Biological field stations proliferated in the Rocky Mountains region of the western United States during the early decades of the twentieth century. This essay examines these Rocky Mountain field stations as hybrid lab-field sites from the perspective of the field side of the dichotomy: as field sites with raised walls rather than as laboratories whose walls with the natural world have been lowered. Not only were these field stations transformed to be more like laboratories, but they were also embedded within (...) the particular regional environmental and institutional context of the Rocky Mountains. Using the University of Colorado’s Mountain Laboratory at Tolland and other contemporaneous sites as examples, this essay analyzes key features of these sites, including their location within transportation networks, buildings, equipment, personnel, scheduling, recreational and social activities, and other material and social practices on the ground. Considering both the distinctive and shared characteristics of the Rocky Mountain field stations in comparison to other types of field stations provides a more complete picture of the diversity and range of lab-field hybrid sites in the biological sciences in the early twentieth-century United States. (shrink)

Between 1917 and 1945, the Ecological Society of America (ESA) housed a Committee for the Preservation of Natural Conditions specifically charged with identifying and taking political action toward the preservation of wilderness sites for scientific study. While several historians have analyzed the social and political contexts of the Preservation Committee, none has addressed the scientific context that gave rise to the Committee and to political activism by ESA members. Among the Preservation Committee's lobbying efforts, the naming of Glacier Bay, Alaska, (...) as a national monument in 1925 stands out as a unique success. I argue that the campaign for the preservation of Glacier Bay reveals the methodological ambitions ecologists had for their science in the 1920s and 1930s and demonstrates how ecologists understood the role of place in biological field studies. It represented preservation for science. Most of the political activities undertaken by the ESA in the interwar years, however, turned out to be science for conservation, which rarely involved lobbying for the protection of active research sites. In conjunction with changes in ecological methodology in the 1940s, the Committee's unclear scientific mission contributed to its being disbanded in 1945. (shrink)