Domesticated Animals on Exhibit at the Museum of Comparative Zoology, 1900-1928.

In 1905 the Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard University began planning for a new domesticated animals exhibition in honor of the 100th anniversary of the birth of its founder Louis Agassiz. The resulting displays of variation and heredity in poultry, pigeons, rabbits, mice, and guinea pigs proved surprisingly popular to museumgoers. Some of these specimens still exist in the museum's storage facilities, namely a series of poultry donated by the biologist Charles B. Davenport and an elaborate set of guinea pigs from the experimental evolutionist William E. Castle. Situating these domesticated animal displays within academic and popular cultures of poultry fancying, animal breeding, and evolutionary science reveals how a nineteenth-century museum known for its ties to anti-evolutionary principles attempted to modernize its public exhibits.

Laboratory of domesticity: Gender, race, and science at the Bermuda Biological Station for Research, 1903-30.

During the early twentieth century, the Bermuda Biological Station for Research (BBSR) functioned as a multipurpose scientific site. Jointly founded by New York University, Harvard University, and the Bermuda Natural History Society, the BBSR created opportunities for a mostly US-based set of practitioners to study animal biology in the field. I argue that mixed gender field stations like the BBSR supported professional advancement in science, while also operating as important places for women and men to experiment with the social and cultural work of identity formation, courtship and marriage, and social critique. Between 1903 and 1930, the BBSR functioned as a laboratory of domesticity, a temporary scientific household in British Bermuda where women and men interacted with established colonial ideologies about science, sex difference, and racial hierarchy in their public and private accounts of doing biology and socializing in the field. Viewing field stations as generative of multiple forms of labor offers a corrective to narratives within the history of biology, in which scientific practices are considered to be the principal forms of output produced by practitioners in the field. Understanding how women and men at the BBSR engaged with (and at times critiqued) the politics of gender and race from the periphery of U.S. networks of biology suggests that we might view field stations as shaping not only academic science but also domestic life and fields as disparate as fiction and the law.