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 :rl<: Oxfortl Urrivcrsity prcss. CHAPTER 2 produced: 2oo7. Herediq) At the Crossroctds of 87o. Carnbriclge, MA: Ml.I prcss. CHANGING IDEAS ABOUT rbilclung in der Iliolog.ie. Jena: custâv Fischer. ir-r Heredity." CELTS AS COMPTEX SYSTEMS aiolog.ical Bulletirt 4(5)t 41-_So. e: ein Grundriss cler Lehre vom Leben, .lena: Gustav Jane Maienschein Tradition , und Evolutíon z.¡uischen lAlno- und finished the third ancl final eclition of 'nt and Inhcrítatrce. New yorl<: Macmillau. As Ednuncl Beecl-rer Wilson writing I H e r e dity. ecl. yorl<: prob- 3rcl New Macmillan. orig. his The Cell ín Development and Heredity, he notecl that in the future theritance in rB96; znd ecl., r9oo. ably no single author could write such a ceìl biology text. The subject hacl become too complex and required too many different kinds of expertise to clo it justice. About the same titne, Wilson joinecl Edrnund Cowdry ancl other leading biologists in a workshop at the Marine Biological Laboratory (MBL), where the clistinguishêcl group clivicled uP the topics to write tlÌe col- lective 1924 volume G eneral Cytolo gy (Wilson r9 z5; Cowclry 792 4)' Cowdry then convenecl a larger ancl even more diverse group to produce two vol- urnes on,specíøl cytolog (cowdry 1928; cowclry 1932). Far from being of merely antiquarian interest, these volumes reveal unclerlying assumptions that both reflected ancl informed the directions of scientific research. "lhe t9z4 Cowdry volume focused on the architec- ture and activities of individual cells, not primarily as building blocks of living organisms but also as the fundamental units that were themselves living, ancl the authors emphasizecl the value of studying these living cells in cletail. The group clearly saw the beginning of a new fielcl of cell biology emerging, one that might lose the coherence of a single approach but gain from different points of view, using clifferent techniques to ask different questions about complex cells and their activities. This chapter looks at the context in which Cowdry's volume appeared, a context constructed on the foundation of the first cell theory of 1839 ancl subsequent developments. The story leads to questions about what the Cowdry volume tells us about the science of understalÌding cells more generally. It looks at what the tgz4volutne offers in seeing cells as having gained autonomy, integrity, and biological itr-rportance as complex living systems in their own right. In addition, some of the chapters and reviews focus on understanding that the individual cells work together to make up complex organisms, such that organization arises through their connec- tions. Yet the chapters mostly remain focused on the individual cells them- selves rather than on how they communicate with each other and work as a whole. The Cowdry volume presents an American story, focused on Woods ein, and Manfred D. Laubichler 'r5 Hole at a time after worrd war I when scientists in the pired united states as- to scientific leadership. To gain perspective on the contributions of cowdry's vorume, it is usefur to start ori.ny at a prominent discussion the centennial at ofthe celr theory for a broader view rooking back, and then to move on to Generat Cytotogy itself. Reflecting on the First Century of Cell Theory In his introduction to the centenniar volume entitled The ce, and proto- plasm in rg40, editor Forest Ray Mourton noted that ciation the American Asso- for the Advancement of science was pubrishing the book of a series' It grew as part out of a symposium, herd in 7g3g, tocerebrate the cen- tenniar of Matthiap schreiden and Theodor schwann,s introduction scientific cell of the theory. Because of the rich h. to that time, ,,in Mourton fert that a sensejii]J,;iï:ïi::::îï:llï:i he continued, "In another serse the cell Theory is arways new, for every discovery respecting this prirnary and essential unit of both pla't riving organisms, and a'irnar, h^as raised more questions than it has answered and has always widened the fields of inquiry,;fruroulton rg4o,,,Foreword,,). volume The set out to show both what was old and we, estabrished ancl was new a century what after the originat idea of celìs. By rg4o, discussion of cells usually separated plant, microbial, and animal cets' For plants, discussion typically invorved rooking dictable at such pre_ topics as celr walrs, whte discussion of animar celrs looked more closely at derineation of individual cers; contents of celrs, including cleus' cytoplasm, nu_ and organelres; und both internal and ternar to each cet' AIong "nuiron-ents, ex- the way came considerations orbioc¡emisüy cell physiorogy. and More.surprising in the rg40 volume are the less standard chapters on microbiology, viruses, ,n rri"'",hormones, and vitamins. The choice of topics and of contributors -uL", åtear.¡ust how much remained in ry40 to be discovered about ce's and especialry about teract with the ways they in- each other as we' as with their ånvironment. realized The contributors that they still knew relatively little about how the individual cells add up to an organized, whole, "o_pl"* organism, though they recognized that the process of making coordinited understanding "Jm¡inutions of parts was key to living systems and organisms. we see this emphasis on individual cets in textbooks of the For example, time as welr. Lester W. Sharp,s very widely used,Fundamentals of Cytutogy of rg43 (as welr as other editions) laid out the way that cleus cytoprasm and nu- work in the celr, Iooked at different t in¿, or cells, and recognized t6 Jane Maienschein : I when scientists in the United States as_ but had relatively little to say about the latter 'o cells make up organisms, gain perspective on the contributions that of Sharp noted that in addition to the cell theory focused on the cells r start briefly at a prominent ooint. discussion at other researchers had a different view of living organisms that ' for a b¡oader view looking th"-r"lu"r, back, and then on each organism as a whole. The two different :self. supported an emphasis perspectives have to come together in some way, Sharp recognized, for "in norrnul mass of protoplasm, whatever its growth pattern or degree First Century of Cell Theory "u"ry the many diversified activities are so coordinated that it nnial volume of differentiation, entitled The Ceil and proto- behaves as a consistent whole, or individual, from the beginning of devel- 'Moulton noted that the American Asso_ such harmony there obviously could be no organ- Science opment onward;without was publishing the book as part ism', (Sharp tg43, zo). Yes, but how could this harmony be achieved? r-sium, held in rg3gt to celebrate the cen_ The connections were not yet clear. Some biologists continued to look d Theodor Schwann,s introduction of the at organisms as organized living systems that happen to consist of cells, he rich history of thinking about , uf while others looked at aggregations of cells as making up organized living r a sense the Cell Theor ".ff At issue was partly a matter of emphasis, but also paftly a matter of the celr rheoryt, systems. causai efficacy. Do cell divisions and actions cause organisms, or does some ¡ and essential unit"ì;:';;"ïïJ;i of living orgurir_r, integrated wholeness cause cells to behave as they do? What drives the inte- more questions than it has answered and gration of the whole organism? These were still questions in the r94os, and rquiry" (Moulton r94o, ,,Foreword,,). The the discussion shows that biology had not embraced a single "cell theory" was old and well established and what to explain the basis for all living systems. I idea of cells. Sharp explained that cell structure and function affect or perhaps even ;ualþ separated plant, microbial, and effect the organism, but it remained unclear just how that happens. In an n typically involved looking at such pre- earlier picture of cells as structural units or building blocks, it was easier discussion of animal cells looked more to treat them like bricks or stones that combined into a larger organism I cells; contents of cells, including nu_ through forces outside the cells themselves. But if cells were each living nd environments, both internal un¿ units in their own right, then how do all those sepârate cells relate to the me considerations of "*_ biochemistry and organism as a whole, and how do they make up that whole? How could new the r94o volume are the less standard research resolve persistent debates? In particular, by the end of the nine- Inzymes, hormones, and vitamins.