Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Instruments, Scientists, Industrialists and the Specificity of ‘Influence’: The Case of RCA and Biological Electron Microscopy

  • Chapter
The Invisible Industrialist

Part of the book series: Science, Technology and Medicine in Modern History ((STMMH))

Abstract

Because without industrial help certain experimental resources would be otherwise unavailable to scientists, instruments and their supply clearly represent a potential leverage point for the influence of industrialists on the practice of science. New instruments can open new phenomena to investigation. Scientific questions become interesting — or even conceivable — for the first time when novel tools are made available.1 And since disciplines are at least partially defined by the problems they address and the techniques they use to answer their questions, instrumentation can bring major changes in the boundaries and definitions of the various sciences.2 Moreover the social dynamics within sciences can be greatly affected when new technologies restructure laboratory work and authority patterns3 and/or alter the relative strengths of differently equipped laboratories.4 Hence instruments quite rightly command attention from those interested in scientific change and in the influence of industry upon it.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 119.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. Nicholas Jardine, The Scenes of Inquiry (Oxford: Clarendon, 1991).

    Google Scholar 

  2. Timothy Lenoir, ‘The Discipline of Nature and the Nature of Disciplines’, in Ellen Messer-Davidow, David Sylvan and David Shumway (eds), Knowledges: Historical and Critical Studies in Disciplinarity (Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 1993) pp. 70–102

    Google Scholar 

  3. Richard Burian, ‘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, vol. 26 (1993) pp. 387–407.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Historians of physics lead the way in this topic; see Peter Galison, ‘Bubble Chambers and the Experimental Workplace’, in Peter Achinstein and Owen Hanaway (eds), Observation Experiment, and Hypothesis in Modern Physical Science (Cambridge, Mass.: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press, 1985) pp. 309–73

    Google Scholar 

  5. John Heilbron and Robert Seidel, Lawrence and His Laboratory: A History of the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, vol. I (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1989).

    Google Scholar 

  6. Bruno Latour, Science in Action (Milton Keynes: Open University Press, 1985).

    Google Scholar 

  7. Warren Weaver, ‘Molecular Biology: Origins of the Term’, Science, vol. 170 (1970) pp. 581–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. In addition to the pieces cited below, see Evelyn Fox Keller, ‘Physics and the Emergence of Molecular Biology: A History of Cognitive and Political Synergy’, J. Hist. Biol., vol. 23 (1990) pp. 389–409

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Edward Yoxen, ‘Life as a Productive Force: Capitalizing upon Research in Molecular Biology’, in L. Levidow and R. Young (eds), Marxist Studies, vol. I: Science, Technology, and the Labour Process (London: CSE Books, 1981) pp. 66–122

    Google Scholar 

  10. Edward Yoxen, ‘Giving Life New Meaning: The Rise of the Molecular Biology Establishment’, in N. Elias, H. Martins and R. Whitley (eds), Sociology of the Sciences, vol. VI, Scientific Establishments and Hierarchies (Dordrecht: D. Reidel, 1982) pp. 123–43.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  11. L. Kay, The Molecular Vision of Life (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993).

    Google Scholar 

  12. Pnina Abir-Am, ‘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, vol. 12 (1982) pp. 341–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Doris Zallen, ‘The Rockefeller Foundation and Spectroscopy Research: The Programs at Chicago and Utrecht’, J. Hist. Biol., vol. 25 (1992) pp. 67–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Otto Wolff, ‘From the Cathode-Ray Oscillograph to the High-Resolution Electron Microscope’, Advances in Electronics and Electron Physics, Supplement vol. 16 (1985) pp. 557–82.

    Google Scholar 

  15. On the technical history of the microscope itself, see J. Reisner, ‘An Early History of the Electron Microscope in the United States’, Advances in Electronics and Electron Physics, vol. 73 (1989) pp. 134–233

    Google Scholar 

  16. E. Ruska, ‘The Development of the Electron Microscope and Electron Microscopy’, EMSA Bulletin, vol. 18(2) (1988) pp. 53–61

    Google Scholar 

  17. Ladislaus Marton, ‘Electron Microscopy of Biological Objects’, Nature, vol. 133 (1934) pp. 911.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. C. Süsskind, ‘Ladislaus Marton, 1901–1979’, Advances in Electronics and Electron Physics, Supplement vol. 16 (1985) pp. 501–23.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Scientific instrument companies were in the 1930s still smaller specialist firms utilizing craftwork rather than assembly line methods, as they had been for centuries. See Mari Williams, The Precision Makers: A History of the Instruments Industry in Britain and France, 1870–1939 (London: Routledge, 1994).

    Google Scholar 

  20. Wilfried Feldenkirchen, ‘Big Business in Interwar Germany: Organizational Innovation at Vereingte Stahlwerke, IG Farben, and Siemens’, Business History Review, vol. 61 (1987) pp. 417–451.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Reisner, ‘An Early History’. See also G. Kunkel, ‘Technology in the Seamless Web: Success and Failure in the History of the Electron Microscope’, Technology and Culture, vol. 36 (1995) pp. 80–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Robert Sobel, RCA (New York: Stein and Day, 1986)

    Google Scholar 

  23. Thomas Lewis, Empire of the Air: The Men Who Made Radio (New York: HarperCollins, 1991).

    Google Scholar 

  24. Sobel, RCA, pp. 122–167; Albert Abramson, The History of Television, 1880–1941 (London: McFarland, 1987) pp. 108–225

    Google Scholar 

  25. Federal Communications Commission, Sixth Annual Report (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1940) pp. 70–2.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Ladislaus Marton, ‘A New Electron Microscope’, Physical Review, vol. 58 (1940) pp. 57–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. These three provided specimens that Marton included in his paper ‘The Electron Microscope: A New Tool for Bacteriological Research’, Journal of Bacteriology, vol. 41 (1941) pp. 397–413. On Stanley, skilful self-publicist and physical gadgetry enthusiast, see Lily Kay, ‘W. M. Stanley’s Crystallization of the Tobacco Mosaic Virus, 1930–1940’, Isis, vol. 77 (1986) pp. 450–472.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Arnold Ravin, ‘The Gene as Catalyst; The Gene as Organism’, Studies in the History of Biology, vol. 1 (1977) 1–45.

    Google Scholar 

  29. See Daniel Kevles, ‘George Ellery Hale, the First World War, and the Advancement of Science in America’, Isis, vol. 59 (1968) pp. 427–37

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Glenn Bugos, “Managing Cooperative Research and Borderland Science in the National Research Council, 1922–1942”, Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences, vol. 20 (1989) pp. 1–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Nicolas Rasmussen, ‘Making a Machine Instrumental: RCA and the Wartime Beginnings of Biological Electron Microscopy’, Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science, 27: 311–349 (1996).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Also see Reisner, ‘An Early History’, and Ted Smith, ‘Reflections’, EMSA Bulletin, vol. 14 (1984) pp. 19–21.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Paul B. Green, personal communication; T. F. Anderson,’ Some Personal Memories of Research’, Annual Review of Microbiology, vol. 29 (1975) pp. 1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. For instance: Anonymous, ‘Electron Microscope Magnifies Invisible World 25 000 Times’, Life, 29 April 1940, p. 54; Anonymous,’ smaller and Smaller’, Time, 28 October 1940, p. 50; Watson Davis, ‘30 000 Times Life Size!’, Reader’s Digest, vol. 37 (1940) pp. 13–16

    Google Scholar 

  35. As Adele Clarke has pointed out, some American sex researchers in the early part of this century strove for high scientific status by portraying their work as fundamental endocrinology or physiology. Seymour, as a practitioner of artificial insemination, could not escape the moral opprobrium surrounding the field by these means. See ‘Embryology and the Rise of American Reproductive Sciences, circa 1910–1940’, in Keith Benson, Jane Maienschein and Ronald Rainger (eds), The Expansion of American Biology (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1991) pp. 107–32.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Seymour to Mudd, 1 July 1941; MMB, carton 14. The paper was F. Seymour and M. Benmosche, ‘Magnification of Spermatozoa by Means of the Electron Microscope’, Journal of the American Medical Association, vol. 116 (1941) pp. 2489–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Mudd to Stanley, 26 February 1941; MMB, carton 14. Cf. Thomas Anderson, ‘Electron Microscopy of Phages’, in John Cairns, Gunther Stent and James Watson (eds), Phage and the Origins of Molecular Biology (Cold Spring Harbor: CSH Laboratory of Quantitative Biology, 1966) pp. 63–78.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Rasmussen, ‘Making a Machine Instrumental’; idem., Picture Control: The Electron Microscope and the Transformation of American Biology, 1940–60 (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1997).

    Google Scholar 

  39. See R. H. Green, T. F. Anderson, and J. E. Smadel, ‘Morphological Structure of the Virus of Vaccinia’, Journal of Experimental Medicine, vol. 75 (1942) pp. 651–7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. S. E. Luria, M. Delbrück and T. F. Anderson, ‘Electron Microscope Studies of Bacterial Viruses’, J Bacteriology, vol. 46 (1943) pp. 57–77

    Google Scholar 

  41. L. A. Chambers, W. Henle, M. A. Lauffer and T. F. Anderson, Studies on the Nature of the Virus of Influenza, II, The Size of the Infectious Unit in Influenza A, J. Exp. Med., vol. 77 (1943) pp. 265–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. See Brian Bracegirdle, A History of Microtechnique, 2nd edn (Lincolnwood, III: Science Heritage, 1986) pp. 63–4.

    Google Scholar 

  43. A. G. Richards, H. B. Steinbach and T. F. Anderson, ‘Electron Microscope Studies of Squid Giant Nerve Axoplasm’, Journal of Cellular and Comparative Physiology, vol. 21 (1943) pp. 129–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. S. A. Mudd and T. F. Anderson,’ Selective Staining for Electron Micrography’, J. Exp. Med., vol. 76 (1942) pp. 103–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. N. Rasmussen, ‘Facts, Artifacts, and Mesosomes: Practicing Epistemology with the Electron Microscope’, Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science vol. 24 (1993) pp. 227–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. See Ian Hacking, Representing and Intervening (Cambridge University Press, 1983) pp. 186–209; Allan Franklin, The Neglect of Experiment (Cambridge University Press, 1986) ch. 6; Peter Kosso, ‘Dimensions of Observability’, British Journal of the Philosophy of Science, vol. 39 (1988) pp. 449–67

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Clark to Anderson, 2 November 1942; TFA, carton 1 (quotation). Sterling Newberry, EMSA and Its People: The First Fifty Years (Woods Hole: Electron Microscopy Society of America, 1992) pp. 38–41

    Google Scholar 

  48. see also John Reisner, ‘Reflections’, EMSA Bulletin, vol. 20(2) (1990) pp. 49–53.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Vladimir Zworykin, ‘Electron Microscopy in Chemistry’, Electronics, vol. 16 (1943) pp. 64–8

    Google Scholar 

  50. H. M. Miller: memo of phone conversation with Marton, 10 December 1940; RF, group 1.1, series 205, box 10, folder 138. K. T. Compton to Weaver, 18 December 1940; Weaver to Compton, 26 December 1940; F. B. Hanson memo of phone conversation(s) with Schmitt, 30–1 December 1940; Schmitt to Hanson, 7 January 1941; all in RF group 1.1, series 224, box 4, folder 33. On Weaver’s intervention in the MIT life sciences program see Kohler, Partners, 316–21; also Francis Schmitt, The Never-Ceasing Search (Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society, 1991)

    Google Scholar 

  51. Schmitt, Search, p. 125; C. E. Hall, ‘Recollections From the Early Years: Canada—USA’, Advances in Electronics and Electron Physics, Supplemental vol. 16 (1985) pp. 275–96.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Hanson to Weaver, 1 July 1942; Weaver to Hanson, 3 July 1942; Schmitt to Hanson, 28 July 1942; Hanson diary entries on interviews with Schmitt at Woods Hole, 25–31 August 1942; all in RF group 1.1, series 224, box 4, folder 36. Cf. Schmitt, Search, 131–41; Hall, Recollections. A nominal OSRD contract was similarly crucial for George Beadle’s wartime productivity at Stanford; see Lily Kay,’ Selling Pure Science in Wartime: The Biochemical Genetics of G. W. Beadle’, J. Hist Biol, vol. 22 (1989) pp. 73–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. H. S. Loring, L. Marton and C. E. Schwerdt, ‘Electron Microscopy of a Purified Lansing Virus’, Proceedings of the Society for Experimental Biology and Medicine, vol. 62 (1946) pp. 291–2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. E. W. Schultz, P. R. Thomassen and L. Marton, ‘Electron Microscopic Observations on Pseudomonas aeruginosa Bacteriophage’, Ibid., vol. 68 (1948) pp. 451–5.

    Google Scholar 

  55. W. W. MacDonald, ‘Electron Microscopy in the United States’, Electronics, vol. 23(2) (August 1950) pp. 66–9

    Google Scholar 

  56. Mary Schuster Jaffe to Ernest Fullam, 1948; cited in Sterling Newberry, In Their Own Words: Excerpts from the EMSA Oral History Tapes (Woods Hole: EMSA, 1992) p. 16.

    Google Scholar 

  57. See Stephen Strickland, Politics, Science, and Dread Disease: A Short History of U.S. Medical Research Policy (Cambridge Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1972)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  58. Stephen Strickland, The Story of the NIH Grant Programs (Lanham, Md.: University Press of America, 1989).

    Google Scholar 

  59. V. K. Zworykin, G. A. Morton, E. G. Ramberg, J. Hillier and A. W. Vance, Electron Optics and the Electron Microscope (New York: Wiley, 1945).

    Google Scholar 

  60. Sobel, RCA, pp. 122–67; Albert Abramson, The History of Television, 1880–1941 (London: McFarland, 1987) pp. 108–225

    Google Scholar 

  61. Federal Communications Commission, Sixth Annual Report (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1940) pp. 70–2.

    Google Scholar 

  62. See Paul Fussell, Wartime (New York: Oxford University Press, 1989)

    Google Scholar 

  63. Federal Communications Commission, Thirteenth Annual Report (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1947) pp. 22–6

    Google Scholar 

  64. William Boddy, ‘Launching Television: RCA, the FCC, and the Battle for Frequency Allocations, 1940–1947’, Historical Journal of Film, Radio, and Television, vol. 9 (1989) pp. 45–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. See Erik Barnouw, Tube of Plenty, 2nd edn (New York: Oxford University Press, 1990).

    Google Scholar 

  66. For instance, see Harold Bloom, The Anxiety of Influence: A Theory of Poetry (New York: Oxford University Press, 1973).

    Google Scholar 

  67. For a more detailed explanantion, examples, and bibliography giving some of the early uses of this distinction, see F. Scott Gilbert, Developmental Biology (Sunderland, Mass.: Sinauer, 1985) ch. 16.Part II

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors
  1. Nicolas Rasmussen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale, Paris, France

    Jean-Paul Gaudillière (Research Fellow) & Ilana Löwy (Senior Research Fellow) (Research Fellow) &  (Senior Research Fellow)

Copyright information

© 1998 Jean-Paul Gaudillière and Ilana Löwy

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Rasmussen, N. (1998). Instruments, Scientists, Industrialists and the Specificity of ‘Influence’: The Case of RCA and Biological Electron Microscopy. In: Gaudillière, JP., Löwy, I. (eds) The Invisible Industrialist. Science, Technology and Medicine in Modern History. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-26443-8_7

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-26443-8_7

  • Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-349-26445-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-349-26443-8

  • eBook Packages: Palgrave History CollectionHistory (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation