Genetics, Statistics, and Regulation at the National Institute of Agricultural Botany, 1919-1969 Dominic Joseph Berry Submitted in accordance with the requirements for the degree of PhD The University of Leeds School of Philosophy, Religion, and the History of Science Centre for the History and Philosophy of Science March 2014 ii The candidate confirms that the work submitted is his own and that appropriate credit has been given when reference has been made to the work of others. This copy has been supplied on the understanding that it is copyright material and that no quotation from the thesis may be published without proper acknowledgement. ©2014 The University of Leeds and Dominic Joseph Berry iii Acknowledgements Throughout the researching and writing of this thesis I have depended on a very great many people, far more than can be named here. Firstly my thanks go to my supervisors, Gregory Radick and Tina Barsby. Through working with them, and from the example they set, I have learnt how to balance criticism with generosity, professionalism with compassion, and scholarly caution with daring. To Tina, I am particularly grateful for making NIAB feel like a second institutional home, and for making the research process feel more vital by finding points that mirrored her own experiences. To Greg I owe whatever skills in writing and arguing I might now be thought to possess. This thesis has been very greatly improved at every step by his diligence and patience. In addition to Tina and Greg, I have in reality had a third supervisor in the shape of Tricia Cullimore. Tricia, along with Paul Thompson, salvaged the historical material that has now been catalogued as the NIAB Archive. Over the past four years Tricia has talked me through problems, argued with me, made me tea, discussed her historical research, explained parts of NIAB’s work that I did not understand, answered ridiculous emails, given me lifts, made discoveries with me, given up far too many hours to scanning documents when I couldn’t get to Cambridge, and generally been a friend to me and my thesis. I don’t know how anyone could finish a PhD thesis without Tricia. The Centre for HPS at Leeds has provided me a lively and friendly scholarly community. Graeme Gooday has kept me in coffee and made important suggestions for my research, Jon Hodge has given generously with his knowledge of the history of biology, Chris Kenny has shown me how it is done, Jon Topham has always gone out of his way to check on my progress and Sophie Weeks, before leaving Leeds, provided a point of professional and productive capacity to aspire to. Back over in Lancaster, I must thank Paolo Palladino, who pointed me in the direction of HPS at Leeds when I was an undergrad, and whose work – by a twist of fate – I have ended up exploring in detail. Abigail Woods has also taken time on numerous occasions to answer my questions and ask how I was doing. I have also learnt from friends that I met as fellow PGs who have now begun careers. Claire Jones, Ageliki Lefkaditou, and Kerry McKenzie pointed and laughed, then did the best they could with what little I had. Efram Sera-Shriar was kind, friendly, welcoming and dedicated, Maurizio Esposito was exotic, and Berris Charnley walked me through the first few years of my research. Berris’ research (which is paid due respect in the Introduction), and his friendship, (which isn’t), have been crucial for making the investigation of NIAB as much of a joy as it has been. Lastly Mike Finn, who pestered me until I eventually agreed to become his friend. My thanks to Mike, and his companion Louise Hawksworth, for all the good times, and also for letting me live with them for quite some time after my grant ran out. My fellow postgraduates Sarah Adams, Dani Adams, Jon Banks, Jordan Bartol, Becky Bowd, Cat Carrick, Anne Hanley, Michael Kay, Chris Phillips, Dave Race, Chris Renwick and Carl Warom, have all laughed at my jokes, and made the pains of PhD life easier to bear. I was generously supported by a grant from the Arts and Humanities Research Council. Finally, I’d like to thank all of those people who made me a human rather than an academic. My Mum, Dad, Sister, Wicked Step-mother and the cool cucumbers Antonia and Elliot, have all in their own ways given me love, support, a smile, and money. Matt, Adele (and the new addition Hortensia) Bull, are wonderful friends, who I would like to see more often if only they’d let me. James Lynch has done everything he can to make sure this thesis didn’t get written, and I couldn’t be more grateful to him, (and Jimmy, Maurice and Shevaughn) for it. Lastly, my thanks to Laura, who got me near enough all of the way there. iv Abstract The National Institute of Agricultural Botany, founded in 1919 and still operating today from its same Cambridge headquarters, is one of Britain’s oldest agricultural science institutes. Using the extensive and hitherto unexamined archive materials held by NIAB, this thesis offers both a new history of the Institute from 1919 to 1969, and an analysis of that history in the light of wider historiographies of science. It is well known that state patronage of science in Britain entered a new phase towards the end of the nineteenth century. The number of national laboratories, organisations, and institutions dedicated to scientific work grew rapidly, as did the number of professional scientists. The agricultural sciences and their institution’s benefited as much, if not more, from the state’s newfound interest in science, and yet hardly anything at all is known about them. This historiographical oversight is all the more troubling when one considers the changes that took place within British agriculture and the global food industry at this time. The thesis makes three important new points in particular. Firstly, that scientific regulatory bodies (often marginalized in preference for basic research centres) offer a valuable new perspective for historians interested in relations between science and the state. Secondly, that the techniques used during regulation and assessment (which draw upon the latest scientific developments and theories), can reveal a great deal about an institution’s social location. Finally, appreciating the perspective on variation and heredity held by agricultural scientists and plant breeders, one which will be shown to be quite different from more general biologists, offers solutions and problems for contemporary historiography on issues ranging from the impact of Mendelism on plant breeding to the history of plant patenting. v Table of Contents Acknowledgements .......................................................................................................... iii Abstract ............................................................................................................................. iv Table of Contents ............................................................................................................... v List of Tables .....................................................................................................................vii List of Figures ................................................................................................................... viii List of Abbreviations .......................................................................................................... x Introduction ........................................................................................................... 1 Section I: NIAB in the existing historiography .................................................................. 2 Section II: Agricultural science in the twentieth century .................................................. 6 Section III: Plant breeding ................................................................................................ 11 Section IV: Thesis outline ................................................................................................. 18 1. Seed Multiplier: The Wartime Founding of NIAB and the OSTS, 1914-1921 . 25 Section I: Science and the Great War .............................................................................. 25 Section II: Agriculture and seed testing upon entry to the Great War, 1900-1914 ........ 29 Section III: The Food Production Department, Lawrence Weaver and the founding of the OSTS, 1914-1917 ....................................................................................................... 34 Section IV: The Cereal Seeds Advisory Committee and the inspiration for NIAB, 1917-1918 ........................................................................................................ 42 Section V: Gathering support for NIAB (and the ambiguity of its purpose), 1918-1919 ........................................................................................................................ 51 — (A): Rowland Biffen – Curbing the ambitions of agricultural science ......................... 51 — (B): George Miln – Appeasing the agricultural seed trade .......................................... 56 — (C): Thomas Middleton – Charming the Development Commission .......................... 61 Conclusion: NIAB built, 1921 ........................................................................................... 68 2. Field Trialler: Trialling Methods and the Resistible Rise of Randomization, 1921-1931 ............................................................................................................. 75 Section I: NIAB and the significance of trialling