Beyond a Pedagogical Tool: 30 Years of Molecular Biology of the Cell

Home , Bruce Alberts, Miranda Robertson, Odile Crick

PERSPECTIVES

ESSAY Beyond a pedagogical tool: 30 years of Molecular Biology of the Cell

Norberto Serpente Abstract | In 1983, a bulky and profusely illustrated textbook on molecular and cell biology began to inhabit the shelves of university libraries worldwide. The effect of capturing the eyes and souls of biologists was immediate as the book provided them with a new and invigorating outlook on what cells are and what they do.

The aim of Molecular Biology of the Cell the influence of MBoC stems from its peda- (MBoC)1, first published in 1983, was to gogical qualities. Reaching such quality was a rewrite cell biology and to create a new visual high priority for the authors and this was interpretation of the subject (FIG. 1). Looking recognized by reviewers immediately after its for previous textbooks that might have had first publication. The book was highly rec- an equally important role in transforming ommended for the classroom6,7, and review- Figure 1 | The front cover of Molecular Biology the knowledge of cells, MBoC only compares ers predicted it would be a great success as of the Cell first edition (1983). “In a time when to Wilson’s classic The Cell in Development it simplified the teaching of a subject that, our biological landscape is dominated by immuno- fluorescence images and more recently by GFP and Inheritance, which was first published because of its rapid expansion, was becoming labelled proteins it is hard to remember what a (REF. 2) 8 in 1896 . The Cell in Development and harder to teach . In addition, some reviewers wow factor such images had early on. No other Inheritance has been essential for cytology to predicted that MBoC could be used as a ped- books at that time had a coloured image on the 3 become a self-contained discipline . This year agogical tool for more specialized audiences front, let alone an actual cell! This image used fluo- is the thirtieth anniversary of the publication such as scientists9,10. rescent phalloidin, rather than an antibody, for of the first edition of MBoC, and to mark the staining F-actin and T antigen for staining the occasion I invite readers to reflect on some nucleus, rather than DAPI, and was taken by Bob of the features that made it, as one commen- The making of MBoC Pollack, one of the authors originally fingered by tator once put it, “the most influential cell essentially defied the ongoing Jim for MBoC. The image also represented the biology textbook of its time”4. I argue that then very active research area of the cytoskeleton. practices of textbook production I also wanted to use the black background of the the influence and success of MBoC relied on at the time. image to go all over, i.e. a black book, which was a some key aspects of its production. The mak- controversial subject at the time, but turned out to ing of MBoC essentially defied the ongoing be a good marketing tool to ‘differen Science tiate’ practices of textbook production at the time. The pedagogical value of MBoC, as us from any other books.” (Keith Roberts, personal Two main reasons come to mind when most reviewers agreed, was to be found in communication). Image is reproduced, with thinking of why the first edition of MBoC, the design and quality of the illustrations, permission, from REF. 1 © (1983) Garland Science. and the following editions in 1989, 1994, which condensed complex ideas into simple 2002 and 2007, have been so influential schematics, and in the clarity, consistency for the field of cell biology. The first one is and emphasis on explanation achieved in ‘protein machines’16. MBoC offered an image related to textbooks being showcases for the its writing8,11–14. As later editions of MBoC of cells beyond that seen through the micro- state of knowledge in a particular subject. were published, these values increased and scope and set the tone on how to study cells MBoC was one of the first books to capture remained unique despite mounting competi- for many years to come. the ‘new’ molecular knowledge of higher tion from other textbooks, such as Molecular organisms that began to emerge in the early Cell Biology by Lodish et al.15, first published The origins 1980s. By experimenting with prokaryotes in 1986. The original idea of a book such as MBoC between the 1940s and 1960s, molecular Although true, these reasons conceal belonged exclusively to James Watson. In biology had developed several ‘conceptual other key aspects that have made MBoC so the early 1970s, he wisely spotted a latent tools’ that were transferred to eukaryotic cells influential and successful. Beyond being a hurdle for his long-time vision of trans- from the mid 1970s onwards with the advent pedagogical tool and a showcase of exist- forming the whole biology field into a of genetic engineering5. Several experimen- ing knowledge, MBoC actually added molecular science17. He recognized that the tal approaches to study specific aspects of new knowledge. The book embodied and knowledge of cell biology at the time was eukaryotic cells, such as the mechanisms heralded the epistemic and visual ethos of almost entirely based on light and electron underlying genetic regulation and intracellu- the so‑called ‘molecular revolution’ of the microscopy investigations, and for students lar signalling, were relentlessly being under- early to mid 1970s; the revolution that gave this hardly integrated any new molecular taken in cell biology laboratories worldwide. rise to our current view of the nature and the biology. Therefore, Watson believed in the No textbook, however, fully encapsulated functioning of cells as diverse collections of need for a new textbook that would combine such developments. The second reason for timely and specifically expressed interacting these two fields. As Martin Raff recalls, for

120 | FEBRUARY 2013 | VOLUME 14 www.nature.com/reviews/molcellbio

Watson producing MBoC would be a “very When Lewis joined, having already spent The team spirit and its dynamics important way of modernising the way cell two years on the project, the team morale More important than the continuous biology was taught and perhaps even how was at its lowest. As Raff recalls, most of the encouragement from Watson was the way cell biology was done”18. first drafts of the chapters were not usable, the authors built a unity. The role of MBoC With that idea in mind, in July 1974, especially the chapters written by external in marking a new era of cell biology would Watson wrote a letter to Keith Roberts, a authors as they did not fit the writing style not have been possible without the strong plant cell biologist who worked at the John of those written by Roberts, Alberts and connections at the personal and profes- Innes Institute in Norwich and a long-term himself 18. At that point, Lewis, who had sional level that the final authorial line‑up collaborator. Watson invited Roberts, who been invited by Alberts to write one chapter achieved. The production of the book, was also the illustrator of Molecular Biology on the basis of his work in developmental despite being well-planned, took many of the Gene (MBoG)19, to become an author biology, was at a meeting in the United States unexpected turns. In addition to autho- of a new textbook that could ‘sweep the and dropped by at Fort Hill on Long Island rial reshuffling, the subject content also field’18. In the beginning of 1976, as part to deliver his work18. The chapter Lewis changed. The second half of the book was of the process of gathering authors for presented (which he co‑wrote with his col- originally planned to contain a molecular the book, Watson asked a publisher (not league Cheryl Tickle) impressed Alberts, description of different kinds of organisms the final publisher) to contact Raff from Raff, Roberts and Watson. In Raff’s view, (such as Escherichia coli and ciliates). University College London and to invite it became their best written chapter and However, as Roberts explained, after the him to become involved in the book project. gave them the boost they really needed18. first draft of the commissioned chapters The importance of incorporating Raff as an From that moment on, a definitive and solid began to arrive in the summer of 1979, author did not escape Watson’s attention. authorial alliance was formed (FIG. 2). it was soon realized by the authors that Raff was seen as a prominent immunologist The role of Watson in cementing the what was envisioned for the first half of the after he published an important paper in unity of that authorial alliance was essential. book would be enough to fill its full capac- Nature on a specific lymphocyte marker20, Early in 1978, when trying to persuade ity. Thus MBoC resulted in a book giving a and he was also known as an effective com- Alberts to become an author, he told him: molecular explanation to classical cellular municator via television programmes and an themes such as cell movement, secretion, or author of published scientific reviews. After Bruce the point is that no matter cytoskeleton structure18. some insistence from the publisher, Raff what you or Martin or Keith or me or Moreover, the publication of the book took finally agreed to meet the incipient group. anybody else does in science somebody almost 8 years rather than the 2 years that The first formal meeting took place in else is going to do it in weeks, in months were originally planned. As observed by London in 1977. Among the attendees were at worse in a couple of years, but this Alberts: Watson, Roberts, Raff, Gavin Borden (the book, if you don’t do this book, no one new publisher) and Joe Sambrook. After is going to do the book this way and a What was advertised as an effort being briefed by Watson on the scientific whole generation of cell biologists will be requiring only two summers turned importance of publishing such a textbook deprived, so this will be, if you take it on out to involve an exhausting series of and after Borden presented preliminary and do it well, the most important thing meetings that required more than 365 reports that demonstrated the existence you probably do in your career.18 12‑hour days from each author.22 of a selling niche, Roberts confirmed his participation, and Raff decided to fully embark on the initiative. For over a year following that meeting, other scientists, including Sambrook, Bob Goldman and Bob Pollack, all cell biologists from the Cold Spring Harbor laboratory, and Keith Porter, a distinguished cell biologist from the University of Colorado, participated in the initiative, although they were not authors of the textbook. In early 1978, following Raff’s suggestion, Bruce Alberts, a professor at the Department of Biophysics and Biochemistry at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), joined the team of authors. Originally, he joined for a short summer session, but then stayed because of his good working relationship with Raff. In late 1979, two more authors joined the team: Julian Lewis, a lecturer at the anatomy department at Kings College London; and Dennis Bray, a cell biologist from the Medical Figure 2 | The authorial team and the editor of Molecular Biology of the Cell first edition (1983). Research Council (MRC) Cell Biophysics The picture was taken soon after the book was published. From left to right: Bruce Alberts, Unit at Kings College London, who replaced Keith Roberts, Martin Raff, Gavin Borden, James Watson, Dennis Bray and Julian Lewis. Image courtesy Keith Porter21. of Keith Roberts.

NATURE REVIEWS | MOLECULAR CELL BIOLOGY VOLUME 14 | FEBRUARY 2013 | 121

Raff, Roberts and Lewis all remember the about the subject. He acknowledged that fully confirmed experimentally, MBoC strain that this situation put on their rela- reading Alberts’ chapter on thermodynam- contained more speculation than any other tionships with their partners, families, close ics, and the chapters that were written by textbook at the time. As acknowledged by friends and laboratory members. Building the other authors, was equally educational Roberts, some of the data the authors came trustworthy relationships among the authors for him18. across while discussing experimental find- was essential not only for easing those ings with other scientists became “as gospel strains but also for the short-, mid- and MBoC and novelty in the book” before these data were pub- long-term objectives that such an immense The team’s work relied on trustworthy lished18. This was noticed by a reviewer who task required. The special bond among relationships, with its members learning wrote: the team members, which grew stronger from and posing fundamental questions to as they worked together, included trust in each other. Moreover, the authors’ entrepre- [MBoC] is more adventurous than each other’s moral values and professional neurial and non-hierarchical culture was many previous textbooks in cell biology, capacities and an understanding of each a crucial and an unprecedented approach in that it does not hesitate to make other’s strengths and weaknesses. Essential to writing a biosciences textbook. More generalizations and to suggest possible for that bond was a deep sense of belonging importantly, this novel work culture resulted mechanisms (where neither may be to a new scientific culture that valued open- in a multi-authored textbook with a single totally documented).13 ness, innovation, risk taking and individual voice, a key achievement that was immedi- entrepreneurship23. ately noticed by many reviewers and later Nevertheless, because speculating never Another key factor for achieving this recognized by scientists worldwide as a key meant jumping to conclusions, there is no unity was the early layout of the working hallmark of its success. apology from the authors for that18. The conditions. First, it was decided that they MBoC was not only easy to read, it was in early 1980s were times when, as Raff put should all work together in the same location fact transforming the writing of biosciences. it, “for many things there was no story and for long periods of time (for 6 weeks during Importantly, it prioritized the telling of hence the most sensible thing to do was to the summer). The first meeting took place a well-nuanced story over one based on a tell one, one that of course made biological in 1978 in a property that Watson owned in mere description of facts. ‘Concept headings’ sense”18. Martha’s Vineyard. The next meeting was were extensively used to this aim. Such type Another way in which MBoC was novel held in 1979 in Fort Hill, an estate on the of headings, which use boldface sentences was that it catalysed research in its making. headland of Cold Spring Harbor. Second, a that summarize the main ideas covered in Because of the decisive role of Alberts and simple division of labour was decided with following paragraphs, had previously been Raff in the making of MBoC, the book each author writing a chapter or two on used by Watson in MBoG and became more promoted new experimental research their respective areas of expertise: Raff was refined and further exploited in MBoC24. avenues and thus proved fundamental to going to write a chapter on immunology They were designed to help the reader to the establishment of new networks among and another one on cell membranes; Alberts retain complex ideas on cell functioning laboratories. Alberts and Raff had good con- was writing one chapter on cell chemistry by organizing the text into ’bite-sized’ and nections with scientists working in related and thermodynamics and another chapter ‘digestible’ sections25. fields and spent a considerable amount of on molecular genetics; Lewis was writing Striking a balance between describing time reviewing their work, and they conse- one chapter on development; Bray was writ- facts and writing a well-nuanced story was quently suggested key experiments to do. ing one chapter on the cytoskeleton; and not always easy. Watson and Raff, for exam- As Raff vividly expressed: Roberts was writing one chapter on plants. ple, sometimes disagreed over that balance. The agreement was that everything else that Watson, despite insisting on concept head- We were shocked at how little was the authors did not dare or did not want ings, thought that “the more facts the better” known. I mean fundamental things to write about would be written by other because they provided students with a that would be easy to find out have experts18. However, in the summer of 1979, better sense of how much they knew18. never been asked, never been done, so as the pieces from outside experts were not Overall, however, the telling of a straight we would call up the experts and say, written in the style they hoped to achieve, forward story about a molecular mechanism do you know what is the half-life of this they decided to write most of the chapters prevailed even if it risked excessive specu- protein (I don’t know), you don’t know, themselves with the outside experts only lations. The following comment by Raff why is it that you don’t know, could you providing advice and feedback18,21. succinctly encapsulates how the team do it, could you find out. It would be Once sketches of figures or pieces of text members saw themselves working: very useful to know when we are telling were finished by one of the authors or by an the story.18 invited expert, they circulated this material Everything we would write should have to the rest of the team members for sugges- a story, it should be interesting, it should The creation of a solid imagery was as tions and corrections for as many rounds as have a reason, don’t learn a fact unless important as writing sound stories about necessary until everyone was pleased with there is something about the fact that molecular mechanisms underlying cell the result. These work dynamics, which helps advance the story.18 functioning. It was immediately noticeable were quite novel at the time, improved the that MBoC contained more images than quality of the writing and was enormously Raff’s comment unveils yet another key any other existing cell biology textbook. educational for the authors. Raff recalls that aspect that set MBoC apart from previously It has an average of 68 images per chapter, Alberts, who knew little about immunol- published cell biology textbooks. Although whereas a chapter from a book such as ogy, would ask fundamental questions that they were extremely cautious about making Cell and Molecular Biology by De Robertis changed the way he would write and think claims on cell functioning that had not been and De Robertis (1980)26 would contain

122 | FEBRUARY 2013 | VOLUME 14 www.nature.com/reviews/molcellbio

Figure 3 | Examples of figures from the first edition of Molecular Biology molecular event into different levels of cellular organization (right). Three of the Cell (MBoC). The images shown in MBoC were key for transforming conformations of a so called walkingNature protein Reviews (left). | MolecularThe transition Cell between Biology the complex picture of cellular mechanisms that was emerging from experi- these conformations is dependent on the hydrolysis of a bound ATP. The mental data into simple ‘visual concepts’ to explain the functioning of cells activation and inactivation of phosphorylase kinase in response to cyclic by showing, for example, molecular movement (left) and molecular inter AMP (middle). Different stages of chromatin compaction (right). Images are actions (middle). Many of the images enabled readers to integrate one single reproduced, with permission, from REF. 1 © (1983) Garland Science. only 15 (REF. 18). Almost every page in the and putting them into an aesthetic and sim- structure in 1953. Roberts was amazed main body of MBoC contains an image. ple diagrammatic form” was essential for the by the capacity of that tiny line drawing Of even more relevance is the fact that all success of MBoC18. to capture all the conceptual points of the images were not only expanding how Roberts was already a very experienced the proposed structure in its simplicity25. molecular biology was displayed visually, illustrator when he embarked on the MBoC More importantly, however, was the influ- but they were also able to tell a comple- project. Among the books he had illus- ence of the multi-authored book The New mentary story to that in the related text and trated, apart from Watson’s MBoG, were Landscape in Art and Science (published in could even be read almost independently. John Kendrew’s The Thread of Life (1968)27 1956), which was edited by Gyorgy Kepes30, The images in MBoC were so to the point and Albert L. Lehninger’s Short Course in a hungarian-born painter, art theorist and that, as Lewis recalls, he came across people Biochemistry (1973)28. He was influenced professor at the college of visual arts at who had read the book by solely looking at by the imagery of the classic biochemis- Harvard University. The New Landscape in the pictures18. Most of the images were, as try textbooks by Lehninger and Lubert Art and Science was a multifaceted book concept headings in writing, very helpful Stryer29. According to Roberts’, Stryer’s aimed at exploring the commonalities and tools to understand the complex picture Biochemistry (published in 1981) set the the productive crosstalk between art and of the molecular biology of a cell that was standards for molecular design by possess- science. The essays it contained reflected unravelled by experiments (FIG. 3). ing a crystal clear illustration programme18. on a time (between the 1940s and 1960s) The images shown in MBoC were pivotal Moreover, in his opinion, having such a type when previously unseen phenomena such for the pedagogical relevance of the book. of illustrations is what separates a properly as a milk drop or a bullet hitting an apple More crucially, they helped to promote the authored textbook from one that just uses became visible owing to the emergence of a modelling of molecular processes, which images from other people. Roberts created panoply of new scientific and photographic is an essential tool in the present work of an illustration programme for MBoC on techniques. Although they did not represent cell biologists, developmental biologists the basis of five ‘pragmatic’ rules of depic- molecular processes, the importance of such and other specialists. For those who saw tion18,25. Because of their quality, these rules, images for the creation of a conceptual and the book for the first time back in 1983, the although originally developed for Roberts’ highly pedagogical imagery of the invisible images would have been simply unforget- personal guidance, were later incorporated that MBoC attempted to portray was unde- table, and they would have immediately in the Garland Publishing editorial depic- niable. This was very relevant for Roberts. realised that a textbook with such visual tion rules acting as a guide for the produc- It helped him to fully exploit the emergent quality would never languish in obscurity. tion of images in other biology textbooks. imagery of molecular biology and its power Although all authors contributed in one way Like for many creators, Roberts’ picto- to infer models for cell biological processes. or another to the production of the images, rial style has been influenced by the work As Roberts succinctly put it: Roberts took on the main responsibility of of others. A primary inspiration for him producing and organizing them. Having an was the two ribbons depiction of DNA, I think that the whole idea of being able ‘artist’ in the team who was, in Raff’s opin- created by Odile Crick (the wife of Francis to see the unseeable is certainly what ion, “a genius at taking complex concepts Crick) for the original article on the DNA made me and my science.18

NATURE REVIEWS | MOLECULAR CELL BIOLOGY VOLUME 14 | FEBRUARY 2013 | 123

The backstage protagonists Moreover, Raff remembers working also in informing the authors of the latest The input from the publisher Borden on with Borden: experimental outputs from their laboratories. the production of MBoC proved essential. The end result was a framework of consent Borden was a former linguist and classicist You always had the feeling that for the different proposals for cell function- from Harvard who ran, together with his whatever you needed you could have ing that the authors of MBoC put forward. wife Libby, a small publishing company … if we needed another expert to write Such consent proved crucial for the broad called Garland Publishing. Producing something he would never say no, it acceptance of the explanations of molecular MBoC was a big risk for them, as they would be too costly.18 mechanisms that the book proposed. had no experience in the field of scientific publishing. Until then, they had only been The work atmosphere created by Borden is Conclusion involved in ‘small jobs’, such as reprinting remembered with special fondness by Roberts The success of MBoC at rewriting the subject theses for universities. Their most impor- who recognizes that his approach was crucial of cell biology cannot be separated from the tant productions before MBoC were a small for turning a diverse mixture of inexperienced way it was produced. MBoC was far more art book and a facsimile of the holograph authors, none of whom was a proper cell than a showcase of knowledge and a peda- manuscripts for Ulysses by James Joyce. biologist, into a solid team, in which everyone gogical tool. It helped to put in place the first Furthermore, their company was on the was friendly but at the same time also critical pieces of the highly intricate ‘jigsaw’ of mol verge of bankruptcy when they embarked of each other’s work18. ecular knowledge on eukaryotes that is the on the production of MBoC. Roberts The work of Miranda Robertson was basis for current research in the biosciences. recalls, that although the MBoC venture also important for the production of MBoC. Thirty years on from its first edition, it was risky, Borden had been persuaded Before working as the developmental editor is clear that MBoC has indeed swept the by Watson as he thought that Borden of MBoC she worked for Nature. Joining the field, as Watson had anticipated in a letter was perfectly suited to embark in such a project in 1976, her role as a text editor was to Roberts in 1974 (REF. 18). The quality of “manic thing”18. crucial, and her work was key for the organi- the book has remained intact despite the Encouraged by Watson, Borden man- zation of the day‑to‑day agenda of ‘have to core team of authors changing in later edi- aged to borrow 1 million US dollars to pay do’ activities. Moreover, she knew better than tions. Key authors embracing the working for the initiative to materialize. The money the authors how to write for a broad audience. paradigm set by the original authors were was sensibly administered as it was used Robertson made sure that the writing was, as Alexander Johnson and Peter Walter who to pay for skilful market research, which the authors recognized in the preface of the both worked on the third edition of the book was performed to warrant reasonable sales first edition, lucid and coherent1. (1994) and became full authors of the fourth for the book, but also to cover personal More importantly, Robertson, together edition (2002). expenses. This included paying for the with Borden, organized a massive network accommodation of the authors when they composed of university undergraduate Their contribution was vital for the gathered together to write and for their students and university teachers to provide updating of the book. Also important travel expenses to reach the different venues feedback, opinions and suggestions on the for the success of MBoC was the first where those gatherings took place (London, drafted chapters. Because of its consistency and subsequent editions of Molecular New York, San Francisco and Norwich)18,21. and extent, the market research and feed- Biology of the Cell: The problems book, Of special note was the investment in a back that Borden and Robertson provided, co-authored by Tim Hunt and John small house in St John’s Wood near the although being common practice among Wilson. Another important contributor Abbey Road studios in London, which was textbook publishers owing to an increasingly was Nigel Orme who converted all originally rented and later purchased by competitive market31,32, took an unprece of Roberts’ hand drawn images into Borden. This location provided inspiration dented dimension. The reports gathered by computer images when the book ventured for the back cover of the 1994 and 2002 edi- Robertson helped the authors enormously into full colour in 1984. Many other tions, which were similar to album covers to improve the quality of the content of each people contributed to the production from The Beatles21. chapter. Such comments were particularly of MBoC over the years, all of whom The contribution of Borden, however, important as they reflected the academic were acknowledged by the authors in went far beyond the money he invested and interests of the potential readership of the the prefaces of the first and subsequent the market research he designed and super- book. In other words, the work of Borden and editions. (K. Roberts, personal vised. Borden had an essential role in creat- Robertson was essential for making MBoC communication) ing the team spirit he believed the authors a consumer-tailored product, a key attribute needed to write as freely and as creatively for increasing the sales of the book and to More importantly, MBoC has been trans- as possible. During the long writing ses- warrant its success. lated into ten languages and is read by mil- sions, Borden never put pressure on the The other group of backstage protago- lions worldwide. The several editions passed authors to speed up the publication of the nists that proved essential for the production the million mark in sales in 2002 (REF. 34). book, rather the opposite, despite the many of MBoC was the huge number of hidden, The clarity of its text and visuals and the delays. As Raff recalls: although acknowledged, collaborators. originality of its production made it, as one Estimated by a reviewer to be 75 well-known reviewer states, “an inspiring, almost awe- When we were in these group meetings cell biologists33 and dubbed by another as inspiring” textbook14, one that perhaps, as he would drag us away to play tennis, “an army of international helpers”14, the the back covers of the fourth edition and the he would drag us away to go swimming collaborators had a central role not only in fifth edition of MBoC suggest, changed the or boating, or something … he made it generating pictures and pieces of writing landscape of cell biology in the same way that like a summer camp to make it fun.18 and in editing and reviewing chapters, but The Beatles changed music.

124 | FEBRUARY 2013 | VOLUME 14 www.nature.com/reviews/molcellbio

Norberto Serpente is at the Department of Science and 16. Alberts, B. The cell as a collection of protein machines: 29. Stryer, L. Biochemistry (W. H. Freeman, 1981). Technology Studies, University College London, preparing the next generation of molecular biologists. 30. Kepes, G. (ed.) The New Landscape in Art and Science Cell 92, 291–294 (1998). (Paul Theobald and Co, 1956). Gower Street, London WC1E 6BT, UK. 17. Wilson, E. O. in Inspiring Science: Jim Watson and the 31. Coser, L. A. et al. Books: The Culture and Commerce e-mail: [email protected] Age of DNA (eds Inglis, J. et al.) 183 of Publishing (The University of Chicago Press, doi:10.1038/nrm3513 (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, 2003). 1982). 18. Serpente, N. Cells from Icons to Symbols: 32. Gaster, B. Assimilation of scientific change: 1. Aberts, B. et al. Molecular Biology of the Cell Molecularising Cell Biology in the 1980s. Thesis, Univ. The introduction of molecular genetics into biology (Garland Publishing, 1983). of London (2011). textbooks. Social Studies Sci. 20, 431–454 2. Wilson, E., B. The Cell in Development and Inheritance 19. Watson, J. D. Molecular Biology of the Gene 1990). (The Macmillan Company,1896). (W. A. Benjamin Inc. Publishing, 1976). 33. Beard, M. E. Expert and expertly edited: This cell 3. Drosher, A. Edmund B. Wilson’s the cell and cell theory 20. Raff, M. C. Theta isoantigen as a marker of thymus- biology text shouldn’t be missed. Bioscience 34, 449 between 1896 and 1925. Hist. Philos. Life Sci. 24, derived lymphocytes in mice. Nature 224, 378–379 (1984). 357–389 (2002). (1969). 34. Doty, P. In Inspiring Science: Jim Watson and the Age 4. Friedberg, E. C. The writing life of James D. Watson 21. Burton, H. “Still in process”: Collaborative autorship in of DNA (eds Inglis, J. et al.) 207 (Cold Spring Harbor (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, 2004). a twentieth-century biomedical textbook. Laboratory Press, 2003). 5. Morange, M. A History of Molecular Biology Canadian Bulletin of Medical History 12, 373–384 (Harvard University Press, 1998). (1995). Acknowledgements 6. Harris, H. Molecular biology of the cell. 22. Alberts, B. in Inspiring Science: Jim Watson The author is grateful to the Department of Science and Immunol. Today 4, 352 (1983). and the Age of DNA (eds Inglis, J. et al.) 429–434 Technology Studies of University College London for sup- 7. Massover, W. H. Cell biology for students. Science (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, 2003). port. He thanks J. Cain for his guidance and stimulating 220, 856–857 (1983). 23. Shapin, S. The Scientific Life: A Moral History of a comments. The author deeply thanks M. Raff, K. Roberts 8. Swift, H. Molecular biology of the cell. Am. Scientist Late Modern Vocation (The University of Chicago and J. Lewis for providing information for this article 72, 286 (1984). Press, 2008). through interviews as well as printed material and pictures. 9. Gall, J. G. Teaching mechanisms. Nature 302, 637 24. Watson, J. D. Avoid Boring People: And other lessons The author is highly appreciative of the valuable comments (1983). from a life in science (Oxford University Press, and suggestions from M. Raff, K. Roberts, L. Marks and 10. Kendrew, J. C. Essay review — the molecular biology 2007). P. Serpente. of the cell. Endeavour 7, 202 (1983). 25. Roberts, K. in Inspiring Science: Jim Watson and the 11. Arnstein, H. R. V. The Molecular Biology of the Cell. Age of DNA (eds Inglis, J. et al.) 437 (Cold Spring Competing interests statement FEBS 196, 180–181 (1986). Harbor Laboratory Press, 2003). The author declares no competing financial interests. 12. Cairns, J. Prospero’s cell. Cell 33, 1–2 (1983). 26. De Robertis E. D. P. & De Robertis E. M. F. Jr 13. Gurdon, J. B. Adventurous textbook on cell biology. Cell and Molecular Biology (Lea & Febiger, 1980). Trends Biochem. Sci. 8, 383–384 (1983). 27. Kendrew, J. The thread of Life: An Introduction to FURTHER INFORMATION 14. Vella, F. Molecular Biology of the Cell. Molecular Biology (Harvard University Press, Norberto Serpente’s homepage: Biochemical Education 11, 121–122 (1983). 1968). http://www.ucl.ac.uk/sts/staff/fellows/serpente 15. Lodish, H. et al. Molecular Cell Biology 28. Lehninger, A. L. Short Course on Biochemistry. ALL LINKS ARE ACTIVE IN THE ONLINE PDF (W. H. Freeman, 1986). (Worth Publishers, 1973).

NATURE REVIEWS | MOLECULAR CELL BIOLOGY VOLUME 14 | FEBRUARY 2013 | 125