in many developing nations has ranged from corrupt to absent, as documented by Milton Silverman, Mia Lydecker, and Philip Lee.
  • 9 - Public and Environmental Health
    pp 141-164
  • DOI:
  • View abstract
    Public health measures have concentrated on four main areas: controlling hazards in the physical environment, ensuring the quality of food and water, preventing the transmission of infectious diseases, and providing vaccinations and other individual preventive services. The history of modern public health can be divided into three periods during which new sites for professional activity were developed. In the period 1800-1890, the main focus was on the health of towns as new methods of disease control were introduced. In the years 1890-1950, the major new concern was over health of nations, especially economic and social efficiency, which was promoted by measures aimed at individuals and their behavior. Environmental approaches to public health were maintained, although they were increasingly routinized. Finally, after 1950, new attention was given to world health, particularly as a result of population growth, the impact of advanced industrial technologies, such as nuclear products and pesticides.
  • 10 - Geology
    pp 165-184
  • DOI:
  • View abstract
    Geology is the name arrived in the 1820s for a specific approach to the scientific study of the earth's outer layers. The phenomena of geology were being investigated at every level from the microscopic to the global. In the last quarter of the nineteenth century, geology acquired a number of additional subjects and divisions. Important among them were glacial geology and geomorphology, with the firm establishment by 1875 of the theory of the ice ages in both Europe and North America. At the very moment of the triumphant declarations of independence and scientific maturity, geology was transformed in the first decade of the twentieth century by the emergence of three fields of study, appearing in rapid succession: radiometric dating, seismology, and gravimetric geodesy. In twentieth centuries, geology developed a three-part structure of university and academic geology, economic and industrial geology, and the geology of state, national, and imperial geological surveys.
  • 11 - Paleontology
    pp 185-204
  • DOI:
  • View abstract
    Paleontology has become increasingly important from the perspective of the institutional and disciplinary dimensions of the science. Georges Cuvier first demonstrated the occurrence of extinction; his work also influenced developments in stratigraphy. Although many early nineteenth-century geologists and paleontologists believed that the fossil record demonstrated progress, the question of whether progress entailed evolution was a much more controversial matter. Many opposed evolution, and none more forcefully than Cuvier. In 1971, Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould, rejecting the neo-Darwinian emphasis on phyletic gradualism, defined evolution not as a slow, continuous process but rather as a series of rapid bursts of change followed by periods of stasis, which they termed "punctuated equilibrium". Charles Darwin and his followers adopted a historical interpretation of biogeography, claiming that each species had originated in and dispersed from a single locality. Rejecting extended land bridges and sunken continents, Darwin suggested a biogeography based on migration.
  • 12 - Zoology
    pp 205-224
  • DOI:
  • View abstract
    Philosophical naturalists started from a priori assumptions and abstract principles, searching for unity and symmetry in the array of natural forms. This chapter focuses on the central theoretical issues as perceived by zoologists when the field was still accepted as a coherent focus of research. The champions of the natural system hoped to uncover the essential characters of animals beneath what were considered the more "utilitarian" characters privileged by Carl Linnaeus. Charles Darwin was introduced to the natural theology tradition by John Henslow and others, while the Beagle voyage focused his attention on biogeography and the adaptation of species to their environment. His specimens were inspected by the leading naturalists of the time, including Richard Owen. No evolutionary typology would have existed without the decisive intervention of Darwin's concept of descent and even of natural selection.
  • 13 - Botany
    pp 225-242
  • DOI:
  • View abstract
    Botany has played a key role in the history of the life sciences. The system of plant classification devised by Carl Linnaeus in mid-eighteenth century dominated the world of amateur botanists and collectors. Botanical geography, or phytogeography, had developed in distinct directions in the nineteenth century. The modern botanical garden got its start in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries as a site for the display of plant life from all sectors of the globe, with the dual rationale of providing, on the one hand, a very tangible symbol of Christian European imperialism and, on the other, a diversity of herbs potentially capable of curing any known disease. By the last two decades of the nineteenth century, the transformation in botany that was centered in Germany came to be called the "new botany" in the United States and England. Young botanists from all over the world traveled to Germany to receive the kind of training that was available nowhere else.
  • 14 - Evolution
    pp 243-264
  • DOI:
  • View abstract
    The study of evolution today forms a distinct discipline, namely, evolutionary biology. For Georges Buffon, the two principal tasks for the naturalist as theorist were the theory of the earth and the theory of generation. Comprehensive contrasts between Buffon and Carl Linnaeus made them a hard pair of acts to follow, and make implausible the claim by Michel Foucault that they were both singing off the same episteme. The great divergences among, say, Georges Cuvier, Lorenz Oken, and Jean Lamarck were prosecuted despite any consensus over such pickings and mixings. The early Lamarck's earth has been steadily heated by the sun for a limitless past, with the present plant and animal species perpetuating themselves fixedly. Only the special forces in living bodies can compound matter into minerals such as chalk. The Origin of Species can be and was read as ultimately a conjunction of the tree of life.
  • 15 - Anatomy, Histology, and Cytology
    pp 265-284
  • DOI:
  • View abstract
    Anatomy, histology, and cytology are sciences of form that have largely depended on the study of dead bodies, dead tissues, and dead cells. The history of anatomy has two subsets: human anatomy and comparative anatomy. By the beginning of the nineteenth century, work on human anatomy was largely the province of university medical faculties, independent medical schools, and medical corporations. In nineteenth century, Georges Cuvier promoted shifts in orientation for comparative anatomy. By the mid-nineteenth century, tissues and cells had become foundational concepts for understanding both the structures and functions of complex multi-cellular life. The study of microorganisms intersected repeatedly with study of tissues and cells as both concepts and techniques developed in nineteenth-century laboratories. Histology opened up new fields of research for anatomists at a time when research became increasingly important for individual and institutional prestige. In twentieth century, attention focused on refinement of biochemical methods for identifying complex compounds and reactions involved in cell and tissue metabolism.
  • 16 - Embryology
    pp 285-315
  • DOI:
  • View abstract
    Embryological analysis dealt specifically with development from collected specimens. In 1930s, embryologist-historian Joseph Needham nominated a Hippocratic writer as "the first embryologist" and traced a straight line through Aristotle, William Harvey, and Karl Ernst von Baer to premier embryological journal of his own day. Two medical students from the German-speaking Baltic, Christian Pander and Karl Ernst von Baer showed how organization arose from the transformation of primitive "germ layers", and their followers resolved these into cells. Experimental embryology and genetics were taken as model sub-disciplines. One can understand the fate of embryology only in relation to other sciences with alternative programs. In twentieth-century, biology was to gain access to explain mechanisms of development through the properties of cells, molecules, and genes. In the early twentieth century, reproductive scientists carved out from embryology, a new field of research on sex, but attempts to control reproduction by manipulating gametes and early embryos continued to overlap with embryology.
  • 17 - Microbiology
    pp 316-341
  • DOI:
  • View abstract
    As organisms responsible for various fermentations, microorganisms could be used to probe and manipulate the production of many foodstuffs and chemicals, but also to study general biochemistry. Working with microscopes that produced as much doubt as conviction, and without a framework into which to fit their observations of the "infusoria", only a few eighteenth-century naturalists attempted more than detailed descriptions of the individual miniscule creatures. Louis Pasteur's initial interest in the study of alcoholic fermentations was aroused when he was approached by the Lille industrialist Mourier Bigo, who was experiencing difficulties with the production of alcohol from beets. The "bacteriological revolution" is most commonly associated with work of Louis Pasteur, Robert Koch, and Joseph Lister. In the early-twentieth century, protozoa were studied as agents of disease, especially in colonial or tropical medicine, and much of the institutional support for their study was clearly linked to this last interest.
  • 18 - Physiology
    pp 342-366
  • DOI:
  • View abstract
    Physiology allowed historians of science of first generation after World War II to develop a series of narratives that reflected their broader concerns about the nature and significance of modern science and about how to write its history. The early histories of physiology present four intertwined themes: physiology's "struggle for independence", the experimentalization of the discipline, the growth of physiological "concepts", and the formation of research schools or genealogies of physiologists. The newer studies also have emphasized the utility of experimental physiology for a medical profession eager to make itself more "scientific". By the mid-1940s, several trends began to trouble leaders of American Physiological Society. A comprehensive study of the fate of twentieth-century physiology as a discipline, source of professional identity, or collection of research programs has yet to be written. A preliminary reconnaissance of several quantitative indicators presents a mixed picture of physiology's continuing viability amid the explosion of increasingly specialized biological sciences.
  • 19 - Pathology
    pp 367-382
  • DOI:
  • View abstract
    This chapter shows that an important practice and "science" of pathology grew up in Western cultures over the past two hundred years. It explains a way of thinking about the origins and subsequent directions taken by the stages of prehistory, tissue pathology, cellular pathology, clinical pathology, and present-day paradigms. In 2000, several Crime Scene Investigation casts along with a flurry of other programs such as Crossing Jordan, glorified personal and professional lives of pathologists and other forensic investigators. From the 1990s, the new vision, for pathology and medicine more generally, seemed to be "translational medicine". Just as tissue cellular pathology drew from biology and microscopy, and clinical pathology drew from chemistry, so translational medicine and its daughter discipline, genomics, drew on informatics, a discipline that grew out of computer science and clinical information systems, including taxonomies of diseases and procedures.
  • 20 - Plate Tectonics
    pp 383-394
  • DOI:
  • View abstract
    After 1966, most earth scientists became mobilists soon after the confirmation of seafloor spreading, and plate tectonics. The chapter outlines the major historical aspects of the plate tectonics revolution. Alfred Wegener, a German meteorologist and geophysicist, presented his version of continental drift in 1912; his theory spawned a number of sub-controversies within different fields of the earth sciences. In each case, fixists and mobilists raised problems with the competing solutions, and neither group was able to develop a recognized difficulty-free solution. Fixists criticized Wegener's solution to the problem about the matchup of continental margins. During the early 1950s, when the controversy over continental drift had come to a standstill, workers in paleomagnetism began to develop a new case for mobilism. With the confirmation of corollaries such as the one on geopolarity reversals, most fixists actively engaged in oceanographic research immediately accepted mobilism because of the explanatory advantages offered by seafloor spreading.
  • 21 - Geophysics and Geochemistry
    pp 395-415
  • DOI:
  • View abstract
    This chapter deals with geophysics with a focus on geodesy, gravimetry, seismology, and geomagnetism. Geochemistry involves the chemical analyses of minerals, rocks, and the atmosphere, and mineral solutions. Modern geochemical research makes much use of studies of the radioisotopes of the different elements, which are also used for radiometric dating. The chapter outlines the contributions of branches of geophysics to the establishment of the plate tectonics synthesis. Seismology has provided essential evidence concerning the earth's internal structure and is generally supportive of the plate tectonics paradigm. As the nineteenth century progressed, instruments of ever-increasing sophistication were designed. Geomagnetic field strengths could be compared for two different localities by suspending a magnet and measuring its oscillation period at the two places. Techniques for chemical analyses of rocks and minerals in "wet" way were first devised by Swedish chemist Torbern Bergman. The chapter also discusses physic-chemical petrology.
  • 22 - Mathematical Models
    pp 416-431
  • DOI:
  • View abstract
    The history of mathematical models in the life sciences is not just the history of applying mathematics to living systems. It is rich in process and the myriad of factors influencing it. This chapter provides some important historical threads that are representative of modeling in the life sciences, providing pointers to selected primary and secondary sources. It first begins with three areas in which mathematical modeling has entered the life sciences: physiology and psychology, evolution and ecology, and development and form. It then focuses on three more recent historical perspectives, namely mathematical statistics, integrative modeling, and computers and mathematical modeling. The early (mid-twentieth-century) influence of computers on mathematical modeling was through their speed of numerical calculation. Models as sets of analytically intractable differential equations could now be solved using brute force numerical calculations. Models from mathematical statistics could be applied to larger and larger datasets requiring not only rapid numerical calculations but also the development of algorithms for manipulating them.
  • 23 - Genes
    pp 432-450
  • DOI:
  • View abstract
    This chapter describes traditional historical accounts of the gene and gene concepts. Histories of the gene and genetics are still in their infancy. There were always tensions in genetics between those who focused on the functions that genes were supposed to play and those who thought of them as material structures, between those who treated genes as units of calculation and those who believed that Mendelian analysis had discovered fundamental units. The various traditions and disciplines surveyed in the chapter show that the notion of a gene was always open, at least to some extent, reflecting the tension between the approaches taken in different disciplines and contexts. Recent work in genetics has cast doubt on the idea that there is a unique resolution of the proper delimitation of genes and gene concepts. Since 1990, there has been a human genome project to map and sequence all human genes; its findings are leading to revisions in mankind's understanding of gene action.
  • 24 - Ecosystems
    pp 451-466
  • DOI:
  • View abstract
    This chapter reveals that the shaping and development of the ecosystem concept is too recent a field of historical research to have given rise to important controversies, the differences of opinion being expressed by choices of different standpoints rather than by focused debates. In addition to studies of plant communities, some late nineteenth-century scientists, mainly zoologists, turned to the interrelationships between the plant world and animal life. At the start of the twentieth century, little was known of the mechanisms governing the fluctuation of populations. The concept of the pyramidal population structure of a biocoenosis is the work of the German zoologist Karl Semper, 1832-1893. This was further developed by the British zoologist Charles Elton, 1900-1991. Elton also gave the concept of "ecological niche" a functional definition rather than a spatial one. The ecosystem concept has become, at the start of the twenty-first century, the basic unit used for modeling the potential changes we may expect in earth's global ecology.
  • 25 - Immunology
    pp 467-485
  • DOI:
  • View abstract
    This chapter focuses on history of the concept of immunity and the emergence of the science of immunology as it relates to the laboratory at the expense of the field and clinic up to the 1970s. Its also focuses on historiography of immunology in the twentieth century, especially in the last three decades. During the first half of the twentieth century, the nature and specificity of antibody-antigen reaction, mechanism of antibody formation, and physical structure of antibody molecules were a few of the central problems around which the emerging discipline of immunology gravitated. The post-World War II consolidation of immunology from disparate fields is illustrated by the recent elucidation of the molecular and genetic basis of Macfarlane Burnet's central immunological problem. In the 1960s and 1970s, as an accompaniment to the worldwide institutionalization of immunology, some of the many new textbooks begin to carry short historical essays, typically providing a canonical list of major immunologists and important discoveries.
  • 26 - Cancer
    pp 486-503
  • DOI:
  • View abstract
    Twentieth-century cancer was dominated on the one hand by the cancer cell and on the other hand by the development of physical and chemical means of intervention. If the history of cancer nicely exemplifies the uneasy relationships between the practice of science and the practice of medicine, it also sheds a powerful light on the transformation of Western medicine into a large-scale biomedical venture. Medical historians have documented the development of medical radiology as an autonomous diagnostic specialty. The "biomedicalization" of cancer meant that clinical problems and pathological material were turned into biological research systems. In the 1960s and 1970s, the diffusion of cancer drug therapies was achieved, not through the general use of a few compounds, but through the transformation of clinical trials using combinations of drugs. Chemotherapy thus became a system of routine experimental treatment managed by medical oncologists.

Page 1 of 2

This list contains references from the content that can be linked to their source. For a full set of references and notes please see the PDF or HTML where available.

D. E. Allen , “The Early Professionals in British Natural History,” in From Linnaeus to Darwin: Commentaries on the History of Biology and Geology, ed. Alwyne Wheeler and James H. Price (London: Society for the History of Natural History, 1985).

D. E. Allen , “Walking the Swards: Medical Education and the Rise and Spread of the Botanical Field Class,” Archives of Natural History, 27 (2000).

D. E. Allen , “The Natural History Society in Britain through the Years,” Archives of Natural History, 14 (1987).

D. E. Allen , “J. F. M. Dovaston, an Overlooked Pioneer of Field Ornithology,” Journal of the Society for the Bibliography of Natural History, 4 (1967).

D. E. Allen , “Changing Attitudes to Nature Conservation: The Botanical Perspective,” Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 32 (1987);

Thomas Peter Bennett , “The History of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia,” in Contributions to the History of North American Natural History, ed. Alwyne Wheeler (London: Society for the Bibliography of Natural History, 1983);

Keith R. Benson and C. Edward Quinn , “The American Society of Zoologists, 1889–1989: A Century of Interpreting the Biological Sciences,” American Zoologist, 30 (1990);

Adrian Desmond , “Redefining the X Axis: ‘Professionals,’ ‘Amateurs’ and the Making of Mid-Victorian Biology,” Journal of the History of Biology, 34 (2001).

Sophie Ducker , “History of Australian Phycology: Early German Collectors and Botanists,” in History in the Service of Systematics, ed. Alwyne Wheeler and James H. Price (London: Society for the Bibliography of Natural History, 1981).

Joel B. Hagen , “Evolutionists and Taxonomists: Divergent Traditions in Twentieth-Century Plant Geography,” Journal of the History of Biology, 19 (1986).

Melville H. Hatch , “Entomology in Search of a Soul,” Annals of the Entomological Society of America, 47 (1954), at p. 379.

S. W. F. Holloway , “The Apothecaries’ Act, 1815: A Reinterpretation,” Medical History, 10 (1966).

E. W. Jenkins , “Science, Sentimentalism or Social Control? The Nature Study Movement in England and Wales, 1899–1914,” History of Education, 10 (1981).

Sally Gregory Kohlstedt , “The Nineteenth-Century Amateur Tradition: The Case of the Boston Society of Natural History,” in Science and Its Public: The Changing Relationship, ed. Gerald Holton and William A. Blanpied (Dordrecht: Reidel, 1976);

J. B. Morrell , “Individualism and the Structure of British Science in 1830,” Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences, 3 (1971).

J. B. Morrell , Science at Oxford: 1914–1939 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997), 299.

Roy C. Bridges , “The Historical Role of British Explorers in East Africa,” Terra Incognitae, 14 (1982).

Richard W. Burkhardt , Jr., “Naturalists’ Practices and Nature’s Empire: Paris and the Platypus, 1815–1833,” Pacific Science, 55 (2001).

Lord George Campbell , Log Letters from “The Challenger” (London: Macmillan, 1876);

John Cawood , “Terrestrial Magnetism and the Development of International Collaboration in the Early Nineteenth Century,” Annals of Science, 34 (1977).

Maurice Crosland , “History of Science in a National Context,” British Journal for the History Science, 10 (1977).

Aant Elzinga , “Antarctica: The Construction of a Continent by and for Science,” in Denationalising Science: The Contexts of International Scientific Practice, ed. Elisabeth Crawford , Terry Shin , and Sverker Sörlin (Dordrecht: Kluwer, 1993);

Jim Endersby , “‘From Having no Herbarium’: Local Knowledge vs. Metropolitan Expertise: Joseph Hooker’s Australasian Correspondence with William Colenso and Ronald Gunn,” Pacific Science, 55 (2001).

Anne Godlewska , Geography Unbound: French Geographic Science from Cassini to Humboldt (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999).

Kenneth J. Hsü , “Challenger” at Sea: A Ship that Revolutionized Earth Science (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1992).

Roy MacLeod , “Introduction,” in “Nature in Its Greatest Extent”: Western Science in the Pacific, ed. Roy MacLeod and Fritz Rehbock (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1988);

Adi Ophir and Steven Shapin , “The Place of Knowledge: A Methodological Survey,” Science in Context, 4 (1991).

Naomi Oreskes and Ronald Rainger , “Science and Security before the Atomic Bomb: The Loyalty Case of Harold U. Sverdrup,” Studies in the History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 31 (2000);

James Clark Ross , A Voyage of Discovery and Research in the Southern and Antarctic Regions during the Years 1839–43 (London: John Murray, 1847), reprinted with foreword by Sir Raymond Priestley (London: David and Charles, 1969).

Sverker Söorlin , “Ordering the World for Europe: Science as Intelligence and Information as Seen from the Northern Periphery,” Osiris, 15 (2000), see p. 55.

Satpal Sangwan , “Reordering the Earth: The Emergence of Geology as Scientific Discipline in Colonial India,” Earth Sciences History, 12 no. 2 (1993);

Paul Farber , The Emergence of Ornithology as a Scientific Discipline: 1760–1850 (Dordrecht: Reidel, 1982);

Sophie Forgan , “The Architecture of Display: Museums, Universities and Objects in Nineteenth-Century Britain,” History of Science, 32 (1994);

David Hull , Science as a Process: An Evolutionary Account of the Social and Conceptual Development of Science (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1988);

Sally G. Kohlstedt , “Essay Review: Museums: Revisiting Sites in the History of the Natural Sciences,” Journal of the History of Biology, 28 (1995);

Sally G. Kohlstedt , “Curiosities and Cabinets: Natural History Museums and Education on the Antebellum Campus,” Isis, 79 (1988).

Sally Gregory Kohlstedt , “Henry A. Ward: The Merchant Naturalist and American Museum Development,” Journal of the Society for the Bibliography of Natural History, 9 (1980).

P. A. Morris , “An Historical Review of Bird Taxidermy in Britain,” Archives of Natural History, 20 (1993).

John V. Pickstone , “Museological Science? The Place of the Analytical/Comparative in 19th-Century Science,” History of Science, 32 (1994).

Nicolaas A. Rupke , “The Road to Albertopolis: Richard Owen (1804–92) and the Founding of the British Museum of Natural History,” in Science, Politics and the Public Good: Essays in Honour of Margaret Gowing, ed. Nicolaas A. Rupke (London: Macmillan, 1988).

Barbara R. Stein , “Annie M. Alexander: Extraordinary Patron,” Journal of the History of Biology, 30 (1997);

Peter Stevens , “Haüy and A.-P. de Candolle: Crystallography, Botanical Systematics and Comparative Morphology, 1780–1840,” Journal of the History of Biology, 17 (1984).

Frank Sulloway , “Darwin’s Conversion: The Beagle Voyage and Its Aftermath,” Journal of the History of Biology, 15 (1982), at p. 356;

George Basalla , “The Spread of Western Science,” Science, 156 (1967).

Keith R. Benson , “Laboratories on the New England Shore: The ’Somewhat Different Direction’ of American Marine Biology,” New England Quarterly, 61 (1988).

Robert Kohler , “Labscapes: Naturalizing the Laboratory,” History of Science, 40 (2002).

John A. Moore , “Zoology of the Pacific Railroad Surveys,” American Zoologist, 26 (1986).

Mary Sears and D. Merriam , eds., Oceanography: The Past (New York: Springer, 1980);

C. O. Whitman , “Methods of Microscopical Research in the Zoological Station in Naples,” American Naturalist, 16 (1882)

Olga Amsterdamska , “Medical and Biological Constraints: Early Research on Variation in Bacteriology,” Social Studies of Science, 17 (1987);

John Beatty , “Evolutionary Antireductionism: Historical Reflections,” Biology and Philosophy, 5 (1990).

G. D. H. Bell , “Frank Leonard Engledow, 1890–1985,” Biographical Memoirs of Fellows of the Royal Society, 32 (1986).

Kathy Cooke , “From Science to Practice, or Practice to Science? Chickens and Eggs in Raymond Pearl’s Agricultural Breeding Research, 1907–1916,” Isis, 88 (1997).

Michael Dietrich , “Paradox and Persuasion: Negotiating the Place of Molecular Evolution within Evolutionary Biology,” Journal of the History of Biology, 31 (1998).

Jonathan Harwood , “National Styles in Science: Genetics in Germany and the United States between the World Wars,” Isis, 78 (1987);

Harmke Kamminga and Mark Weatherall , “The Making of a Biochemist I: Frederick Gowland Hopkins’ Construction of Dynamic Biochemistry,” Medical History, 40 (1996).

Robert Kohler , From Medical Chemistry to Biochemistry (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982);

Robert Kohler , “Science and Philanthropy: Wickliffe Rose and the International Education Board,” Minerva, 23 (1985).

Robert Olby , “Scientists and Bureaucrats in the Establishment of the John Innes Horticultural Institution under William Bateson,” Annals of Science, 46 (1989);

Paolo Palladino , “The Political Economy of Applied Research: Plant-Breeding in Great Britain, 1910–1940,” Minerva, 28 (1990)

Philip Pauly General Physiology and the Discipline of Physiology, 1890–1935,” in Physiology in the American Context, 1850–1940, ed. Gerald Geison (Bethesda, Md.: American Physiological Society, 1987);

Philip Pauly , “The Appearance of Academic Biology in Late 19th Century America,” Journal of the History of Biology, 17 (1984).

John V. Pickstone , “Science in Nineteenth-Century England: Plural Configurations and Singular Politics,” in The Organisation of Knowledge in Victorian Britain, ed. Martin Daunton (published for the British Academy by Oxford University Press, 2005).

Jan Sapp , “The Struggle for Authority in the Field of Heredity, 1900–1932,” Journal of the History of Biology, 16 (1983).

R. Steven Turner , “The Growth of Professorial Research in Prussia, 1818–1848: Causes and Context,” Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences, 3 (1971).

Steven Turner , E. Kerwin , and D. Woolwine , “Careers and Creativity in 19th Century Physiology: Zloczower Redux,” Isis, 75 (1984).

Keith Vernon , “Desperately Seeking Status: Evolutionary Systematics and the Taxonomist’s Search for Respectability, 1940–1960,” British Journal for the History of Science, 26 (1993).

Paul Weindling , “The Rockefeller Foundation and German Biomedical Sciences, 1920–1940: From Educational Philanthropy to International Science Policy,” in Science, Politics and the Public Good: Essays in Honour of Margaret Gowing, ed. N. Rupke (London: Macmillan, 1988);

Michael Aaron Dennis , “Drilling for Dollars: The Making of US Petroleum Reserve Estimates, 1921–25,” Social Studies of Science, 15 (1985).

S. F. Emmons , “Theories of Ore Deposition, Historically Considered,” Bulletin of the Geological Society of America, 15 (1904);

V. A. Eyles , “Abraham Gottlob Werner (1749–1817) and His Position in the History of the Mineralogical and Geological Sciences,” History of Science, 3 (1964).

L. C. Graton , “Ore Deposits,” in Geology, 1888–1938: Fiftieth Anniversary Volume (New York: Geological Society of America, 1941).

Martin Guntau , “The Emergence of Geology as a Scientific Discipline,” History of Science, 16 (1978), especially p. 281.

Owen Hannaway , “The German Model of Chemical Education in America, Ira Remsen at Johns Hopkins (1876–1913),” Ambix, 23 (1976);

Walter B. Hendrickson , “Nineteenth-Century State Geological Surveys: Early Government Support of Science,” Isis, 52 (1961).

William M. Jordan , “Application as Stimulus in Geology: Some Examples from the Early Years of the Geological Society of America,” in Geologists and Ideas: A History of North American Geology, ed. Ellen T. Drake and William M. Jordan (Boulder, Colo.: Geological Society of America, 1985);

Rachel Laudan , “Ideas and Organizations in British Geology: A Case Study in Institutional History,” Isis, 68 (1977).

John Law , “Fragmentation and Investment in Sedimentology,” Social Studies of Science, 10 (1980).

Keith L. Miller , “Edward Orton: Pioneer in Petroleum Geology,” Earth Sciences History, 12 (1993);

Kathleen H. Ochs , “The Rise of American Mining Engineers: A Case Study of the Colorado School of Mines,” Technology and Culture, 33 (1992).

Roy Porter , “Gentlemen and Geology: The Emergence of a Scientific Career, 1660–1920,” The Historical Journal, 21 (1978).

Theodore M. Porter , “The Promotion of Mining and the Advancement of Science: The Chemical Revolution and Mineralogy,” Annals of Science, 38 (1981);

Frederick Leslie Ransome , “The Present Standing of Applied Geology,” Economic Geology, 1 (1905).

Martin Rudwick , “Cuvier and Brongniart, William Smith, and the Reconstruction of Geohistory,” Earth Sciences History, 15 (1996).

Cecil J. Schneer , “Ebenezer Emmons and the Foundations of American Geology,” Isis, 60 (1969).

James A. Secord , “The Geological Survey of Great Britain as a Research School, 1839–1855,” History of Science, 24 (1986).

Hugh S. Torrens , “Arthur Aikin’s Mineralogical Survey of Shropshire 1796–1816 and the Contemporary Audience for Geological Publications,” British Journal for the History of Science, 16 (1983);

Stephen P. Turner , “The Survey in Nineteenth-Century American Geology: The Evolution of a Form of Patronage,” Minerva, 25 (1987).

Geoffrey Tweedale , “Geology and Industrial Consultancy: Sir William Boyd Dawkins (1837–1929) and the Kent Coalfield,” British Journal for the History of Science, 24 (1991).

Katherine D. Watson , “The Chemist as Expert: The Consulting Career of Sir William Ramsay,” Ambix, 42 (1995).

John J. Beer , “Coal Tar Dye Manufacture and the Origins of the Modern Industrial Research Laboratory,” Isis, 49 (1958).

E. E. Castilla et al., “Thalidomide, a Current Teratogen in South America,” Teratology: The Journal of Abnormal Development, 54 (1996);

Marcel Delépine , “Joseph Pelletier and Joseph Caventou,” trans. Ralph E. Oesper, Journal of Chemical Education, 28 (1951);

Harry F. Dowling , Fighting Infection (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1977).

John E. Lesch , “Conceptual Change in an Empirical Science: The Discovery of the First Alkaloids,” Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences, 11 (1981);

Jonathan Liebenau , Medical Science and Medical Industry: The Formation of the American Pharmaceutical Industry (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1987), p..

David Arnold , “The Discovery of Malnutrition and Diet in Colonial India,” Indian Economic and Social History Review, 31 (1994).

Peter Baldwin , Contagion and the State in Europe, 1830–1930 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999).

Virginia Berridge and Paul Strong , eds., AIDS and Contemporary History (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993);

Philip D. Curtin , Death by Migration: Europe’s Encounter with the Tropical World in the Nineteenth Century (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989).

Daniel M. Fox , Health Policies–Health Politics: The British and American Experience, 1911–1965 (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1986).

Anne Hardy , The Epidemic Streets: Infectious Disease and the Rise of Preventive Medicine, 1856–1900 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993).

Ann La Berge , Mission and Method: The Early French Public Health Movement (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992);

Katherine Ott , Fevered Lives: Tuberculosis in American Culture since 1870 (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1996).

John V. Pickstone , “Dearth, Dirt and Fever Epidemics: Rewriting the History of British ‘Public Health’, 1750–1850,” in Epidemics and Ideas: Essays on the Historical Perception of Pestilence, ed. Terence Ranger and Paul Slack (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992).

George Rosen , A History of Public Health (New York: MD Publications, 1958).

Paul Weindling , ed., International Health Organizations and Movements, 1918–1939 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995).

Michael Worboys , “The Comparative History of Sleeping Sickness in East and Central Africa, 1900–1914,” History of Science, 32 (1994).

Joe D. Burchfield , Lord Kelvin and the Age of the Earth (New York: Science History Publications, 1975)

Christopher Hamlin , “James Geikie, James Croll and the Eventful Ice Age,” Annals of Science, 39 (1982).

Martin J. S. Rudwick , Worlds before Adam: The Reconstruction of Geohistory in the Age of Reform (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2008);

Patrick Wyse-Jackson , The Chronologers’ Quest: The Search for the Age of the Earth (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006).

L. W. Alvarez , W. Alvarez , F. Asaro , and H. V. Michel , “Extraterrestrial Cause for the Cretaceous-Tertiary Extinction,” Science, 208 (1980);

William Coleman , Georges Cuvier, Zoologist: A Study in the History of Evolution Theory (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1964).

Philip D. Gingerich , “Paleontology and Phylogeny: Patterns of Evolution at the Species Level in Early Tertiary Mammals,” American Journal of Science, 276 (1976);

Stephen Jay Gould , “Is a New and General Theory of Evolution Emerging?Paleobiology, 6 (1980);

Stephen Jay Gould , “Is Uniformitarianism Necessary?American Journal of Science, 263 (1965);

Anthony Hallam , “End-Cretaceous Mass Extinction Event: Argument for Terrestrial Causation,” Science, 238 (1987);

Anthony Hoffman , “Mass Extinctions: The View of a Sceptic,” Journal of the Geological Society, London, 146 (1989);

David Jablonski , “Background and Mass Extinctions: The Alternation of Macroevolutionary Regimes,” Science, 231 (1986);

Rachel Laudan , From Mineralogy to Geology: The Foundations of a Science, 1650–1830 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987).

Norman D. Newell , “Infraspecific Categories in Invertebrate Paleontology,” Evolution, 1 (1947);

Norman D. Newell , “Paleobiology’s Golden Age,” Palaios, 2 (1987).

Ronald Rainger , “Everett C. Olson and the Development of Vertebrate Paleoecology and Taphonomy,” Archives of Natural History, 24 (1997);

David M. Raup and R. E. Crick , “Evolution of Single Characters in the Jurassic Ammonite Kosmoceras,” Paleobiology, 7 (1981).

David M. Raup and J. J. Sepkoski , Jr., “Periodicity of Mass Extinctions in the Geological Past,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 81 (1984);

Rudwick , Bursting the Limits of Time: The Reconstruction of Geohistory in the Age of Revolution (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2005).

Martin J. S. Rudwick , The Great Devonian Controversy: The Shaping of Science among Gentlemanly Specialists (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1985);

Cecil J. Schneer , “The Great Taconic Controversy,” Isis, 69 (1978);

R. E. Sloan , J. K. Rigby , L. M. Van Valen , and D. Gabriel , “Gradual Dinosaur Extinction and Simultaneous Ungulate Radiation in the Hell Creek Formation,” Science, 232 (1986).

Steven W. Stanley , “A Theory of Evolution Above the Species Level,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 72 (1975);

Susan Leigh Star and James R. Griesemer , “Institutional Ecology, “Translations’ and Boundary Objects: Amateurs and Professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907–39,” Social Studies of Science, 19 (1989);

Michael Bartholomew , “Huxley’s Defence of Darwinism,” Annals of Science, 32 (1975);

Joseph Caron , “‘Biology’ and the Life Sciences: A Historiographical Contribution,” History of Science, 26 (1988).

W. Coleman , “Morphology and the Evolutionary Synthesis,” in The Evolutionary Synthesis, ed. E. Mayr and W. Provine (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1980);

C. Darwin , The Formation of Vegetable Mould, Through the Action of Worms, with Observations on their Habits (London: John Murray, 1881).

M. A. Di Gregorio , “A Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing: Carl Gegenbaur, Ernst Haeckel, the Vertebral Theory of the Skull, and the Survival of Richard Owen,” Journal of the History of Biology, 28 (1995).

Theodor Heuss , Anton Dohrn: A Life for Science (New York: Springer, 1991).

E. Krausse , Ernst Haeckel (Leipzig: Teubner, 1987);

W. S. Macleay , Horae Entomologicae (London: S. Bagster, 1819).

Gordon R. McOuat , “Species, Rules and Meaning: The Politics of Language and the Ends of Definitions in 19th-Century Natural History,” Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science, 27 (1996);

St. G. Mivart , On the Genesis of Species (London: Macmillan, 1871);

M. P. Winsor , Reading the Shape of Nature (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1991);

F. O. Bower , “English and German Botany in the Middle and Towards the End of Last Century,” The New Phytologist, 24 (1925);

Joel B. Hagen , “Experimentalists and Naturalists in Twentieth-Century Botany: Experimental Taxonomy, 1920–1950,” Journal of the History of Biology, 17 (1984);

Barbara A. Kimmelman , “Organisms and Interests in Scientific Research: R. A. Emerson’s Claims for the Unique Contributions of Agricultural Genetics,” in The Right Tools for the Job: At Work in Twentieth-Century Life Sciences, ed. Adele E. Clarke and Joan H. Fujimura (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1992).

Gary J. Martin , Ethnobotany: A Methods Manual (London: Chapman and Hall, 1995).

Robert P. McIntosh , The Background of Ecology: Concept and Theory (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985);

Malcolm Nicolson , “Humboldtian Plant Geography after Humboldt: The Link to Ecology,” British Journal for the History of Science, 29 (1996);

Paolo Palladino , “Between Craft and Science: Plant Breeding, Mendelian Genetics, and British Universities, 1900–1920,” Technology and Culture, 34 (1993);

Paolo Palladino , “Science, Technology, and the Economy: Plant Breeding in Great Britain, 1920–1970,” Economic History Review, 49 (1996);

Vassiliki Betty Smocovitis , “G. Ledyard Stebbins, Jr. and the Evolutionary Synthesis (1924–1950),” American Journal of Botany, 84 (1997).

W. T. Thiselton-Dyer , “Plant Biology in the ’Seventies,” Nature, 115 (1925).

S. H. Vines , “Reminiscences of German Botanical Laboratories in the ’Seventies and ἘEighties of the Last Century” and D. H. Scott , “German Reminiscences of the Early ἘEighties,” The New Phytologist, 24 (1925).

S. M. Walters , The Shaping of Cambridge Botany (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981);

Mark B. Adams , ed., The Evolution of Theodosius Dobzhansky (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1994).

Michael Bartholomew , “Lyell and Evolution: An Account of Lyell’s Response to the Prospect of an Evolutionary Ancestry for Man,” British Journal for the History of Science, 6 (1973).

Richard W. Burkhardt , Jr., The Spirit of System: Lamarck and Evolutionary Biology (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1977).

Jonathan Hodge and Gregory Radick , eds., The Cambridge Companion to Darwin (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003, 2nd edition in press).

M. J. S. Hodge , “Lamarck’s Science of Living Bodies,” British Journal for the History of Science, 5 (1971);

M. J. S. Hodge , “The Universal Gestation of Nature: Chambers’ Vestiges and Explanations,” Journal of the History of Biology, 5 (1972).

Ernst Mayr and William B. Provine , eds., The Evolutionary Synthesis: Perspectives on the Unification of Biology (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1980);

Robert J. Richards , The Romantic Conception of Life: Science and Philosophy in the Age of Goethe (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2002).

Martin J. S. Rudwick , Georges Cuvier, Fossil Bones and Geological Catastrophes (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1997).

Erwin H. Ackerknecht , “The History of the Discovery of the Vegetative (Autonomic) Nervous System,” Medical History, 18 (1974).

Marina Bentivoglio and Paolo Mazzarello , “The Pathway to the Cell and Its Organelles: One Hundred Years of the Golgi Apparatus,” Endeavour, 22 (1998).

Brian Bracegirdle , “J. J. Lister and the Establishment of Histology,” Medical History, 21 (1977);

Robin Craw , “Margins of Cladistics: Identity, Difference and Place in the Emergence of Phylogenetic Systematics, 1864–1975,” in Trees of Life: Essays in Philosophy of Biology, ed. Paul Griffiths (Dordrecht: Kluwer, 1992).

Andrew Cunningham , “The Pen and the Sword: Recovering the Disciplinary Identity of Physiology and Anatomy before 1800. I: Old Physiology – the Pen,” Studies in the History and Philosophy of Biology and Biomedical Sciences, 33 (2002),

Christian de Duve and Henri Beaufay , “A Short History of Tissue Fractionation,” Journal of Cell Biology, 91 (1981).

Joseph Felsenstein , “The Troubled Growth of Statistical Phylogenetics,” Systematic Biology, 50 (2001);

John M. Forrester , “The Homoeomerous Parts and Their Replacement by Bichat’s Tissues,” Medical History, 38 (1994).

Patricia P. Gossel , “A Need for Standard Methods: The Case of American Bacteriology,” in The Right Tools for the Job, ed. Adele E. Clarke and Joan H. Fujimura (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1992), 151–71, 287–311, respectively.

Jean-Pierre Gourret , “Modelling the Mitotic Apparatus: From the Discovery of the Bipolar Spindle to Modern Concepts,” Acta Biotheoretica, 43 (1995).

L. Stephen Jacyna , “Moral Fibre: The Negotiation of Microscopic Facts in Victorian Britain,” Journal of the History of Biology, 36 (2003).

Edward G. Jones , “Golgi, Cajal and the Neuron Doctrine,” Journal of the History of the Neurosciences, 8 (1999);

Hannah Landecker , “New Times for Biology: Nerve Cultures and the Advent of Cellular Life in Vitro,” Studies in the History and Philosophy of the Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 33 (2002).

Harold M. Malkin , “Rudolf Virchow and the Durability of Cellular Pathology,” Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, 33 (1990).

E. W. Myers et al., “A Whole-Genome Assembly of Drosophila,” Science, 287 (2000).

Ennio Pannese , “The Golgi Stain: Invention, Diffusion and Impact on Neurosciences,” Journal of the History of the Neurosciences, 8 (1999).

Daniel C. Pease and Keith R. Porter , “Electron Microscopy and Ultramicrotomy,” Journal of Cell Biology, 91 (1981);

Nicolas Rasmussen , “Mitochondrial Structure and Cell Biology in the 1950s,” Journal of the History of Biology, 28 (1995);

Marsha Richmond , “T. H. Huxley’s Criticism of German Cell Theory: An Epigenetic and Physiological Interpretation of Cell Structure,” Journal of the History of Biology, 33 (2000).

Marsha L. Richmond , “British Cell Theory on the Eve of Genetics,” Endeavour, 25 (2001);

Pio Del Rio-Hortega , “Art and Artifice in the Science of Histology” (trans. William C. Gibson from a 1933 paper), Histopathology, 22 (1993).

Nathan Rosenberg , “Technological Change in the Machine Tool Industry, 1840–1910,” Journal of Economic History, 23 (1963), 426, 429–32.

Jan Sapp , “The Prokaryote–Eukaryote Dichotomy: Meanings and Mythology,” Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews, 69 (2005).

John O. Westwood , Arcana Entomologica; or, Illustrations of New, Rare, and Interesting Insects (London: W. Smith, 1845);

Rasmus G. Winther , “August Weismann on Germ-Plasm Variation,” Journal of the History of Biology, 34 (2001).

Jan A. Witkowski , “Alexis Carrel and the Mysticism of Tissue Culture,” Medical History, 23 (1979);

Jan A. Witkowski , “Dr. Carrel’s Immortal Cells,” Medical History, 24 (1980).

Soraya de Chadarevian , “Of Worms and Programmes: Caenorhabditis elegans and the Study of Development,” Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 29 (1998);

Peter E. Fäßler , Hans Spemann, 1869–1941: Experimentelle Forschung im Spannungsfeld von Empirie und Theorie. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Entwicklungsphysiologie zu Beginn des 20. Jahrhunderts (Berlin: Springer, 1997).

Sarah Franklin , Embodied Progress: A Cultural Account of Assisted Conception (London: Routledge, 1997);

Scott F. Gilbert , John M. Opitz , and Rudolf A. Raff , “Resynthesizing Evolutionary and Developmental Biology,” Developmental Biology, 173 (1996).

Scott F. Gilbert , “Enzymatic Adaptation and the Entrance of Molecular Biology into Embryology,” in The Philosophy and History of Molecular Biology: New Perspectives, ed. Sahotra Sarkar , Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, vol. 183 (Dordrecht: Kluwer, 1996), 101–23.

Nick Hopwood , “Producing Development: The Anatomy of Human Embryos and the Norms of Wilhelm His,” Bulletin of the History of Medicine, 74 (2000).

Nick Hopwood , “Pictures of Evolution and Charges of Fraud: Ernst Haeckel’s Embryological Illustrations,” Isis, 97 (2006).

Nick Hopwood , “Visual Standards and Disciplinary Change: Normal Plates, Tables and Stages in Embryology,” History of Science, 43 (2005), especially p. 244.

Nick Hopwood , “Biology between University and Proletariat: The Making of a Red Professor,” History of Science, 35 (1997).

Evelyn Fox Keller , “Drosophila Embryos as Transitional Objects: The Work of Donald Poulson and Christiane Nüsslein-Volhard,” Historical Studies in the Physical and Biological Sciences, 26 (1996).

Michael Mulkay , The Embryo Research Debate: Science and the Politics of Reproduction (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997).

Ronan O’Rahilly , “One Hundred Years of Human Embryology,” Issues and Reviews in Teratology, 4 (1988), at p. 93;

Jane M. Oppenheimer , “The Growth and Development of Developmental Biology,” in Major Problems in Developmental Biology, ed. Michael Locke , Symposia of the Society for Developmental Biology, vol. 25 (New York: Academic Press, 1966);

Robert J. Richards , The Meaning of Evolution: The Morphological Construction and Ideological Reconstruction of Darwin’s Theory (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992).

Shirley A. Roe , “The Life Sciences,” in The Cambridge History of Science, vol. 4: Eighteenth-Century Science, ed. Roy Porter (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003);

E. S. Russell , Form and Function: A Contribution to the History of Animal Morphology (London: John Murray, 1916);

Klaus Sander , “An American in Paris and the Origins of the Stereomicroscope,” Roux’s Archives of Developmental Biology, 203 (1994).

Stéphane Schmitt , “From Eggs to Fossils: Epigenesis and the Transformation of Species in Pander’s Biology,” International Journal of Developmental Biology, 49 (2005).

Cornelie Usborne , “Rhetoric and Resistance: Rationalization of Reproduction in Weimar Germany,” Social Politics, 4 (1997), at pp. 80–1.

Pnina Abir-Am , “The Discourse of Physical Power and Biological Knowledge in the 1930s: A Reappraisal of the Rockefeller Foundation’s Policy in Molecular Biology,” Social Studies of Science, 12 (1982);

Pnina Abir-Am , “From Multi-disciplinary Collaboration to Transnational Objectivity: International Space as Constitutive of Molecular Biology, 1930–1970,” in Denationalizing Science: The International Context of Scientific Practice, ed. E. Crawford , T. Shinn , and S. Sorlin (Dordrecht: Kluwer, 1993).

Olga Amsterdamska , “Stabilizing Instability: The Controversies over Cyclogenic Theories of Bacterial Variation during the Interwar Period,” Journal of the History of Biology, 24 (1991);

Olga Amsterdamska , “From Pneumonia to DNA: The Research Career of Oswald T. Avery,” Historical Studies in Physical and Biological Sciences, 24 (1993);

K. Codell Carter , “Ignaz Semmelweis, Carl Mayrhoffer, and the Rise of Germ Theory,” Medical History, 29 (1985).

K. Codell Carter , “Koch’s Postulates in Relation to the Work of Jacob Henle and Edwin Klebs,” Medical History, 29 (1985).

Frederick B. Churchill , “The Guts of the Matter – Infusoria from Ehrenberg to Bütschli: 1838–1876,” Journal of the History of Biology, 22 (1989).

James Bryant Conant , “Pasteur’s Study of Fermentation,” in Harvard Case Histories in Experimental Science (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1957), vol. 2.

Anna Greenwood , “Lawson Tait and Opposition to Germ Theory: Defining Science in Surgical Practice,” Journal of the History of Medicine and the Allied Sciences, 53 (1998);

Anne Hardy , “On the Cusp: Epidemiology and Bacteriology at the Local Government Board, 1890–1905,” Medical History, 42 (1998);

Natasha X. Jacobs , “From Unit to Unity: Protozoology, Cell Theory, and the New Concept of Life,” Journal of the History of Biology, 22 (1989).

Lily E. Kay , “Conceptual Models and Analytical Tools: The Biology of Physicist Max Delbrück,” Journal of the History of Biology, 18 (1985);

R. E. Kohler , “The Management of Science: The Experience of Warren Weaver and the Rockefeller Foundation Program in Molecular Biology,” Minerva, 14 (1976);

Robert E. Kohler , “The Background to Edouard Buchner’s Discovery of Cell-Free Fermentation,” Journal of the History of Biology, 4 (1971).

Robert E. Kohler , “Systems of Production: Drosophila, Neurospora, and Biochemical Genetics,” Historical Studies in the Physical and Biological Sciences, 22 (1991);

Ilana Löwy , “From Guinea Pigs to Man: The Development of Haffkine’s Anticholera Vaccine,” Journal of the History of Medicine and the Allied Sciences, 47 (1992).

Ilana Löwy , “On Hybridizations, Networks, and New Disciplines: The Pasteur Institute and the Development of Microbiology in France,” Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science, 25 (1994), at p. 670.

Joshua Lederberg , “Forty Years of Genetic Recombination in Bacteria,” Nature, 324 (1986);

Joshua Lederberg , “Genetic Recombination in Bacteria: A Discovery Account,” Annual Review of Genetics, 21 (1987).

Russell Maulitz , “Pathologists, Clinicians, and the Role of Pathophysiology,” in Physiology in the American Context, 1850–1940, ed. Gerald Geison (Bethesda, Md.: American Physiological Society, 1987).

Marsha Richmond , “Protozoa as Precursors of Metazoa: German Cell Theory and Its Critics at the Turn of the Century,” Journal of the History of Biology, 22 (1989).

Terrie M. Romano , “The Cattle Plague of 1865 and the Reception of ‘The Germ Theory’ in Mid-Victorian Britain,” Journal of the History of Medicine and the Allied Sciences, 52 (1997).

James Strick , “Swimming against the Tide: Adrianus Pijper and the Debate over Bacterial Flagella, 1946–1956,” Isis, 87 (1996).

William Summers , “From Culture as Organism to Organism as Cell: Historical Origins of Bacterial Genetics,” Journal of the History of Biology, 24 (1991).

Bert Theunissen , “The Beginnings of the ‘Delft Tradition’; Revisited: Martinus W. Beijerinck and the Genetics of Microorganisms,” Journal of the History of Biology, 29 (1996).

Nancy J. Tomes and John Harley Warner , “Introduction to Special Issue on Rethinking the Reception of the Germ Theory of Disease: Comparative Perspectives,” Journal of the History of Medicine and Allied Sciences, 52 (1997);

Nancy J. Tomes , “American Attitudes towards the Germ Theory of Disease: Phyllis Allen Richmond Revisited,” Journal of the History of Medicine and the Allied Sciences, 52 (1997).

G. van Iterson , L. E. den Dooren de Jong , and A. J. Kluyver , Martinus Willem Beijerinck: His Life and Work (orig., 1940; repr. Ann Arbor, Mich.: Science Tech, 1983).

Michael Worboys , “The Emergence of Tropical Medicine,” in Perspectives on the Emergence of Scientific Disciplines, ed. Gerald Lemaine et al. (The Hague: Mouton, 1976).

Pnina Abir-Am , “Themes, Genres and Orders of Legitimation in the Consolidation of New Scientific Disciplines: Deconstructing the Historiography of Molecular Biology,” History of Science, 23 (1985);

Toby A. Appel , “Physiology in American Women’s Colleges: The Rise and Decline of a Female Subculture,” Isis, 85 (1994);

Joseph Ben-David , “Scientific Productivity and Academic Organization in Nineteenth-Century Medicine,” American Sociological Review, 25 (1960);

Mario Biagioli , “The Scientific Revolution Is Undead,” Configurations, 6 (1998).

Craig Buettinger , “Women and Antivivisection in Late 19th-Century America,” Journal of Social History, 30 (1997).

Alan C. Burton , “Variety – the Spice of Science as Well as Life: The Disadvantages of Specialization,” Annual Review of Physiology, 37 (1975).

Stella V. F. Butler , “Centers and Peripheries: The Development of British Physiology, 1870–1914,” Journal of the History of Biology, 21 (1988),

Carleton B. Chapman , “The Long Reach of Harvard’s Fatigue Laboratory, 1926–1947,” Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, 34 (1990);

Lindley Darden and Nancy Maull , “Interfield Theories,” Philosophy of Science, 44 (1977);

John C. Eccles , Sherrington (Berlin: Springer, 1979);

Gerald L. Geison , ed., Physiology in the American Context, 1850–1940 (Bethesda, Md.: American Physiological Society, 1987),

R. W. Gerard , Mirror to Physiology: A Self-Survey of Physiological Science (Washington, D.C.: American Physiological Society, 1958), p..

Marjorie Grene , “The Philosophy of Science of Georges Canguilhem,” Revue d’histoire des sciences, 53 (2000);

Caspar Grond-Ginsbach , “Georges Canguilhem als Medizinhistoriker,” Berichte zur Wissenschaftsgeschichte, 19 (1996);

Frederic L. Holmes , “Elementary Analysis and the Origins of Physiological Chemistry,” Isis, 54 (1963).

Frederic L. Holmes , Claude Bernard and Animal Chemistry (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1974);

Harry Lustig , “To Advance and Diffuse the Knowledge of Physics: An Account of the One-Hundred-Year History of the American Physical Society,” American Journal of Physics, 68 (2000);

John V. Pickstone , “Bureaucracy, Liberalism and the Body in Post-Revolutionary France: Bichat’s Physiology and the Paris School of Medicine,” History of Science, 19 (1981);

Stewart Richards , “Drawing the Life-blood of Physiology: Vivisection and the Physiologists’ Dilemma, 1870–1900,” Annals of Science, 43 (1986).

Karl E. Rothschuh Geschichte der Physiologie (Berlin: Springer, 1953),

Claire Salomon-Bayet , “Bacteriology and Nobel Prize Selections, 1901–20,” in Science, Technology, and Society in the Time of Alfred Nobel, ed. Carl Gustav Bernhard , Elisabeth Crawford , and Per Sörbom (Oxford: Pergamon Press, 1982).

Joseph Schiller , “Physiology’s Struggle for Independence in the First Half of the Nineteenth Century,” History of Science, 7 (1968).

John Harley Warner , “Ideals of Science and Their Discontents in Late 19th-Century American Medicine,” Isis, 82 (1991);

Erwin H Ackerknecht , “Zum 100. Geburtstag von Virchows ‘Cellularpathologie’: ein Rückblick,” Virchows Archiv, 332 (1959).

Jules Berman , “Tumor Classification: Molecular Analysis Meets Aristotle,” BMC Cancer, 4 (2004). Electronic version accessible at

C. H. Browning , “Pathology in Britain in the First Half of the Twentieth Century, with a Glance Forward,” British Medical Journal, no. 561 (August 5, 1967).

Elliott Foucar , “The Breast Cancer Wars: Hope, Fear, and the Pursuit of a Cure in Twentieth-Century America,” American Journal of Surgical Pathology, 27, no. 3 (March 2003).

Jack Hasson , “Medical Fallibility and the Autopsy in the USA,” Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 3 (1997).

K. J. Hillan and P. Quirke , “Preface to Genomic Pathology: A New Frontier,” Journal of Pathology, 195, no. 1 (September 2001).

Russell Maulitz , “Review of Cay-Rüdiger Prüll, Traditions of Pathology in Western Europe: Theories, Institutions and Their Cultural Setting (Herbolzheim: Centaurus, 2003),” Bulletin of the History of Medicine, 79 (2005).

Russell Maulitz , “In the Clinic: Framing Disease at the Paris Hospital,” Annals of Science, 47 (1990);

Julie Parsonnet and Peter Isaacson , “Bacterial Infection and MALT Lymphoma,” New England Journal of Medicine, 350 (2004).

Brad Randall , “Survey of Forensic Pathologists,” American Journal of Forensic Medicine and Pathology, 22 (2001).

Adrian Wilson , “On the History of Disease-Concepts: The Case of Pleurisy,” History of Science, 38 (2000).

Adrian Wilson , “Porter versus Foucault on the ‘Birth of the Clinic’,” in De Omni Scribili: Essays in Memory of Roy Porter, ed. Roberta Bivins and John V. Pickstone (Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2007).

Henry Frankel , “The Career of Continental Drift Theory: An Application of Imre Lakatos’ Analysis of Scientific Growth and Change to the Rise of Drift Theory,” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 10 (1979);

Henry Frankel , “The Paleobiogeographical Debate over the Problem of Disjunctively Distributed Life Forms,” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 12 (1981);

Henry Frankel , “The Development, Reception, and Acceptance of the Vine-Matthews-Morley Hypothesis,” Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences, 13 (1982).

Henry Frankel , “Arthur Holmes and Continental Drift,” British Journal for the History of Science, 11 (1978);

Henry Frankel , “Jan Hospers and the Rise of Paleomagnetism,” EOS: Transactions of the American Geophysical Union, 68 (1987).

Henry Frankel , “Hess’s Development of his Seafloor Spreading Hypothesis,” in Scientific Discovery: Case Studies, ed. Thomas Nickles , Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, vol. 60 (Dordrecht: Reidel, 1980).

Henry Frankel , “The Development of Plate Tectonics by J. Morgan and D. McKenzie,” Terra Nova, 2 (1990).

Johannes Georgi , “Memories of Alfred Wegener,” in Continental Drift, ed. S. K. Runcorn (London: Academic Press, 1962).

Anthony Hallam , “Shift in Theories,” Nature, 345 (1990);

Edward Irving , “The Paleomagnetic Confirmation of Continental Drift,” EOS: Transactions of the American Geophysical Union, 69 (1988).

H. W. Menard , The Ocean of Truth: A Personal History of Global Tectonics (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1986);

Joseph Barrell , “The Strength of the Earth’s Crust,” Journal of Geology, 22 (1914);

Hugo Benioff , “Orogenesis and Deep Crustal Structure – Additional Evidence from Seismology,” Bulletin of the Geological Society of America, 65 (1954).

Norman L. Bowen , “The Reaction Principle in Petrogenesis,” Journal of Geology, 30 (1922).

Charles V. Boys , “On the Newtonian Constant of Gravitation,” Philosophical Transactions, Series A, 186 (1895);

Bernard Brunhes , “Recherches sur la Direction d’Aimantation des Roches Volcaniques,” Journal de Physique Théorique et Appliquée, 5 (1906).

Stephen G. Brush , “Nineteenth-Century Debates about the Inside of the Earth,” Annals of Science, 36 (1979).

Stephen Brush , “Discovery of the Earth’s Core,” American Journal of Physics, 48 (1980).

Edward C. Bullard , “The Magnetic Field within the Earth,” Proceedings of the Royal Society, Series A, 197 (1949).

John Cawood , “The Magnetic Crusade: Science and Politics in Early Victorian Britain,” Isis, 70 (1979);

Walter M. Elsasser , “The Earth’s Interior and Geomagnetism,” Review of Modern Physics, 22 (1950);

Walter M. Elsasser , “The Earth as a Dynamo,” Scientific American, 198 (May 1958);

G. D. Garland , “The Contributions of Carl Friedrich Gauss to Geomagnetism,” Historia Mathematica, 6 (1979).

Robert M. Garrels and Abraham Lerman , “Coupling of Sedimentary Sulfur and Carbon Cycles – An Improved Model,” American Journal of Science, 284 (1984).

Captain Henry Kater , “An Account of Experiments for Determining the Length of the Pendulum Vibrating Seconds in the Latitude of London,” Philosophical Transactions, 108 (1818);

L. Kellner , “Alexander von Humboldt and the Organization of International Collaboration in Geophysical Research,” Contemporary Physics, 1 (1959).

A. A. Manten , “Historical Foundations of Chemical Geology and Geochemistry,” Chemical Geology, 1 (1966);

Nevil Maskelyne , “An Account of Observations Made on the Mountain of Schiehallion for Finding Its Attraction,” Philosophical Transactions, 65 (1775);

David P. Miller , “The Revival of the Physical Sciences in Britain, 1815–1840,” Osiris, 2 (1986).

Richard D. Oldham , “The Constitution of the Earth as Revealed by Earthquakes,” Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society, 62 (1906).

Jack Oliver , Shocks and Rocks: Seismology in the Plate Tectonics Revolution (Washington, D.C.: American Geophysical Union, 1996).

Paul N. Pearson , “Charles Darwin on the Origin and Diversity of Igneous Rocks,” Earth Sciences History, 15 (1996).

Arthur Schuster , “The Diurnal Variation of Terrestrial Magnetism,” Philosophical Transactions, Series A, 180 (1889);

R. D. Wyckoff , “The Gulf Gravimeter,” Geophysics, 6 (1941).

Hatten S. Yoder , “Development and Promotion of the Initial Scientific Program for the Geophysical Laboratory,” in The Earth, the Heavens and the Carnegie Institution of Washington, ed. Gregory Good (Washington, D.C.: American Geophysical Union, 1994).

M. A. Arbib , “Visuomotor Coordination: Neural Models and Perceptual Robotics,” in Visuomotor Coordination: Amphibians, Comparisons, Models, and Robots, ed. J. P. Ewert and M. A. Arbib (Kassel: Plenum Press, 1989), at p. 125.

P. J. Bowler , “Malthus, Darwin, and the Concept of Struggle,” Journal of the History of Ideas, 37 (1976), for an analysis of this problem.

Paola Cerrai , Paolo Feruglia , and Claudio Pellegrini , eds., The Application of Mathematical Models to Nature: Critical Moments and Aspects (New York: Kluwer/Plenum, 2002).

D. L. DeAngelis and L. J. Grows , eds., Individual-Based Models and Approaches in Ecology (New York: Routledge, 1992);

A. L. Hodgkin and A. F. Huxley , “A Quantitative Description of Membrane Current and Its Application to Conduction and Excitation in Nerve,” Journal of Physiology, 117 (1952).

G. Israel , “The Emergence of Biomathematics and the Case of Population Dynamics: A Revival of Mechanical Reductionism and Darwinism,” Science in Context, 6 (1993);

B. Jones , W. Sterner , and J. Schank , “Biota: An Object-Oriented Tool for Modeling Complex Ecological Systems,” Mathematical and Computer Modeling, 20 (1994);

O. P. Judson , “The Rise of the Individual-Based Models in Ecology,” Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 9 (1994).

S. A. Kauffman , “Articulation of Parts Explanation in Biology and the Rational Search for Them,” in PSA 1970, ed. R. C. Buck and R. S. Cohen , Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, vol. 8 (Dordrecht: Reidel, 1971).

M. L. Lee and D. Loschky , “Malthusian Population Oscillations,” The Economic Journal, 97 (1987).

Eileen Magnello , “The Non-correlation of Biometrics and Eugenics,” History of Science, 37 (1999), 123–150.

W. S. McCulloch and W. H. Pitts , “A Logical Calculus of the Ideas Immanent in Nervous Activity,” Bulletin of Mathematical Biophysics, 5 (1943).

Everett Mendelsohn , “Physical Models and Physiological Concepts: Explanation in Nineteenth-Century Biology,” British Journal for the History of Science, 2 (1965).

Paolo Palladino , “Defining Ecology: Ecological Theories, Mathematical Models, and Applied Biology in the 1960s and 1970s,” Journal of the History of Biology, 24 (1991).

S. Sarkar , The Founders of Evolutionary Genetics (Dordrecht: Kluwer, 1992).

J. R. Stone , “The Evolution of Ideas: A Phylogeny of Shell Models,” American Naturalist, 148 (1996);

G. B. West , J. H. Brown , and B. J. Enquist , “A General Model for the Origin of Allometric Scaling Laws in Biology,” Science, 276 (1997).

J. S. Wilkie , “Galton’s Contribution to the Theory of Evolution, with Special Reference to His Use of Models and Metaphors,” Annals of Science, 11 (1955).

Alice Baxter and John Farley , “Mendel and Meiosis,” Journal of the History of Biology, 12 (1979).

George W. Beadle and Edward L. Tatum , “Genetic Control of Biochemical Reactions in Neurospora,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 27 (1941);

Jean Brachet , “The Localization and the Role of Ribonucleic Acid in the Cell,” New York Academy of Sciences, 50 (1950).

Richard M. Burian , Jean Gayon , and Doris Zallen , “The Singular Fate of Genetics in the History of French Biology, 1900–1940,” Journal of the History of Biology, 21 (1988);

Richard M. Burian and Jean Gayon , “The French School of Genetics: From Physiological and Population Genetics to Regulatory Molecular Genetics,” Annual Review of Genetics, 33 (1999);

Alan G. Cock , “William Bateson, Mendelism, and Biometry,” Journal of the History of Biology, 6 (1973);

Alfred D. Hershey and Martha Chase , “Independent Functions of Viral Protein and Nucleic Acid in Growth of Bacteriophage,” Journal of General Physiology, 36 (1952).

François Jacob and Jacques L. Monod , “Genetic Regulatory Mechanisms in the Synthesis of Proteins,” Journal of Molecular Biology, 3 (1961);

François Jacob and Jacques L. Monod , “On the Regulation of Gene Activity: β-galactosidase Formation in E. coli,” Cold Spring Harbor Symposia on Quantitative Biology, 26 (1961).

Lily Kay , “Selling Pure Science in Wartime: The Biochemical Genetics of G. W. Beadle,” Journal of the History of Biology, 22 (1989).

Barbara A. Kimmelman , “The American Breeder’s Association: Genetics and Eugenics in an Agricultural Context, 1903–13,” Social Studies of Science, 13 (1983);

Thomas Hunt Morgan , “Random Segregation versus Coupling in Mendelian Inheritance,” Science, 34 (1911);

Thomas Hunt Morgan , Alfred H. Sturtevant , Hermann J. Muller , and Calvin B. Bridges , The Mechanism of Mendelian Heredity (New York: Henry Holt, 1915, rev. ed., 1922).

Hermann J. Muller , “Artificial Transmutation of the Gene,” Science, 66 (1927).

Hermann J. Muller , “Variation Due to Change in the Individual Gene,” American Naturalist, 56 (1922).

Hermann J. Muller , “The Gene,” Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 134 (1947).

Marshall W. Nirenberg and J. Heinrich Matthei , “The Dependence of Cell-Free Protein Synthesis in E. coli upon Naturally Occurring or Synthetic Polyribonucleotides,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 47 (1961).

Hans-Jörg Rheinberger , “Experimental Complexity in Biology: Some Epistemological and Historical Remarks,” Philosophy of Science, 64 (suppl.) (1997).

Lewis John Stadler , “The Gene,” Science, 120 (1954).

Alfred H. Sturtevant , “The Linear Arrangement of Six Sex-Linked Factors in Drosophila, as Shown by Their Mode of Association,” Journal of Experimental Zoology, 14 (1913).

Walter S. Sutton , “The Chromosomes in Heredity,” Biological Bulletin, 4 (1903).

Doris T. Zallen , “From Butterflies to Blood: Human Genetics in the United Kingdom,” in The Practices of Human Genetics, ed. Michael Fortun and Everett Mendelsohn (Dordrecht: Kluwer, 1999).

Conway Zirkle , “The Early History of the Inheritance of Acquired Characters and of Pangenesis,” Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, n.s., 35 (1946).

Frederic Edward Clements , Research Methods in Ecology (Lincoln, Neb.: The University Publishing Co., 1905), p..

Frederic Edward Clements , Plant Succession: An Analysis of the Development of Vegetation (Washington, D.C.: Carnegie Institution, 1916), p..

Henry Chandler Cowles , “The Physiographic Ecology of Chicago and Vicinity; a Study of the Origin, Development, and Classification of Plant-Societies,” Botanical Gazette, 31, no. 2 (1901), 145–82, at p. 79.

Alistair Cameron Crombie , “Interspecific Competition,” Journal of Animal Ecology, 16, no. 1 (1947).

Francis C. Evans , “Ecosystem as the Basic Unit in Ecology,” Science, 123 (1956).

François-Alphonse Forel , Le Léman, Monographie Limnologique, 3 vols. (Lausanne: F. Rouge, 18921901; Geneva: Slatkine Reprints, 1969), vol. 3, 367 (translated by Pascal Acot).

K. Friederichs , “Grundzätzliches Über die lebenseinheiten hörerer Ordnung und der ökologischer Einheitsfaktor,” Die Naturwissenschaften, 15 (1927), 182–6;

G. F. Gause , “Experimental Analysis of Vito Volterra’s Mathematical Theory of the Struggle for Existence,” Science, 79, no. 2036 (1934).

G. E. Hutchinson , “The Biosphere,” Scientific American, 223 (1970), at p. 53.

Chancey Juday , “Annual Energy Budget of an Inland Lake,” Ecology, 21, no. 4 (1940).

R. L. Lindeman , “The Trophic-Dynamic Aspect of Ecology,” Ecology, 23 (1942), at pp. 415.

Raymond L. Lindeman , “Seasonal Food-Cycle Dynamics in a Senescent Lake,” The American Midland Naturalist, 26 (1941), at pp. 637–8.

Jack Major , “Historical Development of the Ecosystem Concept,” in The Ecosystem Concept in Natural Resource Management, ed. G. M. Van Dyne (New York: Academic Press, 1969).

John F. V. Phillips , “Succession, Development, the Climax, and the Complex Organism: An Analysis of Concepts,” Journal of Ecology, 22 (1934); 23 (1935), 210–46, 488–508.

Nicholas Polunin and Jacques Grinevald , “Vernadsky and Biospheral Ecology,” Environmental Conservation, 15, no. 2 (1988).

Victor Elmer Shelford , “Principles and Problems of Ecology as Illustrated by Animals,” Journal of Ecology, 3, no. 1 (1915), at p. 2.

Arthur George Tansley , “The Use and Abuse of Vegetational Concepts and Terms,” Ecology, 16 (1935), at p. 299.

Arthur George Tansley , “The Classification of Vegetation and the Concept of Development,” Journal of Ecology, 8, no. 2 (1920), at p. 122.

Warwick Anderson , Myles Jackson , and Barbara Gutmann Rosenkrantz , “Toward an Unnatural History of Immunology,” Journal of the History of Biology, 27 (1994), at p. 587;

Rupert E. Billingham , Leslie Brent , and Peter B. Medawar , “Actively Acquired Tolerance of Foreign Cells,” Nature, 172 (1953);

F. Macfarlane Burnet , The Clonal Selection Theory of Acquired Immunity (Nashville, Tenn.: Vanderbilt University Press, 1959).

Gerald M. Edelman and W. Einar Gall , “The Antibody Problem,” Annual Review of Biochemistry, 38 (1969).

James L. Gowans , “The Mysterious Lymphocyte,” in Immunology: The Making of a Modern Science, ed. Richard Gallagher , Jean Gilder , G. J. V. Nossal , and Gaetano Salvatore (London: Academic Press, 1995).

Niels K. Jerne , “The Common Sense of Immunology,” Cold Spring Harbor Symposium on Quantitative Biology, 41 (1977), at p. 4.

Niels K. Jerne , “The Natural-Selection Theory of Antibody Formation,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 41 (1955);

Ilana Löwy , “The Strength of Loose Concepts: Boundary Concepts, Federative Experimental Strategies and Disciplinary Growth: The Case of Immunology,” History of Science, 30 (1992).

Ilana Löwy , “The Immunological Construction of the Self,” inOrganism and the Origins of Self, ed. Alfred I. Tauber (Dordrecht: Kluwer, 1991).

Emily Martin , “Histories of Immune Systems,” Culture, Medicine and Psychiatry, 17 (1993);

Pauline M. H. Mazumdar , “The Purpose of Immunity: Landsteiner’s Interpretation of the Human Isoantibodies,” Journal of the History of Biology, 8 (1975).

J. F. A. P. Miller , “Uncovering Thymus Function,” Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, 39 (1996);

N. A. Mitchison , “Passive Transfer of Transplantation Immunity,” Nature, 171 (1953);

Ray Owen , “Immunogenetic Consequences of Vascular Anastomoses between Bovine Twins,” Science, 102 (1945);

Linus Pauling , “A Theory of the Structure and Process of Formation of Antibodies,” Journal of the American Chemical Society, 62 (1940).

Thomas Söderqvist , Science as Autobiography: The Troubled Life of Niels Jerne, trans. David Mel Paul (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 2003).

Arthur M. Silverstein , “The Dynamics of Conceptual Change in Twentieth Century Immunology,” Cellular Immunology, 132 (1991);

Craig R. Stillwell , “Thymectomy as an Experimental System in Immunology,” Journal of the History of Biology, 27 (1994).

David W. Talmage , “Allergy and Immunology,” Annual Review of Medicine, 8 (1957);

Alfred I. Tauber , “The Molecularization of Immunology,” in The Philosophy and History of Molecular Biology: New Perspectives, ed. Sahotra Sarkar (Dordrecht: Kluwer, 1996);

Alfred I. Tauber , The Immune Self: Theory or Metaphor? (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994);

W. W. C. Topley , Topley and Wilson’s Principles of Bacteriology and Immunity, 3rd ed., revised by G. S. Wilson and A. A. Miles (Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1946);

Paul Weindling , “From Medical Research to Clinical Practice: Serum Therapy for Diphtheria in the 1890s,” in Medical Innovations in Historical Perspective, ed. John Pickstone (London: Macmillan, 1992);

Tim Beardsley , “A War Not Won,” Scientific American, 270 (January 1994).

S. Boudia , “The Curie Laboratory: Radioactivity and Metrology,” History and Technology, 13 (1997).

R. Bud , “Strategy in American Cancer Research after World War II: A Case Study,” Social Studies of Science, 8 (1978).

M. Cassier and J.-P. Gaudillière , “Recherche, médecine et marché: La génétique du cancer du sein,” Sciences Sociales et Santé, 18 (2000).

D. De Moulin , A Short History of Breast Cancer (Dordrecht: Kluwer, 1989).

J. Fujimura , Crafting Science: A Sociohistory of the Quest for the Genetics of Cancer (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1996).

J.-P. Gaudillière , “Circulating Mice and Viruses: The Jackson Memorial Laboratory, the National Cancer Institute and the Genetics of Breast Cancer,” in The Practices of Human Genetics, ed. E. Mendelsohn and M. Fortun (Dordrecht: Kluwer, 1999);

J.-P. Gaudillière , “The Molecularization of Cancer Etiology in the Postwar United States: Instruments, Politics, and Management,” in Molecularizing Biology and Medicine, ed. H. Kamminga and S. de Chadarevian (Amsterdam: Harwood, 1998).

N. Hopwood , “Giving Body to Embryos: Modeling, Mechanism and the Microtome in the Late 19th Century Anatomy,” Isis, 90 (1999).

R. C. Maulitz , Morbid Appearances (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987).

M. Morange , “From the Regulatory Vision of Cancer to the Oncogene Paradigm,” Journal of the History of Biology, 30 (1997).

P. Pinell , Naissance d’un fléau: La lutte contre le cancer en France (Paris: Editions Métailié, 1992).

H. J. Rheinberger , “From Microsomes to Ribosomes: Strategies of Representation,” Journal of the History of Biology, 28 (1995);

E. Richards , “The Politics of Therapeutic Evaluation: The Vitamin C and Cancer Controversy,” Social Studies of Science, 18 (1988);

Evelleen Richards , Vitamin C and Cancer: Medicine or Politics? (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1991);

S. P. Strickland , Politics, Science, and the Dread Disease (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1972).

B. Vincent , “Genesis of the Pavillon Pasteur of the Institut du Radium,” History of Technology, 13 (1997).

John Durant , “The Science of Sentiment: The Problem of the Cerebral Localization of Emotion,” in Perspectives in Ethology, vol. 6: Mechanisms, ed. P. P. G. Bateson and P. H. Klopfer (New York: Plenum Press, 1985).

Paul MacLean , “Psychosomatic Disease and the ‘Visceral’ Brain: Recent Developments Bearing on the Papez Theory of Emotion,” Psychosomatic Medicine, 11 (1949);

P. J. Pauly , “The Political Structure of the Brain: Cerebral Localization in Bismarckian Germany,” International Journal of Neuroscience, 21 (1983).

Timothy J. Reiss , “Denying the Body? Memory and the Dilemmas of History in Descartes,” Journal of the History of Ideas, 57 (1996).

Marleen Rozemond , “Descartes’s Case for Dualism,” Journal of the History of Philosophy, 33 (1995);

Steven Shapin , The Scientific Revolution (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996).

Charles Percy Snow , The Two Cultures [original title: Two Cultures and the Scientific Revolution], introduction by Stefan Collini (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993).

Solomon H. Snyder , Brainstorming: The Science and Politics of Opiate Research (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1989).

Clark Zumbach , The Transcendent Science: Kant’s Conception of Biological Methodology, Nijhoff International Philosophy Series, vol. 15 (The Hague: Nijhoff; Boston: Kluwer, 1984).

Kristoff Glamann , “The Scientific Brewer: Founders and Successors during the Rise of the Modern Brewing Industry,” in Enterprise and History: Essays in Honour of Charles Wilson, ed. D. C. Coleman and Peter Mathias (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984).

Sheila Jasanoff , “Product, Process or Programme: Three Cultures and the Regulation of Biotechnology,” in Resistance to New Technology, ed. Martin Bauer (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995).

William H. Schneider , Quality and Quantity: The Quest for Biological Regeneration in Twentieth-Century France (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990).

Terry Shinn , “Change or Mutation? Reflection on the Foundations of Contemporary Science,” Social Science Information, 38 (1999);

Terry Shinn and Bernard Joerges , “The Transverse Science and Technology Culture: Dynamics and Roles of Research-Technology,” Social Science Information, 41 (2002);

Keith Vernon , “Pus, Sewage, Beer and Milk: Microbiology in Britain, 1870–1940,” History of Science, 28 (1990).

Peter Weingart , “From Finalization to ‘Mode 2’; Old Wine in New Bottles,” Social Science Information, 36 (1997).

Josef L. Altholz , “A Tale of Two Controversies: Darwinism in the Debate over ‘Essays and Reviews’,” Church History, 63 (1994);

Michael Bartholomew , “The Singularity of Lyell,” History of Science, 17 (1979);

Michael Bartholomew , “The Non-progress of Non-progression: Two Responses to Lyell’s Doctrine,” British Journal for the History of Science, 9 (1976);

Ruth Barton , “‘Huxley, Lubbock, and Half a Dozen Others’: Professionals and Gentlemen in the Formation of the X Club, 1851–1864,” Isis, 89 (1998), with references to literature;

Ruth Barton , “John Tyndall, Pantheist,” Osiris (2nd ser.), 3 (1987);

Peter J. Bowler , Reconciling Science and Religion: The Debate in Early-Twentieth-Century Britain (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2001).

John Hedley Brooke , “Natural Theology and the Plurality of Worlds: Observations on the Brewster-Whewell Debate,” Annals of Science, 34 (1977);

John Hedley Brooke , “Scientific Thought and Its Meaning for Religion: The Impact of French Science on British Natural Theology, 1827–1859,” Revue de synthèse (4th ser.), 110 (1989);

W. F. Bynum , “Charles Lyell’s ‘Antiquity of Man’ and Its Critics,” Journal of the History of Biology, 17 (1984);

Charles D. Cashdollar , The Transformation of Theology, 1830–1890: Positivism and Protestant Thought in Britain and America (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1989).

Pietro Corsi , Science and Religion: Baden Powell and the Anglican Debate, 1800–1860 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988);

Francis Darwin , ed., The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, Including an Autobiographical Chapter, 3 vols. (London: John Murray, 1887), vol. 3, p..

Adrian Desmond , “Artisan Resistance and Evolution in Britain, 1819–1848,” Osiris (2nd ser.), 3 (1987).

Thomas Dixon , “Scientific Atheism as a Faith Tradition,” Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 33 (2002).

Mark Francis , “Naturalism and William Paley,” History of European Ideas, 10 (1989).

Aileen Fyfe , “The Reception of William Paley’s ‘Natural Theology’ in the University of Cambridge,” British Journal for the History of Science, 30 (1997);

James Gilbert , Redeeming Culture: American Religion in an Age of Science (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1997).

Stephen Jay Gould , “On Transmuting Boyle’s Law to Darwin’s Revolution,” in Evolution: Science, Society and the Universe, ed. A. C. Fabian (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998);

L. S. Jacyna , “Immanence or Transcendence: Theories of Life and Organization in Britain, 1790–1835,” Isis, 74 (1983);

L. S. Jacyna , “The Physiology of Mind, the Unity of Nature, and the Moral Order in Late Victorian Thought,” British Journal for the History of Science, 14 (1981).

J. Vernon Jensen , “Return to the Wilberforce-Huxley Debate,” British Journal for the History of Science, 21 (1988), with references to literature.

David Kohn , “The Aesthetic Construction of Darwin’s Theory,” in The Elusive Synthesis: Aesthetics and Science, ed. A. I. Tauber (Dordrecht: Reidel, 1996).

David Kohn , “Darwin’s Ambiguity: The Secularization of Biological Meaning,” British Journal for the History of Science, 22 (1989).

David C. Lindberg and Ronald L. Numbers , “Beyond War and Peace: A Reappraisal of the Encounter between Christianity and Science,” Church History, 55 (1986);

David N. Livingstone , “Science and Religion: Foreword to the Historical Geography of an Encounter,” Journal of Historical Geography, 20 (1994);

Mary Midgley , Evolution as a Religion: Strange Hopes and Stranger Fears (London: Methuen, 1985);

James Moore , The Post-Darwinian Controversies: A Study of the Protestant Struggle to Come to Terms with Darwin in Great Britain and America, 1870–1900 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979);

James Moore , “Crisis without Revolution: The Ideological Watershed in Victorian England,” Revue de synthèse (4th ser.), 107 (1986);

James Moore and Adrian Desmond , “Transgressing Boundaries,” Journal of Victorian Culture, 3 (1998).

James Moore , “Deconstructing Darwinism: The Politics of Evolution in the 1860s,” Journal of the History of Biology, 24 (1991).

Mervyn Nicholson , “The Eleventh Commandment: Sex and Spirit in Wollstonecraft and Malthus,” Journal of the History of Ideas, 51 (1990);

Ronald L. Numbers , “Science and Religion,” Osiris (2nd ser.), 1 (1985);

Ronald L. Numbers and John Stenhouse , eds., Disseminating Darwinism: The Role of Place, Race, Religion, and Gender (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999).

Evelleen Richards , “A Question of Property Rights: Richard Owen’s Evolutionism Reassessed,” British Journal for the History of Science, 20 (1987);

John M. Robson , “The Fiat and Finger of God: ‘The Bridgewater Treatises’,” in Victorian Faith in Crisis: Essays on Continuity and Change in Nineteenth-Century Religious Belief, ed. Richard J. Helmstadter and Bernard Lightman (London: Macmillan, 1990).

Jonathan Topham , “Science and Popular Education in the 1830s: The Role of the ‘Bridgewater Treatises’,” British Journal for the History of Science, 25 (1992);

Frank M. Turner , Contesting Cultural Authority: Essays in Victorian Intellectual Life (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993).

Frank M. Turner , “John Henry Newman and the Challenge of a Culture of Science,” The European Legacy, 1 (1996);

A. M. C. Waterman , Revolution, Economics and Religion: Christian Political Economy, 1798–1833 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991).

Paul Weindling , “Theories of the Cell State in Imperial Germany,” in Biology, Medicine and Society, 1840–1940, ed. Charles Webster (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981);

Richard Yeo , Defining Science: William Whewell, Natural Knowledge Public Debate in Early Victorian Britain (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993).

David Blitz , Emergent Evolution: Qualitative Novelty and the Levels of Reality (Dordrecht: Kluwer, 1992).

Geoffrey Cantor , “The Edinburgh Phrenological Debate, 1803–1828,” Annals of Science, 32 (1975);

Kurt Danziger , Constructing the Subject: Historical Origins of Psychological Research (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990).

Charles Darwin , The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex, 2 vols. (London: John Murray, 1871), vol. 1;

Michael Hammond , “The Expulsion of the Neanderthals from Human Ancestry: Marcellin Boule and the Social Context of Scientific Research,” Social Studies of Science, 12 (1982);

Mike Hawkins , Social Darwinism in European and American Thought, 1860–1945: Nature as Model and Nature as Threat (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997).

Evelleen Richards , “Darwin and the Descent of Woman,” in The Wider Domain of Evolutionary Thought, ed. D. R. Oldroyd and Ian Langham (Dordrecht: Reidel, 1983).

G. R. Searle , Eugenics and Politics in Britain, 1900–1914 (Leiden: Noordhoff, 1976);

Nancy Stepan , The Idea of Race in Science: Great Britain, 1800–1960 (London: Macmillan, 1982).

Richard Weikart , From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics and Racism in Germany (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2004).

Arnold Arluke and Boria Sax , “Understanding Nazi Animal Protection and the Holocaust,” Anthrozoös, 5 (1992).

Nicolau Barquet and Pere Domingo , “Smallpox: The Triumph over the Most Terrible of the Ministers of Death,” Annals of Internal Medicine, 127 (1997).

Henry K. Beecher , “Ethics and Clinical Research,” New England Journal of Medicine, 274 (1966).

Vanessa N. Gamble , “Under the Shadow of Tuskegee: African Americans and Health Care,” American Journal of Public Health, 87 (1997).

Robert Garner , Political Animals: Animal Protection Policies in Britain and the United States (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1998).

Susan E. Lederer , “Political Animals: The Shaping of Biomedical Research Literature in Twentieth-Century America,” Isis, 83 (1992).

Robert J. Levine , “Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical Research in the United States: A Contrast with Recent Experience in the United Kingdom,” Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 530 (1988).

Ronald L. Numbers , “William Beaumont and the Ethics of Human Experimentation,” Journal of the History of Biology, 12 (1979).

M. H. Pappworth , “‘Human Guinea Pigs’ – A History,” British Medical Journal, 301 (1990);

Warren T. Reich , “The Word ‘Bioethics’: Its Birth and the Legacies of Those Who Shaped Its Meaning,” Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal, 4 (1994).

Hans-Martin Sass , “Reichsrundschrieben 1931: Pre-Nuremberg German Regulations Concerning New Therapy and Human Experimentation,” Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, 8 (1983).

E. M. Tansey , “Protection Against Dog Distemper and Dogs Protection Bills: The Medical Research Council and Anti-vivisectionist Protest, 1911–1933,” Medical History, 38 (1994).

Paul Weindling , “Human Guinea Pigs and the Ethics of Experimentation: the BMJ’s Correspondent at the Nuremberg Medical Trial,” British Medical Journal, 313 (1996).

Brian Balogh , Chain Reaction: Expert Debate and Public Participation in American Commercial Nuclear Power, 1945–1975 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991);

Stephen Bocking , “Stephen Forbes, Jacob Reighard and the Emergence of Aquatic Ecology in the Great Lakes Region,” Journal of the History of Biology, 23 (1990);

Mary Douglas , Purity and Danger: An Analysis of the Concepts of Pollution and Taboo (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1966).

Samuel Hays , Beauty, Health and Permanence: Environmental Politics in the United States, 1955–1985 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987).

Roy MacLeod , “Government and Resource Conservation: The Salmon Acts Administration, 1860–1886,” Journal of British Studies, 7 (1968).

Arthur McEvoy , The Fisherman’s Problem: Ecology and Law in the California Fisheries, 1850–1980 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986);

Tim Smith , Scaling Fisheries: The Science of Measuring the Effects of Fishing, 1855–1955 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994).

Peter J. Taylor , “Technocratic Optimism, H. T. Odum, and the Partial Transformation of Ecological Metaphor after World War II,” Journal of the History of Biology, 21 (1988).

Ruth Barton , “Just before Nature: The Purposes of Science and the Purposes of Popularization in Some English Popular Science Journals of the 1860s,” Annals of Science, 55 (1998);

Peter J. Bowler , “Experts and Publishers: Writing Popular Science in Early Twentieth-Century Britain, Writing Popular History of Science Now,” British Journal for the History of Science, 39 (2006).

Peter Broks , Media Science before the Great War (London: Macmillan, 1996), p..

Roger Cooter and Stephen Pumphrey , “Separate Spheres and Public Places: Reflections on the History of Science Popularization and on Science in Popular Culture,” History of Science, 32 (1994);

Stephen Hilgartner , “The Dominant View of Popularization: Conceptual Problems, Political Uses,” Social Studies of Science, 20 (1990).

Bernard Lightman , “‘The Voices of Nature’: Popularizing Victorian Science,” in Victorian Science in Context, ed. Bernard Lightman (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1997);

Bernard Lightman , “The Visual Theology of Victorian Popularizers of Science: From Reverent Eye to Chemical Retina,” Isis, 91 (2000);

Iwan Rhys Morus , Frankenstein’s Children: Electricity, Exhibition and Experiment in Early Nineteenth-Century London (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1998);

Richard Whitley , “Knowledge Producers and Knowledge Acquirers: Popularization as a Relation between Scientific Fields and Publics,” in Expository Science: Forms and Functions of Popularization, Sociology of the Sciences Yearbook, vol. 4, ed. Terry Shinn and Richard Whitley (Dordrecht: Reidel, 1985).


Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 1610 *
Loading metrics...

Book summary page views

Total views: 629 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 24th March 2017. Thi