Journal of the History of Biology

, Volume 37, Issue 2, pp 333–385 | Cite as

Nicolas Rashevsky's Mathematical Biophysics

  • Tara H. Abraham


This paper explores the work of Nicolas Rashevsky, a Russian émigré theoretical physicist who developed a program in “mathematical biophysics” at the University of Chicago during the 1930s. Stressing the complexity of many biological phenomena, Rashevsky argued that the methods of theoretical physics – namely mathematics – were needed to “simplify” complex biological processes such as cell division and nerve conduction. A maverick of sorts, Rashevsky was a conspicuous figure in the biological community during the 1930s and early 1940s: he participated in several Cold Spring Harbor symposia and received several years of funding from the Rockefeller Foundation. However, in contrast to many other physicists who moved into biology, Rashevsky's work was almost entirely theoretical, and he eventually faced resistance to his mathematical methods. Through an examination of the conceptual, institutional, and scientific context of Rashevsky's work, this paper seeks to understand some of the reasons behind this resistance.

Mathematical biology Neurophysiology Nicolas Rashevsky Physiology Rockefeller Foundation Theory University of Chicago Warren Weaver 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Abir-Am, Pnina G. 1985. “Recasting the Disciplinary Order in Science: A Deconstruction of Rhetoric on 'Biology and Physics' at Two International Congresses in 1931.”Humanity and Society 9: 388–427.Google Scholar
  2. Abir-AmPninaG. 1987. “The Biotheoretical Gathering, Trans-disciplinary Authority and the Incipient Legitimation of Molecular Biology in the 1930s: New Perspective on the Historical Sociology of Science.” History of ScienceXXV: 1–70Google Scholar
  3. Abraham, Tara H. 2002. “(Physio)logical Circuits: The Intellectual Origins of the McCulloch-Pitts Neural Networks.” Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences38(1): 3–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Allen, Garland 1975. Life Science in the Twentieth Century. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  5. Bartholomay, Anthony F., Karreman, George and Landahl, Herbert D. 1972. “Nicolas Rashevsky.” Bulletin of Mathematical Biophysics34 (no pagination).Google Scholar
  6. Benson, Keith R., Maienschein, Jane and Rainger, Ronald (eds.). 1991. The Expansion of American Biology. New Brunswick and London: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Beyler, Richard H. 1996. “Targeting the Organism: The Scientific and Cultural Context of Pascual Jordan's Quantum Biology, 1932-1947.” Isis87(2): 248–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Blair, Henry A. 1932a. “On the Intensity-time Relations for Stimulation by Electric Currents I.” Journal of General Physiology 15: 709–729.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Blair, Henry A. 1932b. “On the Intensity-time Relations for Stimulation by Electric Currents. II.” Journal of General Physiology15: 731–755.Google Scholar
  10. Blair, Henry A. 1934. “Conduction in Nerve Fibres.” Journal of General Physiology18: 125–142.Google Scholar
  11. Blustein, Bonnie E. 1992. “Percival Bailey and Neurology at the University of Chicago, 1928-1939.” Bulletin of the History of Medicine66: 90–113.Google Scholar
  12. Bohr, Niels 1937. “Kausalität und Komplementarität.” In R. Carnap and H. Reichenbach (eds.), Das Kausalproblem: Zweiter Internationaler Kongress für Einheit der Wissenschaft., Erkenntnis6(5/6): 293–303.Google Scholar
  13. Borell, Merriley 1987. “Instruments and an Independent Physiology: The Harvard Physiological Laboratory, 1871-1906.” In Gerald L. Geison (ed), pp. 293–321.Google Scholar
  14. Bronk, Detlev W. 1938. “The Relation of Physics to the Biological Sciences.” Journal of Applied Physics9(3): 139–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Carnap, Rudolf 1934. “On the Character of Philosophic Problems.” Philosophy of Science1: 5–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Carnap, Rudolf 1937. The Logical Syntax of Language. London: Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  17. Carnap, Rudolf and Reichenbach, Hans (eds.). 1937. Das Kausalproblem: Zweiter Internationaler Kongress für Einheit der Wissenschaft. Erkenntnis6(5/6): 271–450.Google Scholar
  18. Cole, Kenneth S. and Curtis, Howard J. 1936. “Electrical Impedance of Nerve and Muscle.” Cold Spring Harbor Symposia on Quantitative Biology, Vol. IV. The Biological Laboratory: Cold Spring Harbor, NY, pp. 73–89.Google Scholar
  19. -1940. “Membrane Action Potentials from the Squid Giant Axon.” Journal of Cellular and Comparative Physiology15: 147–157.Google Scholar
  20. Condon, Edward U. 1938. “Mathematical Models in Modern Physics.” Journal of the Franklin Institute225(3): 255–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Cordeschi, Roberto 2002. The Discovery of the Artificial: Behavior; Mind; and Machines Before and Beyond Cybernetics. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  22. Cowan, Jack D. 1998. [Interview with James A. Anderson and Edward Rosenfeld], In James A. Anderson and Edward Rosenfeld(eds.), Talking Nets: An Oral History of Neural Networks. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 97–124.Google Scholar
  23. Einstein, Albert 1956 [1934]. Ideas and Opinions. New York: Dell.Google Scholar
  24. Fisher, Ronald A. 1930. The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  25. Forbes, Alexander 1920. “Biophysics.” Science52: 331–332.Google Scholar
  26. Forbes, Alexander and Thatcher, Catherine 1920. “Amplification of Action Currents with the Electron Tube in Recording with the String Galvanometer.” American Journal of Physiology52: 409–407.Google Scholar
  27. Frank, Philipp 1937. “Philosophische Deutungen und Missdeutungen der Quantentheorie.” In R. Carnap and H. Reichenbach (eds.), Das Kausalproblem: Zweiter Internationaler Kongress für Einheit der Wissenschaft., Erkenntnis6(5/6): 303–317.Google Scholar
  28. Frank, Robert G. Jr. 1994. “Instruments, Nerve Action, and the all-or-none Principle.” Osiris9: 208–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Gasca, Ana M. 1996. “Mathematical Theories versus Biological Facts: A Debate on Mathematical Population Dynamics in the 1930s.” Historical Studies in the Physical and Biological Sciences26 (Part 2): 347–403.Google Scholar
  30. Gasser, Herbert S. and Erlanger, Joseph 1922. “A Study of the Action Currents of Nerve with the Cathode Ray Oscillograph.” American Journal of Physiology62: 496–524.Google Scholar
  31. Geison, Gerald L. (ed). 1987. Physiology in the American Context: 1850-1940. Bethesda, MD: American Physiological Society.Google Scholar
  32. Gerard, Ralph W. 1952. “Ralph Stayner Lillie: 1875-1952.” Science16: 496–497.Google Scholar
  33. Grenell, Robert G. 1950. Review of Mathematical Biophysics: Physico-mathematical Foundations of Biology, 2nd ed. Science111: 265–266.Google Scholar
  34. Haldane, John B.S. 1924. “A Mathematical Theory of Natural and Artificial Selection, Part I.” Transactions of the Cambridge Philosophical Society23: 19–41.Google Scholar
  35. Harris, J.A. 1928. “Mathematics in Biology.” Scientific Monthly27(2): 141–152.Google Scholar
  36. Hastings, Alan and Palmer, Margaret A. 2003. “A Bright Future for Biologists and Mathematicians?” Science299: 2003–2004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Hill, Archibald V. 1910. “A New Mathematical Treatment of Changes of Ionic Concentration in Muscle and Nerve under the Action of Electric Currents, with a Theory as to their Mode of Excitation.” Journal of Physiology40: 190–224.Google Scholar
  38. Hodgkin, Alan L. and Huxley, Andrew F. 1939. “Action Potentials recorded from Inside a Nerve Fibre.” Nature144: 710–711.Google Scholar
  39. Hoorweg, Jan L. 1892. “Ueber die elektrische Nervenerregung.” Pflüger's Archiv für Gesamte Physiologie52: 87–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Hull, David 1974. Philosophy of Biological Science. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  41. Ingle, Dwight J. 1979. “Anton J. Carlson: A Biographical Sketch.” Perspectives in Biology and Medicine Winter (Part 2): S114–S136.Google Scholar
  42. Israel, Giorgio 1993. “The Emergence of Biomathematics and the Case of Population Dynamics: A Revival of Mechanical Reductionism and Darwinism.” Science in Context6(2): 469–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Joergensen, Joergen 1937. “Ansprachen in der Eröffnungssitzung.” In R. Carnap and H. Reichenbach (eds.), Das Kausalproblem: Zweiter Internationaler Kongress für Einheit der Wissenschaft., Erkenntnis6(5/6): 278–285.Google Scholar
  44. Jungnickel, Christa and McCormmach, Russell 1986. Intellectual Mastery of Nature: Theoretical Physics from Ohm to Einstein, Vol. II. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  45. Juni, Elliot 1949. Review of Mathematical Biophysics: Physico-mathematical Foundations of Biology, 2nd ed. Quarterly Review of Biology24(4): 377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Katz, Bernard 1939. Electric Excitation of Nerve. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  47. Kay, Lily E. 1992. “Quanta of Life: Atomic Physics and the Reincarnation of Phage.” History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences14: 3–21.Google Scholar
  48. Kay, Lily E. 1993. The Molecular Vision of Life. New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  49. Kay, Lily E. 2000. Who Wrote the Book of Life? A History of the Genetic Code. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  50. Keller, Evelyn F. 1990. “Physics and the Emergence of Molecular Biology: A History of Cognitive and Political Synergy.” Journal of the History of Biology23(3): 389–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Keller, Evelyn F. 2002. Making Sense of Life: Explaining Biological Development with Models, Metaphors, and Machines. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  52. Kevles, Daniel J. and Geison, Gerald L. 1995. “The Experimental Life Sciences in the Twentieth Century.” Osiris10: 97–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Kingsland, Sharon E. 1985. Modeling Nature: Episodes in the History of Population Ecology. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  54. Kingsland, Sharon E. 1986. “Mathematical Figments, Biological Facts: Population Ecology in the Thirties.” Journal of the History of Biology19(2): 235–256.Google Scholar
  55. Kohler, Robert E. 1991. Partners in Science: Foundations and Natural Scientists, 1900-1945. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  56. Landahl, Herbert D. 1965. “A Biographical Sketch of Nicolas Rashevsky.” Bulletin of Mathematical Biophysics27: 3–4.Google Scholar
  57. Lapicque, Louis 1926. L'Excitabilité en Fonction du Temps. Paris: Les Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar
  58. Lapicque, Louis and Lapicque, Mme 1903. “Expé riences sur la loi d'excitation é lectrique chez quelques inverté bré s.” Comptes Rendus de la Société de Biologie Paris55: 608–611.Google Scholar
  59. Lecomte du Noü y, Pierre 1926. Surface Equilibria of Biological and Organic Colloids. New York.Google Scholar
  60. Lenoir, Timothy 1986. “Models and Instruments in the Development of Electrophysiology, 1845-1912.” Historical Studies in the Physical and Biological Sciences17: 1–54.Google Scholar
  61. Lewontin, Richard C. 2003. “Science and Simplicity,” Review of Making Sense of Life: Explaining Biological Development with Models, Metaphors, and Machines, by E.F.Google Scholar
  62. Keller; Rosalind Franklin: The Dark Lady of DNA, by Brenda Maddox; Watson and DNA: Making a Scientific Revolution, by Victor K. McElheny; and DNA: The Secret of Life, by James D. Watson, The New York Review of Books, 1 May, L(7): 39–42.Google Scholar
  63. Lillie, Ralph S. 1910. “The Physiology of Cell Division.-II. The Action of Isotonic Solutions of Neutral Salts on Unfertilized Eggs of Asterias and Arabacia.” American Journal of Physiology 26: 106–133.Google Scholar
  64. Lillie, Ralph S. 1916. “Increase of Permeability to Water following Normal and Artificial Activation in Sea Urchin Eggs.” American Journal of Physiology40: 249–266.Google Scholar
  65. Lillie, Ralph S. 1923. Protoplasmic Action and Nervous Action. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  66. Lillie, Ralph S. 1924. “Reactivity of the Cell.” In E.V. Cowdry (ed), General Cytology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 167–233.Google Scholar
  67. Lotka, Alfred J. 1925. Elements of Physical Biology. Baltimore, MD: Williams and Wilkins.Google Scholar
  68. Lucas, Keith 1906. “The Analysis of Complex Excitable Tissues by their Response to Electric Currents of Short Duration.” Journal of Physiology35: 310–331.Google Scholar
  69. Maienschein, Jane 1986. “Arguments for Experimentation in Biology.” PSA 1986 2: 180–195.Google Scholar
  70. Maienschein, Jane 1991. “Cytology in 1924.” In Benson, Maienschein and Rainger (eds.), pp. 23–51.Google Scholar
  71. Marshall, Louise H. 1983. “The Fecundity of Aggregates: The Axonologists at Washington University, 1922-1942.” Perspectives in Biology and Medicine26: 613–636.Google Scholar
  72. Marshall, Louise H. 1987. “Instruments, Techniques, and Social Units in American Neurophysiology, 1870-1950.” In Gerald L. Geison (ed), pp. 351–369.Google Scholar
  73. McCulloch, Warren S., Carnap, Rudolf, Brunswik, Egon, Bishop, George H., Meyers, R., Von Bonin, Gerhardt, Menger, Karl, and Szent-Gyorgyi, Albert 1956. “Committee on Mathematical Biology.” Science123: 725.Google Scholar
  74. McNeill, William H. 1991. Hutchins' University: A Memoir of the University of Chicago 1929-1950. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  75. Morgan, Thomas H. 1927. “The Relation of Biology to Physics.” Science65: 213–220.Google Scholar
  76. Morowitz, Harold J. 1965. “The Historical Background.” In Talbot H. Waterman and Harold J. Morowitz (eds.), Theoretical and Mathematical Biology. NY: Blaisdell, pp. 24–35.Google Scholar
  77. Nernst, Walther 1908. “Zur Theorie des elektrischen Reizes,” Pflügers Archiv für die Gesamte Physiologie122: 275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Neurath, Otto. 1931. “Physicalism: The Philosophy of the Viennese Circle.” Monist41(4) 618–623.Google Scholar
  79. Pauly, Philip J. 1987. “General Physiology and the Discipline of Physiology, 1890-1955,” In Gerald L. Geison (ed), pp. 195–207.Google Scholar
  80. Pearson, Karl 1894. “Contributions to the Mathematical Theory of Evolution.” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London A. 185: 71–110.Google Scholar
  81. Pestre, Dominique 1984. Physique et physiciens en France 1918-1940. Paris: Éditions des Archives Contemporaines.Google Scholar
  82. Planck, Max 1917. Vorlesungen über Thermodynamik. Berlin & Leipzig: Walter de Gruyter & Co.Google Scholar
  83. Porter, Theodore M. 1986. The Rise of Statistical Thinking 1820-1900. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  84. Provine, William B. 1971. The Origins of Theoretical Population Genetics. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  85. -1978. “The Role of Mathematical Population Geneticists in the Evolutionary Synthesis of the 1930s and 1940s.” In William Coleman and Camille Limoges (eds.), Studies in History of Biology, Vol. 2. Baltimore and London: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  86. Rapoport, Anatol 2000. Certainties and Doubts: A Philosophy of Life. Montré al: Black Rose Books.Google Scholar
  87. Rashevsky, Nicolas 1928a. “On the Size-distribution of Colloidal Particles.” Physical Review31: 115–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Rashevsky, Nicolas 1928b. “Zur Theorie der spontanen Teilung von mikroskopischen Tropfen.” Zeitschrift für Physik46: 568–593.Google Scholar
  89. Rashevsky, Nicolas 1929. “The Problem of Form in Physics and Biology.” Nature124: 10.Google Scholar
  90. Rashevsky, Nicolas 1930. “Bemerkung zur Ionentheorie der Nervenreizung.” Zeitschrift für Physik63: 660–665.Google Scholar
  91. Rashevsky, Nicolas 1931a. “Some Theoretical Aspects of the Biological Applications of Physics of Disperse Systems.” Physics1(3): 143–153.Google Scholar
  92. Rashevsky, Nicolas 1931b. “Learning as a Property of Physical Systems.” Journal of General Psychology5: 207–229.Google Scholar
  93. Rashevsky, Nicolas 1931c. “On the Theory of Nerve Conduction.” Journal of General Physiology14: 517–528.Google Scholar
  94. Rashevsky, Nicolas 1932a. “Further Studies on the Theory of Spontaneous Dispersion of Small Liquid Systems which are the Seats of Physico-chemical Reactions.” Physics2: 303–308.Google Scholar
  95. Rashevsky, Nicolas 1932b. “Contributions to the Theoretical Physics of the Cell.” Protoplasma16: 387–396.Google Scholar
  96. Rashevsky, Nicolas 1932c. “On the Physical Nature of “Cytotropism” and allied Phenomena and their Bearing on the Physics of Organic Form,” Journal of General Physiology15: 289–306.Google Scholar
  97. Rashevsky, Nicolas 1933a. “Outline of a Physico-mathematical Theory of Excitation and Inhibition.” Protoplasma20: 42–56.Google Scholar
  98. Rashevsky, Nicolas 1933b. “Some Physico-mathematical Aspects of Nerve Conduction.” Physics4: 341–349.Google Scholar
  99. Rashevsky, Nicolas 1933c. “A Theoretical Physics of the Cell as a Basis for a General Physico-chemical Theory of Organic Form.” Protoplasma20: 180–188.Google Scholar
  100. Rashevsky, Nicolas1934a. “Foundations of Mathematical Biophysics.” Philosophy of Science1: 176–196.Google Scholar
  101. Rashevsky, Nicolas 1934b. “The Mechanism of Division of Small Liquid Systems which are the Seats of Physico-chemical Reactions.” Physics5: 374–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Rashevsky, Nicolas 1935a. “Mathematical Biophysics.” Nature135: 528–530.Google Scholar
  103. Rashevsky, Nicolas 1935b. “Mathematical Physics of Metabolizing Systems with Reference to Living Cells.” Physics6: 117–119.Google Scholar
  104. Rashevsky, Nicolas 1935c. “Further Studies on Mathematical Physics of Metabolizing Systems with Reference to Living Cells.” Physics6: 343–349.Google Scholar
  105. Rashevsky, Nicolas 1936a. “Mathematical Biophysics and Psychology,” Psychometrika1: 1–26.Google Scholar
  106. Rashevsky, Nicolas1936b. “Physico-mathematical Aspects of Excitation and Conduction in Nerves.”Cold Spring Harbor Symposia on Quantitative Biology, Vol.IV.The Biological Laboratory: Cold Spring Harbor, NY, pp.90–97.Google Scholar
  107. Rashevsky, Nicolas1937. “Physico-mathematical Methods in Biological and Social Sciences.” InR. Carnap and H. Reichenbach (eds.),Das Kausalproblem: Zweiter Internationaler Kongress für Einheit der Wissenschaft., Erkenntnis6(5/6): 357–365.Google Scholar
  108. Rashevsky, Nicolas1938. Mathematical Biophysics: Physicomathematical Foundations of Biology.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  109. Rashevsky, Nicolas 1940. Advances and Applications of Mathematical Biology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  110. Rashevsky, Nicolas 1948. Mathematical Biophysics (Revised Edition). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  111. Rashevsky, Nicolas 1954. “Topology and Life: In Search of General Mathematical Principles in Biology and Sociology.” Bulletin of Mathematical Biophysics16: 317–348.Google Scholar
  112. Rashevsky, Nicolas (ed). 1962. Physicomathematical Aspects of Biology. New York and London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  113. Rashevsky, Nicolas and Rashevsky, Emile 1927. “Uber die grössen Verteilung in reveersiblen polydispersen Systemen.” Zeitschrift für Physik46: 300–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. Rashevsky, Nicolas and Landahl, Herbert D. 1940. “Permeability of Cells, its Nature and Measurement from the Point of View of Mathematical Biophysics.” Cold Spring Harbor Symposia on Quantitative BiologyVIII: 9–16.Google Scholar
  115. Reiner, John M. 1941. Review of Advances and Applications of Mathematical Biology (1940) by N. Rashevsky. Philosophy of Science8(1): 133–134.Google Scholar
  116. Richards, Oscar W. 1925. “The Mathematics of Biology.” American Mathematical Monthly32: 30–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. Rosen, Robert n.d. “Reminiscences of Nicolas Rashevsky.” Unpublished Manuscript, pp.63–82.Google Scholar
  118. Rosen, Robert n.d. 1972. “Nicolas Rashevsky 1899-1972.” InRobert Rosen and F.M. Snell (eds.), Progress in Theoretical Biology, Vol.II. New York and London: Academic Press, pp.xi–xiv.Google Scholar
  119. Rosen, Robert n.d. 1991. Life Itself: A Comprehensive Inquiry Into the Nature, Origin, and Fabrication of Life. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  120. Ruse, Michael 1973. The Philosophy of Biology. London: Hutchinson University Library.Google Scholar
  121. Schrecker, Ellen W. 1986. No Ivory Tower: McCarthyism and the Universities. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  122. Schweber, Silvan S. 1986. “The Empiricist Temper Regnant: Theoretical Physics in the United States, 1920-1950.” Studies in the Physical and Biological Sciences17(1): 55–98.Google Scholar
  123. Sigurdsson, Skúli 1996. “Physics, Life, and Contingency: Born, Schrödinger, and Weyl in Exile.” In Mitchell G. Ash and Alfons Söllner (eds.), Forced Migration and Scientific Change: Emigré German-Speaking Scientists and Scholars after 1933. Cambridge, New York, London: Cambridge University Press, pp. 48–70.Google Scholar
  124. Simon, Herbert A. 1951. Review of Mathematical Biology of Social Behavior. By Nicholas Rashevsky. Econometrica19(3): 357–358.Google Scholar
  125. Tiselius, A. 1960. “Kaj Ulrik Linderstrøm-Lang,” Biographical Memoirs of Fellows of the Royal Society6: 157–68.Google Scholar
  126. Volterra, Vito 1931. Leçons sur la Théorie Mathématique de la Lutte pour la Vie. Paris: Gauthier-Villars et Cie.Google Scholar
  127. Von Bonin, Gerhardt 1939. Review of Mathematical Biophysics: Physico-Mathematical Foundations of Biology, by Nicolas Rashevsky. Psychometrika 4(1): 69–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  128. Weinberg, Alvin 1994. The First Nuclear Era: The Life and Times of a Technological Fixer. New York: AIP Press.Google Scholar
  129. Wise, George 1985. Willis R. Whitney, General Electric, and the Origins of U.S. Industrial Research. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  130. Wolbarsht, Myron L. 1963. Review of Physicomathematical Aspects of Biology. Ed. Nicolas Rashevsky. Quarterly Review of Biology 38(4): 427–428.Google Scholar
  131. Woodger, Joseph H. 1937. The Axiomatic Method in Biology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  132. Wright, Sewall 1931. “Evolution in Mendelian populations.” Genetics 16: 97–159.Google Scholar
  133. Young, John Z. 1936. “The Structure of Nerve Fibres in Cephalopods and Crustacea.” Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B121: 319–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tara H. Abraham
    • 1
  1. 1.Max Planck Institute for the History of ScienceWilhelmstraße 44BerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations