The mid-century biophysics bubble: Hiroshima and the biological revolution in America, revisited

History of Science

Volumn 35, Issue 3, 1997, Pages 245-293

  Rasmussen, Nicolas ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; ATOMIC WARFARE; BIOPHYSICS; HISTORY; UNITED STATES;

BIOPHYSICS; HISTORY, 20TH CENTURY; NUCLEAR WARFARE; UNITED STATES;

EID: 0031226497     PISSN: 00732753     EISSN: 17538564     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/007327539703500301     Document Type: Article

References (287)

1. Smith Alice Kimball, A peril and a hope, rev. edn (Cambridge, Mass., 1971), chap. 2 et passim;
2. Yavendetti Michael, “The American reaction to the use of atomic bombs on Japan: The 1940s”, Historian, 36/2 (1974), 224–47;
3. Kevles Daniel, The physicists (New York, 1978), chaps. 20–21;
4. Boyer Paul, By the Bomb's early light: American thought and culture at the dawn of the atomic age (New York, 1985), chaps. 4–6;
5. Weart Spencer, Nuclear fear: A history of images (Cambridge, Mass., 1988), chap. 6. Oppenheimer was surely not alone in the feeling that moved him to blurt out to Truman that he had “blood on his hands” (cited by Weart, p. 113, note 29), though fear and not guilt over Hiroshima is the state of mind relevant to the present argument.
6. Fleming D., “Emigré physicists and the biological revolution”, Perspectives in American history, ii (1968), 152–89;
7. Kay L., The molecular vision of life (Oxford, 1993);
8. Keller E. Fox, “Physics and the emergence of molecular biology: A history of cognitive and political synergy”, Journal of the history of biology, xxiii (1990), 389–409;
9. Lanouette W., Genius in the shadows: A biography of Leo Szilard (New York, 1992);
10. Yoxen E., “Giving life new meaning: The rise of the molecular biology establishment”, in Elias N., Martins H., Whitley R. (eds), Scientific establishments and hierarchies (Dordrecht, 1982), 123–43.
11. Also see Kevles, Scientific establishments and hierarchies (ref. 1).
12. See Mackay's Charles classic Extraordinary popular delusions and the madness of crowds (Wells Vermont, 1963; reproduction of 1852 edition);
13. and for a more modern treatment, Carswell J., The South Sea Bubble (London, 1961).
14. Simon Schaffer has related this investment debacle to the growth of experimental science in England: “Augustan realities: Nature's representatives and their cultural resources in the early eighteenth century”, in Levine G. (ed), Realism and representation (Madison, 1993), 279–318.
15. E.g., see Judson H., The eighth day of creation (New York, 1979);
16. Olby R., The path to the double helix (Seattle, 1974);
17. Fleming, (ref. 2). The standard view owes much to a circle of scientists — Considered biophysicists in the 1940s and 1950s — Identifying themselves as members of Max Delbrück's ‘phage church’ of molecular genetics. See Cairns J., Stent G., Watson J. (eds), Phage and the origins of molecular biology (Cold Spring Harbor, 1966);
18. Watson J., The double helix (New York, 1968). Even historians seemingly critical of the ‘molecular revolution’ in biology have tended to take the supposedly central place of physicists in the revolution as a starting point;
19. cf. Yoxen, The double helix (ref. 2);
20. Keller, The double helix (ref. 2);
21. Kay, Molecular vision (ref. 2).
22. Lindee M. Susan, in Suffering made real (Chicago, 1994), 15, makes a similar point, that the doctors of the Atomic Bomb Casualty Commission were charged with “redeeming” the Bomb by assessing medical damage; she does not note, however, the more profound sort of redemption promised by the experimental biophysicists back home. Tempting though it is, I will not speculate on the mass-psychological mechanism of this redemptive ‘push’ to counterbalance Hiroshima; opposing hypotheses of atonement and denial seem equally consistent with the evidence. Of course, no poll of Americans ever revealed that a sense of guilt was consciously experienced to any great extent.
23. Abir-Am P., “The discourse of physical power and biological knowledge in the 1930's: A reappraisal of the Rockefeller Foundation's ‘policy’ in molecular biology”, Social studies of science, xii (1982), 341–82;
24. also see Kohler R., Partners in science: Foundations and natural scientists, 1900–1945 (Chicago, 1991), 354–7, 404–6 et passim.
25. Fleming, Partners in science: Foundations and natural scientists, 1900–1945 (ref. 2), 156.
26. Keller, Partners in science: Foundations and natural scientists, 1900–1945 (ref. 2), 390.
27. Chargaff Erwin, “How genetics got a chemical education”, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, cccxxv (1979), 345–56, p. 347.
28. On Delbrück see Kay L., “Conceptual models and analytical tools: The biology of physicist Max Delbrück”, Journal of the history of biology, xviii (1985), 207–46;
29. Fischer E. P., Lipson C., Thinking about science: Max Delbrück and the origins of molecular biology (New York, 1988).
30. On Loeb see Pauly P., Controlling life: Jacques Loeb and the engineering ideal in biology (New York, 1987).
31. Stent G., “That was the molecular biology that was”, Science, clx (1968), 390–5.
32. Burian R., “Technique, task definition, and the transition from genetics to molecular genetics: Aspects of the work on protein synthesis in the laboratories of J. Monod and P. Zamecnik”, Journal of the history of biology, xxvi (1993), 387–407.
33. For a critique of the historiography, see Abir-Am P., “Themes, genres and orders of legitimation in the consolidation of new scientific disciplines: Deconstructing the historiography of molecular biology”, History of science, xxiii (1985), 73–117.
34. For a sample of what counted as biophysics in postwar Britain see, e.g., Butler J. A., Randall J. T. (eds), Progress in biophysics, i (London, 1950).
35. Cf. de Chadevarian S., “From biophysics to molecular biology: Institutional and disciplinary strategies in post war Britain”, presented 29 October 1995 at History of Science Society Annual Meeting, Minneapolis.
36. Cairns Stent, Watson (eds), Progress in biophysics (ref. 4).
37. Olby R., “From Physics to Biophysics”, History and philosophy of the life sciences, xi (1989), 305–9.
38. This tendency reaches absurd extremes in Mullins N., “The development of a scientific specialty: The phage group and the origins of molecular biology”, Minerva, x (1972), 51–82.
39. Hersey John, Hiroshima (New York, 1946).
40. See Weart, Hiroshima (ref. 1), chaps. 6–7;
41. Boyer, Hiroshima (ref. 1), chaps. 1–3.
42. Anon., “Death by gamma ray”, Time, xlvii, issue of 25 March 1946, 77;
43. Anon., “A-bomb radiation sickness”, Science news letter, xlix, issue of 9 March 1946, 159;
44. Anon., “Bomb's aftereffects”, Time, xlix, issue of 25 March 1947, 66;
45. Anon., “Generations yet unborn”, Time, xlix, issue of 7 April 1947, 57–58.
46. On the Atomic Bomb Casualty Commission's interest in scientifically dubious conclusions from findings of no large increase in monstrosities followed the Japan bombing, see Beatty J., “Genetics in the atomic age: The Atomic Bomb Casualty Commission, 1947–1956”, in Benson K., Maienschein J., Rainger R. (eds), The expansion of American biology (New Brunswick, 1991), 284–324.
47. Also see Lindee, The expansion of American biology (ref. 5), chap. 4.
48. Anon., “Genetic death”, Time, 1, issue of 22 September 1947, 44, 47;
49. Muller H. J., “The menace of radiation”, Science news letter, lv, issue of 11 June 1949, 374, 379ff.;
50. “Deformed fish reveal radiation effects”, Life, xxvii, issue of 21 November 1949, 133–6.
51. See Carlson A., Genes, radiation, and society: The life and work of H. J. Muller (Ithaca, 1981).
52. Weart, Genes, radiation, and society: The life and work of H. J. Muller (ref. 1), 109–11;
53. Boyer, Genes, radiation, and society: The life and work of H. J. Muller (ref. 1), chap. 8.
54. Anon., “Bikini ark returns”, Science news letter, 1, issue of 5 October 1946, 213.
55. Anon., “Small herd of animals came back”, Life, xxiii, issue of 11 August 1947, 78–79.
56. On Warren and Bikini, see Hacker B., The dragon's tail: Radiation protection in the Manhattan Project, 1942–1946 (Berkeley, 1987), chaps. 5–6, and
57. Weisgall J., Operation crossroads: The atomic tests at Bikini Atoll (Annapolis, 1994), chap. 25.
58. Warren S., “Conclusions: Tests proved irresistible spread of radioactivity”, Life, xxiii, issue of 11 August 1947, 86–87;
59. idem, “The real menace in atomic warfare: A report on Bikini a year later”, Readers digest, li, issue of November 1947, 21–22.
60. Hacker, Life (ref. 19), 110–13.
61. Weart, Life (ref. 1), chaps. 8–9;
62. Boyer, Life (ref. 1), chaps. 10–11.
63. Evans R., “The medical uses of atomic energy”, Atlantic, clxxvii, issue of January 1946, 68–73.
64. Smith B., Quimby E., “Gravest illnesses are tasks for atomic research”, Popular science, cxlviii, issue of May 1946, 96, 210, 214, 218, 222, 226;
65. “Atoms and cancer”, Time, xlvii, issue of 14 October 1946, 52, 54;
66. “Lifesaving role of the atom”, US news and world report, xxiv, issue of 7 May 1948, 26–27.
67. Evans, US news and world report (ref. 23), 73.
68. Franck James, “Medical benefits from atomic energy”, in Weaver Warren (ed.), The scientists speak (New York, 1947), 279–83.
69. Warren Stafford, “Atomic energy and medicine”, The scientists speak, 283–7.
70. Schmitt Francis, “The structural basis of life”, The scientists speak, 228–32.
71. Delbrück M., “Experiments with bacterial viruses”, Harvey lectures, xli (1946), 161–87;
72. Warren S., “Radioactivity in Nagasaki”, Harvey lectures, 188.
73. See footnote in The scientific monthly, lxiv (1947), 213.
74. See group portrait in Schmitt F., The never-ceasing search (Philadelphia, 1990), 197.
75. Francis Schmitt later recalled a “lack of focus” in the discussion at this meeting. See Schmitt, memo to Biophysics and Biophysical Chemistry Study Section, 23 March 1956; Francis Schmitt papers, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Archives, MC154 (hereafter, FSP), carton 20, folder 37, 2.
76. On What is life? and the reactions among physicists, see Keller, The never-ceasing search (ref. 2);
77. Olby R., “Schrödinger's problem: What is life?”, Journal of the history of biology, iv (1971), 119–48;
78. Yoxen E., “Where does Schrödinger's ‘What is Life?’ belong in the history of molecular biology?”, History of science, xvii (1979), 17–52.
79. Kay L., “W. M. Stanley's crystallization of the Tobacco Mosaic Virus, 1930–1940”, Isis, lxxvii (1986), 450–72.
80. On genes and viruses in the 1930s see Ravin A., “The gene as catalyst, the gene as organism”, Studies in the history of biology, i (1977), 1–45.
81. “The production of mutations”, Nobel lectures in physiology or medicine, 1942–1962 (New York, 1967), 154–71.
82. Cf. Carlson, Nobel lectures in physiology or medicine, 1942–1962 (ref. 15).
83. The words are those of Representative Dirksen of Illinois, cited in Feffer S., “Atoms, cancer, and politics: Supporting atomic science at the University of Chicago, 1944–1950”, Historical studies in the physical and biological sciences, xxii (1992), 233–61.
84. Anon., “Scientist drops a-bomb: Blasts army shackles”, Chicago tribune, 2 September 1945, 5;
85. cited in Smith, Chicago tribune (ref. 1), 88–89.
86. Anderson T. F., Richards A. G., “An electron microscope study of some structural colors of insects”, Journal of applied physics, xiii (1942), 748–58.
87. On wartime biological electron microscopy in North America, see Rasmussen N., “Making a machine instrumental: RCA and the wartime beginnings of biological electron microscopy”, Studies in the history and philosophy of science, xxvii (1996), 311–49.
88. Feffer, Studies in the history and philosophy of science (ref. 35).
89. Loofbourow J., “Borderland problems in biology and physics”, Reviews of modern physics, xii (1940), 267–358.
90. Pauly, Controlling life (ref. 9). On electrophysiology in the interwar period
91. see Frank R., “Instruments, nerve action, and the all-or-none principle”, Osiris, n.s., ix (1994), 208–35.
92. On other roots of ‘molecular biology’ especially in Europe, see Abir-Am P., “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 science, xxv (1987), 1–70.
93. Pauly P., “General physiology and the discipline of physiology, 1890–1935”, in Geison G. (ed.), Physiology in the American context 1850–1940 (Baltimore, 1987), 195–207;
94. also Kohler R., From medical chemistry to biochemistry: The making of a biomedical discipline (Cambridge, 1982), 108–14, 286–332.
95. Cf. Pauly, Controlling life (ref. 9), 161.
96. Kohler, Partners (ref. 6), chaps. 10–13;
97. Abir-Am, “Discourse” (ref. 6);
98. Yoxen, Partners (ref. 2).
99. Though neither Pauling nor Delbrück, who moved to Caltech in 1946, particularly liked the term ‘biophysics’. Their reasons are discussed later.
100. Bush V., Science: The endless frontier (Washington, D.C., 1945), 3.
101. Penick J. L., Pursell C. W., Sherwood M. B., Swain D. C. (ed.), The politics of American science (Chicago, 1965), secs. 2–3;
102. Sapolsky H., Science and the navy (Princeton, 1990).
103. Gamow to Stanley, 24 February 1947;
104. Wendell M. Stanley papers, Archives of the University of California at the Bancroft Library, Berkeley, 78/18 c (hereafter, WSP), carton 8, folder “Gamow, George”.
105. Cf. Schmitt, Search (ref. 31), chap. 10. [Schmitt], “Progress Report, NR-119-100, Investigations on the Ultrastructure and Chemistry of Nerve”, 15 November 1957, FSP, carton 2, folder 15.
106. Strickland S., Politics, science, and dread disease: A short history of United States medical research policy (Cambridge, 1972).
107. On the Chicago Met Lab during the war see Hacker, (ref. 19), and Rhodes R., The making of the atomic bomb (New York, 1986).
108. On resistance to military control at the Met Lab, see Price M., “Roots of dissent: The Chicago Met Lab and the origins of the Franck report”, Isis, lxxxvi (1995), 222–44.
109. [Harry Price?], “The Institutes for Basic Research”, n.d.; Presidents Papers 1950–55 and 1952–60, University of Chicago Archives (hereafter, UCPP), box 140, folder 140.4.
110. On Novick's and Szilard's work in particular, see Novick A., “Phenotypic mixing”, in Cairns Stent, Watson (eds), Isis (ref. 4), 133–41.
111. American men of science, 9th edn (Lancaster, 1955);
112. Hacker, American men of science (ref. 19).
113. Feffer, American men of science (ref. 35).
114. Cf. Feffer, American men of science (ref. 35). For instance, in 1953 the Metals Institute boasted fourteen industrial sponsors, while Biophysics and Nuclear Studies had only four each. The Biophysics sponsors were American Tobacco, Eli Lilly, Proctor and Gamble, and General Motors, and support amounted to $110,000, about half the operating budget of the MIT Biology Department at the time: “Sponsors of the Institutes by institute”, 18 February 1953, UCPP, box 140, folder 140.3.
115. Franck J., Gaffron H., “Office of Naval Research, annual progress report, NR. 119-272-3-2/53”, 26 January 1954, UCPP, box 139, folder 139.6.
116. Feffer, American men of science (ref. 35).
117. Franck, Gaffron, “Research in progress — The Institute of Radiobiology and Biophysics”, in “Research in progress” report, May 1953, UCPP box 141, folder 141.2; “Research in Progress — The Institute of Radiobiology and Biophysics”, in “Research in Progress” report, October 1953, UCPP box 141, folder 141.2; “Research in Progress — The Institute of Radiobiology and Biophysics”, in “Research in Progress” report, October 1952, UCPP box 141, folder 141.1; “From the University Reports — Institute of Radiobiology and Biophysics”, “February '52” and “June '52” entries, UCPP box 139, folder 149.6.
118. Also see Zirkle R. E., “Biophysics at the University of Chicago”, [September 1955], in “Conference on status of biophysics, Ann Arbor Michigan”, 16 September 1955, FSP, carton 21, folder 12. For personnel rosters and degree programs, see the University of Chicago announcements for the relevant years (available at the Archives of the University of Chicago).
119. Lauffer M., “Biophysics at the University of Pittsburgh”, [September 1955], in “Conference on status of biophysics, Ann Arbor Michigan”, (ref. 57).
120. See Cohen S., “Some contributions of the Princeton laboratory of the Rockefeller Institute on proteins, viruses, and nucleic acids”, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, cccxxv (1979), 303–6.
121. Barlow R., “Neural mechanisms of visual perception: The legacy of Hartline and Kuffler. Introduction”, in Barlow R., Dowling J., Weissman G. (eds), The biological century (Cambridge, Mass., 1993), 203–8.
122. Carlson F., “Biophysics at the Johns Hopkins University”, [September 1956], “Report for conference on status of biophysics, Bethesda, Maryland, September 22, 1956”, FSP, carton 21, folder 19.
123. “Biophysics at Yale University”, FSP, carton 21, folder 19. On Pollard and the scientists' movement, see Smith, The biological century (ref. 1), 123.
124. Fruton J., Eighty years (New Haven, 1994), chap. 8, esp. pp. 146–56.
125. Wyckoff R., “Reminiscences”, Advances in electronics and electron physics, supplemental, xvi (1985), 583–7;
126. Weissler Alfred, “Biophysics at the National Institutes of Health”, [September 1955], in “Conference on status of biophysics, Ann Arbor Michigan” (ref. 57);
127. [Williams Robley], “Three dimensional electron microscopy”, [April 1945]
128. Williams Robley C. papers, Archives of the University of California at the Bancroft Library, Berkeley, 73/7 c (hereafter, RWP), carton 1, black folder “C”. Quote is from Williams to V. M. Slipher, 30 September 1945, RWP, carton 1, black folder “S”.
129. Williams to Black L., 24 September 1946, RWP, carton 1, red folder “B”.
130. Owen P. to Williams, 10 April 1946;
131. Williams to Linke F., 18 April 1946;
132. Williams to Linke, 29 May 1947; all in RWP, carton 3, folder “Cancer research”.
133. Williams to Nicholson H., 4 June 1947, RWP, carton 1, red folder “H”.
134. Williams, “Progress report … PHS grant C444”, 8 June 1948, RWP, carton 3, folder “Lymphomatosis”.
135. Williams to Cole, 3 May 1947, RWP, carton 1, red folder “Cole”.
136. LaRue G. to Williams, 6 June 1947, RWP, carton 3, folder “Biophysics Curriculum”.
137. The earliest evidence of this is a longhand manuscript by Williams, “A proposal to establish a graduate curriculum in biological physics”, 14 April 1948, RWP, carton 3, folder “Biological Research and Division”.
138. Williams to Cole, 3 May 1947, RWP, carton 1, red folder “Cole”.
139. Williams to Steere W. C., 9 February 1949, RWP, carton 3, folder “Biophysics Curriculum”.
140. Williams to Schmitt Otto, 20 May 1949;
141. Williams to Pollard Ernest, 20 May 1949; both in RWP, carton 3, folder “Biophysics Curriculum”.
142. Press release, n.d., “The Phoenix Project: A statement of aims and policies”, in RWP, carton 1, red folder “P”.
143. Williams, “Application for grant”, 4 October 1948;
144. Williams to Sawyer, 4 October 1948; both in RWP, carton 3, folder “Phoenix”.
145. This was the thrust of the sections dealing with physics in Sawyer's speech of 12 June 1949, “Atomic research in the physical and biological sciences”, RWP, carton 3, folder “Phoenix Project Speech”.
146. Ruthven A. to Williams, 9 March 1949, RWP, carton 3, folder “Phoenix”.
147. Anon, “Michigan, the atom and peace”, University of Michigan Bureau of Alumni Relations, general bulletin, xlviii, issue of December 1949.
148. [Williams], 21 February 1950, speech outline “Applications of atomic research”, RWP, carton 3, folder “Phoenix project speech”;
149. [Williams], 22 March 1950, index card speech outline “Alumni, Canton Ohio”, RWP, carton 3, folder “Phoenix”.
150. Minutes of General Committee of the Division of Biological Sciences, 4 March 1950, RWP, carton 3, folder “Biological Research and Division”.
151. Kay, “Stanley's crystallization” (ref. 33);
152. Ravin, University of Michigan Bureau of Alumni Relations, general bulletin (ref. 33).
153. Sproul to Stanley, 19 February 1940;
154. Stanley to Sproul, 1 March 1940;
155. Stanley to Sproul, 4 November 1940;
156. Sproul to Stanley, 18 March 1946;
157. Stanley to Sproul, 25 June 1946;
158. Stanley to Sproul, 2 October 1946; all in WSP, carton 13, folder “Sproul, Robert”.
159. Stanley to Sproul, 15 November 1946;
160. Sproul to Stanley, 10 January 1947;
161. Sproul to Stanley, 20 January 1947;
162. Stanley to Sproul, 27 January 1947; all in WSP, carton 13, folder “Sproul, Robert”.
163. Stanley to Sproul, 2 October 1946;
164. Stanley to Sproul, 4 March 1947;
165. Stanley to Sproul, 11 July 1947;
166. Sproul to Stanley, 3 March 1948; all in WSP, carton 13, folder “Sproul, Robert”.
167. Craeger A., “Wendell Stanley and the dream of a free-standing biochemistry department at the University of California, Berkeley”, Journal of the history of biology, xxix (1996), 331–60.
168. See Westwick P., “Abraded from several corners: Medical physics at Berkeley 1940–1950”, presented 29 October 1995 at History of Science Society Annual Meeting, Minneapolis.
169. Sproul to Stanley, 6 February 1948, WSP, carton 13, folder “Sproul, Robert”.
170. Stanley, “Viruses”, [n.d.], at Paris;
171. Stanley, “Achievement and promise in virus research”, 16 October 1947, at Yale's Sheffield School; both in WSP, carton 24, folder “Talks”.
172. Stanley, “Research activities in the virus laboratory”, October 1955, WSP, carton 24, folder “Papers and speeches”.
173. Stanley to Sproul, 10 December 1947;
174. Sproul to Stanley, 29 December 1947; WSP, carton 13, folder “Sproul, Robert”.
175. Weaver to Stanley, 1 December 1947;
176. Stanley to Weaver, 8 January 1948; WSP, carton 14, folder “Weaver, Warren”.
177. [Stanley], “A brief summary of the grants-in-aid and some accomplishments”, December 1951, WSP, carton 24, folder “Written reports”.
178. Stanley to Weaver H., 17 June 1948; WSP, carton 14, folder “Weaver, Harry”.
179. Stanley to Sproul, 9 January 1948, WSP, carton 13, folder “Sproul, Robert”.
180. Stanley to Hutchison Claude, 6 May 1948, WSP, carton 2, folder “Letters written by Stanley, April-December 1948”.
181. See American men of science (ref. 52).
182. “Memorandum on the relations existing between the Department of Biochemistry of the College of Arts and Sciences, the Department of Plant Biochemistry of the College of Agriculture, and the Division of Biochemistry of the School of Medicine”, April 1952, WSP, carton 27, folder “MBVL — Reports and other information”. “Biochemistry and Virus Laboratory open house”, October 1952, WSP carton 27, folder “Opening ceremonies, news, information”. Untitled list of contractor costs, 26 December 1951, WSP, carton 27, folder “Virus Laboratory, administrative”.
183. “Biophysics at the University of California, Los Angeles”, [December 1955], in “Conference on status of biophysics, Berkeley, California”, 1 December 1955, FOS, carton 21, folder 16. [Stanley], “Explanatory statement”, (ref. 91).
184. “Biochemistry and Virus Laboratory open house”, (ref. 93); “Rockefeller Foundation Grant, January 1949 – January 1952”, 15 August 1951, WSP, carton 27, folder “Virus Laboratory — Grants”. Williams, NIH grant extension application “C-2245(S)”, 22 October 1954, WSP, carton 27, untitled folder.
185. Schwerdt C. E., Williams R. C., Stanley W. M., Schaffer F. L., McClain M. E., “Morphology of the type II poliomyelitis virus (MEF1) as determined by electron microscopy”, Proceedings of the Society for Experimental Biology and Medicine, lxxxvi (1954), 310–12.
186. [Stanley], “Semi-annual report of progress” to NFIP, 11 January 1950, WSP carton 2, folder “January 1950”. [Stanley], “Progress report” to NFIP, July 1952, WSP, carton 24, folder “Written reports”. [Stanley], untitled NFIP progress report, 16 December 1952, WSP, carton 27, folder “Virus Laboratory — Grants”. [Knight?], “Statement in layman's language of research”, February 1954, WSP, carton 27, untitled folder (quotation).
187. Fraenkel-Conrat Heinz, “Protein chemists encounter viruses”, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, cccxxv (1979), 309–18.
188. [Stanley], “Explanatory statement” (ref. 91). Fraser to A. D. Hershey, 27 January 1949 (quotation), and Fraser to Hayden Nicholson, 28 February 1949, both in WSP, carton 5, folder “Virus Laboratory outgoing correspondence January–June 1949”.
189. Stanley, Williams to Strong Chancellor E. W., 7 November 1963, WSP, carton 15, folder “Biochemistry and Virus Laboratory building”.
190. Craeger, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences (ref. 83).
191. Schwerdt interview with author, 30 January 1994.
192. [Stanley], provisional program “Second National Cancer Conference”, [April 1952?], WSP, carton 18, folder “2nd National Cancer Conference”. Stanley to Harry Weaver, 30 November 1955, WSP, carton 14, folder “Weaver, Harry”.
193. For increase in cancer applications, see e.g. [Stanley], “Application for institutional research grant”, 11 May 1955, WSP, carton 27, folder “Virus Laboratory — Grants”. This application asks for an additional $64,000 supplement on renewal of the previous year's $90,000 grant from the American Cancer Society, “Studies on the interaction of viruses and cells in tissue cultures w/special reference to viruses possessing tumor inciting or tumor regressing properties”.
194. Anon., untitled song, [n.d.], WSP, carton 29, folder “MBVL — Adminstrative”.
195. [Stanley], “The virus etiology of cancer”, June 1956, WSP, carton 24, folder “WMS — Manuscripts for talks”.
196. Minutes of meeting of Board of Regents, 24 January 1947, 1–2;
197. Warren to Sproul, 21 December 1946; Warren to Dyskstra, 6 October 1946; Stafford Warren Personal Papers, Special Collections of the University Research Library, University of California at Los Angeles, collection RG 987 (hereafter, SWPP), box 291, folder “Los Angeles correspondence, 1946–47”.
198. Stafford Warren Oral History Project, Special Collections of the University Research Library, University of California at Los Angeles, collection 300/204 (hereafter, SWOH), 725, 777–8 et passim. See Westwick, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences (ref. 84).
199. Warren, “What will developments in atomic energy mean to medicine”, [1946], SWPP, box 285, folder “Speeches”.
200. Warren, “Possible expedited program on cancer research”, 27 August 1947;
201. Price David to Warren, 6 January 1948; both in Stafford Warren papers, Administrative Archives of the University of California at Los Angeles, collection RS 300 (hereafter, SWAP), box 78, folder 2600.
202. “WEAF, the national hour (as broadcast)”, radio script attached to Niles Trammel to Warren, 11 January 1946, SWPP, box 285, folder “Speeches”.
203. Hacker, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences (ref. 19), chap. 6. Quote is from Lyon George to Parsons William, 5 May 1947, SWPP (cited by Hacker, 144, 212 n. 106).
204. SWOH, 1026–50. See p. 1049 in particular.
205. Warren, “What are the areas of responsibility of a department of biophysics in a medical school”, 20 October 1948; SWAP, box 134, folder “Biophysics 1957–1958”.
206. Bellamy A. W., “Space needs in the department of biophysics”, 6 November 1958; SWAP, box 134, folder “Biophysics 1949–52”.
207. Warren, SWOH, 1052–4.
208. Bath J. to Warren, 8 December 1954; SWAP, RS 300, box 134, folder “Biophysics 1954“.
209. A. W. Bellamy memo to Warren, 7 December 1955, “Staffing problems”; SWAP, folder “Biophysics, 1955”. “Biophysics at the University of California, Los Angeles”, [December 1955], in “Conference on status of biophysics, Berkeley, California” (ref. 94).
210. Bellamy, 21 May 1958, “Biophysics: Statement requested by the chairman of a special committee appointed to nominate a chairman for the department of biophysics”; SWAP, box 134, folder “Biophysics 1957–58”. Bellamy, 3 February 1960, “Work sheets IIA revisions”, and Bellamy to Warren, 4 February 1960; both in SWAP, box 135, folder “Biophysics 1959–60”.
211. Department of Biophysics and Nuclear Medicine organizational chart, 3 February 1960;
212. Verzeano M. to Warren, 10 August 1960; both in SWAP, box 135, folder “Biophysics 1959–60”.
213. [Warren?] to Chancellor Murphy, April 1967; SWAP, box 134, folder “Biophysics 1949–52”.
214. Burton A. C., “Biophysics at the medical school, University of Western Ontario”, and Mommaerts Wilfried, “Biophysics in general and at Western Reserve University”, both in “Conference on status of biophysics, Ann Arbor Michigan, September 16, 1955“, FSP, carton 21, folder 12.
215. Young A., “Biophysics at the University of Washington, Department of Physiology and Biophysics”, in “Conference on status of biophysics, Berkeley, California” (ref. 94).
216. Ham W. T., “Biophyics at the Medical College of Virginia”, and
217. Solomon A. K., “Biophysics at the Harvard Medical School”, both in “Report for conference on status of biophysics, Bethesda, Maryland” (ref. 59).
218. Weissler Alfred, “Biophysics at the National Institutes of Health”, “Conference on status of biophysics, Ann Arbor Michigan, September 16, 1955”, FSP, carton 21, folder 12.
219. Kay, Molecular vision (ref. 2).
220. Pauling, “Some detailed statements about the work to be done”, in grant proposal attached to Pauling to Weaver, 4 December 1945; Rockefeller Foundation Archives at the Rockefeller Archive Center, RG 1.2, series 205D, box 4, folder 23. Quote, page 24.
221. Kay, Molecular vision (ref. 2), 225–68.
222. See grant application to AEC, “The genetic and cytological effects of high energy radiation”, 12 November 1953, Archives of the California Institute of Technology, Biology Division (hereafter, CITA), folder 69.18.
223. Delbrück Max, “A physicist looks at biology”, Transactions of the Connecticut Academy Arts and Sciences, xxxviii (1949), 173–90, emphasis in original.
224. See also Fischer, Lipson, Transactions of the Connecticut Academy Arts and Sciences (ref. 9).
225. Delbrück, “Biophysics at California Institute of Technology”, “Conference on status of biophysics, Berkeley, California” (ref. 94).
226. See the MIT catalog (available at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Archives), for years 1944–50. Proctor B., “Food technology at MIT”, Technology review, lvi, issue of December 1953, 89–92;
227. “The Dorrance building”, Technology review, 81–84;
228. Schmitt, Search (ref. 31), 126.
229. Harrison G. R. to Killian J. R. Jr, 23 November 1946; MIT archives, Presidential Papers AC4, Compton/Killian Papers (hereafter, CKP), box 31, folder 5.
230. See Opportunities in chemical biology and physical biology at MIT (Cambridge, Mass., 1949).
231. Weaver to Schmitt, 14 April 1947; FSP, carton 2, folder 24.
232. I have not located full budgetary records of the MIT Biology department. Figures on Schmitt's own grant support derive from a December 1955 grant application (“Investigations in molecular biology”, FSP, carton 2, folder 2). A $280,000 figure for the departmental budget, like the list of equipment, comes from “A program of training for post-doctoral medical fellows at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology”, December 1950; FSP, carton 1, folder 49. Assuming that MIT did not cut its FY 1948 funding level of $170,000, and allowing for $50,000 per year from Rockefeller funds, Schmitt's own grants alone would bring the Department's budget near the claimed $280,000; thus grants for specific projects must not have been included in the latter figure, which makes sense given that other MIT department members also had grants. On the conservative estimate that Schmitt's colleagues together won as much funding as Schmitt himself, the Biology department's total budget must have been near $350,000 in FY 1950.
233. The Caltech Biology division apparently had a 1948–49 (i.e., FY 1949) budget of $211,000, including most funds except a $60,000/year NFIP grant and a $100,000/year Rockefeller grant which were both shared with Linus Pauling's Chemistry division. See “Current funds budget, Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1949, Division of Biological Sciences”, CITA, folder 17.18 (the FY 1950 budget was missing). There is a $50–$100,000 discrepancy here with a letter from the Caltech president Lee Dubridge to Warren Weaver, boasting that the previous year's Biology budget had exceeded $400,000 (cited in Kay, Molecular vision (ref. 2), 237); though DuBridge would not have lied, one can expect optimistically inclusive accounting in the context.
234. Aldrich M. to Killian, 23 March 1951; FSP, carton 1, folder 49.
235. Rhind F. M. to Killian, 5 December 1952; FSP, carton 2, folder 27.
236. Anon., “History of Biology at MIT”, dated “Autumn 1952”, 16; CKP box 31, folder 7. See building plans in “Dorrance building” (ref. 128);
237. Buchanan John, “Biochemistry at MIT”, Technology review, lvi, issue of December 1953, 87–88;
238. Kay, Molecular vision (ref. 2).
239. Abir-Am, “Discourse” (ref. 6);
240. idem, “Beyond deterministic sociology and apologetic history: Reassessing the impact of research policy upon new scientific disciplines”, Social studies of science, xiv (1984), 252–63.
241. Schmitt F. O., “The structural basis of life” In Weaver (ed.), Social studies of science (ref. 26), 228–32, p. 232.
242. Schmitt, “Freshman convocation” speech, 13 February 1947; FSP, carton 11, folder 3 (quote, p. 7). See Strickland (ref. 48), chap. 4.
243. Schmitt, Search (ref. 31), chap. 9; Susan Mehrtens interview with David Crockett, Francis Schmitt Oral History Project, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Archives, Special Collections MC 226 (hereafter: FSOH), box 1, folder “D. Crockett”.
244. Schmitt, Search (ref. 31), 185.
245. “Society of Arts lecture”, March 1946, FSP, carton 11, folder 3.
246. Cf. Pauly, Controlling life (ref. 9), and Rasmussen N., Picture control: The electron microscope and the transformation of biology in America, 1940–1960 (Stanford University Press, in press).
247. Killian J., memorandum of understanding, 27 June 1952; CKP box 31, folder 6.
248. Killian to Schmitt, 4 March 1954; CKP, box 31, folder 6.
249. Schmitt, Search (ref. 31), 186–7.
250. Schmitt to Denues, 19 June 1956; FSP, carton 21, folder 11. See “Investigations in molecular biology” grant application, December 1955; FSP, carton 2, folder 2.
251. cf. Schmitt F. O., “Chromosomes, genes, and macromolecular systems”, Nature, clxxvii (1956), 503–5.
252. Harrison G. R., “Confidential — Notes on meeting of the ad hoc Committee on the Dept. of Biology, 12/18/56”, CKP, box 31, folder 6. Attending the meeting were: Goddard David, Hoagland Hudson, Luria Salvatore, King Glen, Weiss Paul, Williams Carroll, Wilson J. Walter, Killian James, as well as Harrison.
253. Clark G. L. to Mudd S., 15 March 1946; Medical Microbiology papers, University of Pennsylvania Archives, carton 15, folder “C, 1945–46”.
254. Williams to Nicholson H., 4 June 1947; RWP, carton 1, folder “H” (red).
255. Strickland, (ref. 48); idem, The story of the NIH grants programs (Lanham, Maryland, 1988).
256. Reingold N., in “Science and goverment in the United States since 1945”, History of science, xxxii (1994), 361–86, describes the Korean war as a period of growth rather than retrenchment, suggesting that the life sciences cannot be periodized by the same indicators as the physical sciences emphasized by Reingold.
257. Allen E. to Schmitt, 9 November 1954; FSP, carton 20, folder 37;
258. Schmitt, Search (ref. 31), chap. 12; Oncley J. L. (ed.), Biophysical science: A study program (New York, 1959), 1.
259. On “Atoms for peace” in relation to nuclear reactor research, see Weart, Biophysical science: A study program (ref. 1), chap. 8.
260. Oncley (ed.), Biophysical science: A study program (ref. 153).
261. Cf. Schmitt, Search (ref. 31), chap. 12; Bolt and M. D. Rosenberg to Study Section, 11 September 1958; FSP, carton 21, folder 3. On Schmitt's effort to bring about consensus among the “heavy brass” on the Boulder program, see Hodge interview, FSOH, box 1, folder “Hodge”.
262. For extramural and conference expenditures, see Anon. (Bolt?), “Development of National Institutes of Health extramural programs for training and research in physical biology”, January 1958; FSP, carton 20, folder 38.
263. Schmitt F. O., “Molecular biology and the physical basis of life processes”, in Oncley (ed.), Search (ref. 153), 5–10, p. 6.
264. Schmitt, “Molecular biology” (ref. 156), 5.
265. Selle, [1948], draft speech “The role of biophysics in medical education”, SWAP RS300, box 135, folder “Department of Biophysics, undated”.
266. For similar rhetoric from the British context, see Hill A. V., “Why biophysics?”, Science, cxxiv (1956), 1233–7, p. 1233.
267. Unsurprisingly, as chairman of a biochemistry department, Stanley worked hard to downplay the threat biophysics might pose for the authority of biochemistry, and even induced Warren Weaver to give a dedication speech for his BVL entitled “Molecular biology: The new biochemistry”, which suggests that biophysics is just a novel variety of biochemistry rather than a potentially competing discipline Cited in Craeger, Science (ref. 83).
268. Handwritten comment [by Schmitt?] on Williams to Schmitt, 16 December 1958; FSP, carton 21, folder 3. On the programming grant in general, see Schmitt, Search (ref. 31), chap. 12.
269. Williams to Fuhr, “Conferences held by the biophysics and biophysical chemistry study section”, [December–January 1956]; FSP carton 21, folder 6.
270. “Biophysics and biophysical chemistry study section, minutes of meeting”, 21 January 1955; FSP, carton 20, folder 37.
271. See article on Bolt's presentation before the Surgeon General on 6 March 1959, in Price David, “RMD executive memorandum”, 11 March 1959; FSP, carton 21, folder 4. [Fuhr?], “Biophysical science and its relation to medical research. A report to Congress”, April 1959; FSP, carton 31, folder 26.
272. Cf. Sen Hill Lister, “Report of the Senate Committtee on Appropriations”, 16 June 1958, Calendar 1753; Report 1719 (Washington, 1958).
273. Cole K. S. et al., “National Biophysics Conference. March 4, 1957. Report of planning committee”; anonymous handout at meeting, “Objectives of a biophysical society” [March 1957]; “Minutes of first business session. National Biophyics Conference”, 5 March 1957; “Minutes of second business session. National Biophyics Conference”, 5 March 1957; all in FSP, carton 20, folder 32. Also see list of registrants at Ohio meeting; FSP, carton 21, folder 6.
274. See e.g. Hans Neurath to Richard Bolt (cc Fuhr Irwin, Schmitt F. O.), 25 March 1957; Bolt to Samuel Talbot, 10 April 1957; FSP carton 21, folder 8.
275. “Conference on the status of biophysics, Ann Arbor Michigan”, 16 September 1955, and also attached, undated seating plan; FSP, carton 21, folder 12. Attending were Fuhr, Schmitt, Oncley, Neurath, Sutherland, Williams, Sober, and Gray of the study section, George Bishop of Washington University, William Bloom and Ray Zirkle of the University of Chicago, George Bowen and Robert Sinsheimer of Iowa State College, Alan Burton of the University of Western Ontario, Robert Emerson and William Fry of the University of Illinois in Urbana, Joseph Foster and Lorin Mullins of Purdue University, Ralph Gerard and Victor Guillemin Jr of the University of Illinois in Chicago, Paul Kaesberg of the University of Wisconsin, Wilfried Mommaerts of Case Western Reserve University, Irvine Page of the Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Max Lauffer of the University of Pittsburgh, and F. O. Schmitt's brother Otto, of the University of Minnesota.
276. “Biophysics and biophysical chemistry study section, minutes of meeting”, 21 January 1955; FSP, carton 20, folder 37. Schmitt recalls (Search (ref. 31), 190) that the physical chemist John Kirkwood was particularly insistent on the name change, but if so it must have been at later meetings, because the first meeting's minutes do not show him as present. “Biophysics and biophysical chemistry study section, minutes of meeting”, 14 and 15 January 1956; FSP, carton 21, folder 18.
277. “Conference on status of biophysics, Berkeley, California”, 1 December 1955 (ref. 94). Attending were Fuhr, Schmitt, Neurath, Oncley, Sutherland, and Williams, all of the study section, James Bartlett of the University of Illinois in Urbana, H. Stanley Bennett, Robert Rushmer and Allan Young of the University of Washington, Sidney Benson of the University of Southern California, Lawrence Blinks and Paul Kirkpatrick of Stanford University, Linus Pauling, Dan Campbell, Jerome Vinograd and Max Delbrück of the California Institute of Technology, Herbert Jehle of the University of Nebraska, Dan Mazia, Howard Schachman, Cornelius Tobias and Wendell Stanley of the University of California in Berkeley, and W. A. Selle of the University of California in Los Angeles.
278. Rosenberg C., “Toward an ecology of knowledge: On discipline, context, and history”, in Oleson A., Voss J. (eds), The organization of knowledge in modern America, 1860–1920 (Baltimore, 1979), 440–55.
279. The “ecology” metaphor for the order of knowledge is sometimes taken extremely literally, e.g. by Hull D. L., Science as process: An evolutionary account of the social and conceptual development of science (Chicago, 1988).
280. For a recent, more sophisticated application of the ecologic-economic approach to disciplinarity, see Lenoir T., “The discipline of nature and the nature of disciplines”, in Messer-Davidow E., Sylvan D., Shumway D. (eds), Knowledges: Historical and critical studies in disciplinarity (Charlottesville, Virginia, 1993), 70–102.
281. Jardine N., The scenes of inquiry (Oxford, 1991);
282. Burian, The scenes of inquiry (ref. 10).
283. Keller, The scenes of inquiry (ref. 2). See Abir-Am, “Biotheoretical gathering” (ref. 40), for a proposed novel method for integrating diverse dimensions of disciplinarity such as these.
284. Rasmussen N., “Mitochondrial structure and the practice of cell biology in the 1950s”, Journal of the history of biology, xxviii (1995), 381–429.
285. That Schmitt used much of the same discipline-organizing tactics here seems implicit the structure of the resultant book; cf. Quarton G., Melnechuk T., Schmitt F. O. (eds), The neurosciences: A study program (New York, 1967).
286. See Keller E. Fox, Refiguring life: Metaphors of twentieth-century biology (New York, 1995), chap. 3.
287. Abir-Am, “Themes, genres” (ref. 10).