BOOK: How to Fake a Moon Landing: Exposing the Myths of Science Denial

I think this illustrated look at science denial complements Donald Prothero’s Reality Check: How Science Deniers Threaten Our Future (my review) very well:

Darryl Cunningham, How to Fake a Moon Landing: Exposing the Myths of Science Denial (New York: Abrams ComicArts, 2013), 176 pp.

Climate change, fracking, evolution, vaccinations, homeopathy, chiropractic, even the moon landing – all hut-button controversies to which author-artist Darryl Cunningham applies cool, critical analysis. Using comics, photographs, diagrams, and highly readable text, Cunningham lays out the why and wherefores to expose the myths of science denial. Timely and well researched, How to Fake a Moon Landing is a graphic milestone of investigative science journalism.

A Darwin photo of mine published in a journal

How cool is this?

In the Spring 2013 issue of the medical journal The Pharos, a photograph I took in Darwin’s rooms at Christ’s College, University of Cambridge in 2009 was used for the article “Diagnosing Darwin,” by Sidney Cohen, MD, and Philip A. Mackowiak, MD. Here it is, covering the title page spread of the article:

https   mail-attachment.googleusercontent.com attachment u 0  ui=2 ik=6c8ed84a8d view=att th=13f430c565381205 attid=0.1.1 disp=inline safe=1 zw saduie=AG9B_P8nV00Qb1FKjFlmsfq8niXc sadet=1371269430397 sads=N7be1

I was paid, too!

Here is a PDF of the article: Diagnosing Darwin

BOOK REVIEW: Spillover: Animal Infections and the Next Human Pandemic

Things happen when humans mess with the environment. It’s a simple statement, cause and effect. What happens to tiny animal-dwelling organisms (viruses and bacteria) when humans encroach into the territories of their host animals, kill them, and even eat them? They can jump to humans and cause all manner of unpleasant infectious diseases. This jumping over is called spillover, and such infectious diseases are known as zoonotic diseases (or individually as a zoonosis). The complex story of how zoonotic diseases have emerged and are affecting animal and human populations across the globe is the subject of nature writer David Quammen’s new book, Spillover: Animal Infections and the Next Human Pandemic.

Quammen brings his usual style to Spillover: his global travels as a writer, the story of current research, and the history of science. All melded together, they make for an engrossing read. Spillover is, honestly, a scientific thriller (but nonfiction!), and I really had a hard time putting it down. He took me to Africa, Australia, Asia, Europe, and parts of North America I’ve never been. He introduced me to scores of epidemiologists and disease ecologists who work tirelessly to make sense of disease outbreaks, constantly risking their own lives by exposing themselves to pathogens (Quammen, on the other hand, noted several times in Spillover that he is just writing about this stuff: “I didn’t intend to let anyone hand me a Nipah-dripping bat if I could reasonably avoid it”). He brought me close to those bats, as well as pigs, civets, horses, mosquitoes, gorillas, chimpanzees, and somewhat unexpectedly, caterpillars.

While I am happy to know much more about the zoonotic diseases that Quammen focuses on – Hendra, Ebola, Malaria, SARS, Q fever, Psittacosis, Lyme disease, Herpes B, SFV, Nipah, and AIDS – it is the larger, overall message that he shares that I find important. “Shake a tree,” he writes, “and things fall out.” In the last chapter of the book, Quammen offers a long list (he is prone to listing in his writing) of human actions that affect our connectivity to the natural world, and disease. And from those actions will likely come the Next Big One, as it is called by those working on emerging diseases, comparable to the Black Death (bubonic plague) in Europe in the fourteenth century, smallpox brought to the North American continent in the sixteenth century and killing millions of native peoples, the 1918-19 influenza pandemic, polio (in America), also in the nineteenth century, and the current AIDs crisis worldwide. And as the case has been made clear in Spillover, it will jump from an animal to humans. Should it not be imperative that we think about how we treat animal populations around the globe, especially those that harbor zoonotic diseases? Here Quammen raises the question, but does not have much time to go into how to solve the problem. Raising that question and describing the problem in such detail makes Quammen’s Spillover a must read. To me, with its emphasis on the relationship between humans and other organisms, and with its stressing of the importance of biogeography, evolution, and ecology, this book took me back to Quammen’s two other long-researched books, The Song of the Dodo: Island Biogeography in an Age of Extinction and Monster of God: The Man-Eating Predator in the Jungles of History and the Mind; and it will take a place next to those on my shelf.

Spillover will be released by W.W. Norton & Company on October 1, 2012. Here’s a trailer (yes, a trailer!) for the book:

Hopefully soon I can make that a signed copy to have on my shelf, as Quammen will be in Portland on October 22nd for an OMSI Science Pub. Full details here.

While I received a review copy from the publisher, I should note that David Quammen is a friend. He lives in Bozeman, MT (queue the caterpillars in the book!) where I went to school. He was well connected to the history department there and so I often heard about his research for the book and places that he had been. He also gave lectures at the Museum of the Rockies on this topic, and wrote several articles as well. I saw him last when I was in Montana in June for the John Tyndall Correspondence Project conference as he was on the home stretch with his manuscript. Congratulations on a wonderful book, David.

Tyndall Conference at 320 Ranch in Big Sky, Montana

ARTICLE: Evolution, Medicine, and the Darwin Family

From the journal Evolution: Education and Outreach:

Evolution, Medicine, and the Darwin Family

Michael F. Antolin

Abstract The common scientific roots of evolution and medicine are deep, as these fields of science developed in parallel from the Enlightenment in the late 1700s to the modern genomics era. The influence of the medical sciences on the discovery of evolution in the 1700s and 1800s is typified by how the medical family of Charles Darwin, including his grandfather Dr. Erasmus Darwin and father Dr. Robert Waring Darwin, directly and indirectly guided Charles’ scientific development and eventual discovery of natural selection. In particular, in the 1700s, Erasmus Darwin was a prolific writer, legendary doctor, and published extensive descriptions of both the process of adaptation and common descent among all of life (including humans). The influence began with Charles’ years in medical school at Edinburgh and is recorded in Charles Darwin’s own letters and notebooks. Despite scientific overlap, evolution and medicine have remained distant from each other, in part because of the same religious and political reasons that many oppose the view of a world changing via evolution. But evolution also has been limited in its influence on the biomedical sciences because of abuses and misunderstanding. The three issues discussed here are (1) typological application of medical “constitutions,” (2) teleological thinking in how adaptations evolve, and (3) the misapplication of evolution during the eugenics period up to the 1940s. The modern-day surge of interest and synthesis between evolutionary biology and the biomedical sciences, medical practice, and public health can build on a long legacy that spans more than two centuries. The large role played by the Darwin family of doctors can bring this history to life, can be used to illustrate potential pitfalls as the synthesis moves forward, and may be of interest to students both as undergraduates and in medical schools.

Historical medical conference examines mystery illness of Charles Darwin

From The Republic:

Historical medical conference examines mystery illness of Charles Darwin, father of evolution

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

May 03, 2011

BALTIMORE — Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution revolutionized biology, but the health problems that plagued the British naturalist for decades are not as well known.

Doctors will examine Darwin’s painful illness and death at a conference in Baltimore on Friday.

The annual conference hosted by the University of Maryland School of Medicine and VA Maryland Health Care System offers modern medical diagnoses for the mysterious illnesses and deaths of historical figures. In past years, the conference has looked at Alexander the Great, Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart and Booker T. Washington.

Darwin, who lived from 1809 to 1882, traveled the world in his 20s cataloging and observing wildlife and later published “On the Origin of Species.” Guest speakers include Darwin’s great-great-granddaughter, poet Ruth Padel, who penned the book, “Darwin: A Life in Poems.”

Details from the university here.

Guest Post – Defending the Sensible: Charles Darwin and the Anti-Vivisection Controversy

This guest post by Eric Michael Johnson is part of his Primate Diaries in Exile blog tour. Johnson is a PhD student in the history of evolutionary biology at UBC (he received his masters degree in primate behavior). You can follow other stops on his tour through his RSS feed, The Primate Diaries on Facebook, or by following him on Twitter.

His critics accused him of claiming that “Might is Right,” but did the founder of modern biology campaign to defend the least among us?

A physiological demonstration with vivisection of a dog.
Oil painting by Emile-Edouard Mouchy, 1832. (Wellcome Library, London.)

 

According to the British Medical Journal it resembled a crucifixion. The dogs were strapped to boards, backs down, and with their legs cinched outwards. In the stifling August heat their heavy panting was made only more intense by a suffocating fear. The accused was described as wearing a white apron “that was afterwards covered with blood” as he approached one of the struggling animals. His mouth was tied shut but when the blade entered the thin, pink flesh of his inner thigh the animal’s cries of agony were too much to bear.

Experienced medical men in attendance, including some of the nineteenth century’s top surgeons, were outraged and demanded that the animal’s torture cease. Thomas Joliffe Tufnell, President of the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, denounced the demonstration as a “cruel proceeding” and stormed to the operating table to cut the animal loose. Other physiologists objected to the interruption with one insisting, “That dog is insensible; he is not suffering anything.” But Tufnell held firm, “The dog is struggling hard to get free. I am a sportsman as well as a surgeon, and I will never see a dog bullied.” However, a vote was taken among the assembled members of the British Medical Association and the demonstration was allowed to continue.

A tube was then forced into the conscious animal’s femoral artery, the white hair of his belly stained red as the arterial pressure caused blood to spurt from the incision. Into the tube the accused injected pure alcohol. The result, continued the Journal, “was an immediate struggle, which almost immediately subsided. The animal became dead drunk.”

“Now, you see he’s insensible,” a physician snidely remarked to Tufnell.
“Yes,” Tufnell replied, “and he’ll never be sensible again, for he will die.”

Spattered with gore from the comatose animal, the accused, Dr. Eugene Magnan of Paris, insisted he would be quite well by that evening. The dog soon died. Magnan then turned to the second animal, opening the same artery as before but injecting absinthe into the wound. According to witnesses:

The animal struggled much, cried as far as it was able, showed other symptoms of great suffering, and ultimately–not long after the injection–had a fit of epilepsy.

This had been the point of Magnan’s August 13, 1874 demonstration: the physiological effects of alcohol and absinthe on the animal nervous system. It had been made possible by four physicians based in Norwich, England, all of whom now stood trial for actions taken that did “unlawfully illtreat, abuse, and torture certain animals.” Dr. Eugene Magnan, also listed as a defendant, was not present in the courtroom since he had fled the country back to France. Because it could not be proven that the four English physicians had been actively involved in the demonstration the charges were ultimately dismissed, though the court ruled that the case against them was proper and required them to pay all legal costs. However, in the court of public opinion they were guilty as charged.

Animal experimentation, or vivisection as it was known in the nineteenth century, had already been practiced for centuries (William Harvey’s famous dissections of deer in the 1620s had revealed the heart’s role in the circulatory system) but with the rise of scientific medicine more animal subjects were being “put to the blade” in the name of science. The physician George Hoggan described his own experience taking part in some of these dissections with dogs:

Hundreds of times I have seen when an animal writhed in pain, and thereby deranged the tissues, during a deliberate dissection; instead of being soothed, it would receive a slap and an angry order to be quiet and behave itself. . . Even when roughly grasped and thrown on the torture-trough, a low, complaining whine at such treatment would be all the protest made, and they would continue to lick the hand which bound them till their mouths were fixed in the gag.

Charles Darwin was well aware that these kinds of experiments took place, even using a similar example in his 1871 book The Descent of Man:

[E]veryone has heard of the dog suffering under vivisection who licked the hand of the operator; this man, unless he had a heart of stone, must have felt remorse to the last hour of his life.

As one of the most celebrated biologists in England Darwin was both a supporter of experimental physiology and was passionate about protecting animals from cruelty. As a local magistrate he regularly came across cases of cruelty to farm animals and, according to his biographer Janet Browne, “was inexorable in imposing fines and punishment.” In 1853 he waged a “private vendetta” against a Mr. Ainslie for cruelty to his carthorses, threatening to “have him up before a magistrate & his ploughman also.” According to his son, Francis Darwin, the man who many saw as advocating “might is right” was as disgusted by animal cruelty as he was by the human cruelty he experienced in slave holding societies:

The remembrance of screams, or other sounds heard in Brazil, when he was powerless to interfere with what he believed to be the torture of a slave, haunted him for years, especially at night. In smaller matters, where he could interfere, he did so vigorously. He returned one day from his walk pale and faint from having seen a horse ill-used, and from the agitation of violently remonstrating with the man. On another occasion he saw a horse-breaker teaching his son to ride, the little boy was frightened and the man was rough; my father stopped, and jumping out of the carriage reproved the man in no measured terms.

This sympathy extended to animals used in experimentation, as Darwin wrote to the Oxford zoologist Ray Lankester in 1871:

You ask about my opinion on vivisection. I quite agree that it is justifiable for real investigations on physiology; but not for mere damnable and detestable curiosity. It is a subject which makes me sick with horror, so I will not say another word about it, else I shall not sleep to-night.

However, Darwin did not take his own advice and, after the media uproar following Magnan’s demonstration and the ensuing court case, the notoriously reclusive naturalist spearheaded a campaign to regulate how vivisection was conducted in England.

Charles Darwin at his estate in Down, 1875. (H.P. Robinson/Bettmann/Corbis)

 

The year 1875 was a milestone for British animal rights activism. Building off the popular outrage over Magnan, the author, feminist, and animal rights campaigner Frances Power Cobbe formed the Society for the Protection of Animals Liable to Vivisection (and, later, the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection, which continues to this day). With the assistance of sympathetic members of Parliament, Cobbe drafted a bill that would require regular inspections of physiological labs engaged in vivisection. Darwin heard of this activity through his daughter, Henrietta Litchfield, who was passionate about animal rights and had sent her father Cobbe’s petition to sign. Her letter had Darwin contemplating the issue “for some hours” and he delivered a considered and thoughtful response:

I conclude, if (as is likely) some experiments have been tried too often, or anesthetics have not been used when they could have been, the cure must be in the improvement of humanitarian feelings. Under this point of view I have rejoiced at the present agitation.

However, despite his conflicts over vivisection, Darwin’s opinion of the bill was that it would do little to protect animals and, at the same time, would result in a chilling effect on science:

[I]f such laws are passed, the result will assuredly be that physiology, which has been until within the last few years at a standstill in England, will languish or quite cease. . . I cannot at present see my way to sign any petition, without hearing what physiologists thought would be its effect, and then judging for myself.

Four months later Darwin, who rarely took any active role in politics, was in the midst of a political campaign to introduce his own bill to Parliament. As he wrote to his close friend Joseph Hooker, then-President of the Royal Society, “I worked all the time in London on the vivisection question . . . The object is to protect animals, and at the same time not to injure Physiology,” and he had already enlisted the support of “some half-dozen eminent scientific men.”

While the interest in protecting the scientific enterprise was an important aspect of what became known as the Playfair bill (after Dr. Lyon Playfair, the liberal member of Parliament who introduced the legislation) Darwin’s personal background advocating against animal cruelty and the fact that his son-in-law Robert Litchfield (Henrietta’s husband) was the one who helped Darwin write the bill suggests that animal rights was just as much a part of Darwin’s concern. In fact, the Playfair bill went beyond Cobbe’s in the protection of animals by including the British Association for the Advancement of Science (BAAS) guidelines that required anesthetic in all experiments, including for teaching purposes. As historian David Allen Feller wrote last year in his account of the 1875 antivivisection controversy:

Under the BAAS guidelines, not only was anesthesia required in experiments whenever possible, but an entire class of experiments, those conducted for mere demonstration purposes without any new scientific discovery in mind, were outlawed. This was not so under the [Cobbe] bill, which did not distinguish between classroom and purely scientific experiments. Inclusion of this provision of the BAAS guidelines was clearly intended by Darwin from the outset of his work on the bill. Darwin wrote to Burdon Sanderson and Huxley that he thought the BAAS guidelines would be the best compromise, and Darwin specifically noted the inclusion of a ban on the use of live animals for the purpose of demonstrative teaching.

Darwin is widely known for never taking part in any public discussions or debates on his theory of natural selection (leaving that to trusted friends such as Thomas Henry Huxley). His poor health and hatred of travel kept him at his estate in the countryside throughout most of his life. And yet, on the question of vivisection, Darwin not only traveled to London to help draft the Playfair bill, he returned when asked to testify by the Royal Commission when investigating the use of vivisection. During the questioning Darwin again insisted that experimentation on animals was important for the development of medical science. However, on the question of experiments carried out without anesthetic or ones inflicting pain unnecessarily, Darwin stated unequivocally that, “It deserves detestation and abhorrence.”

Those words became the basis upon which the Royal Commission recommended that vivisection be regulated. After quoting Darwin’s view in their report to the Queen, they went on to state:

This principle is accepted generally by the very highly educated men whose lives are devoted either to scientific investigation and education, or to the mitigation or the removal of the sufferings of their fellow creatures.

The following year The Cruelty to Animals Act of 1876 was passed by Parliament and signed into law.

Charles Darwin’s advocacy for animal rights has more than mere historical interest. Today it is commonplace for scientists, particularly those who work with animal models in their research, to oppose animal rights legislation as being fundamentally anti-science. However, as Darwin himself has demonstrated, it is possible (even necessary) for the pro-science position to be concerned with animal welfare. Being pro-science does not mean being pro-cruelty. There are currently some very good laws in place throughout England, Europe, and the United States that protect animals from unnecessary suffering in the pursuit of medical knowledge. However, the differences between countries continue to raise concerns about how much suffering should be permitted in animal research. This year saw the use of chimpanzees in medical experimentation banned throughout the European Union. At the same time, there are nearly 1,000 chimps used by federal researchers in the United States for vaccine, hepatitis C, and HIV research. Year after year legislation to ban the practice fails to gain support in Congress.

Ironically enough, many of the worst abusers of animals in the nineteenth century came from continental Europe, a region that is now the leader in animal rights legislation. If there is any justice in Eugene Magnan escaping prosecution for his actions 135 years ago, it may be that public outrage over his “demonstration” sparked a movement that, today, would provide him with no safe haven. There is little doubt that animal experimentation has resulted in some necessary medical breakthroughs. But, as in the nineteenth century controversy, Darwin’s own struggles with this research is something we would do well to remember.

References:

“Prosecution At Norwich. Experiments On Animals,” The British Medical Journal Vol. 2, No. 728 (Dec. 12, 1874), pp. 751-754.

Browne, J. (2002). Charles Darwin: The Power of Place. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.

Darwin, C. (1871). The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex. New York: D. Appleton & Co.

Feller, D. (2009). Dog fight: Darwin as animal advocate in the antivivisection controversy of 1875 Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 40 (4), 265-271 DOI: 10.1016/j.shpsc.2009.09.004

Journal for General Philosophy of Science: “Darwinism and Scientific Practice in Historical Perspective”

The June 2010 issue (Vol. 41, No. 1) of the Journal for General Philosophy of Science focuses on Darwin:

Ute Deichmann & Anthony Travis, Special Section: Darwinism and Scientific Practice in Historical Perspective: Guest Editors’ Introduction

Ulrich Charpa, Darwin, Schleiden, Whewell, and the “London Doctors”: Evolutionism and Microscopical Research in the Nineteenth Century

Abstract This paper discusses some philosophical and historical connections between, and within, nineteenth century evolutionism and microscopical research. The principal actors are mainly Darwin, Schleiden, Whewell and the “London Doctors,” Arthur Henfrey and Edwin Lankester. I demonstrate that the apparent alliances—particularly Darwin/Schleiden (through evolutionism) and Schleiden/Whewell (through Kantian philosophy of science)—obscure the deep methodological differences between evolutionist and microscopical biology that lingered on until the mid-twentieth century. Through an understanding of the little known significance of Schleiden’s programme of microscopical research and by comparing certain features of his methodology to the activities of the “London Doctors,” we can identify the origin of this state of affairs. In addition, the outcome provides an insight into a critique of Buchdahl’s view on Schleiden’s philosophical conception.

Ute Deichmann, Gemmules and Elements: On Darwin’s and Mendel’s Concepts and Methods in Heredity

Abstract Inheritance and variation were a major focus of Charles Darwin’s studies. Small inherited variations were at the core of his theory of organic evolution by means of natural selection. He put forward a developmental theory of heredity (pangenesis) based on the assumption of the existence of material hereditary particles. However, unlike his proposition of natural selection as a new mechanism for evolutionary change, Darwin’s highly speculative and contradictory hypotheses on heredity were unfruitful for further research. They attempted to explain many complex biological phenomena at the same time, disregarded the then modern developments in cell theory, and were, moreover, faithful to the widespread conceptions of blending and so-called Lamarckian inheritance. In contrast, Mendel’s approaches, despite the fact that features of his ideas were later not found to be tenable, proved successful as the basis for the development of modern genetics. Mendel took the study of the transmission of traits and its causes (genetics) out of natural history; by reducing complexity to simple particulate models, he transformed it into a scientific field of research. His scientific approach and concept of discrete elements (which later gave rise to the notion of discrete genes) also contributed crucially to the explanation of the existence of stable variations as the basis for natural selection.

Michel Morange, How Evolutionary Biology Presently Pervades Cell and Molecular Biology

Abstract The increasing place of evolutionary scenarios in functional biology is one of the major indicators of the present encounter between evolutionary biology and functional biology (such as physiology, biochemistry and molecular biology), the two branches of biology which remained separated throughout the twentieth century. Evolutionary scenarios were not absent from functional biology, but their places were limited, and they did not generate research programs. I compare two examples of these past scenarios with two present-day ones. At least three characteristics distinguish present and past efforts: An excellent description of the systems under study, a rigorous use of the evolutionary models, and the possibility to experimentally test the evolutionary scenarios. These three criteria allow us to distinguish the domains in which the encounter is likely to be fruitful, and those where the obstacles to be overcome are high and in which the proposed scenarios have to be considered with considerable circumspection.

Anthony Travis, Raphael Meldola and the Nineteenth-Century Neo-Darwinians

Abstract Raphael Meldola (1849-1915), an industrial chemist and keen naturalist, under the influence of Darwin, brought new German studies on evolution by natural selection that appeared in the 1870s to the attention of the British scientific community. Meldola’s special interest was in mimicry among butterflies; through this he became a prominent neo-Darwinian. His wide-ranging achievements in science led to appointments as president of important professional scientific societies, and of a local club of like-minded amateurs, particularly field naturalists. This is an account of Meldola’s early scientific connections and studies related to entomology and natural selection, his contributions to the study of mimicry, and his promotion in the mid-1890s of a more theory driven approach among entomologists.

Rony Armon, Beyond Darwinism’s Eclipse: Functional Evolution, Biochemical Recapitulation and Spencerian Emergence in the 1920s and 1930s

Abstract During the 1920s and 1930s, many biologists questioned the viability of Darwin’s theory as a mechanism of evolutionary change. In the early 1940s, and only after a number of alternatives were suggested, Darwinists succeeded to establish natural selection and gene mutation as the main evolutionary mechanisms. While that move, today known as the neo-Darwinian synthesis, is taken as signalling a triumph of evolutionary theory, certain critical problems in evolution—in particular the evolution of animal function—could not be addressed with this approach. Here I demonstrate this through reconstruction of the evolutionary theory of Joseph Needham (1900-1995), who pioneered the biochemical study of evolution and development. In order to address such problems, Needham employed Herbert Spencer’s principles of emergence and Ernst Haeckel’s theory of recapitulation. While Needham did not reject Darwinian theory, Spencerian and Haeckelian frameworks happened to better fit his findings and their evolutionary relevance. He believed selectionist and genetic approaches to be important but far from sufficient for explaining how evolutionary transformations occur.

“Evolution Matters” Lecture Series at Harvard Museum of Natural History

“Evolution Matters” is “three lectures by Harvard and MIT researchers, which explore issues in evolution from the perspective of the medical sciences.” From the HMNH website:

The Plausibility of Life: Resolving Darwin’s Dilemma
Lecture by Marc Kirschner
Thursday, March 11, 7:00 PM

Dr. Marc Kirschner, Professor of Systems Biology at Harvard Medical School, will discuss his evolutionary theory of how rare and random mutation in organisms can lead to exquisite changes of form and function. Free and open to the public, Harvard Museum of Natural History, 24 Oxford Street. Part of the Evolution Matters lecture series.

Evolution of Brain Aging and Cognitive Decline
Lecture by Bruce Yankner
Thursday, March 25, 6:00 PM

During the last century, treatments for the diseases of youth and middle-age adults have helped raise life expectancy. However, neurocognitive decline has emerged as one of the greatest health threats of old age, with nearly 50% of adults over the age of 85 afflicted by Alzheimer’s disease. Meeting this challenge demands a greater understanding of the processes underlying normal and pathological brain aging. Dr. Bruce Yankner, Professor of Neurology at Harvard Medical School, will discuss how evolutionary studies are unexpectedly revealing new insights into age-related cognitive decline, suggesting that it may have appeared recently in the primate lineage. Free and open to the public, Harvard Museum of Natural History, 24 Oxford Street, Cambridge. Part of the Evolution Matters lecture series.

The Evolutionary and Genetic Basis of Human Reproduction
Lecture by David Page
Thursday, April 15, 6:00 PM

Dr. David Page, Director of the Whitehead Institute and Professor of Biology at MIT, studies sex chromosomes and the critical role they play in human reproduction, with special focus on the evolution of the Y chromosome. His laboratory is currently seeking to unravel the genetic mechanisms responsible for a range of sexual disorders, from failed sperm production to sex reversal to Turner Syndrome. Free and open to the public at the Harvard Museum of Natural History, 24 Oxford Street, Cambridge.  Part of the Evolution Matters lecture series.

Darwin’s illness revisited

Diagnosing Darwin

In the British Medical Journal:

“Darwin’s illness revisited”

John A Hayman, associate professor

It is 200 years since the naturalist Charles Darwin was born. It is therefore an appropriate time to establish the nature of the illness that he endured throughout adulthood and to refute the many fanciful proffered diagnoses, both physical and psychological, or psychoanalytical.

…..

Darwin’s symptoms may be explained by the diagnosis of cyclical vomiting syndrome, with secondary complications such as atopic dermatitis with staphylococcal infections, dental decay, oesophageal tears, and skin pigmentation. He had a severe form of this illness with periods of coalescence of episodes. His was a well defined but not well known inbornillness; he did not primarily have hypochondriasis, neurasthenia, agoraphobia, or any of the strange psychoanalytically derived maladies that have been proposed.

Read everything in between here. Hat-tip to Greg Bole.

Thoughts about this diagnosis at Why Evolution Is True.

Darwin’s in the Hospital

Now open at University College Hospital in London is an exhibit from the Wellcome Trust Center for the History of Medicine exploring Darwin’s life and work: Darwin’s in the Hosptital. The website features the exhibit brochure, the text of the exhibit panels, resources, a soon-to-come podcast and audio tour, and a little Darwin quiz with prizes. One of the curators was historian of science Joe Cain, who recently brought us this wonderful online resource about evolution.

Darwin Video Miscellany

“Mr. Darwin, Mr. Wallace, Mr. Matthew,” award-winning and education-incorporated song by David Haines (via G. Beccaloni):

Animated “Mr. Darwin” (Botanical Version):

Case Western University’s Year of Darwin / Dr. Randolph Nesse: The Great Opportunity: New Evolutionary Applications in Medicine:

David Quammen on Darwin for National Geographic:

Darwin 2009 videos (4) from University of Oklahoma:

Susie Smartypants explains the evolution! (via PZ)

Darwin Across the Disciplines from Hampshire University:

Some Darwin Links

A review [PDF] of Roy Davies’ The Darwin Consipracy by a creationist, and Davies’ response.

Darwin tours at the Wellcome Collection in London.

Darwin Now, an exhibit about evolution, biology, and medicine, from the British Council and the NMNHS.

Putting more blame on Darwin.

Darwin Trails, a recent expedition in Brazil to celebrate Darwin and science education (Randal Keynes took part). See pictures here.

Letters to Linnaeus, a new volume which “reveal Linnaeus’ personal impact, advances and developments in science since his death, the profound impact he has had on generations of naturalists and what we might expect in the next 250 years.”

Article froms Rhetorica and Endeavour:

James Wynn, Department of English, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA 15213-3890, USA.

Abstract Historians of science resist recognizing a role for mathematics in The Origin of Species on the grounds that Darwin’s arguments are inductive and mathematics is deductive, while rhetoricians seem to oppose the idea that deductive mathematical arguments fall within the jurisdiction of rhetorical analysis. A close textual analysis of the arguments in The Origin and a careful examination of the methodological/philosophical context in which Darwin is doing science, however, challenges these objections against and assumptions about the role of mathematical warrants in Darwin’s arguments and their importance to his rhetorical efforts in the text.

J.F. Derry, Institute of Evolutionary Biology, School of Biological Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Ashworth Labs, King’s Buildings, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JT, Scotland, UK

 Abstract The long-term marital dance of Emma and Charles Darwin was set to the routine beat of an almost daily piano recital. Emma was a proficient pianist, and so a quality instrument was a welcome and appropriate house-warming present for their first marital home in London. That same piano accompanied the Darwins on their move to Downe before being upgraded for a newer model, which is still there, whilst another, cheaper piano may have played in Charles Darwin’s work, particularly on earthworms. Whilst he lamented his own lack of musicality, Darwin revelled in his wife’s prowess, a capacity that he recognised could be inherited, not least through observation of his own children. The evolution of musicality, he reasoned, was rooted in sexual attraction as a form of communication that preceded language.

Today in Science History

From Today in Science History:

Adam Sedgwick (Born 28 Sep 1854; died 27 Feb 1913). English zoologist, a grandnephew of the geologist Adam Sedgwick, who is best known for his researches on the wormlike organism Peripatus, which he recognized as the zoologically important connecting link between the Annelida, or segmented worms, and the Arthropoda, such as crabs, spiders, and insects.

Arnold Henry Guyot (Born 28 Sep 1807; died 8 Feb 1884). Swiss geologist, geographer and educator. With glaciologist Louis Agassiz, he studied the glaciers of his native Switzerland and proved that they were moving – building a foundation for the theory of ice ages. Upon moving to the United States (1848), Guyot began the first systematic instruction in geology at Princeton University. Later, as head of the meteorological department at the Smithsonian Institution, he set up a system of weather observatories that utimately grew into the U. S. Weather Bureau. Using a barometer to measure altitude, he proved that Newfound Gap is the lowest pass through Appalachia’s Great Smoky Mountains. The guyot, a flat-topped volcanic peak rising from the ocean floor, is named after him.

Louis Pasteur (Died 28 Sep 1895; born 27 Dec 1822). French chemist who became a founder of microbiology. He began as a chemist working on the optical properties of tartaric acid and its stereochemistry (1849). He moved into microbiology when he discovered the role of bacteria in fermentation – that it was micro-organisms in yeast causing the formation of alcohol from sugar – and proved that the growth of microorganisms was not spontaneously generated from non-living matter. This led to understanding of the germ theory of infection, and his method of killing harmful bacteria in liquids by holding them for a time at a given temperature, which is now known as pasteurisation [also see tyndallization]. He created and tested vaccines for diphtheria, cholera, yellow fever, plague, rabies, anthrax, and tuberculosis.

Today in Science History

From Today in Science History:

Ferdinand Vandiveer Hayden (Born 7 Sep 1829; died 22 Dec 1887). American geologist who was a pioneer investigator of the western United States. Just out of medical school in 1853, he turned to paleontology under James Hall, who sent him west to collect fossils in the Badlands and the Upper Missouri Valley. It is generally accepted that the first discovery of dinosaur remains made in North America was in 1854, by Ferdinand Vandiveer Hayden during his exploration of the upper Missouri River. After serving as a surgeon in the Civil War, Hayden continued his western explorations. His explorations and geologic studies of the Great Plains and Rocky Mountains helped lay the foundation of the U.S. Geological Survey. Hayden is credited with having the Yellowstone geyser area declared the first national park (1872).

Comte Georges-Louis de Buffon (Born 7 Sep 1707; died 16 Apr 1788). Buffon was a French naturalist, who formulated a crude theory of evolution and was the first to suggest that the earth might be older than suggested by the Bible. In 1739 he was appointed keeper of the Jardin du Roi, a post he occupied until his death. There he worked on a comprehensive work on natural history, for which he is remembered, Histoire naturelle, générale et particulière. He began this work in 1749, and it dominated the rest of his life. It would eventually run to 44 volumes, including quadrupeds, birds, reptiles and minerals. He proposed (1778) that the Earth was hot at its creation and, from the rate of cooling, calculated its age to be 75,000 years, with life emerging some 40,000 years ago.

Jan Ingenhousz (Died 7 Sep 1799 (born 8 Dec 1730) Dutch-born British physician and scientist who discovered photosynthesis by identifying that sunlight gave green plants the ability to take in carbon dioxide, fix the carbon, and purified the air (returned oxygen) to the benefit of respiration of animals. Earlier, as a physician, he promoted Edward Jenner’s use of inoculation with live smallpox vaccine to induce protection against the disease. Ingenhousz was a diligent experimenter, who studied soils and plant nutrition. He introduced the use of cover slips on microscope slides. He improved phosphorus matches and an apparatus for generating static electricity; investigated Brownian motion and heat conduction in metals, invented a hydrogen-fueled lighter, and mixed an explosive propellant for firing pistols

Today in Science History

From Today in Science History:

George Dobson (Born 4 Sep 1844; died 26 Nov 1895). Irish zoologist, chiefly remembered for his laborious investigation into the structure and classification of the chiroptera and insectivora, on both of which he became the chief authority of his time. After graduating with medical training (1867) from Trinity College, Dublin, he rose to the rank of surgeon lieutenant colonel in the army. He also served in the Zulu war of 1879. He was awarded the gold medal of the Dublin Pathological Society for his essay on Diagnosis and Pathology of the Injuries and Diseases of the Shoulderblade. He contributed the sections for Insectivora, Chiroptera, and Rodentia, in the article Mammalia and the articles Mole, Shrew, and Vampire to the ninth edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica.

Today in Science History

From Today in Science History:

Guillaume Rondelet (Died 30 Jul 1566; born 27 Sep 1507). French naturalist and physician who contributed substantially to zoology by his descriptions of marine animals, primarily of the Mediterranean Sea. After studying at Montpellier, he later travelling widely through Europe with his patron Cardinal Tournon. Returning to Montpellier in 1545, he taught medicine. His real interest, however, was zoology, and in 1554 he published his massive compendium on aquatic life, Libri de piscibus marinis in quibus verae piscium effigies expressae sunt, which covered far more marine life than any earlier work in the field. This laid the foundation for later ichthyological research and was the standard reference work for over a century. He also published various other works on diagnosis and several pharmacological works.

David Quammen: "Contagious Cancer: The Evolution of a Killer"

From the Bozeman Daily Chronicle (3/31/08):

QUAMMEN IN HARPER’S — A report by Bozeman author David Quammen is the feature in the April issue of Harper’s Magazine. The article, “Contagious Cancer: The Evolution of a Killer,” looks at whether certain varieties of cancer can be passed from one person to another and whether that commutability is a natural evolution.

Quammen says the notion of cancer as an individual disease is one of the reasons it is so frightening and isolating: “But what makes it even more solitary for its victims is the idea, secretly comforting to others, that cancer is never contagious. … But there are exceptions.”

Quammen is the author of numerous books and articles. He currently holds the Wallace Stegner Chair at Montana State University.

Today in Science History

Born this day:

Henry Wetherbee Henshaw (Born 3 Mar 1850; died 1 Aug 1930). Naturalist

Sir John Murray (Born 3 Mar 1841; died 16 Mar 1914). Scottish naturalist who, as one of its founders, coined the name oceanography. He studied ocean basins, deep-sea deposits, and coral-reef formation. As a marine scientist, he took part in the Challenger Expedition (1872-76), the first major oceanographic expedition of the world. He was first to observe the Mid-Atlantic Ridge and the existence of marine trenches. He attempted with Buchan to construct from temperature and salinity observations a qualitative theory of water movement in the world’s oceans. With A. Agassiz, he put forward a modified hypothesis for coral reef development, arguing against Darwin’s hypothesis and suggesting that subsidence was not always a controlling mechanism. He died in 1914, killed by a motor car.

Died this day:

Sewell Wright (Died 3 Mar 1988; born 21 Dec 1889). American geneticist, one of the founders of modern theoretical population genetics. He researched the effects of inbreeding and crossbreeding with guinea pigs, and later on the effects of gene action on inherited characteristics. He adopted statistical techniques to develop evolutionary theory. Wright is best known for his concept of genetic drift, called the Sewell Wright effect – that when small populations of a species are isolated, out of pure chance the few individuals who carry certain relatively rare genes may fail to transmit them. The genes may therefore disappear and their loss may lead to the emergence of new species, although natural selection has played no part in the process.

Johann Christian Fabricius (Died 3 Mar 1808; born 7 Jan 1745). Danish entomologist who was one of the great entomologists of the 18th century. After studying with Swedish naturalist Linnaeus, Fabricius travelled widely in Europe to see insect collections and produced many publications describing all the new species that he saw. He named and classified some 10,000 species of insects. The system of classification of insects he developed was based on mouth structure (instead of wing). He offered theories, progressive for his time, suggesting that hybridization could produce produce new species or varieties, and that environmental adaptation could influence changes in anatomical structure or function.

Robert Hooke (Died 3 Mar 1703; born 18 July 1635). English physicist, born Freshwater, Isle of Wight, who discovered the law of elasticity, known as Hooke’s law. He was a virtuoso scientist whose scope of research ranged widely, including physics, astronomy, chemistry, biology, geology, architecture and naval technology. Hooke invented the balance spring for clocks; served as Chief Surveyor and helped rebuild London after the Great Fire of 1666; invented or improved meteorological instruments such as the barometer, anemometer, and hygrometer. He authored the influential Micrographia, the first book on microscopy (1665).

Matthias de L’Obel (Died 3 Mar 1616; born 1538). French physician and botanist whose Stirpium adversaria nova (1570; written in collaboration with Pierre Pena) was a milestone in modern botany, a collection of notes and data on 1,300 plants that he had observed and gathered in France and England. In this book, he argued that botany and medicine must be based on thorough, exact observation. L’Obel divided plants according to the form of their leaves. His two professions were closed related, as most medicines derived from plants. Thus, l’Obel managed several gardens of herbs, and wrote on them. The popular garden perennial Lobelia was named by Linneaus for him. (De l’Obel is French for “of the white poplar” and his family coat of arms was a poplar leaf.)

History of Science Podcasts

Hopefully everyone has heard of the latest podcast on the history of science, The Missing Link. Here’s a list of other podcasts which feature history of science or related topics:

BBC’s In Our Time with Melvyn Bragg (explores the history of ideas in many fields, here for science-specific shows)
California Academy of Science’s Science in Action
CBC’s How to Think About Science
Distillations (Chemistry)
The DNA Files
Exploring Environmental History
Faraday Institute Lectures
Fora.tv: Science

medicalhistory
Museum Detective
NMSR’s Science Watch
NPR’s
Krulwich on Science
NPR’s
Science Friday
The Royal Society
Sorting Out Science
TED: Science

Died This Day: Ambroise Paré, physician

From Today in Science History:

Ambroise Paré (Died 20 Dec 1590; born 1510). French physician, one of the greatest surgeons of the European Renaissance, known as the “father of modern surgery” for his many innovations in operative methods. While an army surgeon, he introduced the method of treating wounds by ligature of arteries instead of cauterisation with red-hot irons or boiling oil. Paré also invented prostheses. “Le Petit Lorrain” was a hand, operated by springs and catches, for a French Army Captain, which he then used in battle. Paré also invented a kneeling peg leg and foot prosthesis. It had an adjustable harness, knee lock control, and other engineering features used today. He was surgeon to Henry II and his three successors. He wrote books on anatomy, surgery, plague, obstetrics, and deformities.

And his biography at Strange Science.

Born This Day (Belated): Erasmus Darwin, physician, poet, and botanist

From Today in Science History:

Erasmus Darwin (Born 12 Dec 1731; died 18 Apr 1802). Prominent English physician, poet, philosopher, botanist, naturalist and the grandfather of naturalist Charles Darwin and the biologist Francis Galton. Erasmus Darwin was one of the leading intellectuals of 18th century England. As a naturalist, he formulated one of the first formal theories on evolution in Zoonomia, or, The Laws of Organic Life (1794-1796). Although he did not come up with natural selection, he did discuss ideas that his grandson elaborated on sixty years later, such as how life evolved from a single common ancestor, forming “one living filament”. Although some of his ideas on how evolution might occur are quite close to those of Lamarck, Erasmus Darwin also talked about how competition and sexual selection could cause changes in species.

1809 Zoonomia currently up for auction on eBay
Life of Erasmus Darwin at Darwin Online

Erasmus Darwin: A Life of Unequalled Achievement

Paleoblog also posts on this history of science birthday

Book Review: Wonders and the Order of Nature, 1150-1750

Wonders and the Order of Nature is more than just a collection of stories about marvels. As a cornucopia of contexts, this book provides a wealth of social, cultural, religious, and political forces behind the history of wonders and the history of the emotion of wonder itself. In several ways, however, Daston and Park offer some broader themes. In their sweep through six centuries (from the High Middle Ages through the enlightenment), they show how the passions of wonder and curiosity have defined what objects were worthy of study and collection (and use) by European elites, be they courtly princes, natural philosophers, medical men, or theologians. Within those definitions emerge a multitude of boundaries – natural/unnatural, domestic/exotic, learned/lay (cultivated/vulgar), particulars/universals, theology/secularism, natural/artificial, empiricism and reason/ignorance, common/rare, physical experience/text experience, utility/futility, and ordinary/extraordinary – that help to understand how European elites viewed wonders and connected them to their lives.

Always with a dictionary at-hand, I found this book difficult at times to grasp a larger picture and yet redeemed as the authors summarized the main themes in each chapter. Chapter 1 places wonders geographically (or more exactly topographically), where marvels were “compiled, collated, analyzed, and multiplied.”[1] Most important here is the boundary between the domestic and the exotic. Marvels were found on the margins of Europe, to the east in Asia and Africa, and to the west in, at one time, Ireland, and later in the sixteenth century, the New World of North and South America. Recalling Pliny, the English monk Hidgen said “Nature plays with greater freedom secretly at the edges of the world than she does openly and nearer us in the middle of it.”[2] How geography defined marvels said something about the society of those experiencing the marvel. Marvels on the margins reflected Nature acting against her own laws, while marvels (of a different sort) that appeared within European society were considered horrors, signs of sin from the people. Those marvels on the margins were often exotic races such as the Cyclops (part of the natural order), while marvels at home were singularities: a monstrous birth, a comet, or blood-rain (ruptures of the moral order). While horrific marvels at home caused fear, exotic marvels, since they were not local, were viewed with tolerance. Part of this tolerance emerged from a view of relativity. Earlier readers of texts about monsters thought the exotic races barbarous and threatening. Medieval readers, however, saw exotic races through the eyes of those exotic races; they were no longer perceived negatively. Despite this new perspective, Europeans still expressed their superiority over exotic races.

While some viewed the marvels of the East as pleasurable (and non-threatening), Augustine placed them in a theological context. Representing the omnipotence of God, marvels should evoke religious awe. An Augustinian practice – by fellows like Bartholomaeus, Thomas, and Vincent – was to pore over catalogues of marvels and “bring out the moral sense.”[3] “He told of wonders,” a Christian author wrote about Pliny, “and I speak of morals.”[4] According to Daston and Park, the principal difference between singularities (prodigies) and marvelous (exotic) species “lay in their signification rather than their form.”[5] If a marvel were on the boundaries, then they represented symbols of the “power and wisdom of their Creator” or “figures of some higher theological or moral truth;” if they were found within society, then they acted as signs of God’s pleasure or displeasure “with particular situations or actions,”[6] and required immediate documentation because they “engag[ed] immediate human interests.”[7] Another aspect of the exotic versus domestic nature of marvels I found interesting is that travel writers relied on eyewitness experience in their accounts of visits to the east because “they needed to present their narratives as both literally and morally true.”[8]

In the next chapter, Daston and Park discuss wonders as physical objects and commodities of material culture rather than how they were significant to their observers or fit into literary culture as textual objects. As physical objects, wonders represented the wealth, power, and cultivation of those who owned them, and thus emerges the objects’ association with courts and nobility. The medieval collection was not a museum, for objects were not “prized for cognitive or philosophical reasons,” but rather a collection of treasures as a “repository of economic and spiritual capital.”[9] Daston and Park describe medieval collections as having “little resemblance to early modern or modern museums” and that they “functioned as repositories of wealth and of magical and symbolic power rather than microcosms, sites of study, or places where the wonders of art and nature were displayed for the enjoyment of their proprietors and the edification of scholars and amateurs.”[10] I somewhat disagree with this statement, for some modern museums were created and continued to represent the power and wealth of their donors or proprietors, and were intended for use by the wealthy and upper class citizens of society. Although offering their collections to public institutions, museum historian Marjorie Schwarzer notes that some self-made tycoons of the early twentieth century in America “expressed power through acquisition.”[11] Isabella Stewart Gardner named her art museum after herself and gained a “great increase in social stature.”[12] Thus, some modern museums retained symbolic expressions of wealth and power (but probably not magic), not only by what they collected but also how they displayed their objects. Almost the entire collection of museums in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries was on display, a symbol of the institutions extent of acquisitions.

Although accessible to European elites, medieval collections were essentially off limits to laymen. It seems that by restricting access to treasures, the wonder they elicited from laymen was not only enforced, as Daston and Park note, but in some manner even constructed by those keeping them restricted. “[T]he wonders of the Crista were not generally available for popular contemplation,” and “ordinary laymen had to wait for one of the special festivals when the treasure was exhibited to the avid multitude, resulting in intense and sometimes rowdy scenes.”[13] Had these wonders of spiritual and economic capital been open to the masses more regularly, would they have elicited the same wonder and caused the same rowdy scenes? Chapter Two closes with a discussion of wonder at court. Daston and Park show how collections of marvels held social, economic, and political means for princes and dukes. Whether to impress court visitors, as symbols of Eastern conquest, or as symbols of wealth and power, courtly princes made “repeated and specific use of the marvelous as an elaborate system of emblems and signs to dramatize both their particular historical situation and their political aims.”[14]

Chapter Three looks beyond the role that wonders played for courtly princes and theologians of the Middle Ages to the place they held for natural philosophers in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. According to Daston and Park, natural philosophers generally rejected wonders as worthy of inquiry not only because of their rarity but because of their unknown causal mechanisms. They viewed them as irrelevant to their work and as being outside or beyond the course of nature. Despite Aristotle’s claim that wonder, as ignorance of the causes of natural phenomena, and the study of particular natural phenomena created inquiry to search for those causes, Latin natural philosophers used Aristotle’s emphasis on causal mechanisms as the basis for their dispelling of wonders. In order to make sense of the natural order, these natural philosophers did not study particulars – individual marvels – but instead sought to understand natural variability through “elaborating general statements about the causes of certain types of phenomena.”[15] They studied universal principles rather than particular phenomena, and instead of observing natural phenomena, the natural philosopher’s task was “to refine and distill the universal truths he found in books and received from his teachers.”[16] Thus, the work of Latin natural philosophers of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries did not rely on direct experience.

From Thomas Aquinas we get three types of physical occurrences. Wonders and the Order of Nature is not concerned with the supernatural (miracles), but with both the natural (naturalia) and the preternatural (mirabilia, marvels, wonders, you name it). There were problems with distinguishing between these three realms, but for the most part wonders and the passion of wonder associated with those wonders belonged to the preternatural. “Because wonder was associated with the ignorance of causes,” write Daston and Park, “it was a peculiarly unsuitable passion for one whose entire discipline was organized around the causal knowledge of nature.”[17] In their attempt to “make wonders cease,” natural philosophers in the fourteenth century posited explanations by natural causes without seriously invoking divine or demonic intervention. Moreover, they claimed that particular wonders, as objects which had to be experienced to be known, could not become part of natural philosophy.

Daston and Park move to Latin medical writers in their fourth chapter. Working for princely patrons who admired wonder and wonders, medical writers thus viewed wonders with attraction rather than the distaste of Latin natural philosophers. Because these physicians, involved in elite medical practice, “began to explore the therapeutic powers of particular marvels,” wonder and wonders emerged as part of natural philosophy, and, Daston and Park write, “lay at the heart of much philosophical writing” by the middle of the sixteenth century.[18] That particular phenomena became important as objects of philosophical reflection and wonder itself was reclaimed as a philosophical emotion led to a new philosophy, preternatural philosophy, which was concerned with adding personal experience of wonders to previous textual evidence, and used wonder as a tool for philosophical inquiry. Objects used by physicians and collected by apothecaries were not only wonders, but most were also exotic, associating them with elite practice. The marvels that poured out of the New World in the late fifteenth and sixteenth centuries provided much new natural material for study, especially for medicines, and reformed the ways in which “nature herself might best be explored.”[19]

The practice of collecting natural objects for their own sake, and not as objects that were collected by courtly princes, followed from global explorations. These collections helped to add practical use to the Greek and Roman texts on medicine and natural works. They also were places for research and tools in “professional and social self-fashioning.”[20] Like the collections of princes, however, marvelous natural history collections also transferred “the emotion of wonder from the objects themselves to their erudite and discriminating owner.”[21] Sixteenth-century collectors preferred particulars rather than universals, and thus sought specific explanations for individual phenomena. Ficino went beyond this and sought “overarching, speculative, and synthetic accounts of nature.” Daston and Park describe Ficino’s work as “a view of nature and natural philosophy that emphasized the power of human knowledge to transform the material world.”[22] The emotion of wonder as used by sixteenth-century collectors was now “passed through a professional lens.” A philosophical elite knew which phenomena were worthy of his attention, for this wonder was “a finely graduated register of response that only the best-informed and the most philosophically sophisticated could deploy.”[23] A new age of wonder emerged in both natural philosophy and the literature and art of the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries.

As the centerpiece of Wonders and the Order of Nature, Chapter Five is a retelling of Daston and Park’s original work that ultimately led to this book.[24] In their 1981 article on monsters, they provided a chronological account of the views of monsters held in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries – horror giving way to pleasure giving way to repugnance. They have changed their approach for this book, and now claim that chronology is ambiguous, for the ways in which people perceived monstrous births – horror, pleasure, and repugnance – occurred simultaneously and were not demarcated in time. Monsters could evoke horror or terror as signs of divine wrath signaling collective sin, pleasure as sports of a benign nature and ornaments of a benevolent creator, or repugnance based on anatomical, theological, or aesthetic grounds. As prodigies, monsters were ruptures in the physical order. As sports, they were objects of spectacle – such as a means for parents to make money – not just for princes and medical men but for laymen at marketplaces and fairs or expressions of “nature’s creative variety.”[25] As errors, or objects of repugnance, monsters “violated the standards of regularity and decorum not only in nature, but also in society and the arts.”[26]

Chapter Six discusses how marvels became part of natural philosophy in sixteenth- and seventeenth-century scientific academies, such as the Royal Society of London and the Paris Académie Royale des Sciences. Naturalists in these circles weighed the credibility of marvelous reports and looked at “problems of evidence, explanation, and experience” in their study of nature in these centuries.[27] They devised new ways of understanding their roles as inquirers into the natural world. They were “the curious,” a combination of “a thirst to know with an appetite for wonders,”[28] and their discipline was “a slow and meticulous exercise in self-restraint,” a “discipline for the mind.”[29] They sought to understand the particularity of phenomena and through this, understand the normal, by looking at facts rather than explanations or theories. It became important to verify facts, to determine whether or not marvelous reports were sound or invented. Part of this verification was probably social, for a “delicate economy of civility governed the reporting on wonders.”[30] As gentlemen and members of scientific circles, it proved difficult to contradict their testimony of marvels.

Wunderkammern – cabinets of curiosity – are the subject of the seventh chapter. In opposition themselves with the Aristotelian opposition between art and nature, Wunderkammern displayed artificialia alongside naturalia, juxtaposing in collections, even in single objects, nature’s elegant economy with the extravagance in expenditure of labor and materials. “Nature does nothing in vain,” while art is “careless of function” and prone to useless ornamentation.[31] In some sense, combining art and nature in a single object, like the ornamented nautilus shell created by Bartel Jamnitzer of Nuremberg (p. 279), not only contrasts nature with art, but also juxtaposes nature with man’s ability to control and manipulate nature (in the form of mining the metals used in art). For the owners of Wunderkammern, they held “hidden assumptions and aims,”[32] and mainly served to show off the prince’s magnificence to visitors (usually of a political nature), or in the case of scholars and physicians, to “stupefy visitors with wonder” culminated from learning rather than wealth.[33] Objects also showed how art imitated nature, such as trompe l’oeil paintings and casts from nature, or how nature imitated art, as in swirls of marble resembling clouds and figured stones. These imitations garnered wonder rather than the objects themselves. The contrast of art and nature in Wunderkammern also pointed to questions of nature and theology: was nature art, or artisan? If nature produces art, then what does that say about God’s sovereignty? According to Boyle, God did not need nature as an assistant. To Enlightenment naturalists and collectors, “[n]ature had become ‘the Art of God,’ no longer able to create art on her own.”[34]

Chapter Eight discusses the shifting relationships of wonder and curiosity as emotions, at times aligned and at other times opposed. The final chapter is about how wonder and wonders were no longer important to European intellectuals, and how marvels waned from prominence, although not completely disappearing. Very quickly Daston and Park counter the argument that “the new science” of the seventeenth century dismissed marvels by means of objective and rational explanations. Instead, Enlightenment intellectuals ignored marvels on metaphysical, aesthetic, and political grounds. Daston and Park argue that it was “neither rationality nor science nor even secularization that buried the wondrous for European elites,” and that “Enlightenment savants did not embark on anything like a thorough program to test empirically the strange facts collected so assiduously by their seventeenth-century predecessors or to offer natural explanations for them.”[35] A broad theme emerges in the last paragraph of this chapter. Daston and Park write that for all participants involved in the emotion of wonder and experienced wondrous objects from the twelfth through eighteenth centuries, “the natural order was also a moral order in the broad and somewhat old fashioned sense of moral as all that pertains to the human, from the political to the aesthetic. Hence the aberrations of nature were always charged with moral meaning.”[36]

If we look back through the examples offered by Daston and Park, we begin to see this theme of wonder and wonders fashioning the self: topographically, the occurrence of wonders in the European center spoke of sin, while the knowledge of wonders at the margins testified to European dominance, and therefore superiority, of the East; courtly princes used their collections of exotica and other wonders to impress others with their power and wealth, as well as create wonders of themselves, such as Philip the Good of Burgundy as “a new Alexander;” natural philosophers rejected wonder because it stood for one’s ignorance of causes, and thus defined their intellectual status; early natural history collections were involved with “professional and social self-fashioning”[37] and represented the ability of their physician/naturalist owners to know what was or was not worthy of wonder, making wondrous the wealth and power of their philosophical intellect (a philosophical elite); for those studying “strange facts” through scientific societies, natural history was a “discipline for the mind, a slow and meticulous exercise in self-restraint,”[38] a practice only a select group could be involved with – to be a naturalist within scientific societies was often to be a gentlemen, one with indispensable time and hardly concerned with daily life and trivial matters; Wunderkammern symbolized the magnificence and taste of their princely owners or the ostentatious intellect of their scholarly owners, with objects juxtaposing art and nature representing Europe’s technological and intellectual status; and for the philosophers in the first half of the eighteenth century who sought to remove the “fear of divine wrath and wonder of divine intervention” from marvels, the vulgar were women, the very young and very old, primitive peoples, and the uneducated masses, all those not involved in philosophical inquiry of the natural world, and they were “barbarous, ignorant, and unruly.”[39] “The ‘order of nature,’ like ‘enlightenment,’” according to Daston and Park, “was defined largely by what or who was excluded.”[40] As much as this book is about the emotion of wonder and the objects of that wonder, Wonders and the Order of Nature is about how European elites largely defined themselves – how their place in society related to others morally or intellectually – through a “process of exclusion” and by how they understood the marvelous.

[1] Lorraine Daston and Katharine Park, Wonders and the Order of Nature, 1150-1750 (New York: Zone Books: 1998), p. 25.
[2] Daston and Park, Wonders and the Order of Nature, p. 25.
[3] Ibid., p. 41.
[4] Ibid., p. 41.
[5] Ibid., p. 52.
[6] Ibid., p. 52.
[7] Ibid., p. 65.
[8] Ibid., p. 62.
[9] Ibid., p. 74.
[10] Ibid., p. 68.
[11] Marjorie Schwarzer, Riches, Rivals & Radicals: 100 Years of Museums in America (Washington, DC: American Association of Museums, 2006), p. 70.
[12] Schwarzer, Riches, Rivals & Radicals: 100 Years of Museums in America, p. 10.
[13] Daston and Park, Wonders and the Order of Nature, p. 77.
[14] Ibid., p. 101.
[15] Ibid., p. 114.
[16] Ibid., p. 118.
[17] Ibid., p. 124.
[18] Ibid., p. 133.
[19] Ibid., p. 147.
[20] Ibid., p. 158.
[21] Ibid., p. 158.
[22] Ibid., p. 164.
[23] Ibid., p. 167.
[24] Lorraine Daston and Katharine Park, “Unnatural Conceptions: Monsters in Sixteenth- and Seventeenth-Century France and England,” Past and Present 92 (1981): 20-54.
[25] Daston and Park, Wonders and the Order of Nature, p. 201.
[26] Ibid., p. 202.
[27] Ibid., p. 220.
[28] Ibid., p. 218.
[29] Ibid., p. 230.
[30] Ibid., p. 249.
[31] Ibid., p. 277.
[32] Ibid., p. 273.
[33] Ibid., p. 267.
[34] Ibid., p. 301.
[35] Ibid., p. 361.
[36] Ibid., p. 363.
[37] Ibid., p. 158.
[38] Ibid., p. 230.
[39] Ibid., p. 343.
[40] Ibid., p. 350.