The institutionalisation of biology in the British Association for the Advancement of Science, 1866-1894 / A institucionalização da biologia na British Association for the Advancement of Science, 1866-1894

Abstract Biology, like most scientific disciplines, emerged in the nineteenth century. However, disciplinary institutionalisation processes are not linear; a concept can be proposed, but not develop. Biology originated in the presence of established traditions such as anatomy, physiology, botany, and zoology, which represent the thematic and practical diversity under which it was understood. Based on the records of the annual meetings of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, the process by which biology emerged will be described. We will also recount how the discipline underwent changes throughout the century, where contrasting methodologies and theories were emphasized at different times.

Resumo A biologia, assim como a maioria das disciplinas, surgiu no século XIX. No entanto, os processos de institucionalização das disciplinas não são lineares; um conceito pode ser proposto, mas não ser desenvolvido. A biologia originou-se em meio a tradições estabelecidas, como a anatomia, fisiologia, botânica e zoologia, que representam a diversidade temática e prática sob a qual era compreendida. O processo do qual a biologia emergiu será descrito com base nos registros dos encontros anuais da British Association for the Advancement of Science. Relatamos também como a disciplina passou por modificações ao longo do século, em que metodologias e teorias contrastantes ganharam evidência em diferentes momentos.

Pluralismo evolutivo e o ideal de unificação da biologia / Evolutionary pluralism and the ideal of a unified biology

Resumo A evolução biológica é frequentemente considerada um eixo central e unificador da biologia. O artigo discute aspectos históricos desse ideal de unificação, bem como os seus sinais de desintegração entre os anos 1960 e 1980. Argumentamos que apesar das novas propostas de síntese do conhecimento biológico, a biologia evolutiva contemporânea é caracterizada por um pluralismo. Os principais pontos a favor do pluralismo evolutivo são discutidos, e algumas consequências dessa perspectiva são apresentadas, particularmente em relação ao ideal de unificação da biologia. Por fim, defendemos um pluralismo evolutivo crítico do ideal de unificação como um objetivo da ciência, mas ainda favorável a integrações locais.

Abstract Biological evolution is often regarded as a central and unifying axis of biology. This article discusses historical aspects of this ideal of unification, as well as signs of its disintegration from the 1960s to 1980s. We argue that despite new proposals for the synthesis of biological knowledge, contemporary evolutionary biology is characterized by pluralism. The main points in favor of evolutionary pluralism are discussed and some consequences of this perspective are presented, particularly in terms of the ideal of a unified biology. Finally, we defend an evolutionary pluralism that critiques the ideal of unification as a scientific objective, but still favors local integrations.

O neolamarckismo de Edward Drinker Cope e a ideia de progresso biológico no processo evolutivo / The neo-Lamarckism of Edward Drinker Cope and the idea of biological progress in the evolutionary process

A teoria neolamarckista de Edward Cope operava com um mecanismo alternativo à seleção natural. Acréscimos ou decréscimos dos estágios ontogênicos produziriam características que poderiam ser geradas e integradas ao organismo por meio da herança de caracteres adquiridos. Incrementando, ou não, a complexidade corporal, tal mecanismo aumentava a capacidade adaptativa. Isso poderia ser interpretado como progresso biológico de maneira semelhante à interpretação feita por defensores da teoria sintética evolutiva. Mas, diferentemente destes últimos, o neolamarckismo relegava à seleção natural papel secundário. Este estudo esclarece o posicionamento de Cope em relação ao fenômeno do progresso biológico, assim como seu enfoque fortemente adaptacionista, propondo que essa tenha sido uma contribuição indireta à articulação da nova síntese evolutiva.

Edward Cope's neo-Lamarckist theory operated with an alternative mechanism to natural selection. For him, increases or decreases of the ontogenic stages produce characteristics that could be generated and integrated into the organism through the inheritance of acquired characters. Increasing body complexity, or not, this mechanism increased adaptive capacity. This could be interpreted as biological progress in a manner similar to the interpretation made by proponents of synthetic evolutionary theory. But unlike the latter, neo-Lamarkism relegated natural selection to a secondary role. This study aims to clarify the position of Cope in relation to the phenomenon of biological progress, as well as his strongly adaptational approach, proposing that this has been an indirect contribution to the articulation of the new evolutionary synthesis.

La polémica evolucionista en España durante el siglo XIX: una revisión / The evolutionist debate in Spain during the nineteenth century: a re-examination

Resumen Este artículo realiza una revisión de los estudios sobre el evolucionismo en España y actualiza los conocimientos sobre el mismo tras los trabajos de Thomas Glick, la obra más filosófica de Diego Núñez y las aportaciones en los últimos años de la red latinoamericana de historia de la biología y la evolución, incidiendo en los aspectos más polémicos de la recepción de esta teoría. Incluye novedades como la identificación de los dibujos de El Museo Universal, siempre en discusión sobre su naturaleza lamarckiana o darwinista, el papel fundamental de la recepción de la obra de Haeckel en España frente a una recepción estrictamente darwiniana más débil, el papel jugado en la escuela histológica española y el impacto en la literatura.

Abstract This article re-examines the research on evolutionism in Spain and updates knowledge on this topic in light of the work of Thomas Glick, the more philosophical work of Diego Núñez and contributions in recent years from the Latin American network of historians of biology and evolution, who have dealt with the more polemical aspects of the reception of evolution theory. It includes new arguments, such as identification of the drawings in El Museo Universal, whose Lamarckian or Darwinian nature has been a subject of ongoing debate. It also covers the crucial role of the acceptance of Haeckel's work in Spain in comparison to the weaker support for a strictly Darwinian perspective, the role of the Spanish histology school, and the impact of evolutionism on literature.

The scientist as historian: Paulo Vanzolini and the origins of zoology in Brazil / O cientista como historiador: Paulo Vanzolini e as origens da zoologia no Brasil

The Brazilian Paulo Vanzolini is one of the leading herpetologists worldwide. Besides his publications as a zoologist and his activities as a former museum curator and policymaker, Vanzolini pursued a long-life career as a musician and contributed to many different fields such as biostatistics, biogeography and the history of science. The paper analyzes his historical contributions to a key chapter of science in Southern America, the legacy of the so-called traveler naturalists. His analyses comprise major scientists such as Marcgrave, Spix, von Martius, Wied-Neuwied, Castelnau, and Agassiz, are informed by re-analyses of original sources and represent an invaluable repository of historical and scientific information.

O brasileiro Paulo Vanzolini é um dos mais importantes herpetologistas do mundo. Além de suas publicações como zoólogo, das atividades de curadoria museológica e de sua atuação na formulação de políticas científicas, Vanzolini tem longa carreira como músico e contribuições a diferentes áreas de conhecimento como bioestatística, biogeografia e história das ciências. O artigo analisa suas contribuições a capítulo fundamental da história das ciências na América do Sul, o legado dos naturalistas viajantes. Suas análises incluem importantes cientistas como Marcgrave, Spix, von Martius, Wied-Neuwied, Castelnau e Agassiz, são feitas a partir da retomada de fontes originais e representam valioso repositório de informações históricas e científicas.

The Vitalism of Paul-Joseph Barthez (1734~1806) / 의사학

In The Logic of Life (1970), Francois Jacob (1920~ ), Nobel Prize laureate in Physiology or Medicine (1965), proclaimed the end of vitalism based on the concept of life. More than two decades before this capital sentence condemning vitalism was pronounced, Georges Canguilhem (1904~1995), a French philosopher of medicine, already acknowledged that eighteenth-century vitalism was scientifically retrograde and politically reactionary or counter-revolutionary insofar as it was rooted in the animism of Georg Ernst Stahl (1660~1734). The negative preconception of the term 'vitalism' came to be established as an orthodox view, since Claude Bernard (1813~1878) unfairly criticized contemporary vitalism in order to propagate his idea of experimental medicine. An eminent evolutionary biologist like Ernst Mayr (1904~2005) still defended similar views in This is Biology (1997), arguing that if vitalists were decisive and convincing in their rejection of the Cartesian model (negative heuristics), however they were equally indecisive and unconvincing in their own explanatory endeavors (positive heuristics). Historically speaking, vitalists came to the forefront for their outstanding criticism of Cartesian mechanism and physicochemical reductionism, while their innovative concepts and theories were underestimated and received much less attention. Is it true that vitalism was merely a pseudo-science, representing a kind of romanticism or mysticism in biomedical science? Did vitalists lack any positive heuristics in their biomedical research? Above all, what was actually the so.called 'vitalism'? This paper aims to reveal the positive heuristics of vitalism defined by Paul.Joseph Barthez (1734~1806) who was the founder of the vitalist school of Montpellier. To this end, his work and idea are introduced with regard to the vying doctrines in physiology and medicine. At the moment when he taught at the medical school of Montpellier, his colleagues advocated the mechanism of Rene Descartes (1596~1650), the iatromechanism of Herman Boerhaave (1668~1738), the iatrochemistry of Jan Baptist van Helmont (1579~1644), the animism of Stahl, and the organicism of Theophile de Bordeu (1722~1776). On the contrary, Barthez devoted himself to synthesize diverse doctrines and his vitalism consequently illustrated an eclectic character. Always taking a skeptical standpoint regarding the capacity of biomedical science, he defined his famous concept of 'vital principle (principe vital)' as the 'x (unknown variable)' of physiology. He argued that the hypothetical concept of vital principle referred to the 'experimental cause (cause experimentale)' verifiable by positive science. Thus, the vital principle was not presupposed as an a priori regulative principle. It was an a posteriori heuristic principle resulting from several experiments. The 'positivist hypothetism' of Barthez demonstrates not only pragmatism but also positivism in his scientific terminology. Furthermore, Barthez established a guideline for clinical practice according to his own methodological principles. It can be characterized as a 'humanist pragmatism' for the reason that all sort of treatments were permitted as far as they were beneficial to the patient. Theoretical incoherence or incommensurability among different treatments did not matter to Barthez. His practical strategy for clinical medicine consisted of three principles: namely, the natural, analytic, and empirical method. This formulation is indebted to the 'analytic method (methode analytique)' of the French empiricist philosopher Etienne Bonnot de Condillac (1714~1780). In conclusion, the eighteenth.century French vitalism conceived by Barthez pursued pragmatism in general, positivism in methodology, and humanism in clinics.

Historia del desarrollo de las ciencias del mar en la Escuela de Biología, Universidad de Costa Rica / History of development of marine science at the Escuela de Biología, Universidad de Costa Rica

History of development of marine science at the Escuela de Biología, Universidad de Costa Rica. La Escuela de Biología (School of Biology) of the Universidad de Costa Rica has contributed significantly to the advancement of marine sciences in Costa Rica. It has done this through the education of students, and together with the Centro de Investigación en Ciencias del Mar y Limonología (Marine Sciences and Limnology Research Center) (CIMAR) with the generation of knowlegde on marine organisms, ecosystems and processes in Costa Rica. Rev. Biol. Trop. 57 (Suppl. 1): 15-18. Epub 2009 November 30.

La Escuela de Biología de la Universidad de Costa Rica ha contribuido significativamente al avance de las ciencias del mar en Costa Rica. Esto lo ha logrado mediante la formación de recursos humanos y, conjuntamente con el Centro de Investigación en Ciencias del Mar y Limnología (CIMAR), mediante la generación de información científica sobre los organismos, ambientes y procesos marinos en el país.

Notícias sobre uma expedição: Jean Massart e a missão biológica belga ao Brasil, 1922-1923 / Notes on an expedition: Jean Massart and the Belgium biological mission to Brazil, 1922-1923

Em 1922, chegou ao litoral brasileiro um grupo de naturalistas viajantes, liderados pelo belga Jean Massart. Registrada em imagens que integram a obra Une mission biologique belge au Brésil 1922-1923, a referida missão teve como objetivo coletar exemplares para o herbário de Bruxelas.

In 1922, a group of traveling naturalists reached the Brazilian coast, led by Jean Massart, a Belgium. The goal of this mission was to collect specimens for the Brussels herbarium, as recorded in images found in Une mission biologique belge au Brésil, 1922-1923.

Las prácticas médicas y la biología como ciencia: paradigmas, asimilación y domesticación social en México / Medical practice and biology as a science: introduction of paradigms, assimilation and social domestication in Mexico

Los paradigmas fundacionales de la biología surgen en Europa al margen de la medicina, pero las comunidades médicas los apropiarán socialmente, generando tensión en ellas. Originalmente las teorías celular y de la regulación fisiológica, no están relacionadas con lo médico, pero serán asimiladas a la nueva medicina y los estudios sobre herencia y microbiología, que desde su surgimiento si tienen vínculos con las prácticas médicas, serán apropiados de inmediato por esta medicina diferente. Esta 'domesticación social' del conocimiento implica operaciones de traducción donde surgirán versiones híbridas, con particularidades distintas a las europeas. Aquí se analiza y discute la introducción de paradigmas de la biología en México (siglos XIX y XX).

The functional paradigms of biology emerged in Europe on the margins of medicine, but medical communities appropriated them into society, thereby generating some friction between them. Originally, cell theory and theories about physiological processes did not concern physicians, but they became assimilated into the new medicine and studies into heredity and microbiology, which since their emergence had been close to medical practice, and were quickly appropriated by this new form of medicine. The 'social domestication' of this knowledge involved a process of translation to the new environment, giving rise to hybrid versions with quite distinct features from their European counterparts. Here, we analyze and discuss the introduction of biology paradigms into Mexico (19th and 20th centuries).