MIT OpenCourseWare http://ocw.mit.edu
STS.003 The Rise of Modern Science Spring 2008
For information about citing these materials or our Terms of Use, visit: http://ocw.mit.edu/terms. Week 4: Science and Life
Readings: • Justus von Liebig, “Organic Chemistry Applied to Physiology and Pathology,” in Animal Chemistry (Cambridge, 1842; reprint, New York: Johnson Reprint Corp., 1964), 1-23. • Theodor Schwann, “Theory of the Cells,” in Microscopical Researches into the Accordance in the Structure and Growth of Animals and Plants, trans. Henry Smith (London: Sydenham Society, 1839, 1847), 186-215. • Timothy Lenoir, “Social Interests and the Organic Physics of 1847,” in Science in Reflection. The Israel Colloquium: Studies in History, Philosophy, and Sociology of Science, v. 3, ed. Edna Ullmann-Margalit (Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1988), 169-191.
Additional Background: • Bowler and Morus, “The New Biology,” MMS, pp. 165-188.
Like their romantic predecessors, German biologists in the mid-19th century continued to struggle to explain how life worked. However, they increasingly turned to physics and chemistry for the answers.
In his article, Liebig uses chemistry to explore how life works. How does he define the difference between mineral and biological, and between plant and animal? Does he sound like a traditional romantic biologist? What is the role of mechanical models in his explanation of life? If you asked him whether living organisms are simply chemical machines, what would he say?
Schwann deals with the question of how organisms acquire structure. In his analysis of the problem, what are the two possible answers? How does he decide between them? In the second half of the article he proposes a specific model of living cells to explain their growth, metabolism, and “plastic power.” Is this an adequate model of living cells? Do you agree that reductionist models (which reduce complex life processes to the basic laws of physics and chemistry) are essential to the progress of science?
How are Liebig and Schwann positioned in the vitalism vs. mechanism debate? Whose arguments do you find more convincing?
Lenoir, a historian of science at Stanford, studies the transition from the romantic philosophy of nature (Naturphilosophie) to materialism (organic physics) in German biology in the 19th century. In this article he tries to explain how a new field of science became so successful in Germany. He does so by tracing the career of Emil Du Bois-Reymond (1818-1896), a pioneer in the field of electrophysiology. Why did Du Bois-Reymond move away from the vitalism of his mentor Johannes Muller towards organic physics? Was this driven by his research, or by more pragmatic concerns? How did Du Bois and his friends hope to transform science and society? By allying himself to Otto von Bismarck (the man responsible for unifying Germany), was Du Bois-Reymond selling out, being pragmatic, or really working in the best interest of German science? Compare the relationship between Du Bois-Reymond and Bismarck to the strategies of patronage of Boyle and Galileo discussed several weeks ago.