Book Review/ in the Media Rebels? No, Simply Scientists

Michel Morange

he problem of creativity is create a sort of “counterfactual” history common to the arts and likely to allow testing of the hypotheses Tsciences. What distinguishes that have been produced to explain geniuses from ordinary mortals? such historical developments. Consider, In the arts, from Mozart to van for instance, the highly different view Gogh, creativity has frequently been that provided of the associated with the artist’s opposition to discovery of the double helix [2] in the society of their time. A good artist is comparison with that proposed by Jim a rebel. Paradoxically, whereas science Watson [3]. Chargaff emphasized the might appear as a progressive rational huge role that biochemical work played construction of new knowledge, the in the progressive description of the same relation has been postulated DNA molecule, a role largely ignored between rebellion and scientific by Jim Watson. creativity. There are many historical The second ambition of this book accounts of how scientists who made was to draw the characteristics of the decisive breakthroughs saw their ideas special class of scientists called “rebels” rejected, and became “rebels.” or “mavericks.” As most of these rebels Rebels, Mavericks, and Heretics in produced important results, it is a presents a collection of essays way to question the relations between by different authors on biologists rebellion and creativity in science. Are who were, in one way or another, there more rebels in biology than in considered rebels [1]. What do they other sciences? This book is clearly not have in common? Is it possible to find doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0060242.g001 intended to provide an answer. But if biographical clues to the forging of this one of the ways leading to rebellion spirit of rebellion? Harman O, Dietrich MR (2008) Rebels, is “focusing on exceptions” instead Mavericks, and Heretics in Biology. New Haven: This book can be appreciated Press. 416 p. ISBN (hardcover): of “focusing on rules” (p. 11), the from three different points of view. 978-0300116397. US$40.00. biological sciences, with their wealth of The first is simply to consider it as a exceptions, could be favorable ground. rich collection of studies of scientists One great merit of this book is to Does this book achieve its ambitions? who played a significant, although have included figures from diverse In their introduction, Oren Harman sometimes marginal, role in the biological disciplines, ranging from and Michael Dietrich raise serious development of the sciences in molecular to evolutionary biology, doubts about the possibility of defining the 20th century. The contributions ecology, and neurophysiology. Such a category of “rebels” or “heretics” in of some of them have already been diversity is rare and gives this book science. As they say, “the category of studied, but there are new figures a particular flavor. The quality and rebel may be elusive and nebulous” sketched here such as Carl Woese, importance of the authors (among them (p. 3). One should add that the who discovered a third branch of life, Garland Allen, David Hull, and Michael words used to describe the figures Motoo Kimura, who radically modified Ruse) is another richness, which should portrayed in this book frequently our vision of , and Raymond convince all those interested in the seem excessive. In many instances, Arthur Dart, who dramatically revised development of the life sciences over they might have been advantageously the scenarios on the origin of modern the last century to buy this book and replaced simply by “original,” without humans. The originality of the book read and browse at their own pace. any loss of meaning. Many of the is also in the comparable size and But the ambitions of the editors of format of the presentations. A good this collective work were higher. The Citation: Morange M (2008) Rebels? No, simply balance has been reached between a aim was to write the history of 20th scientists. PLoS Biol 6(9): e242. doi:10.1371/journal. short biographical introduction and century biology from the perspectives pbio.0060242 a longer presentation of the original of the rebels, the mavericks, and the Copyright: © 2008 Morange et al. This is an work accomplished and the obstacles heretics. There is a strong trend in open-access article distributed under the terms and opposition encountered. The present-day historical studies to give a of the Creative Commons Attribution License, authors of these short essays have voice to the “small man,” to those who which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the diverse training and skills, but the go unheard, to those who lost out. By original author and source are credited. quite rigid organization of the book adopting such an approach, one can Michel Morange is at the Department of Biology, facilitates comparison of the different hope not only to obtain a different, Ecole Normale Superieure, , France. E-mail: chapters. renewed historical vision, but also to [email protected]

PLoS Biology | www.plosbiology.org 1824 September 2008 | Volume 6 | Issue 9 | e242 people considered in this book were naïve vision we have of what a rebel in discovery of transposition. This is an recipients of the Nobel Prize or other science is, and more generally of how easily explainable confusion between distinctions, and it is somehow difficult scientific knowledge is constructed. the personal feeling of what was the to consider them as “mavericks” The first error is to conflate “rebels most difficult obstacle to overcome, and “heretics.” When Harman and in science” with “rebels in general” or and the historical judgment that Dietrich say that “first the maverick “rebels within society.” Some of the considers merit in terms of the scientific must choose an important and relevant contributors come close to adopting developments this discovery generated. problem” and “if one single thing such a naïve vision, but most chapters Originality and novelty can be at the unites all the characters featured in show that such an identification has origin of a research project, but they this book, it is that they all exhibited no sense. The reason is that to be can also suddenly appear at another stubbornness and steadfastness in a heretic or a rebel is generally not stage during the project’s development. their challenges to orthodox thought” in the nature of the character, but Ute Deichmann shows that the work of (p. 7), I have the feeling that this is a in the historical circumstances that Oswald Avery was well planned, but the simple retrospective judgment, and prevented a particular discovery or result he obtained in Pneumococcus— that otherwise the names of these model from being adopted. The nature that the “transforming principle,” the people would never have been in our and strength of the orthodoxies they substance that induces predictable and memories: this is not an explanation of opposed and their reasons for fighting heritable changes, is made of DNA— their important contributions. them were highly diverse too. Obstacles was not. Scientists would have expected The use of “iconoclast” works may have their roots in racial or social to find carbohydrates, the component better. Clearly, these scientists prejudices—as when Dart proposed of the cellular structure that is modified exchanged previous methodologies that modern humans originated in during transformation, or proteins, and concepts for new ones, and did Africa; in the solidity of the model considered by most biologists at that new experiments or established a that is challenged—as when Richard time as the major component of the bridge between disciplines hitherto Goldschmidt opposed the corpuscular genetic material—not DNA, whose separated. Such, for instance, was the nature of the gene; or in the weakness function was totally unknown. In the case of Peter Mitchell, described by of the challenging theory, either case of Carl Woese, reminds John Prebble and Bruce Weber, who because experiments were inconclusive, us that his scientific project was quite succeeded in solving the problem of as in the case of Howard Temin, original—to understand how the cell respiration, thus far considered or because the results could not be protein synthesis machinery emerged as a purely biochemical problem, by related to previous knowledge: such during evolution by working on the importing models from membrane is the case studied by Ute Deichmann most “primitive” . But the physiology. But in so doing, were they when Oswald Avery suggested that “true” revolution he introduced was the so different from “normal scientists”? the genetic material was DNA. How discovery of a third branch in the living Normal scientists would have been was it possible to attribute a genetic —the ; the first project included in an official history of the life function to a molecule with a supposed being still in its infancy. Rebels in sciences, but such a history would not “monotonous” structure, and without science are not born rebels; in the same differ from the history presented in this known chemical relations with the way, revolutionary transformations in book. As Harman and Dietrich admit, characters they apparently controlled? science emerge abruptly from scientific a of rebels and iconoclasts Many of the scientists described developments: they are not already in is impossible, and I would add that if in this book considered themselves the lines of research that generated it existed, it would not differ from the rebels, but in most cases this was a them. Let us definitively abandon taxonomy of scientists in general! retrospective self-description, a way this recurrent preformist vision: the I suppose that one of the difficulties to valorize their own scientific path. history of science is history, with all its stems from the different values that In some cases, such as Stephen Jay contingencies. Neither the roles nor one can ascribe to a rebel. One can Gould, being a rebel even appears to the words of the play are prewritten. choose a neutral point of view—e.g., be a strategy to attain and keep power. This is clearly demonstrated by the they were right or wrong and it doesn’t It can be a dangerous strategy when diversity of the scientific trajectories matter which. One can be sympathetic these scientists try to replay the game, sketched in this book. to them, believing that they were and consider that, since they are rebels, Nor can the direction of scientific treated unfairly or supporting rebellion all their contributions and results are developments be anticipated. against the system, whatever it is. Or, original and deserve to be discussed. Harman and Dietrich remark that, in contrast, one can simply consider To be where people do not expect paradoxically, to be revolutionary in that they were wrong. The editors you is obviously a good strategy on the science may mean to come back to and authors have not clearly chosen battlefield—not always in science. ideas and models of the past. The between these three different attitudes, In addition, scientists rarely have model of a political system that the or more precisely they have not the same vision of their originality as supporters of the French revolution renounced a certain sympathy for these the rest of the . had in mind was ancient Greece and originals. Such an attitude makes the Nathaniel Comfort shows that Barbara Rome! To consider a transformation picture even fuzzier. McClintock considered her major as revolutionary or not depends upon If this book falls short of its main contribution to be the discovery of a the tempo one adopts, whether the objective, its major interest probably new mechanism of gene regulation, historical study is focused on short or lies elsewhere: in underlining the whereas she was applauded for her long periods of time.

PLoS Biology | www.plosbiology.org 1825 September 2008 | Volume 6 | Issue 9 | e242 These biographical sketches So this book is important, not for its Anglo-American culture as it has so far. also demonstrate that scientific initial objective, but for what it affords After all, the drive to understand the developments are dependent on, but us: a rich description of scientists and world is a human trait that knows no not constrained by, the “controlling discoveries in different biological national borders. And one could argue body of peers” described by Richard sciences. It is the best possible weapon that today more than ever biologists Lewontin in his epilogue. Every to oppose simplistic models of must bridge boundaries and cultures in scientist can acquire a standing that science construction. We need more international collaborations that tackle allows him to take some risks, to such beautiful and careful studies. increasingly difficult global challenges, explore new paths without losing I expect to read a second volume such as the effects of climate change the consideration of his scientific soon! Harman and Dietrich draw a on emerging diseases, biodiversity, and peers. New results or approaches that shortlist of biologists who might have life itself. It’s likely that the “normal cannot be related to previous ones are been included in this book, but were scientists” who make headway against rejected, but not forgotten. They are not, mainly because of the lack of a these challenges will provide budding ready to re-emerge, as in the case of scholar able to produce a well-informed historians with rich tales to tell. the discovery of reverse transcription study in a limited amount of time. I References 1. Harman O, Dietrich MR (2008) Rebels, by Howard Temin. A way to relate the would like to suggest other interesting mavericks, and heretics in biology. New Haven: new observations on oncogenic RNA figures, such as Boris Ephrussi, Willi Yale University Press. 416 p. 2. Chargaff E (1978) Heraclitean fire: Sketches to previous knowledge had been Hennig, Conrad Waddington, Nikolai from a life before nature. New York: The discovered: in this case a molecular Timofeeff-Ressovsky, and François Rockefeller University Press. 252 p. mechanism, with the discovery of Jacob. The list is long, in particular 3. Watson J (1968) The double helix: A personal account of the discovery of the structure of reverse transcriptase. if the project does not limit itself to DNA. London: Weidenfeld and Nicholson. 256 p.

PLoS Biology | www.plosbiology.org 1826 September 2008 | Volume 6 | Issue 9 | e242