W. K. Brooks's role in the history of American biology

Conclusion

The results of this study indicate that the reputation of W. K. Brooks was aided significantly by historical circumstances. The first of these factors was the unique historical role of Johns Hopkins University in American graduate education. The second was the impact of European experimentalism on American biologists and the consequent increase of experimentation in this country.

Johns Hopkins, as an institution, greatly aided in the selection, nurture, and placement of Brooks's students. To these institutional forces, Brooks did add direction toward marine biology and facilities for marine research. Also, his teaching methods—which were reinforced by his own natural quietness and his poor health—did encourage self-reliance: Brooks simply could not dominate over the day-to-day activities of his students.

The impact of European experimentalism was largely responsible for giving American biologists new approaches to problems which were beginning to assume major importance in biology. Several of Brooks's students, notably E. B. Wilson, T. H. Morgan, and Ross Harrison, were involved in this transfer of approaches and problems to America. In addition, a large number were influenced by working at the Marine Biological Laboratory at Woods Hole, where many of these new approaches were being used—in some cases for the first time, in this country. Both of these historical circumstances detract from Brooks's personal importance as an influential and directing force.

That Brooks allowed his students to pursue their own research with comparative freedom is indisputable. Perhaps this is the criterion for an outstanding teacher. But the fact remains that none of his best students followed Brooks's own line of investigation or his own method of research. It is less important here to evaluate Brooks as a teacher than to understand his influence on the direction of biological thought in the twentieth century. This study suggests that his influence was less important in terms of setting a direction for research than has previously been believed. What it is apparent that Brooks accomplished was the setting forth of biological topics in a larger context through his insistence on the relevance of philosophy to scientific research. How much this directly influenced his students, especially those outstanding individuals who later made important advances, is difficult to determine. This paper has tried to show that, in terms of available evidence, Brooks does not seem to have had the profound influence on early twentieth-century biology that some historians have claimed.