DOCSLIB.ORG

Jacques Loeb (1859-1924) [1]

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Jacques Loeb (1859-1924) [1] Published on The Embryo Project Encyclopedia (https://embryo.asu.edu) Jacques Loeb (1859-1924) [1] By: Elliott, Steve Keywords: Biography [2] Parthenogenesis [3] Jacques Loeb [4] experimented on embryos in Europe and the United States at the end of the nineteenth and beginning of the twentieth centuries. Among the first to study embryos through experimentation, Loeb helped found the new field of experimental embryology [5]. Notably, Loeb showed scientists how to induce artificial parthenogenesis [6], thus refuting the idea that spermatozoa [7] alone were necessary to develop eggs into embryos and confirming the idea that the chemical constitution of embryos’ environment affected their development. Furthermore, Loeb’s work showed that scientists could manipulate materials in a laboratory to create, as he called the process, the beginning stages of life. Jacques Loeb [4] was born in the Prussian town of Mayen to Barbara and Benedict Loeb in 1859. Named “Isaak,” he changed his name to “Jacques” just prior to entering the University of Strassburg [8] in 1880. At Strassburg Loeb studied with the physiologist Friedrich Goltz [9] and there he earned his MD in 1884. Until 1891 Loeb taught and researched at various institutions, including the Naples Zoological Station in the winters of 1889 and 1890. In 1890 he met and married Anne Leonard [10], an American philologist. Moving to the United States, Loeb taught at Bryn Mawr College [11] for a year prior to accepting an assistant professorship with the University of Chicago [12] in 1892. While at Bryn Mawr Loeb met and initially disliked the young Thomas Hunt Morgan [13]. At Chicago Loeb struggled to get along with Charles Otis Whitman [14], and to tolerate what Loeb termed the “romantic evolutionism” espoused most prominently by Chicago’s John Dewey [15]. After a decade at Chicago, Loeb moved to the University of California at Berkeley [16] for eight years. In California he experimented at Stanford University’s Hopkins Marine Station [17] in Pacific Grove. He then returned east to New York’s Rockefeller Institute [18] for Medical Research in 1910, working there until he died in 1924. During his career, he conducted many of his experiments at Bryn Mawr, Chicago, Rockefeller, and at the Marine Biological Laboratory [19] in Woods Hole [20], Massachusetts. Loeb’s early work at Strassburg was on brain physiology. Having judged the field’s dominant theory misguided, he decided to instead study traditional issues in biology such as embryology [5]. He used experiments to answer questions about development and embryology [5] rather than observation alone, which was the common method of biological inquiry. Loeb looked to the scientific practices of physiologists Goltz, Eduard Pflüger, and the eminent plant physiologist Julius Sachs [21] for methodological inspiration. Loeb worked with Sachs extensively while the former worked at theU niversity of Würzburg [22] for two years starting in 1886. Loeb then developed a correspondence and friendship with the Austrian physicist and philosopher Ernst Mach [23], whose writings provided the theoretical foundation for Loeb’s work. For Loeb, any explanation of phenomena could come only from manipulating the physical structures of things and their chemical makeup. That conception [24] of scientific knowledge, based on physicochemical manipulations, paralleled Wilhelm Roux’s mechanistic conception [24] of science encapsulated in Entwicklungsmechanik [25]. Like Mach, Loeb thought science was not a mere description of nature but was instead a tool forh umans [26] to interact with nature. To him, a biologist was like an engineer and organisms were biologists’ material. Loeb earned his reputation as a biologist-engineer in 1899 when he published experimental results showing artificial parthenogenesis [6] in sea urchins, in “ On the Nature of the Process of Fertilization and the Artificial Production of Normal Larvae (Plutei) from the Unfertilized Eggs of the Sea Urchin”. Artificial parthenogenesis is the human manipulation of egg [27] cells causing embryonic development without spermatozoa [7]. Loeb manipulated unfertilized sea urchin [28] eggs with inorganic solutions of salt water. The result was eggs developing into larvae, or early stage embryos, which he later reproduced using frog [29] eggs. Loeb elaborated on his results in 1913’s Artificial Parthenogenesis and Fertilization [30]. Loeb’s 1899 results stirred the popular presses, and many viewed him as a creator of life, perhaps with the ability to engineer new types of organisms. Loeb was never able to create new forms of life, as he intended, but he inspired scientists such as John Howard Northrop [31], John Broadus Watson [32], Hermann Joseph Müller, Burrhus Frederic (B. F.) Skinner, and Gregory Pincus. Loeb also contributed to the study of animal tropisms [33] (environment-caused orientation). Loeb helped transform biology into a largely experimental science. His 1912 The Mechanistic Conception of Life established his reputation as a researcher who treated organisms as machines. In that work, he stated that biologists explain organic 1 phenomena only when they could control those phenomena. Loeb later believed that biologists explain phenomena by detailing the mechanisms, the step-by-step processes, by which a component of an organism achieves its function in physical and chemical terms. In The Organism as a Whole [34] (1916), Loeb discussed how a mechanist could investigate organisms considered as wholes. His commitment to physicochemical explanations led him to study protein chemistry for the last few years of his life. Loeb died in 1924. Sources 1. Loeb, Jacques. Artificial Parthenogenesis and Fertilization [30]. Chicago: University of Chicago Press [35], 1913. 2. Loeb, Jacques. “Mechanistic Science and Metaphysical Romance.” Yale Review 4 (1915): 766–85. 3. Loeb, Jacques. “On the Nature of the Process of Fertilization and the Artificial Production of Normal Larvae (Plutei) from the Unfertilized Eggs of Sea Urchins.” The American Journal of Physiology 3 (1899): 135–38. 4. Loeb, Jacques. The Organism as a Whole [34]: From a Physicochemical Viewpoint. New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1916. 5. Loeb, Jacques. The Mechanistic Conception of Life. Ed. Donald Fleming [36]. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press [37], 1964. 6. Pauly, Philip. Controlling Life: Jacques Loeb [4] and the Engineering Ideal in Biology. New York: Oxford University Press, 1987. Jacques Loeb experimented on embryos in Europe and the United States at the end of the nineteenth and beginning of the twentieth centuries. Among the first to study embryos through experimentation, Loeb helped found the new field of experimental embryology. Notably, Loeb showed scientists how to create artificial parthenogenesis, thus refuting the idea that spermatozoa alone were necessary to develop eggs into embryos and confirming the idea that the chemical constitution of embryos environment affected their development. Furthermore, Loeb' s work showed that scientists could manipulate materials in a laboratory to create, as he called the process, the beginning stages of life. Subject Loeb, Jacques, 1959-1924 [38] Parthenogenesis [39] Topic People [40] Publisher Arizona State University. School of Life Sciences. Center for Biology and Society. Embryo Project Encyclopedia. Rights © Arizona Board of Regents Licensed as Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported (CC BY-NC- SA 3.0) http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/ Format Articles [41] Last Modified Wednesday, July 4, 2018 - 04:40 DC Date Accessioned Tuesday, May 8, 2012 - 20:33 DC Date Available Tuesday, May 8, 2012 - 20:33 DC Date Created 2009-06-10 DC Date Created Standard Wednesday, June 10, 2009 - 07:00 Contact Us © 2019 Arizona Board of Regents 2 The Embryo Project at Arizona State University, 1711 South Rural Road, Tempe Arizona 85287, United States Source URL: https://embryo.asu.edu/pages/jacques-loeb-1859-1924 Links [1] https://embryo.asu.edu/pages/jacques-loeb-1859-1924 [2] https://embryo.asu.edu/keywords/biography [3] https://embryo.asu.edu/keywords/parthenogenesis [4] https://embryo.asu.edu/search?text=Jacques%20Loeb [5] https://embryo.asu.edu/search?text=embryology [6] https://embryo.asu.edu/search?text=artificial%20parthenogenesis [7] https://embryo.asu.edu/search?text=spermatozoa [8] https://embryo.asu.edu/search?text=University%20of%20Strassburg [9] https://embryo.asu.edu/search?text=Friedrich%20Goltz [10] https://embryo.asu.edu/search?text=Anne%20Leonard [11] https://embryo.asu.edu/search?text=Bryn%20Mawr%20College [12] https://embryo.asu.edu/search?text=University%20of%20Chicago [13] https://embryo.asu.edu/search?text=Thomas%20Hunt%20Morgan [14] https://embryo.asu.edu/search?text=Charles%20Otis%20Whitman [15] https://embryo.asu.edu/search?text=John%20Dewey [16] https://embryo.asu.edu/search?text=University%20of%20California%20at%20Berkeley [17] https://embryo.asu.edu/search?text=Hopkins%20Marine%20Station [18] https://embryo.asu.edu/search?text=Rockefeller%20Institute [19] https://embryo.asu.edu/search?text=Marine%20Biological%20Laboratory [20] https://embryo.asu.edu/search?text=Woods%20Hole [21] https://embryo.asu.edu/search?text=Julius%20Sachs [22] https://embryo.asu.edu/search?text=University%20of%20W%C3%BCrzburg [23] https://embryo.asu.edu/search?text=Ernst%20Mach [24] https://embryo.asu.edu/search?text=conception [25] https://embryo.asu.edu/search?text=Entwicklungsmechanik [26] https://embryo.asu.edu/search?text=humans [27] https://embryo.asu.edu/search?text=egg
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • HOPKINS MARINE STATION : the EARLY YEARS : DRAFT Copyright © 2014 Donald G. Kohrs 61 CHAPTER 5 the INFLUENCE of JACQUES LO
    HOPKINS MARINE STATION : THE EARLY YEARS : DRAFT CHAPTER 5 THE INFLUENCE OF JACQUES LOEB The scientists discussed thus far have been those whose primarily research efforts were directed toward the subjects of invertebrate zoology, oceanography and fisheries biology, as each attempted to advance the early understandings of these fields of natural science. Yet to be discussed are the likes of F. R. Lillie, E. G. Conklin, T. H. Morgan, H.H. Newman, or A. H. Sturtevant, who Walter K. Fisher mentions in his letter to Vernon Kellogg, as being familiar with Hopkins Marine Station, and enthusiastic about potentials for it's future development. [At the time of Fisher's letter to Kellogg, Frank Rattray Lillie, was Professor of Zoology, University of Chicago, and Director of the Marine Biological Laboratory, Woods Hole; Edwin Grant Conklin, was Professor of Biology at Princeton University; Thomas Hunt Morgan, Professorship in Experimental Zoology, Columbia University; H. H. Newman, Professor of Zoology, University of Chicago, and A. H. Sturtevant, who was positioned Columbia University in TH Morgan's lab as research investigator for the Carnegie Institution of Washington]. These five names, renowned scientist of their times, were giants in the field of experimental biology with inextricable and direct links to groundbreaking research conducted at the Marine Biological Laboratory (MBL) of Woods Hole Massachusetts and close academic associations with the renowned experimental biologist, Jacques Loeb. How it came to be that Hopkins Marine Station would be the location of a laboratory building named after the German-born physiologist Jacques Loeb, who is known to have placed a strong emphasis on experimental biology, is embedded in the history of the advancement of science itself.
    [Show full text]
  • Jacques Loeb. Biographical Sketch
    Rockefeller University Digital Commons @ RU Collection of Reprints by Jacques Loeb Special Collections 9-15-1928 Jacques Loeb. Biographical Sketch W. Osterhout Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.rockefeller.edu/collection-of-reprints-loeb THE JOURNAL OF GENERAL PHYSIOLOGY . JACQUES -LOEB MEMORIAL VOLUME EDITORS W. J. CROZIER JOHN H. NORTHROP W. J. V. OSTERHOUT JACQUES LOEB . BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH BY W. J. V. OSTERHOUT [Reprinted from VourME VIII, No. 1, pp. ix-xcii, September 15, 1928.] Plwtograpked iv Louis Sclurudt,192.'J JACQUES LOEB BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH [Reprinted from the JACQUES LOEB MEMORIAL VOLUME, TllE JOURNAL OF GENERAL PHYSIOLOGY, September 15, 1928, Vol. viii, No. 1, pp. ix-xcii.] JACQUES LOEB. BY W. J. V. OSTERHOUT. I. If I venture to write of Jacques Loeb, it is not to create a portrait but only to set forth facts to aid those who would follow in his footsteps. In this I bespeak the charity of the reader. And if the writing achieve any part of its purpose it is because of many who in loving veneration gave loyal aid. Loeb's ancestors were among those illuminati who forsook Portugal 9n account of the intolerance of the Inquisition: they settled at Mayen in the Rhine province several generations before he was born. His father, Benedict Loeb, was an importer, a man of simple tastes, more interested in science (especially in physics, mathematics, and geology), in literature, and in collecting books than in business. He was extremely reserved, and much of an resthete. He married Barbara Isay and their firstchild, Jacques, was born April 7, 1859, and was followed by a second, Leo, some ten years later.
    [Show full text]
  • Jacques Loeb 1859—1924
    NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES BIOGRAPHICAL MEMOIRS VOLUME XIII - FOURTH MEMOIR BIOGRAPHICAL MEMOIR OF JACQUES LOEB 1859—1924 BY W. J. V. OSTERHOUT PRESENTED TO THE ACADEMY AT THE ANNUAL MEETING, 1930 JACQUES LOEB—OSTERHOUT [Reprinted from the JACQUES LOEB MEMORIAL VOLUME, THE JOURNAL OF GENERAL PHYSIOLOGY, September 15, 1928, Vol. viii, No. 1, pp. ix-xcii.] JACQUES LOEB. BY W. J. V. OSTERHOUT. If I venture to write of Jacques Loeb, it is not to create a portrait but only to set forth facts to aid those who would follow in his footsteps. In this I bespeak the charity of the reader. And if the writing achieve any part of its purpose it is because of many who in loving veneration gave loyal aid. Loeb's ancestors were among those illuminati who forsook Portugal on account of the intolerance of the Inquisition: they settled at Mayen in the Rhine province several generations before he was born. His father, Benedict Loeb, was an importer, a man of simple tastes, more interested in science (especially in physics, mathematics, and geology), in literature, and in collecting books than in business. He was extremely reserved, and much of an aesthete. He married Barbara Isay and their first child, Jacques, was born April 7, 1859, and was followed by a second, Leo, some ten years later. The father's sympathies were strongly French and thus it came about that the eager mind of Jacques absorbed French as well as German culture, all the more because he lived in a region where French influence made itself strongly felt.
    [Show full text]
  • Jacques Loeb, the Stazione Zoologica Di Napoli, and a Growing Network of Brain Scientists, 1900S–1930S
    fnana-13-00032 March 18, 2019 Time: 18:10 # 1 REVIEW published: 18 March 2019 doi: 10.3389/fnana.2019.00032 Catalyzing Neurophysiology: Jacques Loeb, the Stazione Zoologica di Napoli, and a Growing Network of Brain Scientists, 1900s–1930s Frank W. Stahnisch* Alberta Medical Foundation/Hannah Professor in the History of Medicine and Health Care, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada Even before the completion of his medical studies at the universities of Berlin, Munich, and Strasburg, as well as his M.D.-graduation – in 1884 – under Friedrich Goltz (1834–1902), experimental biologist Jacques Loeb (1859–1924) became interested in degenerative and regenerative problems of brain anatomy and general problems of neurophysiology. It can be supposed that he addressed these questions out of a growing dissatisfaction with leading perceptions about cerebral localization, as they had been advocated by the Berlin experimental neurophysiologists at the time. Instead, he followed Goltz and later Gustav Theodor Fechner (1801–1887) in elaborating a dynamic model of brain functioning vis-à-vis human perception and coordinated motion. To further pursue his scientific aims, Loeb moved to the Naples Zoological Station between Edited by: 1889 and 1890, where he conducted a row of experimental series on regenerative Fiorenzo Conti, Polytechnical University of Marche, phenomena in sea animals. He deeply admired the Italian marine research station for Italy its overwhelming scientific liberalism along with the provision of considerable technical Reviewed by: and intellectual support. In Naples, Loeb hoped to advance his research investigations Lorenzo Lorusso, ASST Lecco, Italy on ‘tropisms’ further to develop a reliable basis not only regarding the behavior of lower Gordon M.
    [Show full text]
  • PDF Attached
    Copyright Ó 2009 by the Genetics Society of America DOI: 10.1534/genetics.109.101659 Perspectives Anecdotal, Historical and Critical Commentaries on Genetics Thomas Hunt Morgan at the Marine Biological Laboratory: Naturalist and Experimentalist Diana E. Kenney and Gary G. Borisy1 Marine Biological Laboratory, Woods Hole, Massachusetts 02543 N the early 1910s, researchers at the Marine Bio- Morgan initially began breeding this animal in his I logical Laboratory (MBL) in Woods Hole, Massa- search for an experimental approach to evolution: he chusetts, might have wondered why a colleague, was testing an alternative to the theory of natural Thomas Hunt Morgan (Figure 1), began shipping selection, which he felt was insufficient to explain the fruit flies from his Columbia University lab to the MBL origin of new species. But when a sex-linked mutation each summer. After all, the Woods Hole currents sup- appeared in his Columbia University stocks in 1910, plied the MBL with a rich variety of marine organisms Morgan’s attention was diverted to analyzing the mate- and Morgan, an avid practitioner of experimental rial basis of sex determination and inheritance. By 1912, embryology, made good use of them. he and his colleagues were mapping the location of Yet those who knew Morgan well would not have been genes on chromosomes. These epoch-making studies surprised by his insect stocks. A keen naturalist, launched the field of experimental genetics. Morgan studied a veritable menagerie of experimental Morgan’s penchant for maintaining multiple, diverse animals—many of them collected in Woods Hole—as a lines of investigation paid off in important ways, as this student and later researcher at the MBL from 1890 to review of his work at the MBL up through the mid-1920s 1942.
    [Show full text]
  • Thomas Hunt Morgan (1866-1945) [1]
    Published on The Embryo Project Encyclopedia (https://embryo.asu.edu) Thomas Hunt Morgan (1866-1945) [1] By: Sunderland, Mary E. Keywords: Genetics [2] Fruit flies [3] Biography [4] T. H. Morgan [5] Although best known for his work with the fruit fly, for which he earned a Nobel Prize and the title “The Father of Genetics,” Thomas Hunt Morgan’s contributions to biology reach far beyond genetics. His research explored questions in embryology [7], regeneration, evolution [8], and heredity, using a variety of approaches. The son of Ellen Key and Charles Hunt Morgan, T. H. Morgan was born on 25 September 1866 into a prominent family in Lexington, Kentucky. Morgan grew up exploring the environment around his childhood home and developed a special interest in fossils. As a young man, he spent a summer employed doing geological and biological fieldwork in the Kentucky mountains. He received his BS degree from the University of Kentucky and went on to pursue graduate work at Johns Hopkins University [9]. At Johns Hopkins, William Keith Brooks [10] supervised Morgan’s dissertation research, which examined the embryology [7] of sea spiders. Morgan was also influenced by his professors Henry Newell Martin and William Henry Howell, both of whom encouraged a physiological approach to biology. Morgan studied alongside fellow students Edwin Grant Conklin [11] and Ross Granville Harrison [12], with whom he remained close friends throughout his life. Although Edmund Beecher Wilson [13] had left Johns Hopkins by the time Morgan arrived, they later became close friends and associates. Morgan received his PhD in 1890 and remained at Johns Hopkins during the following year as a Bruce Fellow.
    [Show full text]
  • BOOK of ABSTRACTS Table of Contents
    BOOK OF ABSTRACTS Table of Contents Schedule 2 Program 3 Sunday July 5 3 Monday July 6 5 Tuesday July 7 81 Wednesday July 8 169 Thursday July 9 229 Friday July 10 295 Index 328 ISHPSSB PROGRAM P | 3 Schedule SUNDAY JULY 5 LOBBY OF J.-A.-DESÈVE (DS) BUILDING SUNDAY MONDAY TUESDAY WEDNESDAY THURSDAY FRIDAY 13:00 – 17:00 REGISTRATION JULY 5 JULY 6 JULY 7 JULY 8 JULY 9 JULY 10 8H00 > Registration 9H00 > MARIE-GÉRIN-LAJOIE AUDITORIUM 17:00 – 18:00 Session 1 Session 4 Session 8 Session 11 Session 14 PRESIDENT’S WELCOME 10H00 > COFFEE BREAK COFFEE BREAK COFFEE BREAK COFFEE BREAK COFFEE BREAK 11H00 > MARIE-GÉRIN-LAJOIE AUDITORIUM Session 2 Session 5 Session 9 Session 12 Session 15 18:00 – 20:00 12H00 > WELCOME TO MONTRÉAL COCKTAIL LUNCH BREAK LUNCH BREAK LUNCH BREAK LUNCH BREAK LUNCH BREAK 13H00 > Grad. student Early career scholar general meeting Council Council Council 14H00 mentoring lunch > meeting meeting meeting Membership diversity meeting 15H00 > Registration 16H00 > Session 3 Session 6 Session 10 Session 13 17H00 > Excursions in President’s COFFEE BREAK COFFEE BREAK COFFEE BREAK COFFEE BREAK and around Montreal welcome 18H00 > Awards ceremony Plenary session Session 7 Plenary session and ISHPSSB Sandra Harding W. Ford Doolitlle Welcome general meeting 19H00 > to Montréal cocktail Pub night cocktail Poster session and Montréal best 20H00 > and cocktail poster prize Dining buffet (“ Cocktail dînatoire ”) 21H00 > 22H00 > NOTE: the symbol ** indicates that, at time of publication, the attendance of this presenter has not been confirmed. INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY FOR THE HISTORY, PHILOSOPHY, AND SOCIAL STUDIES OF BIOLOGY ISHPSSB PROGRAM P | 5 MONDAY JULY 6 LOBBY OF J.-A.-DESÈVE (DS) BUILDING 08:00 – 09:00 REGISTRATION INDIVIDUAL PAPERS DS 1420 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES: INTERDISCIPLINARY PERSPECTIVES 09:00 – 10:30 Evolution and (Aristotelian) virtue ethics JOHN MIZZONI (Neumann University, United States) It is well known that virtue ethics has become very popular among moral theorists.
    [Show full text]
  • Discovery Or Reputation? Jacques Loeb and the Role of Nomination Networks
    Chapter 5 Discovery or Reputation? Jacques Loeb and the Role of Nomination Networks Heiner Fangerau, Thorsten Halling and Nils Hansson A 2015 contribution to the Journal of the American Medical Association (jama) raised the question of why American Nobel Laureates outnumber those of any other nativity.1 Times are changing. About 100 years ago, when the Prize was quite new, the same journal asked why only European scientists were acknowledged.2 At that time, U.S. medical journals praised the Nobel Prize as ‘the ideal method of encouraging the best scientific research’3 and used it as a yardstick for other medical honours. Commentators repeatedly bemoaned that American research ‘of fundamental importance’4 had been disregarded. Whether for the prize money (corresponding to about one million usd) or the international competition in science and medicine, the Prize was perceived as a coveted trophy right from its inception.5 It is not as if Americans did not nominate domestic candidates. In fact, jama even published calls to name Walter Reed and James Carrol for their investiga- tions into yellow fever.6 However, another American candidate would eventu- ally come to play a larger role in the nomination cycle. The physiologist Jacques Loeb (1859–1924) was, according to the Nomination Database of the Nobel Committee for Physiology or Medicine, nominated 78 times between 1901 and his death,7 which makes him one of the most nominated scholars in the first half of the 20th century.8 Nevertheless, Loeb was, as Robert Merton phrased it in his classical paper on the Matthew effect, an occupant of the ‘41st chair’.9 1 Naylor and Bell 2015.
    [Show full text]