Advertisement

Looking at Embryos: The Visual and Conceptual Aesthetics of Emerging Form

  • Scott F. Gilbert
  • Marion Faber
Part of the Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science book series (BSPS, volume 182)

Abstract

The title of this essay implies that there is an aesthetic of living organisms and that the aesthetic of embryology differs from those of other areas of biology. First, we believe that one can seriously discuss the aesthetics of the embryo much as one would discuss the aesthetics of an artist’s creation. Terms such as symmetry, balance, pattern, rhythm, form, and integration are crucial in both disciplines and are used in similar fashions.2 The scientist observing the embryo can act analogously to a critic, and the different sub-disciplines of biology are not unlike different schools of literary or art criticism. Indeed, all our knowledge of cells is based on interpretations of visual abstractions. Different stains and lenses emphasize different structures in the cell, and autoradiograms are used to imply functional relationships. Centrifugation analysis of cell components also gives us radioactive and enzymological data that are then placed back onto a map of the cell. As Oscar Schotte pointed out, the embryologist’s visualization of the cell differs from the geneticist’s visualization of the cell. Thus, there are different “schools” of biology. Some (such as physiology) seek the “meaning” of a structure; while others (such as cell and molecular biology) regard the animal’s general structure as relatively unimportant and look for unifying concepts and mechanisms underlying the apparent diversity of structures.

Keywords

Developmental Biologist Experimental Embryology Functional Biology Phylotypic Stage Conceptual Aesthetics 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. 1.
    Oppenheimer, J. M., ‘Analysis of development: Problems, concepts, and their history’, in B. H. Willier, P. A. Weiss and V. Hamburger (eds.), Analysis of Development (Philadelphia: Saunders Press, 1955), pp. 1–24.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    That natural forms can be the subject of aesthetics is emphasized in Kant’s Critique of Judgement, trans, by J. H. Bernard (NY: Macmillan, 1914), pp. 177–181. He specified the such aesthetics would concern the “beautiful forms of nature” and not the “charms that she is wont to combine so abundantly with them….” Moreover, if the beauty of natural forms interests a man, “we have reason for attributing to him, at least, a basis for a good moral character”. As will be discussed later, Kant’s combination of teleology and organicism had great appeal to embryologists.Google Scholar
  3. 3a.
    The Schotte example is quoted (with illustration) in Sander, K., ‘The role of genes in ontogenesis’, in T. J. Horder, J. A. Witkowski and C. C. Wylie (eds.), A History of Embryology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984), pp. 363–395.Google Scholar
  4. 3b.
    Lewis Thomas, Late Night Thoughts on Listening to Mahler’s Ninth Symphony (NY: Viking Press, 1983) has pointed out that science criticism should exist parallel to literary criticism, but likening science to art criticism has also been made by the Princeton embryologist, J. T. Bonner. He notes that readers of his book on Morphogenesis (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1971), pp. 6–7, might think that in discussing the components of the embryo, he will lose the main point in all the details. He continues that “I will be put in the same category as an art historian who analyzes the perspective of a Flemish master and is accused of failing to see that the pictures themselves are great and beautiful. But the chances are excellent that the art historian will first have been motivated by the beauty, and I suspect that those who study nature, even if only subconsciously, were also first motivated by noble emotions”.Google Scholar
  5. 4.
    Mayr, E., ‘Cause and effect in biology’, Science 134: 1501–1506, 1961.Google Scholar
  6. 5a.
    Goldschmidt, R. B., The Material Basis of Evolution (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1940), p. 6.Google Scholar
  7. 5b.
    A similar point is made by Bonner, J., Size and Cycle: An Essay on the Structure of Biology (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1965), p. 3.Google Scholar
  8. 5c.
    Three levels of biological organization (evolution, function, and development) are also implied in Waddington, C, ‘The character of biological form’, in L. L. Whyte (ed.), Aspects of Form (London: Lund Humphries, 1951), pp. 43–52.Google Scholar
  9. 5d.
    Horan, B., ‘Functional explanations in sociobiology: A reply to critics’, Biol. Philos 4: 205–228, 1989, also criticizes Mayr’s typology in that “it leaves no place, or at least gives no account of the place, to be held by studies of development”.Google Scholar
  10. 6.
    Cohen, Living Embryos (Oxford: Pergamon Press, 1963). Similarly, C. H. Waddington (op. cit., 1951; p. 4) depicts embryology and genetics as two younger sisters being neglected by physiology and evolutionary biology. The relationship of embryology to physiology and anatomy parallels the relationship of pediatrics to internal medicine. Biologies of becoming are traditionally looked upon as inferior to biologies of the adult being.Google Scholar
  11. 7a.
    Gilbert, S. F., ‘The embryological origins of the gene theory’, J Hist. Biol 11: 307–351, 1978Google Scholar
  12. 7b.
    Gilbert, S. F., ‘Cellular politics: E. E. Just, Richard B. Goldschmidt, and the attempt to reconcile embryology and genetics’, in R. Rainger, K. R. Benson and J. Maienschein (eds.), The American Development of Biology (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1988), pp. 311–346Google Scholar
  13. 7c.
    Sapp, J., Beyond the Gene (NY: Oxford University Press, 1987); Gilbert, S. F., ‘Bearing crosses: The historiography of genetics and embryology’, manuscript submitted.Google Scholar
  14. 8a.
    Lillie F. R., ‘The gene and the ontogenetic process’, Science 66: 361–368, 1927.Google Scholar
  15. 8b.
    To wit, “The germ exhibits the duality of nucleus and cytoplasm; the geneticist has taken the former for his field, the embryologist the latter”.N. J. Berrill, would later refer to the undergraduate student of cell biology as being like “a child of divorced parents, linked by all possible bonds to each of them but subject to their individually biased points of view”. ‘Pearls of Wisdom: An Exposition’, Perspec. Biol. Med 28: 3, 1984.Google Scholar
  16. 9.
    Manning, K. R., The Black Apollo of Science: The Life of Ernest Everett Just (NY: Oxford University Press, 1983).Google Scholar
  17. 10.
    Holtfreter, J., ‘Address in honor of Viktor Hamburger’, in M. Locke (ed.), The Emergence of Order in Developing Systems (NY: Academic Press, 1968), p. xi.Google Scholar
  18. 11a.
    Just, E. E., Biology of the Cell Surface (Philadelphia: Blakiston Press, 1939), p. 368. That the embryo or egg is an even greater wonder than the heavenly bodies is a longstanding trope among embryologists. Aristotle states that while the glory of heavenly bodies may fill us with delight, looking at the living creatures will give more pleasure to our senses and be just as beautiful and important in revealing purposes in nature. Similarly, in the seventeenth century, E. Puteanus (Ovi Encomium, Maire, Leyden.Google Scholar
  19. 11b.
    Quoted in Needham J., Chemical Embryology,(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1931, p. 8) declared that while men may “marvel at the sun, at meteors flung from the heavens, at the stars swimming therein”, the egg is a far greater wonder. The imagery of outer space continues explicitely in the Lennart Nilsen photo essay in Life Magazine (August 1990). Here, the reader is told that the ovum leaving the ovary appears “like an eerie planet floating through space”; and when implantation is initiated, we are told, “The blastocyst has landed! like a lunar module, the embryo… facilitates its landing on the uterus….” The article provides interesting support for Zoë Sophia’s essay (‘Exterminating fetuses: Abortion, disarmament, and the sexo-semiotics of extraterrestrialism’, Diacritics 14: 47–59, 1984) which looks at the rhetoric of fetus as alien visitor. The darkfield in situ photographs of mRNA expression patterns currently seen in embryological literature are often visual puns of star patterns, and this has been used in several advertisements for molecular cloning systems.Google Scholar
  20. 12.
    Gilbert S., Chemical Embryology,(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988, p. 8),Google Scholar
  21. 13.
    Rostand, J., The Substance of Man (NY: Doubleday, 1962), p. 181.Google Scholar
  22. 14a.
    Bard, J., ‘Attracting future developmental biologists’, Bio Essays 14: 293–294, 1992Google Scholar
  23. 14b.
    see also Bates, M., ‘Beauty and the Beasts’, Trends Cell Biol 2: 119, 1992. He states that the liberal use of excellent illustration is important in such texts. “After all, embryos are very beautiful”.Google Scholar
  24. 15.
    Spiegelman, S., ‘Discussion’, in W. D. McElroy and B. Glass (eds.), The Chemical Basis of Development (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1958), p. 491.Google Scholar
  25. 16.
    Lawrence, P. A., ‘Chocolate kookies’, Nature 358: 720, 1992.Google Scholar
  26. 17.
    Holub, M., ‘From the intimate life of Nude Mice’, trans, by D. Hâbovâ and D. Young, The Dimension of the Present Moment (London: Faber and Faber, 1990), p. 38.Google Scholar
  27. 18.
    Plato, Thaetetus 155d; Aristotle, Metaphysics 12, 982b: 12. To put our biases in the open, the text book by the senior author, Developmental Biology (Sunderland: Sinauer Associates, 1988) begins with Aristotle’s declaration of wonder.Google Scholar
  28. 19.
    Heschel, A. J., God in Search of Man (NY: Harper, 1955), pp. 74–75. Wisdom and knowledge have often been conflated in the twentieth century, but they represent very different concepts. Both derive from wonder. Interestingly, the representatives of wisdom (Athena, Hokmah, Minerva) are generally female; while the representatives of knowledge (Mercury, Apollo) are generally male. Science represents active mastery and public achievement; religion often connotes passive acceptance and fulfillment (a most sexually charged noun).Google Scholar
  29. 20.
    Morgan, T. H., Experimental Embryology (NY: Columbia University, 1927).Google Scholar
  30. 21.
    Given such an attitude which characterized embryology as artistic and emotional, it became very difficult for embryologists who wanted reputations as analytic scientists to admit to having such feelings. Even Johannes Holtfreter, who certainly maintained a reputation for analytic embryological research, wrote (letter to SFG, Feb. 8. 1988) that “My artistic inclinations I have kept a secret from my colleagues”. The situation is analogous to those German biologists who refused to voice their views on eugenics even though they knew it was wrong and dangerous. To voice one’s opinions would suggest that one was not a serious, objective scientist (J. B. Jenkins on interview with Curt Stern in 1976, pers.comm.). Even today, scientists who voice aesthetic or political views are in danger of not being taken as seriously by their colleagues.Google Scholar
  31. 22.
    Flannery, M. C, ‘Biology is beautiful’, Perspect. Biol. Med 35: 422–435, 1992.Google Scholar
  32. 23.
    Weiss, P., ‘Beauty and the beast: Life and the rule of order’, Sci. Monthly 81: 286–299, 1955. For an appreciation of the visual embryological aesthetic very similar to that of Weiss, see Waddington, op. cit., 1951, where the same freedom within order is mentioned, and is linked directly to Whitehead’s aesthetics. Weiss explicitely depicts the freedom-within-order of the embryo as a model for politics as well.” And politically, it ought to be our cue… Freedom within the law: responsible freedom to move within an orbit as wide as, but no wider than what is compatible with the preservation of the over-all order that defines the harmony of relationships on which effective living and survival depend”. The embryo as a political model was used by others such as Just, Goldschmidt, and Waddington (Gilbert, op. cit., 1988). O. Hertwig (1985) explicitely uses the embryo and society as analogies for one another. Certainly, given that each embryo has a telos, embryology does not engender either a surrealistic or decadent aesthetic. Although not mentioned in Weiss’ paper, there does appear to be an aesthetic of the grotesque for the results of abnormal development. Grotesqueries and malformations have long been a source of wonder quite apart of the “normative” aesthetic of embryology (see Hamburger, V. and Born, W., ‘Monsters in nature and art’, CIBA Symp. 9(5/6): 666, 1947; Fiedler, L., Freaks: Myths and Images of the Secret Self (NY: Simon and Schuster, 1978). Here “beautiful pathology” (a term similar in meaning to “textbook pathology” and used to cover numerous diseases and aberrations) resides in the amount of deviation from the expected norms of health and proportion. Such results are ab-normal, mal-formed, or de-formed; i.e., they deviate from the norm that is the expected physical and aesthetic range. However, as pointed out by Pere Alberch (The logic of monsters: Evidence for internal constraint in development and evolution’, Geobios 12: 21–57, 1989), there are specific patterns of deviation, and teratologists have long classified the results of abnormal development into a limited number of categories. Not just any type of deviation is allowed, and these follow certain laws. In the Drosophila mutation Antennapedia, legs extend from the antennal sockets. However, these legs are point-for-point homologous to the antennae they replaced. The embryos that result in these malformed stages can be quite beautiful by the standards mentioned here, and they often result from the retention of earlier types of symmetry. In Drosophila mutants such as bicoid, bicaudal, or engrailed, for instance, anterior-posterior polarity is replaced by mirror-image duplication.Google Scholar
  33. 24.
    Johnson, M., The Body in the Mind (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987).Google Scholar
  34. 25a.
    Lenoir, T., The Strategy of Life (Dordrecht: Reidel, 1982)Google Scholar
  35. 25b.
    Cassirer, E., The Problem of Knowledge (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1970), pp. 176–216.Google Scholar
  36. 26.
    Ritterbush, P. C, The Art of Organic Forms (Washington, D. C.: Smithsonian Institute Press, 1968).Google Scholar
  37. 27.
    Haraway, D. J., Crystals, Fabrics and Fields: Metaphors of Organicism in Twentieth-Century Developmental Biology (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1976).Google Scholar
  38. 28.
    Goethe, J. W., Taschenbuch auf das Jahr 1804. Cotta, Tübingen. The poem by this title ends by celebrating substance in the heart and form in the mind as enduring elements in the flux of time and nature.Google Scholar
  39. 29.
    For discussion of Goethe’s “unity of plan” and its bearing on his research on the intermaxillary bone, see Russell, E. S., Form and Function (London: Murray Publishers, 1916), p. 46. For a fuller commentary on Goethe’s aesthetics and science, see Tauber, F., this volume.Google Scholar
  40. 30.
    Winckelmann, J. J., Gedanken über die Nachahmung der griechischen Werke in der Malerei und Bildhauerkunst. 1754. Heilbronn: Gebr. Heninger.Google Scholar
  41. 31.
    Boell, E. J., quoted in Haraway, Gedanken über die Nachahmung der griechischen Werke in der Malerei und Bildhauerkunst. 1976. Heilbronn: Gebr. Heninger.Google Scholar
  42. 32.
    Harrison, R. G., ‘Anatomy: Its scope, methods, and relations to other biological sciences’, Anat. Rec 7: 401–410, 1913.Google Scholar
  43. 33.
    Twitty, V. C., Of Salamanders and Scientists (San Francisco: W. H. Freeman, 1966), p. 9.Google Scholar
  44. 34.
    Haraway, Of Salamanders and Scientists (San Francisco: W. H. Freeman,)., 1976, p. 190.Google Scholar
  45. 35.
    Harrison, R. G.,Organization and Development of the Embryo (ed. S. Wilens) (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1949), pp. 258–260. The translation of Goethe reads: “You call yourself a part, yet stand before me whole”.Google Scholar
  46. 36.
    Just, op. cit., 1939, preface. “Nature has neither kernel nor shell; it is all everywhere”. Kern is a pun on the German word for nucleus and Schale also refers, in Just’s book, to the cell membrane, the shell of the cell. The full quotation (which would probably have been known — at least by other embryologists if not by geneticists) went: “Oh, you Philistines who would think that Nature has bounds”.Google Scholar
  47. 37.
    Ibid., p. 368.Google Scholar
  48. 38.
    Ibid., p. 26. Since we will be dealing with experimental embryology, we will not be considering this earlier, naturalistic, tradition. For an account of Hertwig’s and Müller’s aesthetics of observation, see Cassirer, op. cit., 1970, pp. 176–187.Google Scholar
  49. 39.
    Ibid., p. 369. In this, Just also follows Goethe: “Dann hat die Teile in seiner Hand,/Fehlt leider! nur das geistige Band”. [Then he has all the parts within his hand/Excepting only, sad to say, the living bond.]Google Scholar
  50. 40.
    Weiss, P., ‘Ross Granville Harrison 1870–1959: A memorial minute’, Rockefeller Inst. Quart. p. 6, 1960. Here we have an aesthetic theory of nature that appears to extend that of the pre-Critical Kant. Beauty is to be found phenomenally in the object, and we know it is beautiful because it resonates with certain faculties of the mind. Weiss would go further and say that we recognize it as beautiful only because our brains were constructed by the same rules of order. One theme that often arises is that Nature is the supreme artist, but the scientist must also be an artist (of a lesser kind) in order to appreciate it. Spemann, H., Embryonic Development and Induction (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1938), p. 367 says this forcefully: “I should like to work like the archaeologist who pieces together the fragments of a lovely thing which are alone left to him. as he proceeds, fragment by fragment, he is guided by the conviction that these fragments are part of a larger whole which, however, he does not yet know. He must be enough of an artist to recreate, as it were, the work of the master, but he dare not build according to his own ideas. Above all, he must keep holy the broken edges of the fragments; in that way only may he hope to fit new fragments into the restoration of the master’s creation”. In some cases, such as Emil Witschi, the scientist had been trained in art before being drawn to embryology (J. Opitz, pers. comm.).Google Scholar
  51. 41.
    Ueda, M., Literary and Art Theories of Japan (Cleveland: Western Reserve University Press, 1967), pp. 37–71.Google Scholar
  52. 42.
    Suzuki, D. T., Zen and Japanese Culture (NY: Bolligen, Press, 1965).Google Scholar
  53. 43.
    Hamburger, V. The Heritage of Experimental Embryology (NY: Oxford University Press, 1988), p. 177.Google Scholar
  54. 44.
    Goldschmidt, R. B. In and Out of the Ivory Tower (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1960), pp. 109, 114.Google Scholar
  55. 45.
    Goldschmidt, R. B. In and Out of the Ivory Tower (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1960), p. 206. We cannot find a copy of the “monograph” mentioned in the autobiography.Google Scholar
  56. 46.
    Holtfreter, J., ‘Reminiscences on the life and work of Johannes Holtfreter’, in S. Gilbert (ed.), A Conceptual History of Modern Embryology (NY: Plenum Press, 1992), p. 125.The link between classical Asian aesthetic concepts and embryology may be more than superficial. Embryologist C. O. Whitman, one of the most persistant organicists and the director of both the Marine Biology Laboratory and the critically important biology department at the University of Chicago, was Professor of Zoology at Tokyo Imperial University for two years before becoming the director of the MBL (Okada, J. S., ‘Experimental embryology in Japan, 1930–1960’, Int. J. Dev. Biol. 38: 135–154, 1994). The current logo for the Society of Developmental Biology not only resembles the Yang and Yin symbol, but was consciously drawn that way by Dr. Nadia Rosenthal, a developmental biologist and artist who has a longstanding interest in Asian philosophy. The claim that transformation and change are at the heart of Chinese art, while permanence and fixity constitute the core of the European art tradition is made by John Hay (Hay, J., ‘Some questions concerning classicism in relation to Chinese art’, Art. J. 47: 26–34, 1988).Google Scholar
  57. 47.
    See Wilson, E. O., ‘Biology and the social sciences’, Daedalus 106(4): 127–140, 1977. Although he states that antidisciplines are on different levels of the hierarchy of explanation (biochemistry and cell biology, for instance), we would posit that antidisciplines can be at the same hierarchical level.Google Scholar
  58. 48.
    Gilbert, S. F., ‘Intellectual traditions in the life sciences’, Persp. Biol. Med. 26: 151–162, 1982.Google Scholar
  59. 45.
    Lest anyone doubt that conceptual aesthetics exists, let them recall that until the 1800s, Americans saw wilderness and mountains as being “pimples” and “blemishes” on the face of Nature (Nicholson, M. H., Mountain Gloom and Mountain Glory, Ithica: Cornell University Press, 1959, p. 2.)Google Scholar
  60. 49b.
    The importance of the conceptual environment upon our appreciation of art is discussed at length in Danto, A. C, The Transfiguration of the Commonplace (Cambridge: Harvard University Press. 1981).Google Scholar
  61. 50.
    Gilbert, S., The Transfiguration of the Commonplace (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1978).Google Scholar
  62. 51a.
    The aesthetics of embryology have a parallel in the aesthetics informing the feminist critiques of science. In earlier essays (Biology and Gender Study Group, ‘The importance of feminist critique for contemporary cell biology’, Hypatia 3: 61–76, 1988), it was shown that during the split between embryology and genetics, the nucleus became coded as male (central, sperm-derived, unchanging, rational, command center and brain of the cell) while the cytoplasm became coded as female (changing, egg-derived, malleable, passive, and peripheral). As we mentioned earlier (ref. 8), genetics took upon itself the study of the nucleus, while embryology took on the study of the cytoplasm.Google Scholar
  63. 51b.
    In an interesting way, genetics and embryology took on traditional male and female aesthetics. Genetics became a biology of control and regulation (see Baltimore, D., The brain of a cell’, Science 84 [Nov]: 149–151, 1984; Keller, E. F., Reflections on Gender and Science (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1985)).Google Scholar
  64. 51c.
    Embryology, on the other hand, became a science of organicist interactions between parts, a biology based on negotiations between equal partners. Donna Haraway (Primate Visions (NY: Routledge Publishers, 1989), p. 397), characterizes work done by women primatologists as being “skeptical of generalizations, and their strong preference for explanations full of specificity, diversity, complexity, and contextuality”. The same ingredients are prominent in the organicist conceptual aesthetic of embryology. Embryological discourse is also characterized by the heteroglossia and situated knowledge mentioned below (see notes 80–81). These gendered differences are also acknowledged in the use of the divorce trope to describe the split between these disciplines.Google Scholar
  65. 52.
    Monod, J., Chance and Necessity (NY: Knopf, 1971), p. 103.Google Scholar
  66. 53.
    Monod, J. Quoted in Jacob, F., The Statue Within (NY: Basic Books, 1988).Google Scholar
  67. 54.
    Berrill, N. J., Growth, Development, and Pattern (San Francisco: Freeman, 1961).Google Scholar
  68. 55a.
    See, for instance, Faber, J. J., Thornburg, K. L and Binder, N. D., ‘Physiology of placental transfer in mammals’, Amer. Zool 32: 343–354, 1992.Google Scholar
  69. 55b.
    Whereas geneticists are prone to emulate physics and construct “laws”, embryologists and developmental biologists have created an essentially “lawless” science that sees individual cases as being more important than generalities (see Conklin, E. G., ‘Mosaic vs equipotential development’, Amer Nat 67: 289–297, 1933). In this sense, developmental biology has remained a science much in the sense that Kant envisioned biology in his Critique of Judgement. Google Scholar
  70. 56a.
    Dubos, R., The God Within (NY: Scribner’s, 1972), pp. 18, 71. The trope of “theme and variation” is used repeatedly in embryology, and is seen as early as Thomas Huxley’s work in the late nineteenth century.Google Scholar
  71. 56b.
    The relationship between molecular biology and artistic formalism (and between embryology and naturalism) is made in Gilbert, S. F. Developmental Biology, second edition (Sunderland: Sinauer Associates, 1988), p. 812; and it is elaborated upon in Sahotra Sarkar’s essay in this volume.Google Scholar
  72. 57.
    Spiegelman, S., ‘Differentiation as the controlled production of unique enzyme patterns’, in J. F. Danielli and R. Brown (eds.), Growth in Relation to Differentiation and Morphogenesis (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1947), p. 287.Google Scholar
  73. 58a.
    See, for instance, DeMars, R. I., ‘The production of phage-related materials when bacteriophage development is interrupted by proflavine’, Virology 1: 83–99, 1955Google Scholar
  74. 58b.
    Kamarata, D. et al., ‘Sur une particule accompagnant le développement du coliphage I’, Path. Microbiol. 25: 575–585, 1962.Google Scholar
  75. 59.
    Advertisement for Encyclopedia of the Mouse Genome, Biotechnology 1992.Google Scholar
  76. 60.
    Roux, W., ‘The problems, method, and scope, of developmental mechanics’, Biol. Lect. Woods Holl 3: 149–190, 1984.Google Scholar
  77. 61a.
    Allen G., ‘Thomas Hunt Morgan: Materialism and experimentalism in the development of modern genetics’, Trends Genet 3: 151–154Google Scholar
  78. 61b.
    Allen G., ‘Thomas Hunt Morgan: Materialism and experimentalism in the development of modern genetics’, Trends Genet 3 186–190, 1985Google Scholar
  79. 61c.
    Roll-Hansen, N., ‘Drosophila genetics: A reductionist research program’, J. Hist. Biol 11: 159–210, 1978.Google Scholar
  80. 62.
    Tauber, A. L and Sarkar, S., ‘The human genome project: Has blind reductionism gone too far?’, Persp. Biol. Med 35: 220–235, 1992.Google Scholar
  81. 63a.
    See Haraway, D., The human genome project: Has blind reductionism gone too far?’, Persp. Biol. Med 35: 220–235, 1992Google Scholar
  82. 63b.
    For further use of organicism as the philosophical underpinning of biology, see: Russell, E. S., The Interpretation of Development and Heredity (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1930)Google Scholar
  83. 63c.
    Ritter, W. E., The Unity of the Organism, or the Organismal Conception of Life (Boston: Gorham Press, 1919). The word organicism is being used here because organismal is now used primarily to describe those areas of biology which concern phenomena above the tissue level, and holism is often used to include vitalist as well as materialist philosophies. Holism can easily slide from organicism into vitalistic mysticism, and it should be emphasized that the embryologists discussed herein are not vitalists.Google Scholar
  84. 63d.
    There were, of course, embryologists such as Hans Driesch and Johannes von Uexküll who were vitalists, but their aesthetics are not being discussed herein. For a discussion on these terms in embryology, see Maienschein, J., ‘T. H. Morgan’s regeneration, epigenesis, and (w)holism’, in C. E. Dinsmore (ed.), A History of Regeneration Research (NY: Cambridge University Press, 1991), pp. 133–149.Google Scholar
  85. Lenoir, ‘T. H. Morgan’s regeneration, epigenesis, and (w)holism’, in C. E. Dinsmore (ed.), A History of Regeneration Research (NY: Cambridge University Press, 1991), pp. 133–149 1982.Google Scholar
  86. 65a.
    Kant, I., Kritik der Urteilskraft. Quoted in Lenoir, op. cit., 1982, p. 25. In the 1930s, nearly all the world’s embryologists could trace their academic lineage to Kant.Google Scholar
  87. 65b.
    See Allen, G., Thomas Hunt Morgan (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1978), p. 406.Google Scholar
  88. 66.
    Baer, K. E. von, Über Entwickelungsgeschichte der Thiere. Beobachtung und Reflexion. I. 1828. Quoted in ‘K. E. von Baer’s beginning insights in causal-analytical relationships during development’, in J. M. Oppenheimer (ed.), Essays in the History of Embryology and Biology (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1967), pp. 295–307.Google Scholar
  89. 67.
    Perhaps this is why von Baer could not support the theory of evolution, even though Darwin utilized von Baer’s conception of embryogenesis to support his theory. In Darwin’s view, the adult form was not an end that imposed itself upon the earlier stages. In both the progressive unilinear and the branched-tree conceptions of evolution, the end result does not determine the early stages of development. J. W. McAllister (‘Truth and beauty in scientific reason’, Synthese 78: 25–51, 1989) has shown that scientific revolutions can also cause “aesthetic ruptures” and that the allegiances of scientists to prior aesthetic committments can hinder their acceptance of the new hypothesis.Google Scholar
  90. 68.
    Lenoir, Truth and beauty in scientific reason’, Synthese 78: 25–51, 1982, pp. 105, 227.Google Scholar
  91. 69a.
    Hertwig, O., ‘Urmund und spina bifida’, Arch. Mikrosk, Anat 39: 353–503, 1892Google Scholar
  92. 69b.
    quoted in Sander, K., ‘Wilhelm Roux and the rest: Developmental theories 1885–1895’, Roux Arch. Dev. Biol 200: 297–299, 1991. Hertwig (The Biological Problem of To-Day: Preformation or Epigenesis?, trans, by P. C. Mitchell (NY: Macmillan, 1895)) saw harmony as being a higher principle that unity (and I suspect that this is a common aesthetic principle among embryologists). Rather than creating more of the same type of cell, the egg generates differences. These different cells can then interact in manners that cells of the same identity could not; “for the self-multiplying system of units, continually enter into new interrelations and afford the opportunity for new combinations or forces — in fact, of new characteristics”.Google Scholar
  93. 70.
    Lillie, F. R., ‘Observations and experiments concerning the elementary phenomenon of embryonic development in Chaetopterus’, J. Exper. Zool 3: 153–268, 1906. What Lillie did was to demonstrate that differentiation could take place without cell division. Regions of the egg developed different structures even when cytokinesis was inhibited. This confirmed Whitman’s notion that the cells were merely physical units that made mechanical movements possible, but they were not intrinsically important to cell fate determination. Morgan, too, believed this until around 1910 (See Gilbert, op. cit., 1978; Russell, op. cit., 1930; and Maienschein, op. cit., 1991).Google Scholar
  94. 71a.
    Spemann, H. Forschung und Leben, 1943.Google Scholar
  95. 71b.
    Quoted in Horder et al Forschung und Leben, 1984, p. 219. Some philosophers would maintain that organicism also included a notion of the whole being contained within each part. Schlegel, for instance, defined Goethe’s novel Wilhelm Meister as “organic” in that the parts repeated the whole and all elements were interdependent. Such interdependence was fundamental to the embryology of Spemann and Harrison who studied regulative phenomena in development. As mentioned earlier, Harrison noted that “each and every living being can be encompassed i the organization of a single cell of its species”. Indeed, each of the interdependent parts contained, in potentia, the entire whole.Google Scholar
  96. 72.
    Weiss, P., Dynamics of Development: Experiments and Inferences (NY: Academic Press, 1968).Google Scholar
  97. 73.
    Weiss, P., ‘From cell to molecule’, in J. M. Allen (ed.), The Molecular Control of Cellular Activity (NY: McGraw-Hill, 1962), pp. 1–72.Google Scholar
  98. 74.
    Waddington, C. H.in Whyte, L. L., The Molecular Control of Cellular Activity (NY: McGraw-Hill, p. 44, 1951.Google Scholar
  99. 75.
    Eisenstein, S. M., The Film Sense (NY: Harcourt, Brace, and World, 1942), pp. 3–11.Google Scholar
  100. 76.
    Wilson, E. B., The Cell in Development and Heredity, Third Edition (NY: MacMillan, 1925), p. 1112.Google Scholar
  101. 77.
    Saxén, L., ‘Tissue interactions and teratogenesis’, in E. V. Perrin and M. J. Finegold (eds.), Pathology of Development (Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1973), pp. 31–51.Google Scholar
  102. 78a.
    Oyama, S., The Ontogeny of Information (NY: Cambridge University Press, 1985).Google Scholar
  103. 78b.
    H. F. Nijhout (‘Metaphors and the role of genes in development’, Bio Essays 12: 441–446, 1989)Google Scholar
  104. 78c.
    S. Gilbert (‘Cytoplasmic action in development’, Quart. Rev. Biol 66: 309–316. 1991) have also commented on the poor fit that the “genetic program” metaphor has to development. An aesthetic metaphor might be appropriate in this paper. The genes are likened to the notes of a score (program) that gets read out by the instruments. However, the resulting performances of the same score can be very different. Compare, for instance, the recording of Pachelbel’s Canon played by the English Chamber Orchestra, directed by Johannes Somary (Vanguard Everyman Classics, SRV 344 SD, 1975) with the recording of the same piece by Musica Antiqua Köln, directed by Reinhard Goebel (“Deutsche Kammermusik vor Back”, Archive Produktion, 2723 078, 1981). They will hardly be recognizable as having the same notes.Google Scholar
  105. 79a.
    Malacinski, G. M., Cytoplasmic Organization Systems (NY: McGraw-Hill, 1990)Google Scholar
  106. b.
    Gilbert, Cytoplasmic Organization Systems (NY: McGraw-Hill, 1991).Google Scholar
  107. 80.
    Berrill, N. J., ‘Forward’, Growth 1 (supplement): i, 1934. The knowledge of embryology is therefore much more “situated” than that of other sciences. There are very few “laws” of embryology (see note 56). The mixing of disciplines is also in the tradition of German Romanticism, which delighted in mixing genres and techniques, putting poems into novels, poetry and philosophy, science and humanities, etc.Google Scholar
  108. 81.
    Sinnott, E., The Problem of Organic Form (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1963), pp. 8–9.Google Scholar
  109. 82.
    Bonner, J., 1965, The Problem of Organic Form (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1963)., pp. 5–8.Google Scholar
  110. 83a.
    Schlegel, F., Athenäums-Fragmente, 116. 1800Google Scholar
  111. 83b.
    Goethe, J. W., ‘Formation and Transformation’, in Goethe’s Botanical Writings, trans, by B. Mueller (Woodbridge: Ox Bow Press, 1989), pp. 21–29.Google Scholar
  112. 83c.
    Goethe’s views are discussed in Russell, E. S., Form and Function (London: Murray Publishers, 1916), pp. 45–51. Not only are the embryos given this Romantic aesthetic, but so is embryology. According to Roux, each answer brings forth new causal questions, and our knowledge of the embryo can progress but can never be completed. Moreover, Paul Weiss explicitly (in the passage cited above) relates his remarks to this concept of Gestalt as frozen Bildung. Google Scholar
  113. 84.
    Dalcq, A. M. in Whyte, L. L., Goethe’s Botanical Writings, trans, by B. Mueller (Woodbridge: Ox Bow Press, 1951), p. 113.Google Scholar
  114. 85.
    Whitehead, A. N., Process and Reality (NY: Macmillan, 1929).Google Scholar
  115. 86.
    Dyke, C, The Evolutionary Dynamics of Complex Systems (NY: Oxford University Press, 1988).Google Scholar
  116. 87a.
    Hall, B. K. (ed). Homology: The Hierarchical Basis of Comparative Biology (San Diego: Academic Press, 1994).Google Scholar
  117. 87b.
    Also, review of this book by Wake, D., ‘Comparative terminology’, Science 265: 268–269, 1994.Google Scholar
  118. 88a.
    Gould, S. J., ‘Geoffroy and the homeobox’, Nat. Hist. 94 (Nov): 12–18, 1985. This essay looks at the tension in embryology and anatomy between those who would accentuate the differences and those who would look for the underlying unities. Geoffroy St. Hilaire, in common with Goethe, Kant, and Herder, felt that there was a common underlying plan to all living organisms.Google Scholar
  119. 88b.
    The similarities in sequence, chromosomal position, and expression pattern of homeobox genes throughout the animal kingdom seems to support this view (Slack, J. M. W., Holland, P. W. H. and Graham, C. F., ‘The zootype and the phylotypic stage’, Nature 361: 490–492, 1993).Google Scholar
  120. 89.
    Chisaka, O. and Capecchi, M. R., ‘Regionally restricted developmental defects resulting from targeted disruption of the mouse homeobox gene Hox-1.5’, Nature 350: 473–479, 1992. Also, new studies show that Drosophila and mammalian homeobox genes can encode similar proteins and perform similar developmental functions.Google Scholar
  121. 90.
    McGhee, J. D. and Mains, P. E., ‘Embryonic transcription in Caenorhabditis elegans’, Semin. Dev. Biol 3: 163–173, 1992.Google Scholar
  122. 91.
    Maniatis, T. and Weintraub, H., ‘Gene expression and differentiation’, Curr. Opin. Genet. Devel 2: 197–198, 1992.Google Scholar
  123. 92.
    Owen, R., On the Archetype and Homologies of the Vertebrate Skeleton (London: 1848); On the Nature of the Limbs (London: John van Voorst, 1849).Google Scholar
  124. 93.
    Gilbert, S. F., ‘Owen’s vertebral archetype and evolutionary genetics: A Platonic appreciation’, Persp. Biol. Med 23: 475–487, 1980.Google Scholar
  125. 94.
    Gilbert, S. F., Developmental Biology, Second edition (Sunderland: Sinauer Associates, 1988).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Scott F. Gilbert
    • 1
  • Marion Faber
    • 1
  1. 1.Swarthmore ClollegeSwarthmoreUSA

Personalised recommendations