Keith R. Benson

American morphology in the late nineteenth century: The biology department at Johns Hopkins University

Among the many problems confronting the historian of science is the issue of influence. This is particularly troublesome when we attempt to determine the influence of a scientist or scholar on his students. Similarly, it is often difficult to measure the influence of one research tradition in science on a related but different research tradition. I was reminded of these problems at a recent memorial service for Robert L. Fernald (1914-1983), noted classical embryologist and former director of the Friday Harbor Laboratories. Although Fernald had few graduate students, did not publish extensively, and practiced a research tradition that is not currently on the cutting edge of science, he was influential. A large gathering of former graduate students, research associates, and colleagues attested to Fernalds importance in their careers. Most commented on his example as a dedicated scientist or on the influence of his observations and suggestions on studies that, in the hands of others, became noteworthy. As historians we usually lack testimonial evidence to document such indirect influences; as a result, we are often frustrated in determining exactly what constitutes real influence. Just as the above example indicates the problem, I believe it also points to a satisfactory solution. It is reasonable to assume that there is significant influence when, in cases where direct evidence is lacking, an individual scientist occupies a position of central importance and/or trains a significant number of important scientists, or when a specific research tradition dominates a scientific field. If either or both of these cases apply, the individual or the research tradition should become the focus of a careful and serious historical inquiry. An excellent case in point is the morphology program at Johns Hopkins University, developed and administered by William Keith Brooks (1848-1908) from 1876 until his death. Until fairly recently historians have preferred to examine the impressive experimental studies in the United States, which catapaulted American science to a position of prominence by the early twentieth century. Historical study of the morphology program has received second billing. There

T. H. Morgan's resistance to the chromosome theory

The history of science often emphasizes the great discoveries, but neglects to mention that many aspects of these discoveries were frequently known in advance. Such was the case for the chromosome theory of inheritance. Although the behaviour of the chromosome in fertilization and cell development was known before Thomas Hunt Morgans work, its role in the inheritance of particulate traits was not appreciated. Morgans relationship with the chromosome theory of inheritance provides a good case study to illustrate how theoretical issues can both impede and facilitate science.

Review essay: The rhetorical turn in science studies

A RHETORIC OF SCIENCE: INVENTING SCIENTIFIC DISCOURSE. By Lawrence Prelli. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1989; xi + pp. 321.

Review paper: The naples stazione zoologica and its impact on the emergence of American marine biology

34.95. NOVELTIES IN THE HEAVENS; RHETORIC AND SCIENCE IN THE COPERNICAN CONTROVERSY. By Jean Dietz Moss. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1993; xiv + pp. 352.

The American development of biology

49.95; paper

The Enlightement of Matter - the Definition of Chemistry from Agricola to Lavoisier - Beretta,M

17.95. PERSUADING SCIENCE: THE ART OF SCIENTIFIC RHETORIC. Edited by Marcello Pera and William R. Shea. Canton, MA: Science History, 1991; xi + pp. 224.

The American Development of Biology

39.95. PHILOSOPHY, RHETORIC, AND THE END OF KNOWLEDGE: THE COMING OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY STUDIES. By Steve Fuller. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1993; xxii + pp. 446.

The expansion of American biology

54.00; paper

9. Mendel in America: Theory and Practice, 1900-1919

22.50. SHAPING WRITTEN KNOWLEDGE; THE GENRE AND ACTIVITY OF THE EXPERIMENTAL ARTICLE IN SCIENCE. By Charles Bazerman. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1988; xi + pp. 400.

5. Whitman at Chicago: Establishing a Chicago Style of Biology?

40.00; paper