Life Science in the Agricultural Context
As mentioned earlier, major areas in the life sciences were nurtured within the intellectual traditions of agriculture and nutrition. As a result of the passage of the Morrill Land-Grant Act (1862), the Hatch Act (1887), and the Adams Act (1906), research in agricultural colleges and experiment stations flourished. With the sharp rise in the budget of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) at the turn of the century, the number of agricultural scientists increased greatly. Sizable research programs in plant physiology and biochemistry, in entomology, soil microbiology and chemistry, and in biochemical nutrition developed in agricultural schools in the 1910s, reflecting the rapid growth of agricultural science. Some of these investigations also became important in biomedical research.
Yet the history of twentieth-century agricultural sciences has not received attention commensurate with its importance. Historians have traced the development of biochemistry and physiology mainly within a medical context, and the handful of studies on agricultural science focus on the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.37. This lacuna may be partially filled by the examining the manuscript sources on W.J.V. Osterhout*, P.K. Olitsky*, W. J. Robbins*, and R. P. Link**.
The Osterhout Papers* (1894-1961) provide a valuable record of a career which began at the botany department of Brown University, continued at the botany departments of the University of California at Berkeley and Harvard, culminating in Osterhout's* tenure as head of the physiology department at the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research. His physicochemical studies utilized plant cells for probing basic physiological phenomena such as permeability and bio-electric potentials, thus linking the agricultural and medical traditions in intellectual content, as well as in institutional context. The overlap between medical and agricultural concerns is also highlighted in the Olitsky Papers*, which contain materials on his work in microbiology for the USDA in relation to the hoof-and-mouth disease outbreak.
The Robbins Papers* (1890-1978), on the other hand, reflect a long career strictly within the botanical and agricultural context. These papers contain a wealth of information on scientific and administrative aspects of agriculturally oriented research programs (mainly plant physiology). These include programs in several major American and European universities, at agricultural colleges and experimental stations, and at the USDA.
The Link** correspondence (6 files, 1930-1945) in the Bergmann Papers* covers a substantial part of Link's career in agricultural chemistry at the University of Wisconsin. His program, which addressed a wide range of topics in nutritional biochemistry and carbohydrate chemistry, was one of America's most influential research schools in biochemistry in terms of scientific discoveries as well as in training many students. Although these manuscript sources document only a fraction of the story of agricultural chemistry, they are valuable material as case studies and provide insights into the complexity of the larger picture.
Academic Biochemistry and Commercial Concerns
The food and drug industries played a central role in the growth of biochemistry during the interwar period. During these years the major pharmaceutical houses, among them Eli Lilly, Hoffmann-La Roche, Merck and Co., and Parke-Davis established cooperative research with departments of biochemistry and physiology in major universities, projects which were administered through elaborate systems of contracts and industrial research fellowships. These bonds were further strengthened during World War II, when most academic biochemists worked in collaboration with the pharmaceutical industries on war projects sponsored by the OSRD. By the 1950s industrial and academic research in biochemistry was inextricably linked.
Scholars have begun examining this powerful scientific symbiosis, but more needs to be done in order to understand how commercial goals meshed or conflicted with academic research, especially in the postwar period.38.
One can gain some insights into issues surrounding industry-university relations from the papers of the Wisconsin biochemist E. Severinghaus* (1920-1945), who became director of research at Hoffmann-La Poche in 1945. The Seibert Papers* (1920-1970s) contain about twenty files (1930s-1960s) on her cooperation with several commercial concerns. Similarly, the Chargaff Papers* (1931-1971) contain correspondence on his links with Hoffmann La Roche, Bio-vin, Upjohn, Eli Lilly, Rohm and Haas, and Parke-Davis. Biochemical research was integral to the growth of other industries. The ties between the fermentation industries and academic research are seen in the files in the Neuberg Papers* (1929-1956), and also in the records on the leather industry in the Bergmann Papers* (1930-1945). Life Science and War
Science, technology, and the military have been linked for centuries; during the two world wars these bonds were greatly strengthened. After World War I scientific research and its applications came to be regarded as national resources, imparting power and prestige to a newly emerged scientific establishment. The men involved also masterminded the reorganization of scientific research and development during World War II. Some aspects of that reorganization have become permanent features of American science.
In contrast to their counterparts in the physical sciences, cooperative war projects in the life sciences have been largely ignored and their long-term impact on the organization of research remains unexplored. This important chapter in the history of science may be broached by utilizing several manuscript sources which contain material on the cooperation of life scientists with the military.
The Chargaff Papers* (1931-1971) contain files on his OSRD projects, which include material on the chemistry of blood coagulants. There is abundant information in the Rivers Papers* (1941-1963) on biomedical research and the Navy, and on the Armed Forces Epidemiological Board. There is extensive documentation in the Rous Papers** (1917-1970) on the development of procedures for preserving blood in blood banks, and in the Olitsky Papers* (1917-1964) on his work in microbiology. The manuscript sources on E. J. Cohn** include records related to his large-scale project of blood fractionation. The Roughton Papers* (1920-1960) contain correspondence on his war research in the context of aviation medicine, and the Robbins Papers* contain materials on life science during World War I and World War II, and important records on the global impact of American science in the decade after World War II.
The emerging interdependence between life science, the government, and the military in the early postwar era is also documented in the Neuberg Papers* (1929-1956), through his various projects for the Atomic Energy Commission and the Office of Naval Research; the Hollaender Papers* (1950-1970) contain materials on the links between the Atomic Energy Commission and the development of radiation genetics. Taken together, the manuscript sources on life science and the military are a valuable resource for mapping out aspects of this important connection from the 1910s well into the 1950s.
Women in Science
With the trend toward a social history of science, there has been a growing interest in the role of women in science and in the relations between gender and science.39.
As scholars who have ventured into that field attest, the paucity of materials or inaccessibility of sources have hindered those interested in the careers of women in science. Only a handful of women during the first half of this century have attained the kind of prominence that results in abundant biographical records; few have been sufficiently connected within their disciplines to leave copious professional correspondence. It is therefore fortunate when rich sources on women in science are available, and it is important that these be utilized in order to gain a greater understanding of both women's contributions to science and the social dynamics of their interactions with colleagues.
The Florence Seibert Papers* (1920-1970s) contain a wealth of information on her long career as a biochemist, from her undergraduate training through her first phase in tuberculosis research, and her second phase in cancer research. Having attained international recognition, Seibert* left abundant correspondence with male and female colleagues, biographical material, and an autobiography. These records are a valuable resource on women in science. The APS Library also houses the papers of Florence R. Sabin, a prominent biomedical researcher, the only woman Member of the Rockefeller Institute, and the first woman to be elected to the National Academy of Science (1925). Studies based on the Sabin Papers (supplemented by several files on Sabin in the Flexner Papers*) promise to enrich greatly our knowledge of women in science. Networks, Peer Reviews, and Scientific Research
The growth of the social studies of science in the 1960s and 1970s has focused attention on social constellations such as scientific networks, invisible colleges, collaborative teams, co-authorships, and the peer review process.40. How are scientific studies judged, who judges, and how is science validated through the major journals? These are some fruitful inquiries that promise to bring new insights into the processes by which scientific research becomes legitimized, and mainstream science defined. The process of peer review for publications in scientific journals, for example, encompasses important aspects of scientific networks and research collaborations, forming a natural locus where social and intellectual factors intersect.
The Rous Papers** (1917-1970) afford a unique opportunity to explore the publication process in several areas in the life sciences through a close examination of hundreds of files on the Journal of Experimental Medicine, of which Rous* was an editor for fifty years. These files contain submissions, lists of reviewers, referee responses, rebuttals, and correspondence related to publications and editorial policies. It is a valuable source of insights into the complex social and intellectual web of science, encompassing physiology, biochemistry, biophysics, microbiology, and immunology. It also reveals trends in the evolution of the life sciences over a period of nearly half a
century. The Rise of Cancer Research
The problem of cancer had been viewed as a murky research area already at the turn of the century, a risky project for a young scientist. "Whatever you do, don't commit yourself to the cancer problem," was W. H. Welch's advice to his protégé Peyton Rous*, who was about join the Rockefeller Institute in 1909.41. Within a few weeks Rous* made a series of discoveries which led him to conclude that viruses cause cancer in chickens. His work established the field of tumor virology and revolutionized cancer research. Because of a prolonged resistance by the medical profession, Rous's* research was not followed up until the 1930s. He was awarded the Nobel Prize fifty-six years after his discovery.
The late 1930s were a watershed in cancer research. Through a series of congressional measures aimed at controlling cancer and promoting cancer research, the National Cancer Institute came into being and rising budgets began attracting life scientists to the field in greater numbers. In the late 1940s a new force spurred the expansion of cancer research through the financial and administrative contributions of Mary Lasker, leading to the organization of the American Cancer Society.42 By the 1960s, through private initiative and massive federal support, cancer research had evolved into a multi-million dollar enterprise, encompassing diverse areas of basic research and clinical practice.
The story of the rise of cancer research -- intellectual trends and institutional imperatives -- awaits writing, and the manuscript sources at the APS Library will be indispensable to the task.43 The Rous Papers** (1917-1970) are by far the most comprehensive source, tracing the intellectual odyssey and institutional growth of his research program on cancer and viruses. The relationship of virology to cancer research is also reflected in the Rivers Papers* (1941-1963) and in the papers of J. B. Murphy, at the Library. There is a great deal about biochemistry and cancer research (1950s-1960s) in the Seibert Papers* and in the Neuberg Papers* (1929-1956); and a wealth of scientific information and correspondence on cytology and cancer research in the Lewis Papers* (1913-1964). The connection between genetics, mutagenic effects, cytogenetics, and problems related to cancer research are documented in the Schultz Papers* (1920-1971), the Hollaender Papers* (1950-1970), and in the Abramson files and Cancer Research Project files of the Demerec Papers* (1917-1966).
The Polio Vaccine: Scientific Truths and Political Realities
The story of polio research, which culminated in 1952 in the development of the Salk vaccine and a mass-immunization program, is one of the most dramatic and instructive episodes in the history of biomedical research. Spanning a period of about three decades (1928-1958), the researches surrounding the development of the Salk vaccine ranged over a broad scientific spectrum: virology, biochemistry, immunology, public health, and drug manufacturing. It was also an instance in which public debate and political imperatives were intertwined with long standing scientific controversies over the safety and effectiveness of different polio vaccines.
Since 1928, when it was firmly established that poliomyelitis is caused by a virus, the search for a polio vaccine had led to emotionally charged debates about the use of attenuated live-virus vaccines and vaccines made of the killed virus. Among those involved in the debates were researchers at the Rockefeller Institute, including Simon Flexner*, P. K. Olitsky*, A. Sabin, and T. M. Rivers**. By the time Jonas Salk began his polio research at the University of Pittsburgh in the 1940s, the National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis (established by Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1937) had launched a multi-million dollar campaign against the dreaded affliction. Headed by Basil O'Connor, the National Foundation coordinated all aspects of the polio program from basic research to public relations, with Rivers playing a central role, especially after retiring from his directorship of the Institute's hospital in 1955.
Some parts of the story of polio research and the development of the vaccine have been told.44 However, there is no complete study which ties together the various intellectual and social aspects of the polio research program, from the laboratory bench to field trials, from academic debate to congressional hearings. Such a study promises to reveal a great deal not only about the histories of virology and immunology, but also about the institutional contexts which shaped different research approaches to the polio problem and about the interaction between science and the public. The Rivers Papers* (1941-1963) contain numerous files on the National Foundation and polio research, as well as several correspondence files with A. Sabin (the proponent of the live-virus vaccine), and J. Salk (the developer of the killed-virus vaccine). There are several correspondence files on A. Sabin in the Rous Papers** (including files in the Journal for Experimental Medicine), and significant material related to polio research in the Olitsky Papers*. These manuscript sources do not document the entire story, but they do provide material for important aspects of it.