DOCSLIB.ORG

Visions of Cell Biology

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Visions of Cell Biology NING 5CIENCE: VISIONS OF CEtt BIOTOGY RINE BIOLOGICAL LABORATORY REFLECTIONS INSPIRED BY COWDRY,S td by Jane Maienscheín GENERAL CYTOLOGY r for the new University of Chicago press Edítedby )very at the Marine Biological Laboratory. ngoing role the Marine Biological Labora_ KARL S. MATLIN, JANE MAIENSCFIEIN, emination of science, in its broader histor_ ractice and future potential. Each volume O.Nd M.ANFRED D. LAUBICHLER udes work about the MBL and its science :ntists; work that begins with workshops, :ollaborations made possible by the MBL; for, inspired by, and otherwise related to liscovery by the community of MBL scien_ ronographic, while others will be collabo_ : new ideas and approaches that find their :st did summer research, with a small NSF 6; it led to my first edited volume inspired oeople have been similarly inspired, and :ogether ourworks into a collection of re_ noting discovery through its exceptional aside. AIENSCHEIN íes Editor r of the Centerfor Biotogy and Society, itate Uniuersity 9 i o I o g i c a I L a b o r a. t o ry THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO PRESS Chicago and London :ures and Parts: CHAPTER 1 I Epistemic Strategy of C ellBiology I 246 I NTRODUCTION rlS.Matlín KarI S. Matlin, Jane Maienscheín, ingthe Living Cell: and M anfre d O. Laub ic hler tergence of Light Microscopy / zgo f Oldenbourg as many scientists know it today is generally considered to have :gies for Creating Cell biology Mechanistic particular arisen after World War II and is often associated historically with ns in Biology / 3or technical developments, most prominently the electron microscope and i.am Bechtel the cell fractionation. Despite its extraordinary success in describing both Cowdry's Theories: structure and function of cells, modern cell biology tends to be overshad- in the same Contemporary Experimental owed by molecular biology, a.field of inquiry that developed period. Nevertheless, cell biology, which considers both the molecular as- rnal Cell Biology I 326 pects of cells and cell form, is often more effective than approaches focused 'olin Gross only on molecules in explaining biotogical phenomena at the cellular level' :dgments / 35r The investigation of cells began, of course, much earlier than the post- war period. As a number of recent studies have explored, the cellular con- ntributors / 353 ception of life emerged gradually within a rich context of cultural trends, lex / 355 philosophical claims, changing epistemologies and aesthetic preferences, institutional settings (Duchesneau r987; Harris r999; ,llow page tzz political debates, and parnes and vedder zooS; Rheinberger and Müller-wille zooT; weigel zoo5). Cells were identified in the seventeenth century, and during the eighteenth century and into the beginning of the nineteenth century' observations of mainly plant but also animal cells accumulated. By the beginning of the nineteenth century, improved light microscopes with significantly reduced chromatic aberration became widely available, and the pace of new discov- eries about cells accelerated. Building on the work of Henri Dutrochet and François-vincent Raspail in France, amongothers, Matthias schleiden and Theodor Schwann produced widely read works in the l83os suggesting that all organisms are composed of cells. shortly thereafter, Robert Remak and Rudolf Virchow emphasized that att new cells are formed by division of old cells (Harris r999)' As the nineteenth century progressed, cytologists increased our under- standingof cell structures through morphological observations of embryos and other preparations, while also developing the protoplasm concept that began to address questions of cell chemistry (Geison 1969; see also Reyn- to ideas olds, chap. 3 in this volume). These observations also contributed about the theoretical foundation of biology as the fundamental science of life (Driesch rB93; Flartrn¿ì¡l11 1925 ancl r933; Hertwig t89z; t99ï;ancl t9o6; L¿rubichler 2oo6; Schaxel r 9 r9 ; Vcrworn r 895). Furthcr stuclics lecl to tl"re fbnnul¿rtion of hypotheses about the relative functiot-ts of thc t-tucle us ¿ìncl cytoplasrn, ancl the mech¿rnism of cell clivisior-r (Laubichler al-rcl D¿rviclson zoo8). Then, at the beginning of the twentieth century, cytologists correlatecl the clistribution of Mencleli¿rn characters into cliviclir-rg cclls with the separatiol-r of chromclsoltìes, ancl cytology be- calne, for a tirne , closely linkecl with tl-rc stucly of hercdity through the ncw fielcl of genetics (see Allen, chap. B in this volurne; ancì Sutton r9o3). 'l'his link was groundecl in a conceptual unclerstancling of inherit¿rnce that pre- clatcs the subseclucl-rt split into thinking in terms of genetics (transmission) aucl clevelopment (expression), n split triggerecl both by methoclology ancl by new conceptual orientations (Laubichler zor4; Maienschein ¿rncl Lau- biclrlcr 2074). Acasualty of this split it-tto two experimenttrl clisciplines was the apparent loss of importance of cclls to each. Cytology, in the meantirne, h:rcl l¡ecorne an increasingly experimerrtal fielcl basecl upon manipulations of early embryonic cells by Hans l)riesch, f'heoclor lloveri, Wilhelm Roux, ancl others (Maienschein t99r). Although cytology still reliecl on the light microscope, biologists generally agreecl that the processcs within cells also clepenclecl on cher-nical reactions that researchers coulcl not clirectly observe. There was, however, a dilemr-na. The living substance of the cell was the protoplasr-u, a gel-like r-ì1ass that con- tainecl within it the nucleus ancl other "fbrmecl eletnents." Lif'c was viewecl as the coltsequence of protoplasmic organization, but the clisruption of protoplasm believecl to be necessary to stucþ its chernistry was thought to rencler suspect the biologic¿rl relevance of any r:eactions uncoverecl by these nraniptrlations (Wilson t896, z3B; Geison t969). Cowdry's General Cytology It is within this context that a group of Arnerican biologists clecicled to initi- ate a new project, the creation of a cornprehensive cytology textbook with inclividual chapters from many of the leaclers in the fìelcl, most of whom al- reercly interacted on a regular basis cluring sullìûìers at the Marine Biologi- cal Lalroratory (MBL) in Woocls Hole, Massachusetts. When General Cytotogy was publishe cl in t924, the volume sought to treat cytology comprehensively, but also to go beyoncl what the authors saw as the usual morphological con- siclerations. chapters focusecl on the chernical and physical activities of cells, and new techniques, such as cellular microsurgery and tissue culture, joined more traditional ol¡servational ancl experimental methods (Cowdry z Karl 5. Matlin, Jane Maienschein, and Manfred D. Laubichler i and 1933; Hertwig r89z; rB98; and t9o6; Beecherwilson' one of the leading synthesizers of all knowl- ,rworn 7924).Edmund r895). volume that edge of the cell up to then, noted in his introduction to the Lulation of hypotheses about the relative General CytologJ, represented a new era of multi-perspectival cell biology. lasm, and the mechanism of cell division The idea for General cytology originated at a meeting of scientists work- Then, at the beginning of the twentieth ing at the MBL in Woods Hole in September 1922. At the suggestion of Ed- e distribution of Mendelian characters ward Conklin, the cytologist and anatomist Edmund V. Cowdry was asked ltion of chromosomes, and cytology be- to edit the volume. After accepting, Cowdry began assembling contribu- th the study of heredity through the new tors, starting with the core group from the MBL (see Maienschein, chap' z B in this volume; and Sutton r9o3). This in this volume). Among the individuals on this original list was Jacques I understanding of inheritance that pre- Loeb, the great promoter of mechanistic views of the cell and formerly an rking in terms of genetics (transmission) MBL regular, with the suggested topic "Physical chemistry of the cell with rplit triggered both by methodology and special reference to proteins" (see fig. r'r). Loeb later dropped offthis list' ,aubichler zor4; Maienschein and Lau- presumably due to ill health (he died in ry24) (Pauly r987). Robert Bensley, it into two experimental disciplines was an anatomist from the Univérsity of Chicago and Cowdry's thesis advisor, 'cells to each. was also proposed tentatively as author of two chapters on secretion and I become an increasingly experimental methods of fixation and staining. In the end, neither chapter by Bensley Iearly embryonic cells by Hans Driesch, appeared in the final book, nor did a chapter by the botanist and physi- rd others (Maienschein r99r). Although ologist Winthrop J. V. Osterhout on cellular permeability or a proposed ricroscope, biologists generally agreed "historical resume" by Fielding H. Garrison (see fig. r'r). Other authors, o depended on chemical reactions that however, eventually stepped in to fill these gaps' rve. There was, however, a dilemma, The A subsequent meeting determined the final title, list of authors, and sug e protoplasm, a gel-like mass that con- gestions for a publisher. The original working title was Cellular Physiology, her "formed elements.', Life was viewed indicating perhaps the desire to avoid what the group saw as the morpholog- ric organization, but the disruption of ical connotations of the term cytology (fig. r.r). By the time of the meeting, to study its chemistry ry was thought to however, General Cytology was set as the final title. Wilson, who had been Lnce ofany reactions uncovered by these asked towrite the introduction, planned to include historical material largely 3eison t969). drawn from the upcoming edition of his book The Cell in Deuelopment and Inheritance,making a separate chapter on history superfluous (Wilson r9z5)' eneral Cytology Merkel Jacobs, at the time responsible for directing the noted physiology ofAmerican biologists decided to initi- course at the MBL, replaced Osterhout on cell permeability, and Thomas comprehensive cytology textbook with Hunt Morgan was added to write about the experimental analysis of the re leaders in the field, most of whom al- chromosome theory of heredity to pair with Clarence E.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 書 名 等 発行年 出版社 受賞年 備考 N1 Ueber Das Zustandekommen Der
    書 名 等 発行年 出版社 受賞年 備考 Ueber das Zustandekommen der Diphtherie-immunitat und der Tetanus-Immunitat bei thieren / Emil Adolf N1 1890 Georg thieme 1901 von Behring N2 Diphtherie und tetanus immunitaet / Emil Adolf von Behring und Kitasato 19-- [Akitomo Matsuki] 1901 Malarial fever its cause, prevention and treatment containing full details for the use of travellers, University press of N3 1902 1902 sportsmen, soldiers, and residents in malarious places / by Ronald Ross liverpool Ueber die Anwendung von concentrirten chemischen Lichtstrahlen in der Medicin / von Prof. Dr. Niels N4 1899 F.C.W.Vogel 1903 Ryberg Finsen Mit 4 Abbildungen und 2 Tafeln Twenty-five years of objective study of the higher nervous activity (behaviour) of animals / Ivan N5 Petrovitch Pavlov ; translated and edited by W. Horsley Gantt ; with the collaboration of G. Volborth ; and c1928 International Publishing 1904 an introduction by Walter B. Cannon Conditioned reflexes : an investigation of the physiological activity of the cerebral cortex / by Ivan Oxford University N6 1927 1904 Petrovitch Pavlov ; translated and edited by G.V. Anrep Press N7 Die Ätiologie und die Bekämpfung der Tuberkulose / Robert Koch ; eingeleitet von M. Kirchner 1912 J.A.Barth 1905 N8 Neue Darstellung vom histologischen Bau des Centralnervensystems / von Santiago Ramón y Cajal 1893 Veit 1906 Traité des fiévres palustres : avec la description des microbes du paludisme / par Charles Louis Alphonse N9 1884 Octave Doin 1907 Laveran N10 Embryologie des Scorpions / von Ilya Ilyich Mechnikov 1870 Wilhelm Engelmann 1908 Immunität bei Infektionskrankheiten / Ilya Ilyich Mechnikov ; einzig autorisierte übersetzung von Julius N11 1902 Gustav Fischer 1908 Meyer Die experimentelle Chemotherapie der Spirillosen : Syphilis, Rückfallfieber, Hühnerspirillose, Frambösie / N12 1910 J.Springer 1908 von Paul Ehrlich und S.
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction and Historical Perspective
    Chapter 1 Introduction and Historical Perspective “ Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution. ” modified by the developmental history of the organism, Theodosius Dobzhansky its physiology – from cellular to systems levels – and by the social and physical environment. Finally, behaviors are shaped through evolutionary forces of natural selection OVERVIEW that optimize survival and reproduction ( Figure 1.1 ). Truly, the study of behavior provides us with a window through Behavioral genetics aims to understand the genetic which we can view much of biology. mechanisms that enable the nervous system to direct Understanding behaviors requires a multidisciplinary appropriate interactions between organisms and their perspective, with regulation of gene expression at its core. social and physical environments. Early scientific The emerging field of behavioral genetics is still taking explorations of animal behavior defined the fields shape and its boundaries are still being defined. Behavioral of experimental psychology and classical ethology. genetics has evolved through the merger of experimental Behavioral genetics has emerged as an interdisciplin- psychology and classical ethology with evolutionary biol- ary science at the interface of experimental psychology, ogy and genetics, and also incorporates aspects of neuro- classical ethology, genetics, and neuroscience. This science ( Figure 1.2 ). To gain a perspective on the current chapter provides a brief overview of the emergence of definition of this field, it is helpful
    [Show full text]
  • Barbara Mcclintock's World
    Barbara McClintock’s World Timeline adapted from Dolan DNA Learning Center exhibition 1902-1908 Barbara McClintock is born in Hartford, Connecticut, the third of four children of Sarah and Thomas Henry McClintock, a physician. She spends periods of her childhood in Massachusetts with her paternal aunt and uncle. Barbara at about age five. This prim and proper picture betrays the fact that she was, in fact, a self-reliant tomboy. Barbara’s individualism and self-sufficiency was apparent even in infancy. When Barbara was four months old, her parents changed her birth name, Eleanor, which they considered too delicate and feminine for such a rugged child. In grade school, Barbara persuaded her mother to have matching bloomers (shorts) made for her dresses – so she could more easily join her brother Tom in tree climbing, baseball, volleyball, My father tells me that at the and football. age of five I asked for a set of tools. He My mother used to did not get me the tools that you get for an adult; he put a pillow on the floor and give got me tools that would fit in my hands, and I didn’t me one toy and just leave me there. think they were adequate. Though I didn’t want to tell She said I didn’t cry, didn’t call for him that, they were not the tools I wanted. I wanted anything. real tools not tools for children. 1908-1918 McClintock’s family moves to Brooklyn in 1908, where she attends elementary and secondary school. In 1918, she graduates one semester early from Erasmus Hall High School in Brooklyn.
    [Show full text]
  • DNA Replication
    Introduction to genome biology Sandrine Dudoit and Robert Gentleman Bioconductor short course Summer 2002 © Copyright 2002, all rights reserved Outline • Cells and cell division • DNA structure and replication •Proteins • Central dogma: transcription, translation • Pathways A brief history Gregor Mendel (1823(1823---1884)1884) Thomas Hunt Morgan (1866(1866---1945)1945) Francis Crick (1916(1916---)))) James D. Watson (1928(1928---)))) From chromosomes to proteins Cells Cells • Cells: the fundamental working units of every living organism. • Metazoa: multicellular organisms. E.g. Humans: trillions of cells. • Protozoa: unicellular organisms. E.g. yeast, bacteria. Cells • Each cell contains a complete copy of an organism’s genome, or blueprint for all cellular structures and activities. • Cells are of many different types (e.g. blood, skin, nerve cells), but all can be traced back to a single cell, the fertilized egg. Cell composition • 90% water. • Of the remaining molecules, dry weight – 50% protein – 15% carbohydrate – 15% nucleic acid – 10% lipid – 10% miscellaneous. • By element: 60% H, 25% O, 12%C, 5%N. The genome • The genome is distributed along chromosomes, which are made of compressed and entwined DNA. • A (protein-coding) gene is a segment of chromosomal DNA that directs the synthesis of a protein. Eukaryotes vs. prokaryotes Eukaryotes vs. prokaryotes • Prokaryotic cells: lack a distinct, membrane-bound nucleus. E.g. bacteria. • Eukaryotic cells: distinct, membrane- bound nucleus. Larger and more complex in structure than prokaryotic cells. E.g. mammals, yeast. The eukaryotic cell The eukaryotic cell • Nucleus: membrane enclosed structure which contains chromosomes, i.e., DNA molecules carrying genes essential to cellular function. • Cytoplasm: the material between the nuclear and cell membranes; includes fluid (cytosol), organelles, and various membranes.
    [Show full text]
  • Barbara Mcclintock
    Barbara McClintock Lee B. Kass and Paul Chomet Abstract Barbara McClintock, pioneering plant geneticist and winner of the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 1983, is best known for her discovery of transposable genetic elements in corn. This chapter provides an overview of many of her key findings, some of which have been outlined and described elsewhere. We also provide a new look at McClintock’s early contributions, based on our readings of her primary publications and documents found in archives. We expect the reader will gain insight and appreciation for Barbara McClintock’s unique perspective, elegant experiments and unprecedented scientific achievements. 1 Introduction This chapter is focused on the scientific contributions of Barbara McClintock, pioneering plant geneticist and winner of the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 1983 for her discovery of transposable genetic elements in corn. Her enlightening experiments and discoveries have been outlined and described in a number of papers and books, so it is not the aim of this report to detail each step in her scientific career and personal life but rather highlight many of her key findings, then refer the reader to the original reports and more detailed reviews. We hope the reader will gain insight and appreciation for Barbara McClintock’s unique perspective, elegant experiments and unprecedented scientific achievements. Barbara McClintock (1902–1992) was born in Hartford Connecticut and raised in Brooklyn, New York (Keller 1983). She received her undergraduate and graduate education at the New York State College of Agriculture at Cornell University. In 1923, McClintock was awarded the B.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Mendel, No. 14, 2005
    THE MENDEL NEWSLETTER Archival Resources for the History of Genetics & Allied Sciences ISSUED BY THE LIBRARY OF THE AMERICAN PHILOSOPHICAL SOCIETY New Series, No. 14 March 2005 A SPLENDID SUCCESS As promised in this newsletter last year, the American Philosophical Society Library hosted the October 2004 conference, “Descended from IN THIS ISSUE Darwin: Insights into American Evolutionary Studies, 1925-1950”. In total, eighteen speakers and over thirty participants spent two days discussing the • The Correspondence of the Tring current state of scholarship in this area. Some papers focused on particular researchers and their theoretical projects. Others worked to place work from Museum at the Natural History the period into larger historical contexts. Professor Michael Ruse delivered Museum, London the keynote address, a popular lecture on the differences in emphasis when evolutionists present their work in public versus professional spheres. It • The Cyril Dean Darlington Papers was a capacity crowd and a roaring success. Thanks to the ‘Friends of the Library’ for the grand reception. • Joseph Henry Woodger (1894-1981) This conference had a real buzz about it. I had the sense we scholars Papers at University College London are on the brink of significant developments in our understanding of the period. Moreover, considerable progress is being made on how we might • Where to Look Next?: Agricultural relate this period to research underway in the decades before and after. New Archives as Resources for the History archives, new ideas, new opportunities. of Genetics As organiser, I’d like to express my thanks to the participants for the hard work done to prepare.
    [Show full text]
  • Consciousness Eclipsed: Jacques Loeb, Ivan P. Pavlov, and the Rise of Reductionistic Biology After 1900
    Consciousness and Cognition Consciousness and Cognition 14 (2005) 219–230 www.elsevier.com/locate/concog Consciousness eclipsed: Jacques Loeb, Ivan P. Pavlov, and the rise of reductionistic biology after 1900 Ralph J. Greenspan*, Bernard J. Baars The Neurosciences Institute, 10640 John Jay Hopkins Dr., San Diego, CA 92121, United States Received 17 May 2004 Available online 25 November 2004 Abstract The life sciences in the 20th century were guided to a large extent by a reductionist program seeking to explain biological phenomena in terms of physics and chemistry. Two scientists who figured prominently in the establishment and dissemination of this program were Jacques Loeb in biology and Ivan P. Pavlov in psychological behaviorism. While neither succeeded in accounting for higher mental functions in physical- chemical terms, both adopted positions that reduced the problem of consciousness to the level of reflexes and associations. The intellectual origins of this view and the impediment to the study of consciousness as an object of inquiry in its own right that it may have imposed on peers, students, and those who followed is explored. Ó 2004 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. Keywords: History of ideas; Reductionism; Tropism; Conditional reflex 1. Introduction The current acceptance of consciousness as a suitable object of study in the life sciences came late in the 20th century (Flanagan, 1984). By that time other biological processes—physiology, biochemistry, genetics, embryology, and even many aspects of brain function—had long since * Corresponding author. Fax: +1 858 626 2099. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (R.J. Greenspan), [email protected] (B.J.
    [Show full text]
  • From Controlling Elements to Transposons: Barbara Mcclintock and the Nobel Prize Nathaniel C
    454 Forum TRENDS in Biochemical Sciences Vol.26 No.7 July 2001 Historical Perspective From controlling elements to transposons: Barbara McClintock and the Nobel Prize Nathaniel C. Comfort Why did it take so long for Barbara correspondence. From these and other to prevent her controlling elements from McClintock (Fig. 1) to win the Nobel Prize? materials, we can reconstruct the events moving because their effects were difficult In the mid-1940s, McClintock discovered leading up to the 1983 prize*. to study when they jumped around. She genetic transposition in maize. She What today are known as transposable never had any inclination to pursue the published her results over several years elements, McClintock called ‘controlling biochemistry of transposition. and, in 1951, gave a famous presentation elements’. During the years 1945–1946, at Current understanding of how gene at the Cold Spring Harbor Symposium, the Carnegie Dept of Genetics, Cold activity is regulated, of course, springs yet it took until 1983 for her to win a Nobel Spring Harbor, McClintock discovered a from the operon, François Jacob and Prize. The delay is widely attributed to a pair of genetic loci in maize that seemed to Jacques Monod’s 1960 model of a block of combination of gender bias and gendered trigger spontaneous and reversible structural genes under the control of an science. McClintock’s results were not mutations in what had been ordinary, adjacent set of regulatory genes (Fig. 2). accepted, the story goes, because women stable alleles. In the term of the day, they Though subsequent studies revealed in science are marginalized, because the made stable alleles into ‘mutable’ ones.
    [Show full text]
  • Cover June 2011
    z NOBEL LAUREATES IN Qui DNA RESEARCH n u SANGRAM KESHARI LENKA & CHINMOYEE MAHARANA F 1. Who got the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine 1933) for discovering the famous concept that says chromosomes carry genes? a. Gregor Johann Mendel b. Thomas Hunt Morgan c. Aristotle d. Charles Darwin 5. Name the Nobel laureate (1959) for his discovery of the mechanisms in the biological 2. The concept of Mutations synthesis of ribonucleic acid and are changes in genetic deoxyribonucleic acid? information” awarded him a. Arthur Kornberg b. Har Gobind Khorana the Nobel Prize in 1946: c. Roger D. Kornberg d. James D. Watson a. Hermann Muller b. M.F. Perutz c. James D. Watson 6. Discovery of the DNA double helix fetched them d. Har Gobind Khorana the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine (1962). a. Francis Crick, James Watson, Rosalind Elsie Franklin b. Francis Crick, James Watson and Maurice Willkins c. James Watson, Maurice Willkins, Rosalind Elsie Franklin 3. Identify the discoverer and d. Maurice Willkins, Rosalind Elsie Franklin and Francis Crick Nobel laureate of 1958 who found DNA in bacteria and viruses. a. Louis Pasteur b. Alexander Fleming c. Joshua Lederberg d. Roger D. Kornberg 4. A direct link between genes and enzymatic reactions, known as the famous “one gene, one enzyme” hypothesis, was put forth by these 7. They developed the theory of genetic regulatory scientists who shared the Nobel Prize in mechanisms, showing how, on a molecular level, Physiology or Medicine, 1958. certain genes are activated and suppressed. Name a. George Wells Beadle and Edward Lawrie Tatum these famous Nobel laureates of 1965.
    [Show full text]
  • Being Neurologically Human Today: Life and Science and Adult Cerebral Plasticity (An Ethical Analysis)
    TOBIAS REES McGill University Being neurologically human today: Life and science and adult cerebral plasticity (an ethical analysis) ABSTRACT Science is meaningless because it gives no answer to our question, the Throughout the 20th century, scientists believed only question important for us: What shall we do? How shall we live? that the adult human brain is fully developed, organized in fixed and immutable function-specific —Max Weber, Science as Vocation neural circuits. Since the discovery of the profound he relation between life and science—a relation that has often plasticity of the human brain in the late 1990s, this been said to be no relation at all—surfaced many times in the belief has been thoroughly undermined. In this course of my fieldwork among Parisian neuroscientists. A scene article, combining ethnographic and historical here, a word there, minor events , which indicated that the two are research, I develop an “ethical analysis” to show somehow related. But it was only toward the end of my stay that that (and in what concrete sense) the emergence of Tthe relation as such, the question of what kind of relation this is, became adult cerebral plasticity was a major mutation of the a serious intellectual concern for me—a concern that was to profoundly neurologically human—a metamorphosis of the reshape my comprehension of the contested emergence of adult cerebral confines within which neuroscience requires all plasticity, the actual topic of my research. What gave rise to this concern those who live under the spell of the brain to think were three “ethnographic incidents.”1 and live the human.
    [Show full text]
  • Federation Member Society Nobel Laureates
    FEDERATION MEMBER SOCIETY NOBEL LAUREATES For achievements in Chemistry, Physiology/Medicine, and PHysics. Award Winners announced annually in October. Awards presented on December 10th, the anniversary of Nobel’s death. (-H represents Honorary member, -R represents Retired member) # YEAR AWARD NAME AND SOCIETY DOB DECEASED 1 1904 PM Ivan Petrovich Pavlov (APS-H) 09/14/1849 02/27/1936 for work on the physiology of digestion, through which knowledge on vital aspects of the subject has been transformed and enlarged. 2 1912 PM Alexis Carrel (APS/ASIP) 06/28/1873 01/05/1944 for work on vascular suture and the transplantation of blood vessels and organs 3 1919 PM Jules Bordet (AAI-H) 06/13/1870 04/06/1961 for discoveries relating to immunity 4 1920 PM August Krogh (APS-H) 11/15/1874 09/13/1949 (Schack August Steenberger Krogh) for discovery of the capillary motor regulating mechanism 5 1922 PM A. V. Hill (APS-H) 09/26/1886 06/03/1977 Sir Archibald Vivial Hill for discovery relating to the production of heat in the muscle 6 1922 PM Otto Meyerhof (ASBMB) 04/12/1884 10/07/1951 (Otto Fritz Meyerhof) for discovery of the fixed relationship between the consumption of oxygen and the metabolism of lactic acid in the muscle 7 1923 PM Frederick Grant Banting (ASPET) 11/14/1891 02/21/1941 for the discovery of insulin 8 1923 PM John J.R. Macleod (APS) 09/08/1876 03/16/1935 (John James Richard Macleod) for the discovery of insulin 9 1926 C Theodor Svedberg (ASBMB-H) 08/30/1884 02/26/1971 for work on disperse systems 10 1930 PM Karl Landsteiner (ASIP/AAI) 06/14/1868 06/26/1943 for discovery of human blood groups 11 1931 PM Otto Heinrich Warburg (ASBMB-H) 10/08/1883 08/03/1970 for discovery of the nature and mode of action of the respiratory enzyme 12 1932 PM Lord Edgar D.
    [Show full text]
  • Thomas Hunt Morgan
    NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES T HOMAS HUNT M ORGAN 1866—1945 A Biographical Memoir by A. H . S TURTEVANT Any opinions expressed in this memoir are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Academy of Sciences. Biographical Memoir COPYRIGHT 1959 NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES WASHINGTON D.C. THOMAS HUNT MORGAN September 25, 1866-December 4, 1945 BY A. H. STURTEVANT HOMAS HUNT MORGAN was born September 25, 1866, at Lexing- Tton, Kentucky, the son of Charlton Hunt Morgan and Ellen Key (Howard) Morgan. In 1636 the two brothers James Morgan and Miles Morgan came to Boston from Wales. Thomas Hunt Morgan's line derives from James; from Miles descended J. Pierpont Morgan. While the rela- tionship here is remote, geneticists will recognize that a common Y chromosome is indicated. The family lived in New England^ mostly in Connecticut—until about 1800, when Gideon Morgan moved to Tennessee. His son, Luther, later settled at Huntsville, Alabama. This Luther Morgan was the grandfather of Charlton Hunt Morgan; the latter's mother (Thomas Hunt Morgan's grand- mother) was Henrietta Hunt, of Lexington, whose father, John Wesley Hunt, came from Trenton, New Jersey, and was one of the early settlers at Lexington, where he became a hemp manufacturer. Ellen Key Howard was from an old aristocratic family of Baltimore, Maryland. Her two grandfathers were John Eager Howard (Colonel in the Revolutionary Army, Governor of Maryland from 1788 to 1791) and Francis Scott Key (author of "The Star-spangled Ban- ner"). Thomas Hunt Morgan's parents were related, apparently as third cousins.
    [Show full text]