Meetings |

History of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology

Recognizing that the developiment
of modern biochemistry and molecu-
lar biology represents one of the su-
preme intellectual achievements of our
time, with far-reaching implications for
other sciences and for human affairs,
an increasing number of scientists, his-
torians and others have begun to trace
the origins and the course of these de-
velopments. To consider and promote
such endeavors, the Committee on the
History of Biochemistry and Molecu-
lar Biology of the American Academy
of Arts and Sciences brought together
sbout 30 participants in a small con-
‘erence at the House of the Academy
o Brookline, Massachusetts, from 21 to
13. May 1970. Among those taking part
vere scientists who had been active
‘ontributors in these areas of investi-
ration, historians and sociologists of
cience, and librarians concerned with
he gathering and preservation of
ource material for the future historian.

The participants recognized the im-
ortant opportunities for the historian
1 this field today. Many of the leading
‘orkers who are responsible for the
reat advances of the last half-century
ré still with us and can provide much
isight into the nature of the events as
ey were actually seen by the investi-
ators themselves. The opportunity,
adwever, may be lost if we do not take
eps to preserve the unpublished pa-
‘rg and correspondence of the major
id some of the minor actors in the

‘ama, and obtain their personal recol-
stions of the events in which they
sre involved. The lively discussion at
@ conference helped to promote some
the necessary interchange of ideas
tween scientists, historians, and archi-
its, and to suggest further steps that
ould be taken.
In the opening session Carl F. Cori
tlined the history of lactic acid in
logy since its discovery by Scheele
the 18th century, including the long

d tangled history of lactic acid in re-

ion to muscular activity, and the

itroversy of a century ago over the

OCTOBER 1970

relative roles of carbohydrate, fat, and
protein in muscular work. S. EB. Luria
described the early history of the bac-
teriophage work which Max Delbruck
and he initiated; the role of the Cold
Spring Harbor Laboratory of a genera-
tion ago, with the enthusiastic encour-
agement of Demerec as director of the
laboratory; and the close interplay of
thinking and experiment among a small
group including Delbruck, Luria, A. D.
Hershey, and T. F. Anderson with his
electron microscope. When they were
not together in person, they were con-
stantly in touch by letter and telephone,
Who did the experiment to settle some
new idea was unimportant; it was only
important that the thing should be
done. Among many other points, Luria
discussed Avery's work demonstrating
that DNA was the transforming factor
in pneumococcus—work of which he
was well aware even before its publi-
cation—and_ considered why its revo-
lutionary implications did not have a
more immediate impact on the phage
geneticists.

Taking up at this point, Gunther
Stent considered the idea that some
discoveries are premature and are,
therefore, not appreciated in their time,
The work of Mendel is the prime ex-
ample in biology, but to some extent
the concept may apply to Avery’s work
also. Some have dismissed the whole
idea of “prematurity” as essentially a
tautology; but Stent, although holding
that tautologies are often in fact highly
significant, maintained that a discovery
is actually premature when it cannot
be connected by a series of simple logi-
cal steps to contemporary canonical
ideas, It cannot be appreciated until a
series of other advances has provided
a new framework into which the dis-
covery can fit. He also discussed, and
rejected, the general view that scien-
tific and artistic creation are funda-
mentally different—the view that a cre-
ation in art or literature is unique and
irreplaceable, whereas a scientific dis-
covery, if not made by one man, will

surely be made by another within a
very short time, Stent believes that
there is considerably less of this kind
of uniqueness in art, and a good deal
more in science, than the common view
maintains. These views led to a long
and very lively discussion. Robert K.
Merton remarked that Stent’s views on
uniqueness represented the first really
novel contribution to the subject that he
had heard in 35 years and discussed
them in relation to his own studies of
repeated duplication of scientific dis-
coveries by different people.

J. T. Edsall, FJ, W. Roughton, A,
B. Hastings, and W. H. Forbes con-
sidered the growth of knowledge of the
role of hemoglobin in the transport of
oxygen and carbon dioxide in the blood,
beginning with the observations of Chris-
tian Bohr and his collaborators in 1904,
which for the first time demonstrated
cooperative interactions in the binding
of oxygen and what would now be
called heterotropic interactions of car-
bon dioxide on oxygen binding, The
later work of J. S Haldane, J. Bar-
croft, L. J, Henderson, D. D. Van
Slyke, and others led to the detailed
characterization of blood as an inte-
grated system, highly adapted to its
function, primarily because of the re
markable properties of hemoglobin.

R. C, Olby examined the growth of
molecular biology at the University of
Cambridge and at Caltech, considering
the factors and events in the earlier
history of these institutions which
served to foster the brilliant later de-
velopments, Saul Beriison and Peter D.
Olch discussed the problems of gather-
ing, editing, and preserving oral histo-
ties; the value of such histories; and
the pitfalls and limtations involved in
using them. The historian who sets out
to gather the personal recollections of
those involved in significant scientific
developments must immerse himself be-
forehand in the work of his subject—
not only the published work, but as
much of the unpublished background
material as possible. The series of inter-
views that follow may run to 40 or 50
hours, though in many instances a
much smaller period suffices, With pre-
liminary preparation, and. subsequent
editing of the material in the inter-
views, Benison estimated that the in-
terviewing of three or four people a
year is as much as the historian can
wisely undertake, He must be able to
ask the right questions, be a good lis-
tener, and keep his temper.

Several participants reported on their
current studies in the history of bio-
chemistry. F, L. Holmes discussed the

349
controversies on nutrition and metabo-
lism that involved Magendie, Liebig,
Dumas, Claude Bernard, and others in
the second quarter of the 19th cen-
tury. A. J. Ihde outlined his extensive
studies on the history of nutrition.
Stanley Becker presented the early his-
tory of vitamin A, including the in-
tense rivalry between E. V. McCollum
and the team of T. B. Osborne and L.
B. Mendel. R. E. Kohler considered the
series of crucial biochemical discover-
ies which occurred in, the last decade of
the 19th century and led to the rapid
development of biochemistry in our
own time: The separation of the zy-
mase system from the yeast cell, dem-
onstrating that fermentation could pro-
ceed outside of the living cell, was prob-
ably the most crucial event of a whole
network of discoveries. John Parascan-
dola reported on his studies on the
work of Lawrence J: Henderson, an
influential biochemist, physiologist, so-
ciologist, and philosopher of science.
There was much discussion of the
opportunities and needs for gathering
and preserving the documents that will
be essential to future historians of sci-
ence. Charles Weiner described the
research in the history of modern phys-
ics being conducted by the American
Institute of Physics. The extensive col-
lections of the Niels Bohr Library in-
clude, in addition to published mate-
rial, the correspondence and other
unpublished documents deposited by
physicists, autobiographies from a con-
siderable number of physicists, a film
library, and about 10,000 photographs.
Weiner emphasized the importance of
coupling research efforts with the col-
lection of documents and the value of
holding small, carefully prepared con-
ferences which bring together scientists,
historians, and others. Whitfield Bell of
the American Philosophical Society
agreed that it is generally best for in-
dividuals, especially in universities, to
deposit their unpublished papers in the
archives of their own institutions, pro-
vided that these materials are given
proper care. When such arrangements
are not possible, he indicated that the
American Philosophical Society is pre-
pared to receive material from bio-
chemists and molecular biologists for
deposit and care in its archives. If these
documents are to Prove genuinely use-
ful, archives must be well organized
and the material must be properly filed
and cataloged. Controls on the use of
Papers must be carefully considered
and Specified; the library may see fit to
impose its own restrictions, even if the .
donor of the material does not specify
them himself.

Those present at the conference
agreed on the importance of urging
leaders in biochemistry and molecular
biology to preserve such material from
their own files. It was recommended
that a statement emphasizing the im-
portance of preservation be sent out in
the near future to a selected list of
leading scientists in the field. Also, it
would be highly desirable to issue a
newsletter, perhaps once or twice a
year, reporting on the location of such
material and on other information use-
ful for scholars. Both the American
Institute of Physics and the American
Philosophical Society publish such a
newsletter, Saul Benison urged the com-
pilation of lists of biographical and
autobiographical articles that have al-
ready appeared. Everett Mendelsohn
pointed out that the Journal of the His-
tory of Biology could publish at least
some of the information for a news-
letter among its “Notes.” J. §. Fruton
spoke. of the possible role of the Amer-
ican Society of Biological Chemists in
Promoting these developments. It was
agreed that action should be taken on
several Of these proposals in the near
future and that the American Academy
and its Committee should endeavor to
implement them.

JouHN T. Epsaty
Biological Laboratories,
Harvard University,
Canbridge, Massachusetts 02138