Latour is a world famous and widely published French sociologist who has written with great eloquence and perception about the relationship between people, science, and technology. He is also closely associated with the school of thought known as Actor Network Theory. In this book he sets out for the first time in one place his own ideas about Actor Network Theory and its relevance to management and organization theory.

The experiments of the Austrian biologist Paul Kammerer to breed eyes in blind olms is probably one of the most notable manifestations of Lamarckian thinking and research at the beginning of the 20th century. If living in the environment of the dark caves in the Slovenian Kraijna for thousands of years has reduced the eyes of the olms until they nearly disappeared, then is it possible to influence the development in the other direction and speed it up? Will a transformed (...) milieux or media (in a Lamarckian sense) conduct olms to vision, to the mysteries of light? Kammerer's legendary skill in taking care of animals (especially amphibians), the highly modern research environment of an institution unique in whole Europe and America at that time (the Biologische Versuchsanstalt Wien), years of experimental crossings, and, finally, the convergence of biological media and technical media (for example media of development in photography), provided the opportunity for Kammerer to succeed. The olm experiments are part of an elaborate research program of the Viennese Versuchsanstalt and its facilities that assume the environment of animals to be the critical point in developmental, hereditary, and evolutionary research. Theoretically Kammerer's olms ask questions about vision in general and its organ, the eye. (shrink)

To some, a misguided Lamarckian and a fraud, to others a martyr in the fight against Darwinism, the Viennese zoologist Paul Kammerer (1880-1926) remains one of the most controversial scientists of the early 20th century. Here his work is reconsidered in light of turn-of-the-century problems in evolutionary theory and experimental methodology, as seen from Kammerer's perspective in Vienna. Kammerer emerges not as an opponent of Darwinism, but as one would-be modernizer of the 19th-century theory, which had included a role for (...) the inheritance of acquired characteristics. Kammerer attempted a synthesis of Darwinism with genetics and the chromosome theory, while retaining the modifying effects of the environment as the main source of favorable variation, and he developed his program of experimentation to support it. Kammerer never had a regular university position, but worked at a private experimental laboratory, with sidelines as a teacher and a popular writer and lecturer. On the lecture circuit he held forth on the significance of his science for understanding and furthering cultural evolution and he satisfied his passion for the arts and performance. In his dual career as researcher and popularizer, he did not always follow academic convention. In the contentious and rapidly changing fields of heredity and evolution, some of his stances and practices, as well as his outsider status and part-Jewish background, aroused suspicion and set the stage for the scandal that ended his career and prompted his suicide. (shrink)

Abstract.The German zoologist and geneticist Ludwig Plate was a pupil and successor of the “German Darwin” Ernst Haeckel as the director of the Institute of Zoology at Jena University. Plate campaigned for a revival of the original Darwinism. His research program, which he labelled “old-Darwinism”, proclaimed the synthesis of selectionism with “moderate Lamarckism” and orthogenesis.This article reconstructs and analyses Plate’s “old-Darwinian” synthesis and sheds light on Plate’s controversial biography, especially his conflict with Haeckel.