James Strick

Henry Charlton Bastian's support for spontaneous generation is shown to have developed from his commitment to the new evolutionary science of Darwin, Spencer, Huxley and Tyndall. Tracing Bastian's early career development shows that he was one of the most talented rising young stars among the Darwinians in the 1860s. His argument for a logically necessary link between evolution and spontaneous generation was widely believed among those sympathetic to Darwin's ideas. Spontaneous generation implied materialism to many, however, and it had associations in Britain with radical politics and amateur science. Huxley and the X Club were trying to create a public posture of Darwinism that kept it at arm's length from those negative associations. Thus, the conflict that developed when Huxley and the X Club opposed Bastian was at least as much about factional in-fighting among the Darwinians as it was about the experiments under dispute. Huxley's strategy to defeat Bastian and define his position as "non-Darwinian" contributed significantly to the shaping of Huxley's famous address "Biogenesis and Abiogenesis." Rhetorically separating Darwinism from Bastian was thus responsible for Huxley's first clear public statement that a naturalistic origin of life was compatible with Darwin's ideas, but only in the earth's distant past. The final separation of the discourse on the meaning of Brownian movement and "active molecules" from any possible link with spontaneous generation also grew out of Huxley's strategy to defeat Bastian. Clashes between Bastian and the X Club are described at the BAAS, the Royal Society, and in the pages of "Nature" and other journals.

The new discipline of exobiology formed from the intertwining of origin of life research with the search for life or its building blocks on other planets, from 1957-1973. The field was inherently highly interdisciplinary, yet it coalesced very quickly and was responsible in its first twenty years for numerous important contributions to twentieth century life science and planetary sciences such as climatology, the study of mass extinctions, etc. NASA played a very important role in catalyzing the rapid consolidation of exobiology, both through research grants and through sponsored meetings that overcame disciplinary boundaries, bringing together scientists from diverse backgrounds. The presence of a handful of prominent senior scientists such as Joshua Lederberg, Melvin Calvin and Norman Horowitz helped gain credibility for exobiology, in the face of criticism and competition from existing life sciences disciplines. Tensions within the exobiology research community and between NASA-funded science and the academic research community are explored, as are such milestones of discipline formation as journals and professional societies

The new discipline of exobiology formed from the intertwining of origin of life research with the search for life or its building blocks on other planets, from 1957-1973. The field was inherently highly interdisciplinary, yet it coalesced very quickly and was responsible in its first twenty years for numerous important contributions to twentieth century life science and planetary sciences such as climatology, the study of mass extinctions, etc. NASA played a very important role in catalyzing the rapid consolidation of exobiology, both through research grants and through sponsored meetings that overcame disciplinary boundaries, bringing together scientists from diverse backgrounds. The presence of a handful of prominent senior scientists such as Joshua Lederberg, Melvin Calvin and Norman Horowitz helped gain credibility for exobiology, in the face of criticism and competition from existing life sciences disciplines. Tensions within the exobiology research community and between NASA-funded science and the academic research community are explored, as are such milestones of discipline formation as journals and professional societies.

What are cells? How are they related to each other and to the organism as a whole? These questions have exercised biology since Schleiden and Schwann (1838–1839) first proposed cells as the key units of structure and function of all living things. But how do we try to understand them? Through new technologies like the achromatic microscope and the electron microscope. But just as importantly, through the metaphors our culture has made available to biologists in different periods and places. These two new volumes provide interesting history and philosophy of the development of cell biology. Reynolds surveys the field's changing conceptual structure by examining the varied panoply of changing metaphors used to conceptualize and explain cells – from cells as empty boxes, as building blocks, to individual organisms, to chemical factories, and through many succeeding metaphors up to one with great currency today: cells as social creatures in communication with others in their community. There is some of this approach in theVisionsedited collection as well. But this collection also includes rich material on the technologies used to visualize cells and their dialectical relationship with the epistemology of the emerging distinct discipline of cell biology. This volume centres on, but is not limited to, ‘reflections inspired by [E.V.] Cowdry's [1924 volume]General Cytology’; it benefits from a conference on the Cowdry volume as well as a 2011 Marine Biological Lab/Arizona State University workshop on the history of cell biology.

Where is the line between successful popular science writing informed by scientists' own recollections and truly reliable history? This is a book of the first kind that dallies with history but clearly remains a problematic source. As popular science writing about work since 1953 The Spark of Life is very successful and conveys a great deal of information about origin of life research and exobiology in highly readable form. Christopher Wills and Jeffrey Bada are, respectively, an evolutionary biologist and an organic chemist/biochemist oriented toward origin of life studies. Their strength lies in clear, simple writing about sometimes complex research. Their chief weakness as historians is that they have strong opinions about the field of research they are describing. They are friends and admirers of Stanley Miller , and they fundamentally share his research orientation. They thus also share his enemies. Approached with this in view, the book can be a very useful source about the Miller “school” and its point of view in origin of life debates since 1953. But it certainly should not be mistaken for a neutral source just because it appears to be an introductory text.Let us choose a single example to see how this plays out: the case of Sidney Fox, the protein chemist and longstanding Miller antagonist. While the development of Miller's ideas is laid out in much fascinating detail and sympathetically given many pages of text, Fox's equally long career is summed up in less than five pages as a “false start” in understanding evolution of the first organic molecules into more complex proto–living systems. Fox's career did indeed take some odd turns, and his publicity seeking became something quite out of the norm after he was marginalized in the research community. But the initial differences in approach between Fox and Miller are here passed over quickly, leaving the impression that Fox never really had any answers to Miller's criticisms of his work on proteinoid microspheres . And Fox's ability to carry on research at all is attributed to his character as “an excellent self‐promoter,” with the veiled implication that he was thus able to dupe early NASA Life Sciences administrators into giving him funding. Whether one thinks that Fox's research program actually brought out any useful, important insights or not , this is surely an oversimplification of a complex story of the institutional environment that exobiology operated in during its early years. NASA administrators saw genuinely promising things in Fox's work, and even if most of those have not panned out, there is surely a story here worth telling about changing ideas within the research community and within the NASA patronage system. The competition from the mid 1950s until at least the late 1970s between Fox's “school” and the opponents, including Miller and Norman Horowitz, is a story full of historical interest, both in research journals and behind the scenes.Regarding historical material before 1953, the first forty pages of the book, this work is whiggish to the point of being completely unreliable. Again, a single example will have to suffice. John Tyndall is credited with coining the term “panspermia.” Then William Thomson is touted as a proponent in 1871 of the altered meaning, that life could be present throughout space—for example, carried on meteors yet still remaining viable. We are left with a sense that both Tyndall and Thomson, being “scientific giants” of the time , both basically agreed on this subject and that only the popular press ridiculed Thomson for this idea. But Tyndall and the Darwinians all ridiculed Thomson's idea at the time. And Thomson himself proposed the idea as part of a unified campaign against Darwinian evolution and against modern ideas on the origin of life supported by Tyndall and Huxley, a covert way of holding out against the banishing of a divine Creator by abiogenesis. But we learn none of this: the ideas are bereft of their historical context, and even their scientific context, in the same old way that the simplistic “historical sections” of science textbooks have long distorted the stories they tell. Wills and Bada's treatment of Pasteur, Pouchet, and Bastian similarly repeat many misstatements from past internalist histories. This is the case despite the fact that the authors show in their footnotes that they are aware of much of the recent work of professional historians on these subjects.This book, then, is a source to be handled with some caution but useful on the period from 1953 to the present. On the period before 1953 it should not be considered useful history