Abstracts of the History of Science Society 2004 Austin Meeting 18 ...

changes, examining situations from the late eighteenth century onwards in which practitioners of widely differing social status worked
together in the field. Power relations in the field were complex and ambiguous, as gentlemen sought out artisans with recognised expertise
in finding plants and asked them to serve as guides. The social experience of artisans and gentlemen botanising together, rather than
impressing upon artisans their status as subordinate observers and establishing the place of local information in the hierarchy of scientific
knowledge, became instead an opportunity for artisans to exert and display their own forms of authority and skill.
Jonathan Seitz, University of Wisconsin, Madison (jwseitz@wisc.edu)
Saturday, 20-Nov-04, 3:30 - 5:30 PM - Hill Country C
Science in the Holy Office: The Inquisition and Views of Nature in Early Modern Venice
The religious turmoil of sixteenth- and seventeenth-century Europe charged conceptions of the supernatural and natural worlds with
unprecedented significance. In Venice, the Holy Office (Inquisition) exercised the Church’s coercive power to establish orthodox definitions
of, and criteria for distinguishing between, the natural and the supernatural. However, the Inquisition did not simply impose the
views of Church officials onto the rest of society. The Holy Office served as a forum for the presentation of competing ideas about
the characteristics and operation of natural and supernatural powers, including ideas held by social groups often absent from the history
of science. Close examination of Inquisition records reveal how criteria for identifying natural and supernatural events changed over
time, and how such criteria varied among different social groups in early modern Venice.
Rena Selya, Harvard University (selya@fas.harvard.edu)
Friday, 19-Nov-04, 1:30 - 3:10 PM - Texas Ballroom VI
Viruses, Cancer and the Institutionalization of Molecular Biology
In the 1960s, molecular biology emerged as an institutionally and financially independent discipline. This paper will compare and contrast
the effect of molecular biology on the departments of biology at MIT and Harvard University in the 1960s, considering the ways
that personnel, research, funding, and curricula changed as a result of the molecular revolution. These changes were not always welcome,
and the differences between the paths of the two departments provide insight into the ways in which the biology community at
large viewed the nascent discipline. The key figures in these departments, Salvador Luria and James Watson, already had significant experience
in virus research, as well as longstanding interests in the biology of cancer. Luria and Watson both went on to direct institutions
that used virus research and other molecular techniques to explore the genetics of cancer. Through their guidance, microorganisms and
tumor research became mainstays of molecular biology research and support, with clear effects on the way college students learned biology
and their professors sought funding. By the mid 1970s, the twin pillars of viruses and cancer helped make molecular biology the
central focus of biology education at these two research universities.
David Sepkoski, Oberlin College (dsepkosk@oberlin.edu)
Friday, 19-Nov-04, 3:30 - 5:30 PM - Texas Ballroom III
Paleobiology in the 1970s: Punctuation, Mass Extinction, and Quantification
Despite its important role in the emergence of evolutionary theory in the 19th century, paleontology was largely marginalized by the
evolutionary community during much of the 20th. Between the late 1960s and the early 1980s, however, this situation changed drastically.
In 1984, the geneticist John Maynard Smith spoke for the wider community of evolutionary biology: “the paleontologists have
too long been missing from the high table. Welcome back.” Central in this rapid transformation were the efforts of a group of young,
quantitatively-minded paleontologists whose studies of the dynamics of macroevolutionary patterns and extinction drew attention to
the importance of the fossil record as a source for evolutionary theory. This group was led by Stephen Jay Gould, who mustered many
of the most promising paleontologists of his generation “including David Raup, Thomas Schopf, and Jack Sepkoski” to participate in
the reconstruction of paleobiology as a theoretical discipline. While Gould’s saltationist views (expressed most vividly in his theory of
punctuated equilibria) are well known, an equally important factor was the success of new approaches in the quantification and simulation
of extinction patterns, which lent credence to Gould’s punctuated model. This paper will examine this history and will argue additionally
that the new quantitative, deductive approach in paleobiology allowed a partial reconciliation of saltationist, catastrophist views
with more traditional gradualist principles.
Adam R. Shapiro, University of Chicago (adams@uchicago.edu)
Friday, 19-Nov-04, 1:30 - 3:10 PM - Texas Ballroom II
The Evolution of the “New Civic Biology”
George W. Hunter’s “New Civic Biology”, published by the American Book Company in 1926, was intended to replace the 1914 “Civic
Biology”, which gained notoriety after John Scopes used it to teach evolution in Dayton, Tennessee. Among the more notable differences
between the two texts is the omission of the word “evolution” from the new book. The revision process that led to the “New
Civic Biology” began even before the Anti-Evolution Act was even proposed in Tennessee, and continued even after publication of the
first edition of the new textbook. Along the way, the relationship between Hunter and his editors (which was never an easy one to begin
with), became increasingly complicated and strained. The content of the new textbook came about not only as a result of the politics
of the country—increasingly hostile to teaching evolution but also in large part to the politics of the American Book Company itself,