AN ABSTRACT OF THE DISSERTATION OF Nicholas Blanchard for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in History of Science presented on August 7, 2014. Title: Second Nature: Domestication as Experiment and Metaphor in 20th Century American Psychobiology. Abstract approved: ______________________________________________________ Paul L. Farber By 1900 domestication was a promising, if somewhat vexed, subject in biology. Volumes had been written about domestication, but little serious scientific inquiry was directed toward the phenomenon. Expertise lay with practical men, primarily breeders and fanciers. The bulk of scientific commentary on domestication came from anthropologists who derived theories about man’s evolutionary past and future prospects based on an analogy with domesticated creatures. To an experimental ethos emerging near the turn of the 20th century, one increasingly dependent upon animals kept and bred in the laboratory, the available knowledge of domestication seemed inadequate, with its practical orientation and use of metaphor, analogy, and speculation. A small number of researchers working at various points along the fluid border between biology and psychology sought to reestablish the scientific understanding of domestication on the basis of experimental results. I examine these latter efforts to determine how these investigators constructed new experimental understandings of domestication from the point of planning the experiments to interpreting the results and how these conceptions coincided with the widespread cultural resonances of domestication. Historians of science frequently correlate the experimental turn in biology and psychology not only with new standards of evidence, but also with new claims about disciplinary identity, expertise, and objectivity. Domestication researchers, however, failed to produce a substantially new, clear, objective, and widely accepted explanation of the phenomenon by midcentury. I argue that these efforts did not achieve the purported goals of experimental research, generally, not for any failure in the design of the experiments themselves, but for the continued cultural relevance of domestication, expressed in analogies, metaphors, and the wisdom of experience with domesticated animals, that corresponded with the values, social preoccupations, and professional circumstances of individual investigators. I argue, further, that the experience of domestication researchers demands a reevaluation of the impact of the experimental turn in biobehavioral research in the early years of the 20th century. This extends a recent historiogaphic tradition that recognizes continuities between pre-experimental and experimental work to include the relations of experimental scientists and non- scientific experts, the value of experience, and the use of analogy within the laboratory and without. ©Copyright by Nicholas Blanchard August 7, 2014 All Rights Reserved Second Nature: Domestication as Experiment and Metaphor in 20th Century American Psychobiology by Nicholas Blanchard A DISSERTATION submitted to Oregon State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Presented August 7, 2014 Commencement June 2015 Doctor of Philosophy dissertation of Nicholas Blanchard presented on August 7, 2014 APPROVED: Major Professor, representing History of Science Director of the School of History, Philosophy, and Religion Dean of the Graduate School I understand that my dissertation will become part of the permanent collection of Oregon State University libraries. My signature below authorizes release of my dissertation to any reader upon request. Nicholas Blanchard, Author ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The experience of writing this dissertation has been the most humbling, gratifying, enlightening, and remarkable of my life. I have encountered so many fascinating personalities in my researches: the credulous Clyde Keeler, “crushed by the gods”; Helen Spurway and Willard Small whose acknowledgement of assumptions attendant to domestication research were important precedents to my own; the tragic Barbara Burks; the controlling Milton Greenman. These figures and many others became minor fixtures in my life for a time. Their struggles and triumphs seemed, too often, to parallel my own. I thank them for sharing their stories with me, however difficult it was to tease them out. I owe a tremendous debt to all those who have given me support and encouragement throughout my research and writing. The faculty and staff of the School of History, Philosophy, and Religion at Oregon State University has been gracious with their time and support since I arrived on campus absolutely green in the work of history. Ron Doel and Mary Jo Nye gave me an excellent introduction to the history of science and provided advice and encouragement always when I needed them most. Linda Richards, Tina Schweickert, Craig Beigel, Ron Gray, Mindy Gormley, Terry Christiansen, and Mason Tattersall each played the role of sounding board, colleague, mentor, and comic relief. I cherished my time with them. My most consistent source of support at OSU has unquestionably been Paul Farber. I was somewhat shocked when he agreed to serve as my major advisor, then newly in his retirement. However, his commitment to seeing this project through and to my growth as an historian has never wavered. He always seemed able to decipher what I was clumsily attempting and to gently, effortlessly set me on a clearer path. I will always be grateful for his genuine interest in my development and work. This work would not have been possible without the support of the American Philosophical Society and the Philadelphia Area Center for the History of Science, which provided not only funding, but also access to critical resources. I would like to thank Roy Goodman at the APS Library and Babak Ashrafi and Bonnie Clause at PACHS, especially, for their assistance and advice. Nina Long, librarian at the Wistar Institute Library in Philadelphia, also deserves special mention for her extraordinary efforts to provide me with resources pertaining to one of the most substantial domestication research programs ever undertaken. I thank the receptionists, librarians, curators, and archivists at the following institutions as well: the Library of Congress, Washington, D.C.; the Alan Mason Chesney Medical Archives of the Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore, Maryland; the National Library of Medicine, Bethesda, Maryland; the Rockefeller Archive Center, Tarrytown, New York; the Sterling Library of Yale University; the Firestone Library of Princeton University; the Proust Library of the University of Miami, Coral Gables, Florida; the Ina Dillard Russell Library at Georgia State College and University, Milledgeville, Georgia; the Valley Library, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon. I am also grateful to Garland Allen for providing copies of his correspondence with Clyde Keeler and to Barbara Kimmelman for her support and helpful advice on this project. Because no one has sacrificed more or been more unfailing with encouragement, I would like to thank my family. My parents have given me not only support, but the finest examples by which to live. My brother, Drew, remains my favorite confidant and a constant source of inspiration. I thank my children, Evan and Madelyn, for always reminding me of the world outside of work. Finally, I can only hope to someday return the love and support my wife, Theresa, has provided me throughout my work on this dissertation. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Introduction……………………………………………………………………………1 Section I: Dynamic Development in the Science of Man: The Culture of the Wistar Institute and the Origins of the Domestication Program………………………………………………………………………………18 From Synthetic Museum to Research Institute: The Founding Philosophy of the Wistar Institute………………………………………………………………………20 Uniting Philosophy and Experiment: Henry H. Donaldson and the Domestication Program at the Wistar Institute………………..……………..36 Analogy in Practice: The Wistar Institute Domestication Program and its Social Applications……………………..………………………………...58 Feral Rats, Captive Rats: A First Look at Domestication…………………....62 Experiments on Exercise and the Tone of Modern Life…………..………....72 Inbreeding, Hybridization, and Notions of Purity in Rats and Man…..……..77 Captive Breeding and the Elusiveness of Control……..………………….....94 Institutional Extension, Social Application……………………..………….109 Conclusion……………………………………………………..……….......115 Section II: The Color of Temperament: Cultural Exchange Between Breeders and Geneticists…………………………..…119 Coat-color in History and Culture..………………………..………………..121 William E. Castle and the Bussey Insitute: The Culture of Coat-color Genetics…………………….…………….…….133 Domestication and the Genesis of Pigment Gene Pleiotropy………..……..145 Clyde E. Keeler- Education and Early Career……..……………………….146 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Page Life Beyond the Bussey……………………………………………..……...152 The Wistar Institute: Site of Discovery and Controversy…………….….....156 Research in Exile…………………………………………….……………..178 Applying Pigment Gene Pleiotropy to the Human Species………….……..202 Conclusion……………………………….………………………………....214 Section III: Beasts and the Burden of Metaphor: Domestication in American Psychobiology to Midcentury……………………………………………………....226 The Domestication Analogy and Notions of Progress in Pre-20th Century Social and Scientific Thought………………………………………..……..232 Domestication and Psychobiology: Identity and Approach………………...247 Psychobiology,