Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Frits Went’s Atomic Age Greenhouse: The Changing Labscape on the Lab-Field Border

  • Published:
Journal of the History of Biology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In Landscapes and Labscapes Robert Kohler emphasized the separation between laboratory and field cultures and the creation of new “hybrid” or mixed practices as field sciences matured in the early twentieth century. This article explores related changes in laboratory practices, especially novel designs for the analysis of organism–environment relations in the mid-twentieth century. American ecologist Victor Shelford argued in 1929 that technological improvements and indoor climate control should be applied to ecological laboratories, but his recommendations were too ambitious for the time. In the postwar period Frits W. Went, plant physiologist at the California Institute of Technology, created a new high-tech laboratory, dubbed a “phytotron”, in the hope that it would transform plant sciences by allowing for unprecedented control of environmental variables. Went’s aspirations, the research conducted in his laboratory, and its impact in initiating an international movement, are considered. Went’s laboratory can be seen as a “hybrid culture” evolving in the laboratory, complementing and intersecting with some of the field practices that Kohler describes. It was also a countercultural movement against the reductionist trends of molecular biology in the 1950s and 1960s. By considering the history of the laboratory in relation to field sciences, we can explore how new funding sources and cross-disciplinary relations affected the development of field sciences, especially in the postwar period.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Allard, Harry A. 1932. ‹Length of Day in Relation to the Natural and Artificial Distribution of Plants.’ Ecology 13: 221–234.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allen, John. 1991. Biosphere 2: The Human Experiment. New York:Viking Penguin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anonymous. 1925. “Purposes of the Institute.” Contributions from Boyce Thompson Institute for Plant Research 1: 9–24.

  • Appel, Toby A. 2000. Shaping Biology: The National Science Foundation and American Biological Research, 1945–1975. Baltimore and London:Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bocking, Stephen. 1997. Ecologists and Environmental Politics: A History of Contemporary Ecology. New Haven:Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonner, James. 1980. Interview by Graham Berry. Pasadena, CA:Archives of California Institute of Technology.

    Google Scholar 

  • Butler, W.L., Wadleigh, Cecil H. 1987. ‹Sterling Brown Hendricks.’ Biographical Memoirs of the National Academy of Sciences of the U.S.A. 56: 180–212.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cittadino, Eugene. 1990. Nature as the Laboratory: Darwinian Plant Ecology in the German Empire, 1880–1990. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clausen, Jens, Keck, David D. and Hiesey, William H. 1948. Experimental Studies on the Nature of Species. III. Environmental Responses of Climatic Races in Achillea. Washington, DC: Carnegie Institution of Washington, publication no. 581.

  • Cold Spring Harbor Symposia. 1961. Biological Clocks, vol. 25. New York, Cold Spring Harbor.

  • Cook, William C. 1930. ‹Review of Laboratory and Field Ecology, by Victor E. Shelford.’ Ecology 11: 611–614.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, Gail. 1998. Air-Conditioning America: Engineers and the Controlled Environment, 1900–1960. Baltimore and London:Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crocker, William. 1925. ‹Aim of Boyce Thompson Research Institute for Plant Research.’ Contributions from Boyce Thompson Institute for Plant Research 1: 28–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crocker, William. 1948. Growth of Plants: Twenty Years’ Research at Boyce Thompson Institute. New York:Reinhold Publishing Corp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Croker, Robert A. 1991. Pioneer Ecologist: The Life and Work of Victor Ernest Shelford, 1877–1968. Washington and London:Smithsonian Institution Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Downs, Robert J. 1980. ‹Phytotrons.’ The Botanical Review 46: 447–489.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elton, Charles. 1931. ‹Review of Victor E. Shelford, Laboratory and Field Ecology.’ Journal of Ecology 19: 216–217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Evans, Lloyd T. (ed.). 1963a. Environmental Control of Plant Growth. New York and London:Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Evans, Lloyd T. 1963b. ‹Extrapolation from Controlled Environments to the Field.’ LT Evans (ed.), Environmental Control of Plant Growth. New York and London:Academic Press, pp. 421–437.

    Google Scholar 

  • Evans, Lloyd T. 2003. ‹Conjectures, Refutations, and Extrapolations.’ Annual Review of Plant Biology 54: 1–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garner, W.W., Allard, H.A. 1920. ‹Effect of the Relative Length of Day and Night and Other Factors of the Environment on Growth and Reproduction in Plants.’ Journal of Agricultural Research 18: 553–606.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garner, W.W., Allard, H.A. 1922. ‹Photoperiodism, the Response of the Plant to Relative Length of Day and Night.’ Science 55: 582–583.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Griesbach, Robert J. 2003. ‹Orchids Emerge as Major World Floral Crop.’ Chronica Horticulturae 43(3): 6–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hagedorn, Hermann. 1935. The Magnate: William Boyce Thompson and His Times (1869–1930). New York:Reynal and Hitchcock.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hagen, Joel B. 1984. ‹Experimentalists and Naturalists in Twentieth-Century Botany: Experimental Taxonomy, 1920–1950.’ Journal of the History of Biology 17: 249–270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hendricks, Sterling B. 1970. ‹The Passing Scene.’ Annual Review of Plant Physiology 21: 1–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hendricks, Sterling B., Went, F.W. 1958. ‹Controlled-Climate Facilities for Biologists.’ Science 128: 510–512.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hiesey, William M. 1951. ‹Growth Studies Under Controlled Temperatures.’ Carnegie Institution of Washington Yearbook 50: 99–105.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hiesey, William M. 1952. ‹Comparative Physiology of Ecologic Races.’ Carnegie Institution of Washington Yearbook 51: 131–132.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hiesey, William M. 1957. ‹Grasses.’ F.W. Went (ed.), The Experimental Control of Plant Growth. Waltham, MA:Chronica Botanica, pp. 153–163.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kellerman, K.F. 1926. ‹A Review of the Discovery of Photoperiodism: The Influence of the Length of Daily Light Periods upon the Growth of Plants.’ Quarterly Review of Biology 1: 87–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kofoid, Charles A. 1930. ‹Review of Laboratory and Field Ecology, by Victor E. Shelford.’ Ecology 11: 609–611.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kohler, Robert E. 2002. Landscapes & Labscapes: Exploring the Lab-Field Border in Biology. Chicago and London:University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kramer, P.J., Hellmers, H., Downs, R.J. 1970. ‹SEPEL: New Phytotrons for Environmental Research.’ BioScience 20: 1201–1208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kwa, Chunglin. 1993. ‹Radiation Ecology, Systems Ecology and the Management of the Environment.’ Michael Shortland (ed.), Science and Nature: Essays in the History of the Environmental Sciences. Stanford-in-the-Vale, England:British Society for the History of Science, pp. 213–249.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lang, Anton. 1980. ‹Some Recollections and Reflections.’ Annual Review of Plant Physiology 31: 1–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leonelli, Sabina. 2007. ‹Arabidopsis, the Botanical Drosophila: From Mouse Cress to Model Organism.’ Endeavour 31(1): 34–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Metcalfe, C.R. 1958. ‹Review of The Experimental Control of Plant Growth, by Frits W. Went.’ Kew Bulletin 13(2): 228–230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moore, Barrington. 1920. ‹The Relative Length of Day and Night.’ Ecology 1: 234–237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parker, Marion W., Borthwick, H.A. 1949. ‹Growth and Composition of Biloxi Soybean Grown in a Controlled Environment with Radiation from Different Carbon-Arc Sources.’ Plant Physiology 24: 345–358.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parker, M.W., Hendricks, S.B., Borthwick, H.A., Went, F.W. 1949. ‹Spectral Sensitivities for Leaf and Stem Growth of Etiolated Pea Seedlings and Their Similarity to Action Spectra for Photoperiodism.’ American Journal of Botany 36: 194–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pauly, Philip J. 2007. Fruits and Plains: The Horticultural Transformation of America. Cambridge, MA and London:Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sage, Linda C. 1992. Pigment of the Imagination: A History of Phytochrome Research. San Diego:Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schimper, Andreas. 1903. Plant-Geography upon a Physiological Basis, trans. William R. Fisher, 2 vols. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

  • Shelford, Victor E. 1929. Laboratory and Field Ecology: The Responses of Animals as Indicators of Correct Working Methods. Baltimore:Williams and Wilkins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shelford, Victor E. 1953. ‹An Experimental Approach to the Study of Plant and Animal Reproductivity and Population with a Life Science Building Plan.’ Ecology 32: 422–426.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thimann, Kenneth V. 1958. ‹Review of The Experimental Control of Plant Growth, by Frits W. Went.’ Quarterly Review of Biology 33: 262–263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Went, Friedrich A. F. C. 1928a. ‹The International Union of Biological Sciences.’ Science 68: 545–547.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Went, Frits W. 1928b. ‹Wuchsstoff und Wachstum.’ Recueil des Travaux Botaniques Néerlandais 25: 1–116.

    Google Scholar 

  • Went, Frits W. 1943. ‹Plant Growth Under Controlled Conditions. I. The Air-Conditioned Greenhouses at the California Institute of Technology.’ American Journal of Botany 30: 157–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Went, Frits W. 1946. “Report on a survey of botanical facilities in the United States”. Unpublished typed summary of trip made from March 10 to April 26, 1946. In file 24.7, “Earhart Laboratories for Plant Research, 1945–1948, 1950”, Robert A. Millikan papers, California Institute of Technology Archives, Pasadena, California.

  • Went, Frits W. 1950. ‹The Earhart Plant Research Laboratory.’ Chronica Botanica 12(3): 89–108.

    Google Scholar 

  • Went, Frits W. 1956. Some Aspects of Plant Research in Australia: A Report on a Visit to Australia. Melbourne:Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization.

    Google Scholar 

  • Went, Frits W. 1957a. The Experimental Control of Plant Growth. Waltham, MA:Chronica Botanica.

    Google Scholar 

  • Went, Frits W. 1957b. ‹Climate and Agriculture.’ Scientific American 196(6): 82–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Went, Frits W. 1962. “Phytotronics,” Proceedings of Plant Science Symposium. Camden, New Jersey: Campbell Soup Company, pp. 149–161.

  • Went, Frits W. 1974. ‹Reflections and Speculations.’ Annual Review of Plant Physiology 25: 1–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Went, Frits W. 1990. ‹Orchids in My Life.’ Joseph Arditti (ed.), Orchid Biology: Reviews and Perspectives, 5 vols. Portland, Oregon:Timber Press, pp. 21–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Went, Friedrich A. F. C., Went, F.W. 1945. ‹A Short History of General Botany in the Netherlands Indies.’ Pieter Honig, Frans Verdoorn (eds.), Science and Scientists in the Netherlands Indies. New York:Board for the Netherlands Indies, pp. 390–402.

    Google Scholar 

  • White, Edward A. 1942. American Orchid Culture. New York:A. T. DeLaMare Co.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whyte, Robert O. 1949. Crop Production and Environment. London:Faber and Faber.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sharon E. Kingsland.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kingsland, S.E. Frits Went’s Atomic Age Greenhouse: The Changing Labscape on the Lab-Field Border. J Hist Biol 42, 289–324 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10739-009-9179-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10739-009-9179-y

Keywords

Navigation