Advertisement

Organisms in Experimental Research

  • Rachel A. Ankeny
  • Sabina Leonelli
Living reference work entry
Part of the Historiography of Science book series (HISTSC, volume 1)

Abstract

Research on non-human organisms has been a major focus in the scholarship of historians of biology, especially over the past 25 years. This chapter identifies four overarching trends concerning historical scholarship on the use of non-human organisms for experimental purposes, paying attention both to its style and epistemic goals, and to the species and research locations that have been studied and documented. The first trend (1970s–1980s) focused on organisms as one of the many other components of epistemic cultures, the second (1990s) on organisms themselves as units of historical study, the third (late 1990s–2000s) on the organisms in relation to their experimental and institutional context, and the fourth (ongoing) on the diversification of methods and types of research under examination, including multispecies work and the study of practices in a wider range of biological subfields and across geographic locations.

Notes

Acknowledgments

Funding via the Australian Research Council Discovery Project (DP160102989) “Organisms and Us: How Living Things Help Us to Understand Our World” (2016–20)

References

  1. Agar J (2012) Science in the twentieth century and beyond. Polity Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  2. Allen GE (1975) The introduction of Drosophila into the study of heredity and evolution: 1900–1910. Isis 66(3):322–333.  https://doi.org/10.1086/351472CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Allen GE (1978) Life sciences in the twentieth century. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  4. Allen GE (1979) Thomas Hunt Morgan: the man and his science. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  5. Ankeny RA (2000) Fashioning descriptive models in biology: of worms and wiring diagrams. Philos Sci 67(S):S260–S272.  https://doi.org/10.1086/392824CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ankeny RA (2001) The natural history of Caenorhabditis Elegans research. Nat Rev Genet 2(6):474–479.  https://doi.org/10.1038/35076538CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Ankeny RA (2010) Historiographic reflections on model organisms: or how the mureaucracy may be limiting our understanding of contemporary genetics and genomics. Hist Philos Life Sci 32(1):91–104.  https://doi.org/10.2307/23335054CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Ankeny RA, Leonelli S (2011) What’s so special about model organisms? Stud Hist Philos Sci Part A 42(2):313–323.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsa.2010.11.039CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Behringer RR, Johnson AD, Krumlauf RE (eds) (2009) Emerging model organisms: a laboratory manual, volume 1. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  10. Benson KR, Maienschein J, Rainger R (eds) (1991) The expansion of American biology. Rutgers University Press, New BrunswickGoogle Scholar
  11. Berry D (2015) The resisted rise of randomisation in experimental design: British agricultural science, c.1910–1930. Hist Philos Life Sci 37(3):242–260.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40656-015-0076-8CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Bijker WE, Parke T, Hughes, Pinch T (eds) (1987) The social construction of technological systems: new directions in the sociology and history of technology. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  13. Bolker JA (1995) Model systems in developmental biology. BioEssays 17(5):451–455.  https://doi.org/10.1002/bies.950170513CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Bonner JT (1999) The history of the cellular slime moulds as a ‘model system’ for developmental biology. J Biosci 24(1):7–12.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02941100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Burian RM, Gayon J, Zallen D (1988) The singular fate of genetics in the history of French biology, 1900–1940. J Hist Biol 21(3):357–402.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00144087CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Burt J (2006) Rat. Reaktion Books, LondonGoogle Scholar
  17. Cairns J, Stent GS, Watson JD (eds) (1966) Phage and the origins of molecular biology. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory of Quantitative Biology, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  18. Campos LA (2015) Radium and the secret of life. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.  https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226238302.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Carlson EA (1981) Genes, radiation, and society: the life and work of H. J. Muller. Cornell University Press, IthacaGoogle Scholar
  20. Charnley B (2011) Agricultural science, plant breeding and the emergence of a Mendelian system in Britain, 1880–1930. University of Leeds. http://etheses.whiterose.ac.uk/2130/1/Charnley_B_Humanities_PhD_2011.pdf
  21. Churchill FB (1997) Life before model systems: general zoology at August Weismann’s institute. Am Zool 37(3):260–268.  https://doi.org/10.1093/icb/37.3.260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Clarke AE (1995) Research materials and reproductive science in the United States, 1910–1940. In: Star SL (ed) Ecologies of knowledge work and politics in science and technology. State University of New York, Albany, pp 183–225Google Scholar
  23. Clarke AE, Fujimura JH (1992) Which tools? Which jobs? Why right? In: The right tools for the job: at work in the twentieth-century life sciences. Princeton University Press, Princeton, pp 3–44.Google Scholar
  24. Clause BT (1993) The Wistar rat as a right choice: establishing mammalian standards and the ideal of a standardized mammal. J Hist Biol 26(2):329–349.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01061973CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Coleman W (1971) Biology in the nineteenth century. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  26. Coleman W (1985) The cognitive basis of the discipline: Claude Bernard on physiology. Isis 76(1):49–70CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Comfort NC (2001) The tangled field: Barbara McClintock’s search for the patterns of genetic control. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  28. Cooke KJ (1997) From science to practice, or practice to science? Chickens and eggs in Raymond Pearl’s agricultural breeding research, 1907–1916. Isis 88(1):62–86.  https://doi.org/10.1086/383627CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Creager ANH (2002) The life of a virus: tobacco mosaic virus as an experimental model, 1930–1965. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  30. Creager ANH, Landecker H (2009) Technical matters: method, knowledge and infrastructure in twentieth-century life science. Nat Methods 6(10):701–705.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth1009-701CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  31. Cronon W (1991) Nature’s metropolis: Chicago and the great West. Norton, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  32. Crowe N, Dietrich MR, Alomepe BS, Antrim AF, ByrneSim BL, He Y (2015) The diversification of developmental biology. Stud Hist Philos Sci Part C: Stud Hist Philos Biol and Biomed Sci 53:1–15.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsc.2015.04.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Davies JA (2007) Developmental biologists’ choice of subjects approximates to a power law, with no evidence for the existence of a special group of ‘model organisms’. BMC Dev Biol 7:40–46.  https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-213X-7-40CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  34. Davies G (2013) Arguably big biology: sociology, spatiality and the knockout mouse project. BioSocieties 8(4):417–431.  https://doi.org/10.1057/biosoc.2013.25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. de Chadarevian S (1998) Of worms and programmes: Caenorhabditis elegans and the study of development. Stud Hist Phil Biol Biomed Sci 29(1):81–105.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S1369-8486(98)00004-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. de Chadarevian S (2002) Designs for life: molecular biology after World War II. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  37. Dickenson V (2013) Rabbit. Reaktion Books Ltd, LondonGoogle Scholar
  38. Dietrich MR, Ankeny RA, Chen PM (2014) Publication trends in model organism research. Genetics 198(3):787–794.  https://doi.org/10.1534/genetics.114.169714CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  39. Endersby J (2009) A guinea pig’s history of biology. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  40. Endersby J (2013) Mutant utopias: evening primroses and imagined futures in early twentieth-century America. Isis 104(3):471–503.  https://doi.org/10.1086/673270CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Ernst SG (1997) A century of sea urchin development. Am Zool 37(3).  https://doi.org/10.1093/icb/37.3.250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Fagan MB (2013) Philosophy of stem cell biology: knowledge in flesh and blood. Palgrave Macmillan, BasingstokeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Fantini B (1985) The sea urchin and the fruit fly: cell biology and heredity, 1900–1910. Biol Bull 168(Supp):99–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Fitzgerald D (1990) The business of breeding: hybrid corn in Illinois, 1890–1940. Cornell University Press, IthacaGoogle Scholar
  45. Franklin S (2007) Dolly mixtures: the remaking of genealogy. Duke University Press, Chapel HillCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Friese C (2013) Cloning wild life zoos, captivity, and the future of endangered animals. New York University Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Gaudillière J-P (2008) La Médecine et Les Sciences: XIX – XX Siècles. La Découverte, ParisGoogle Scholar
  48. Geison GL (ed) (1987) Physiology in the American context, 1850–1940. American Physiological Society, BethesdaGoogle Scholar
  49. Geison GL, Laubichler MD (2001) The varied lives of organisms: variation in the historiography of the biological sciences. Stud Hist Phil Biol Biomed Sci 32(1):1–29.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S1369-8486(00)00023-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Gentilcore D (2012) Italy and the potato: a history, 1550–2000. Continuum, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Gest H (1995) Arabidopsis to zebrafish: a commentary on ‘Rosetta Stone’ model systems in the biological sciences. Perspect Biol Med 39(1):77–85.  https://doi.org/10.1353/pbm.1995.0016CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Gilbert SF (2009) The adequacy of model systems for evo-devo: modeling the formation of organisms/modeling the formation of society. In: Mapping the future of biology. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 57–68.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-9636-5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Gooding DW (1990) Experiment and the making of meaning: human agency in scientific observation and experiment. Springer, NetherlandsCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Griesemer JR (2015) What salamander biologists have taught us about evo-devo. In: Love AC (ed) Conceptual change in biology: scientific and philosophical perspectives on evolution and development. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 271–301.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9412-1_13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Griesemer J, Gerson E (2006) Of mice and men and low unit cost. Stud Hist Philos Sci Part C: Stud Hist Philos Biol and Biomed Sci 37(2):363–372.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsc.2006.03.005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Griesemer JR, Wade MJ (1988) Laboratory models, causal explanation and group selection. Biol Philos 3(1):67–96.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00127629CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Gurdon JB, Hopwood N (2000) The introduction of Xenopus laevis into developmental biology: of empire, pregnancy testing and ribosomal genes. Int J Dev Biol 44(1):43–50 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10761846PubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. Hacking I (1983) Representing and intervening. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.  https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511814563CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Harwood J (1987) National styles in science: genetics in Germany and the United States between the world wars. Isis 78(3):390–414CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. Harwood J (2005) Technology’s dilemma: agricultural colleges between science and practice in Germany, 1860–1934. Peter Lang, BernCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Harwood J (2012) Europe’s green revolution and others since: the rise and fall of peasant-friendly plant breeding. Routledge, AbingdonGoogle Scholar
  62. Holmes FL (1993) The old martyr of science: the frog in experimental physiology. J Hist Biol 26(2):311–328.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01061972CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. Hopwood N (2015) The cult of Amphioxus in German Darwinism; or, our gelatinous ancestors in Naples’ blue and balmy bay. Hist Philos Life Sci 36(3):371–393.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40656-014-0034-xCrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  64. Jacob F (1998) Of flies, mice, and men. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  65. Judson HF (1979) The eighth day of creation: makers of the revolution in biology. Touchstone Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  66. Keller EF (1983) A feeling for the organism: the life and work of Barbara McClintock. WH Freeman, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  67. Keller EF (1996) Drosophila embryos as transitional objects: the work of Donald Poulson and Christiane Nüsslein-Volhard. Hist Stud Phys Biol Sci 26(2):313–346CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. Kimmelman B (1992) Organisms and interests in scientific research: R.A. Emerson’s claims for the unique contributions of agricultural genetics. In: Clarke AE, Fujimura JH (eds) The right tools for the job: at work in twentieth-century life sciences. Princeton University Press, New Jersey, pp 198–232Google Scholar
  69. Kirk RGW (2008) ‘Wanted—standard guinea pigs’: standardisation and the experimental animal market in Britain ca. 1919–1947. Stud Hist Phil Biol Biomed Sci 39:280–291.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsc.2008.06.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Kirk RGW (2012) ‘Standardization through mechanization’: germ-free life and the engineering of the ideal laboratory animal. Technol Cult 53(1):61–93.  https://doi.org/10.1353/tech.2012.0025CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  71. Kirk RGW (2013) A brave new animal for a brave new world: the British Laboratory Animals Bureau and the constitution of international standards of laboratory animal production and use, circa 1947–1968. Isis 101(1):62–94.  https://doi.org/10.1086/652689CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Kirk RGW (2014) In dogs we trust? Intersubjectivity, response-able relations, and the making of mine detector dogs. J Hist Behav Sci 50:1–36.  https://doi.org/10.1002/jhbs.21642CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  73. Kirk RGW, Pemberton N (2013) Leech. Reaktion Books, LondonGoogle Scholar
  74. Kirk R, Ramsden E. (2018) Working across species down on the farm: Howard S. Liddell and the development of comparative psychopathology, c. 1923–1962. HPLS 40:1–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Kirksey SE, Helmreich S (2010) The emergence of multispecies ethnography. Cult Anthropol 25(4):545–576.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1548-1360.2010.01069.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Koch L, Svendsen MN (2014) Negotiating moral value: a story of Danish research monkeys and their humans. Sci Technol Hum Values 40(3):368–388.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243914553223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Kohler RE (1991) Systems of production: Drosophila, Neurospora, and biochemical genetics. Hist Stud Nat Sci 22(1):87–130Google Scholar
  78. Kohler RE (1993) Drosophila: a life in the laboratory. J Hist Biol 26(2):281–310CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  79. Kohler RE (1994) Lords of the fly: Drosophila genetics and the experimental life. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  80. Kohler RE (2002) Landscapes and labscapes: exploring the lab-field border in biology. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Landecker H (2009) Seeing things: from microcinematography to live cell imaging. Nat Methods 6(10):707–709.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth1009-707CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  82. Latour B (1993) The pasteurization of France. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  83. Laubichler MD (2000) The organism is dead. Long live the organism! Perspect Sci 8(3):286–315.  https://doi.org/10.1162/106361400750340505CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Laubichler MD, Davidson EH (2008) Boveri’s long experiment: sea urchin merogones and the establishment of the role of nuclear chromosomes in development. Dev Biol 314(1):1–11.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ydbio.2007.11.024CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  85. Laubichler MD, Maienschein J, Renn J (2013) Computational perspectives in the history of science: to the memory of Peter Damerow. Isis 104(1):119–130.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000809CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  86. Lederman M, Burian RM (1993) Introduction. J Hist Biol 26(2):235–237.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01061967CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Lederman M, Tolin SA (1993) OVATOOMB: other viruses and the origins of molecular biology. J Hist Biol 26(2):1910–1925.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01061968CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Lenoir T (1982) The strategy of life: teleology and mechanism in nineteenth century German biology. D. Reidel Publishing Company, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  89. Leonelli S (2007) Growing weed, producing knowledge: an epistemic history of Arabidopsis thaliana. Hist Philos Life Sci 29(2):193–223PubMedGoogle Scholar
  90. Leonelli S (2016) The disruptive potential of data publication. Notes Rec: Royal Soc J Hist Sci 70:20160036.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rsnr.2016.0036CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Leonelli S, Ankeny RA (2012) Re-thinking organisms: the impact of databases on model organism biology. Stud Hist Phil Biol Biomed Sci 43(1):29–36.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsc.2011.10.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Logan CA (2001) ‘Are Norway rats ... things?’: diversity versus generality in the use of albino rats in experiments on development and sexuality. J Hist Biol 34(2):287–314CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  93. Logan CA (2002) Before there were standards: the role of test animals in the production of scientific generality in physiology. J Hist Biol 35:329–363CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  94. Loskutova MV, Fedotova AA (2015) The rise of applied entomology in the Russian Empire: governmental, public, and academic responses to insect pest outbreaks from 1840 to 1894. In: Phillips D, Kingsland S (eds) New perspectives on the history of life sciences and agriculture, vol 40. Springer international Publishing, Switzerland, pp 139–162.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-12185-7_8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Love AC, Travisano M (2013) Microbes modeling ontogeny. Biol Philos 28(2):161–188.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10539-013-9363-5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Löwy I (1990) Variances in meaning in discovery accounts: the case of contemporary biology. Hist Stud Phys Biol Sci 21(1):87–121.  https://doi.org/10.2307/27757656CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  97. Löwy I (1992) From guinea pigs to man: the development of Haffkine’s anti-cholera vaccine. J Hist Med Allied Sci 47:270–309.  https://doi.org/10.1093/jhmas/47.3.270CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  98. Lyons CWP, Scholfthof K-BG (2015) Watching grass grow: the emergence of Brachypodium distachyon as a model for the Poaceae. In: Phillips D, Kingsland S (eds) New perspectives on the history of the life sciences and agriculture. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 479–501Google Scholar
  99. MacLeod M, Nersessian NJ (2013) Building simulations from the ground up: modeling and theory in systems biology. Philos Sci 80(4):533–556.  https://doi.org/10.1086/673209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Maienschein J (1991) Transforming traditions in American biology, 1880–1915. Johns Hopkins University Press, BaltimoreGoogle Scholar
  101. McCain KW (1991) Communication, competition, and secrecy: the production and dissemination of research-related information in genetics. Sci Technol Hum Values 16(4):491–516.  https://doi.org/10.1177/016224399101600404CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Mendelsohn JA (2003) Lives of the cell. J Hist Biol 36:1–37CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  103. Meunier R (2012) Stages in the development of a model organism as a platform for mechanistic models in developmental biology: zebrafish, 1970–2000. Stud Hist Philos Sci Part C: Stud Hist Philos Biol and Biomed Sci 43(2):522–531.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsc.2011.11.013CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Milam EL (2009) The experimental animal from the naturalist’s point of view: behavior and evolution at the American Museum of Natural History, 1928–1954. Trans Am Philos Soc 99(1):157–178Google Scholar
  105. Mitman G, Fausto-Sterling A (1992) Whatever happened to Planaria? C.M. Child and the physiology of inheritance. In: Clarke AE, Fujimura JH (eds) The right tools for the job: at work in the twentieth-century life sciences. Princeton University Press, Princeton, pp 172–197Google Scholar
  106. Mullins NC (1968) The development of a scientific specialty: the phage group and the origins of molecular biology. Minerva 6:828–843.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01881390CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. Nyhart LK (1987) The disciplinary breakdown of German morphology, 1870–1900. Isis 78(3):365–389.  https://doi.org/10.1086/354473CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  108. Nyhart LK (1995) Biology takes form: animal morphology and the German universities, 1800–1900. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  109. O’Malley MA (2013) Philosophy and the microbe: a balancing act. Biol Philos 28(2):153–159.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10539-013-9360-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. Onaga L (2010) Toyama Kametaro and Vernon Kellogg: silkworm inheritance experiments in Japan, Siam, and the United States, 1900–1912. J Hist Biol 43(2):215–264.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10739-010-9222-zCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  111. Parolini G (2015) The emergence of modern statistics in agricultural science: analysis of variance, experimental design and the reshaping of research at Rothamsted Experimental Station, 1919–1933. J Hist Biol 48(2):301–335.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10739-014-9394-zCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  112. Phillips D, Kingsland SE (eds) (2015) New perspectives on the history of life sciences and agriculture. Springer, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  113. Potts A (2012) Chicken. Reaktion Books, LondonGoogle Scholar
  114. Rader KA (1998) The ‘mouse people’: murine genetics work at the Bussey Institution, 1909–1936. J Hist Biol 31:327–354CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  115. Rader KA (2004) Making mice: standardizing animals for American biomedical research, 1900–1955. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  116. Rainger R, Benson KR, Maienschein J (eds) (1988) The American development of biology. Rutgers University Press, New BrunswickGoogle Scholar
  117. Ramsden E (2011a) From rodent utopia to urban hell: population, pathology, and the crowded rats of NIMH. Isis 102:659–688.  https://doi.org/10.1086/663598CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  118. Ramsden E (2011b) Travelling facts about crowded rats: rodent experimentation and the human sciences. In: Howlett P, Morgan MS (eds) How well do facts travel? The dissemination of reliable knowledge. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 223–251Google Scholar
  119. Ramsden E (2012) Rats, stress and the built environment. Hist Hum Sci 25:123–147.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0952695112471005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  120. Reader J (2011) Potato: A history of the propitious esculent. Yale University Press, New HavenGoogle Scholar
  121. Reiß C (2012) Gateway, instrument, environment: the aquarium as a hybrid space between animal fancying and experimental zoology. NTM Z Gesch Wiss Tech Med 20(4):309–336.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00048-012-0079-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  122. Rheinberger H-J (1997) Toward a history of epistemic things: synthesizing proteins in the test tube. Stanford University Press, StanfordGoogle Scholar
  123. Rheinberger H-J (2000) Ephestia: the experimental design of Alfred Kühn’s physiological developmental genetics. J Hist Biol 33:535–576.  https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1004858314375CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  124. Rheinberger H-J (2010) An epistemology of the concrete: twentieth-century histories of life. Duke University Press, DurhamCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  125. Ritvo H (1987) The animal estate: the English and other creatures in the Victorian age. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  126. Ritvo H (2010) Noble cows and hybrid zebras: essays on animals and history. University of Virginia Press, CharlottesvilleGoogle Scholar
  127. Salaman RN, Burton WG, Hawkes JG (1985) The history and social influence of the potato. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  128. Sapp J (1987) Beyond the gene: cytoplasmic inheritance and the struggle for authority in genetics. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  129. Schloegel JJ (1999) From anomaly to unification: Tracy Sonneborn and the species problem in Protozoa, 1954–1957. J Hist Biol 32(1):93–132.  https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1004464509024CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  130. Schloegel JJ, Schmidgen H (2002) General physiology, experimental psychology, and evolutionism: unicellular organisms as objects of psychophysiological research, 1877–1918. Isis 93:614–645CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  131. Schweid R (2013) Octopus. Reaktion Books, LondonGoogle Scholar
  132. Secord JA (2011) Nature’s fancy: Charles Darwin and the breeding of pigeons. Isis 72(2):162–186Google Scholar
  133. Serpell JA (1986) In the company of animals. Blackwell, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  134. Shapin S (1988) The house of experiment in seventeenth-century England. Isis 79(3):373–404.  https://doi.org/10.1086/354773CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  135. Shapin S, Schaffer S (1985) Leviathan and the air-pump: Hobbes, Boyle, and the experimental life: including a translation of Thomas Hobbes, Dialogus Physicus de Natura Aeris by Simon Schaffer. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  136. Smith AF (2011) Potato: a global history. Reaktion Books, LondonGoogle Scholar
  137. Smocovitis VB (2009) The ‘plant Drosophila’: E. B. Babcock, the genus Crepis, and the evolution of a genetics research program at Berkeley, 1915–1947. Hist Stud Nat Sci 39:300–355.  https://doi.org/10.1525/hsns.2009.39.3.300CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  138. Somerville C, Koornneef M (2002) A fortunate choice: the history of Arabidopsis as a model plant. Nat Rev Genet 3(11):883–889.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nrg927CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  139. Star SL, Griesemer JR (1989) Institutional ecology, ‘translations’ and boundary objects: amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907–39. Soc Stud Sci 19:387–420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  140. Sunderland ME (2011) Morphogenesis, Dictyostelium, and the search for shared developmental processes. Stud Hist Phil Biol Biomed Sci 42(4):508–517.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsc.2011.07.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  141. Sunderland ME (2013) Teaching natural history at the Museum of Vertebrate Zoology. Br J Hist Sci 46(1):97–121.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007087411000872CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  142. Timmermans S, Epstein S (2010) A world of standards but not a standard world: toward a sociology of standards and standardization. Annu Rev Sociol 36(1):69–89.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.012809.102629CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  143. Todes DP (1997) Pavlov’s physiology factory. Isis 88(2):205–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  144. Todes DP (2001) Pavlov’s physiology factory: experiment, interpretation, laboratory enterprise. Johns Hopkins University Press, BaltimoreGoogle Scholar
  145. Weber M (2004) Philosophy of experimental biology. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  146. Winther RG, Giordano R, Edge MD, Nielsen R (2015) The mind, the lab, and the field: three kinds of populations in scientific practice. Stud Hist Phil Biol Biomed Sci 52:12–21.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsc.2015.01.009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  147. Wood RJ, Orel V (2001) Genetic prehistory in selective breeding: a prelude to Mendel. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  148. Woolgar SW (1976) Writing an intellectual history of scientific development: the use of discovery accounts. Soc Stud Sci 6:395–422.  https://doi.org/10.1177/030631277600600306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  149. Worster D (1990) Transformations of the earth: toward an agroecological perspective in history. J Am Hist 76(4):1087–1106.  https://doi.org/10.2307/2936586CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  150. Zallen DT (1993) The ‘light’ organism for the job: green algae and photosynthesis research. J Hist Biol 26(2):269–279CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  151. Zuckerman L (1999) The potato: how the humble spud rescued the western world. North Point Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of AdelaideAdelaideAustralia
  2. 2.University of ExeterExeterUK

Personalised recommendations