In 1973-1974 Stanley N. Cohen of Stanford and Herbert W. Boyer of the University of California, San Francisco, developed a laboratory process for joining and replicating DNA from different species. In 1974 Stanford and UC applied for a patent on the recombinant DNA process; the U.S. Patent Office granted it in 1980. This essay describes how the patenting procedure was shaped by the concurrent recombinant DNA controversy, tension over the commercialization of academic biology, governmental deliberations over the regulation of genetic (...) engineering research, and national expectations for high technology as a boost to the American economy. The essay concludes with a discussion of the patent as a turning point in the commercialization of molecular biology and a harbinger of the social and ethical issues associated with biotechnology today. (shrink)

This essay draws a new picture of the science of bacteria in its 'golden age', circa 1880-1900: the organization of its knowledge and practice, its germ theory of disease, the difference between its two major research traditions, and, above all, its place in life science in this period that bristled with theories and debates over inheritance, variation, selection, evolution and that witnessed the transition from natural history to laboratory biology. Pasteur and Koch's science acquired this biological dimension not despite being (...) outside academic biology, nor despite the limitations of its applied, medical matrix, but rather because of that framework. The very practices of vaccine development constituted, at the same time, a new biological model of bacterial species and variation, which aligned them with other living things. Finally, the new picture reveals unsuspected continuity to later microbiology and molecular biology. In illuminating the self-perceptions of these sciences in relation to the past, it situates and opens a critical perspecive on writings by bacteriologists such as Ludwik Fleck, François Jacob and René Dubos, which have widely informed how we understand science. (shrink)

: This article analyzes German debates on the microbiology of infectious diseases from 1865 to 1875 and asks how and when organic pollution in tissues became noteworthy for aetiology and pathogenesis. It was with Ernst Hallier's pleomorphistic microbiology that the organic character of alien material in tissues came to be regarded as important for pathology. The process that followed saw both vigorous biological critique and a number of medical applications of Hallier's work. Around 1874 contemporaries reached the conclusion that pleomorphous (...) vegetation was most likely of little importance if not accidental in relation to the aetiology of infectious diseases whereas the idea of monomorphous micro-organisms facilitated a causal explanation. It was only then that notions such a pure cultures, bacterial specificity, etc. favored by Ferdinand Julius Cohn and his school became popular in medical circles. (shrink)

The ArgumentThe paper is divided into the two parts. In the first, I examine the relations among molecular biology, gene technology, and medicine as some aspect of the consequences of these relations with respect to the human genome project of the consequences of these relations with respect to the human genome project. I argue that the prevailing momentum of early molecular biology resided in argue that the prevailing momentum of relay molecular biology resided in crating the technical means for an (...) extracellular representation of intracellular configurations. Assuch, its medical impact was rather limited. With the advent of recombinant DNA technology is based on the prospects of an intracellular representation of extracellular projects—the “rewriting” of life. Its medical impact is potentially unlimited. In the second part, I question the very opposition between nature and culture that implicitly underlies the notion of medicine as a “cultural system.” I argue that both on a macroscopic level and on a microscopic level, the “natural” and the “social” are no longer to be seen as ontologically different.In its uncanny oscillation between retrospection and foresight, between description and proclamation, and between assertion and hesitation, this essay translates an uneasiness that I have not been able to overcome while writing it. The essay conveys the tangled views of a hybrid author who himself cannot but oscillate between the perspectives of an actor in the field of molecular biology, a participant in the field of science studies, and a citizen. (shrink)

The field of bacterial physiology illustrates some of these patterns of innovation in normal science. Bacterial physiology did not emerge as a distinct specialty until the mid-1940s, when systematic efforts were made (especially in Britain) to organize societies, journals, training programs, and patronage net- works for "general microbiology," as the discipline was then called. However, the fundamental ideas and methodologies of bacterial physiology had already been worked out between about 1915 and 1940. In this period, the nascent re- search field (...) developed under the aegis of half a dozen disciplines in half a dozen countries. By 1940 there were active centers of research in bacterial physiology at the Pasteur Institute in Paris; at the Rockefeller Institute in New York; in agricultural schools at the universities of Iowa, Wisconsin and Helsinki; in bi- ology departments at Stanford University, the University of Delft, and California Institute of Technology; in biochemistry at Cambridge University; and in bacteriology at the Middlesex Hospital in London and the London School of Hygiene. (shrink)

Generally, the mass media in Britain, as elsewhere, treat the history of science as arcane knowledge. A few iconic tales do none the less come to permeate public consciousness. How do these come to be selected from the myriad of possible narratives?One of the most enduring and well known of stories is the discovery of penicillin, which stretched from Alexander Fleming's observation in 1928 to the award of the Nobel prize to Fleming, Howard Florey and Ernst Chain in 1945 and (...) the subsequent dominance of American companies in its manufacture. During the 1980s, when it appeared scandalous that monoclonal antibodies discovered in Cambridge, England, had not been patented by the British government, the parallel was often made with penicillin. An alternative use was made of the story when, in July 1995, a columnist in London's Evening Standard criticized massive expenditure on medical research and claimed that most drugs were discovered by accident. He sustained his thesis by merely putting in pointed parentheses the one word, ‘penicillin’. The same year, partisans found space in the correspondence columns of the New Scientist to return enthusiastically to the debate over the proper disposition of credit between Fleming and Florey. The BBC's Money Programme broadcast a piece on how best to support inventors today in October 1996; it included film of the Science Museum's coverage of Fleming.The story of penicillin seems therefore bound, time and time again, to great issues in British culture: pride over technological prowess, resentment over the loss of opportunity, jealousy of American success, the National Health Service and the emergence of the modern pharmaceutical industry. The appeal of the story and meaning of its associations are matched by reverence for its material relics. In high profile auctions, the sale of samples prepared by Fleming raises thousands of pounds and is previewed in the newspages and on the radio. The original plate on which Fleming observed penicillin with its sterile ring surrounding the healing penicillin is one of the most familiar of historic relics. (shrink)

The antibiotic streptomycin was discovered soon after penicillin was introduced into medicine. Selman Waksman, who was awarded the Nobel Prize for the discovery, has since generally been credited as streptomycin's sole discoverer. However, one of Waksman's graduate students, Albert Schatz, was legally recognized as streptomycin's co-discoverer and received a share of the royalties from the drug. The aim of this essay is to discuss the streptomycin story, largely using previously unquoted archival material, and in particular to provide further evidence for (...) the important role which Schatz played in the discovery. (shrink)

While the simple historical view has pictured the Lysenko controversy as an uninterrupted series of Lysenko's victories-beginning with the 1936 discussion, and culminating in the infamous August 1948 meeting of the Lenin All-Union Academy of Agricultural Sciences, when genetics was officially abolished in the Soviet Union-it was certainly more complex, as recognized by such serious historians as David Joravsky and Mark Adams. As we have seen, the roles the competitors assumed in 1945–47 were the reverse of those they assumed in (...) the 1930s: the geneticists managed to gain the offensive, and Lysenko was forced to defend his position.This episode suggests that the Communist Party leadership probably did not have a special bias against genetics, nor a particular preference toward Lysenko at that time. The actual decisions of the Party apparatus on particular science policies were based upon the current priorities of general foreign and domestic policies, rather than upon an “orthodox Party line” in esoteric scientific questions. It is clear and has been recognized by some historians that the Soviet scientific community was not a passive, monolithic object of the manipulation, control, and repression exercised by the Communist Party leadership; various groups within the Soviet scientific community actively exploited every opportunity provided by the Party's policies to achieve their own objectives.The Lysenko controversy illustrates the profound impact of international events on Soviet science and suggests that its history cannot be understood as a result of exclusively domestic affairs, but should be explicated within a broader framework of interaction between Soviet domestic and international policies and between the Soviet and Western scientific communities. As we have seen, one of the major causes of the geneticists' success in the postwar struggle with Lysenkoists was the shift of Soviet foreign policies toward internationalism stimulated by the wartime alliance between the “Big Three.” This suggests that the so-called “death” of genetics in the Soviet Union in August 1948 was also the result of another dramatic shift in the international situation: the climax of the Cold War confrontation between former allies in the summer of 1948, which marked the final division of postwar Europe and the world into two opposing camps, East and West. (shrink)

Between 1946 and 1960, a new phenomenon emerged in the field of bacteriology. "Bacterial sex," as it was called, revolutionized the study of genetics, largely by making available a whole new class of cheap, fast-growing, and easily manipulated organisms. But what was "bacterial sex?" How could single-celled organisms have "sex" or even be sexually differentiated? The technical language used in the scientific press -- the public and inalienable face of 20th century science -- to describe this apparently neuter organism was (...) explicit: the cells "copulated," had "intimate contract," "conjugal unions," and engaged in "ménage à trois" relationships. And yet, to describe bacteria as sexually reproducing organisms, the definition of sex itself had to change. Despite manifold contradictions and the availability of alternative language, the notion of sexually active (even promiscuous) single-celled organisms has persisted, even into contemporary textbooks on cell biology and genetics. In this paper I examine the ways in which bacteria were brought into the genetic fold, sexualized, and given gender; I also consider the issues underlying the durability of "bacterial sex.". (shrink)