Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Circulating Mice and Viruses

The Jackson Memorial Laboratory, the National Cancer Institute, and the Genetics of Breast Cancer, 1930–1965

  • Chapter
The Practices of Human Genetics

Part of the book series: Sociology of the Sciences ((SOSC,volume 21))

Abstract

The issue of Nature Genetics published in October 1992 included a review on breast cancer genes. There M.C. King argued that breast cancer is one of the most common genetic diseases in the industralized world1. Such an interest in genetic predispositions to the formation of mammary tumor was hardly visible in the 1960s and 1970s. Debates on the genetics of cancer were more fashionable before World War II, however. For example, in 1932, M.T. Macklin, a preeminent advocate of eugenics, was asking physicians to pay serious attention to “evidence that tumors, both benign and malignant, are inherited in man”.2

Hegel remarks somewhere that all facts and personages of great importance in world history occur, as it were, twice. He forgot to add: the first time as a tragedy, the second as farce. Cousidières for Danton, Louis Blanc for Robespierre, the Montagne of 1848 to 1851 for the Montagne of 1793 to 1795, the Nephew for the Uncle.

Mass production is not merely quantity production, for this may have none of the requisites of mass production. Nor it is merely machine production, which also may exist without any resemblance to mass production. Mass production is the focusing upon a manufacturing project of the principles of power, accuracy, economy, system, continuity, and speed.

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 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
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 and References

  1. “Inherited breast cancer is a common genetic disease: 5% of a disease affecting one in ten women over the life span means that roughly 1 in 200 women will develop breast cancer by reason of inherited susceptibility. Therefore, as an inherited trait, breast cancer is one of the most common genetic diseases in the industrialized world.” M.C. King. “Breast Cancer genes: How Many, Where and Who Are they?” Nature Genetics, 2 (1992), pp. 89–90.

    Google Scholar 

  2. When coming to the issue of “eugenical applications,” she condeded: “Unfortunately there seems to be little hope from the eugenic standpoint of eradication, for usually cancer does not develop in the patient until his children are mature.... It is different with tumors that develop in early childhood such as retinal glioma, which snatch a child from existence at an early age, or plunge him into a world of darkness for a life time. There eugenics has a definite role, and those who have retinal glioma and survived the operation should not pass on the defect to their children....” M.T. Macklin. “The Hereditary Factor in Human Neoplasms,” The Quarterly Review of Biology, VII (1932), pp. 255–281.

    Google Scholar 

  3. P. Keating, A. Cambrosio, M. Mackenzie, “The Tools of the Discipline: Standards, Models and Measures in the Affinity/Avidity Controversy in Immunology” in The Right Tools for the Job, ed. A.E. Clarke and J. Fujimura (Princeton Princeton University Press, 1992; and I. Löwy. “Experimental Systems and Clinical Practices: Tumor Immunology and Cancer Immunotherapy, 1895-1980” Journal of the History of Biology, 27 (1994), pp. 403–435.

    Google Scholar 

  4. H. Collins, Changing Order (Beverly Hills, CA Sage. 1985).

    Google Scholar 

  5. A. Strauss, “A Social World Perspective,” Studies in Symbolic Interaction, 1 (1978), pp. 119–128; and A. Strauss. “Social Worlds and Legitimation Processes,” Studies in Symbolic Interaction, 4 (1982), pp. 171-190.

    Google Scholar 

  6. S. Leigh Starr and J.R. Griesemer, “Institutional Ecology: Translation and Boundary Objects,” Social Studies of Science, 19 (1988), pp. 387–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. For a discussion of this problem see Clarke and Fujimura, The Right Tool.

    Google Scholar 

  8. For exemplars of the stabilization of scientific agencies by the production of standards, see C. Smith and M.N. Wise, Energy and Empire, (Cambridge, England Cambridge University Press, 1989); S. Schaffer, “Late Victorian Metrology and its Instrumentation: A Manufactory of Ohms” in Invisible Connections: Instruments, Institutions and Science, eds, R. Bud, S. Cozzens (Bellingham, WA: SPIE Optical Engineering Press, 1992); and J. O’Connel, “Metrology: The Creation of Universality by the Circulation of Particulars,” Social Studies of Science, 23 (1993), pp. 129–173.

    Google Scholar 

  9. For a discussion of the production of animal systems, see Robert E. Koehler, “Systems of Production: Drosophila, Neurospora and Biochemical Genetics,” Historical Studies in the Biological and Physical Sciences, 21 (1991), pp. 87–127; R.E. Koehler, “Drosophila: A Life in the Laboratory,” The Journal of the History of Biology, 26 (1993), pp. 281-310; and B. Clause, “The Wistar Rat as a Right Choice: Establishing Mammalian Standards and the Ideal of Standardization,” The Journal of the History of Biology, 26 (1993), pp. 329-349.

    Google Scholar 

  10. “Pete Little was practically born a geneticist… At Bar Harbor, in a small building whose solid brick walls exclude stray mice, he produces 150,000 mice a year, sells 50,000 to other scientific institutions for research, anatomizes 25,000 to analyse their inherited characteristics, especially their susceptibility to cancer,” Time, March 22, 1937, p. 54.

    Google Scholar 

  11. National Cancer Advisory Council, Report 1937, reprinted in Journal of National Cancer Institute, 19 (1957).

    Google Scholar 

  12. Little’s research career deserves an extensive treatment. His role in the development of inbred strains of mice is the topic of K. Rader’s thesis: Making Mice: C. C. Little, the Jackson Laboratory and the Standardization of Mus musculus for Research. Indiana University, forthcoming. On his commitment toward eugenics, see R.G. Clark, The Social Uses of Scientific Knowledge. Eugenics in the Career of C.C. Little (University of Maine, 1956, Master’s dissertation).

    Google Scholar 

  13. E.E. Tyzzer. “Tumor Immunity,” Journal of Cancer Research, 1 (1916), p. 125. C.C. Little and E.E. Tyzzer, “Further experimental Studies of the Inheritance of Susceptibility to a Transplantable Tumor, Carcinoma (J.W.A.) of the Japanese Waltzing Mouse,” Journal of Medical Research, 33 (1916), pp. 393-27.

    Google Scholar 

  14. C.C. Little, “The Relation of Heredity to Cancer in Man and Animals,” Science Monthly, 3 (1916), pp. 196–202.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Little, and Tyzzer, “Further Experimental Studies…, p. 396.

    Google Scholar 

  16. See C.C. Little, “The Heredity of Susceptibility to a Transplantable Sarcoma and (JWB) of the Japanese Waltzing Mouse,” Science, 51 (1920), pp.467–68; C.C. Little and W.B. Johnson. “The Inheritance of Susceptibility to Implants of Splenic Tissue in Mice. I. Japanese Waltzing Mice, Albinos, and Their Fl Generation Hybrids,” Proceedings of the Society for Experimental Biology and Medicine, 19 (1922), pp. 163-167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. On this dimension, see Clark, chapter 4. “The Scientist as University President.”

    Google Scholar 

  18. “It seems to me that the efforts toward sterilization which are now fairly widespread have in general a great deal of merit, but they are a rather crude implement. They are so to speak, biological prohibition, instead of biological temperance…. That is curative, not preventive, and sterilization does not reach and probably never can reach the type of individual who is a real menace to civilization, and at the same time one of its law-abiding and useful citizens…. I refer to an individual, normal himself, a good, law-abiding, constructive member of a community, but who carries the hereditary trait in his germ cells of epilepsy or feeble-mindedness or insanity.” C.C. Little, “Unnatural Selection and its Resulting Obligations,” Birth Control Review. 10 (1926), pp. 243–244.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Ibid. p. 244.

    Google Scholar 

  20. See Clark, “The Scientist as University President.”

    Google Scholar 

  21. J. Holsten, The First Fifty Years at the Jackson Laboratory (Bar Harbor: The Jackson Laboratory, 1979).

    Google Scholar 

  22. On the founding chart, see E.L. Green, “The Jackson Laboratory: A Center for Mammalian Genetics in the United States,” Journal of Heredity, 57 (1966), pp. 3–12.

    Google Scholar 

  23. For biographical information, See J.J. McCoy, The Cancer Lady: Maud Slye and her Heredity Studies (Nashville, TN: T. Nelson: 1977).

    Google Scholar 

  24. See C.C. Little “Cancer and Heredity” Science, 42 (1915), pp. 218–219. C.C. Little, “The Inheritance of Cancer,” Science, 42 (1915), pp. 494-95; and M. Slye, “A Reply to Dr. Little,” Science, 42 (1915), pp. 246-248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. McCoy, The Cancer Lady.

    Google Scholar 

  26. C.C. Little, “Evidence That Cancer Is Not a Simple Mendelian Recessive,” Journal of Cancer Research, 12 (1928), pp. 30–46.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Many articles written by Little before World War II include critical views about Slye’s recessive cancer genes. See for example C.C. Little, “The Role of Heredity in Determining the Incidence and Growth of Cancer,”American Journal of Cancer, 15 (1931), pp. 2780–2789; and C.C. Little, “The Present Status of Our Knowledge of Heredity and Cancer,” JAMA. 106 (1936), pp. 2234-2235. For the contribution of Little’s collaborators, see: J.J. Bittner, “The Genetics of Cancer of Mice,” Quarterly Review of Biology, 13 (1938), pp. 51-64. Slye’s reputation was severely damaged by Little’s article. In 1936, she changed her theory, introducing two sets of genetic factors, one set controlling susceptibility to one cancer type, the other set the localization of the tumor. This change has been viewed (Shimkin, 1973) as a closure of the controversy since cancer was turned into a multigenic disease. The move, however, just displaced the arguments. The controversy closed when Slye retired and stopped publishing on cancer.

    Google Scholar 

  28. M. Slye, “The Relation of Heredity to Cancer,” The Journal of Cancer Research, 12 (1928), pp. 83–133.

    Google Scholar 

  29. This line of argument was already established when Slye published her first reports. See M. Slye, “The Incidence and Inheritability of Spontaneous Cancer in Mice,” The Journal of Cancer Research, 32 (1915), pp. 159–200.

    Google Scholar 

  30. See Green, The Jackson Laboratory; andH.C. Morse III, (ed), Origins of Inbred Mice (New York Academic Press, 1978).

    Google Scholar 

  31. This contrasted with the making of other laboratory animals. See Clause, “The Wistar Rat…”.

    Google Scholar 

  32. See C.C. Little, “The Present Status of the Cancer Problem,” Annals of Surgery, 93 (1931), pp. 11–15 and C.C. Little, “Some Contributions of the Laboratory Rodents to Our Understanding of Human Biology,” American Naturalist, 73 (1939), pp. 127-138. See also the volume produced collectively by the staff members, G.D. Snell, ed. Biology of the Laboratory Mouse, (New York: MacGraw-Hill, 1941).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. L.C. Strong, “The Establishment of the A Strain of Inbred Mice,” Journal of Heredity, 28 (1937), pp. 21–24.

    Google Scholar 

  34. R.R. Gates, Eugenics and Heredity, chapter 14. (London Constable, 1929).

    Google Scholar 

  35. “The fact of inheritance is clear, but the type of inheritance needs further investigation. It does not appear to be simple Mendelian inheritance.” C.C. Little, “The Relations of Genetics to the Problems of Cancer Research.” Harvey Lectures 1921-1922. pp. 65–88. Slye’s arguments are developed in Slye, “The Relation of Heredity to Cancer. “

    Google Scholar 

  36. “The fact that the tendency to certain forms of cancer is hereditary in mice has been established for some years…. For a time the medical profession was not very willing to accept this fact. Their experience had dealt with human beings, who had bred so slowly and had produced such a small number of progeny from any one mating, and were so difficult to examine and diagnose by the certain method of autopsy, that the details and method of inheritance were none too clear. It was therefore entirely natural that the profession did not at once agree with the conclusions of those engaged in laboratory research…. Too many false hopes have been built up and later destroyed in many investigations on cancer to allow a simple but incorrect genetic interpretation to go unchallenged, especially if it is not well supported by its proponent’s data.” C.C. Little, “Evidence That Cancer is Not a Simple Recessive”, Harvey Lectures 1921–1922.

    Google Scholar 

  37. D. Kevles, In the Name of Eugenics (Berkeley University of California Press, 1985); K.M. Ludmerer, Genetics and the American Society. (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press. 1972).

    Google Scholar 

  38. “There has been such a psychological and sociological maelstrom of ballyhoo and propaganda on economic and allied issues that the country is still spell bound or bilious…. Organized eugenics in the United States is in the doldrums because of several facts. Among these may be cited the following: (1) Lack of confidence on the part of experimental scientists in what has been termed eugenic research; (2) Lack of courage on the part of leaders in biological, sociological and economic fields in facing the conscious control of the quantity and quality of human population; (3) Inability of the average voter at present to see that many if not all our major ills of today are dependant on the fact that we have not used our intellect in the making of men as we have in the production of machinery.” C.C. Little, “Not Dead but Sleeping,” The Journal of Heredity, 24 (1933), pp. 149–150.

    Google Scholar 

  39. C. Little, “The Present Status of Our Knowledge of Heredity and Cancer,” JAMA., 106 (1936), pp. 2234–2235.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Staff of Roscoe B. Jackson Memorial Laboratory. “The Existence of Non-chromosomal Influence in the Incidence of Mammary Tumors in Mice.” Science, 78 (1933), pp. 465–466.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. W. Murray and C.C. Little “Extrachromosomal Influence in Relation to the Incidence of Mammary and Non-mammary Tumor in Mice,” American Journal of Cancer, 27 (1936), pp. 516–518.

    Google Scholar 

  42. C.C. Little, “Education in Cancer,” American Journal of Cancer, 15 (1931), pp. 280–283.

    Google Scholar 

  43. W.S. Murray and C.C. Little. “Chromosomal and Extrachromosomal Relation to the Incidence of Mammary Tumors in Mice,” American Journal of Cancer, 37 (1939), pp. 536–552.

    Google Scholar 

  44. C. Oberling, The Riddle of Cancer, (New Haven: Yale University Press. 1944), p. 162.

    Google Scholar 

  45. J. Austoker, A History of the Imperial Cancer Research Fund, (Oxford Oxford University Press, 1988).

    Google Scholar 

  46. J.J. Bittner, “The Milk Influence of Breast Tumors in Mice,” Science, 95 (1942), pp. 462–463.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. A. Laccassagne, “Relationship of Hormones and Mammary Adenocarcinoma in the Mouse,”American Journal of Cancer, 37 (1939), pp. 414–424.

    Google Scholar 

  48. G.W. Woolley, L.W. Law, and C.C. Little “The Occurrence in Whole Blood of Material Influencing the Incidence of Mammary Carcinoma in Mice,” Cancer Research, 1, 1941, pp. 955–956.

    Google Scholar 

  49. E. Fekete and C.C. Little, “Observations on the Mammary Tumor Incidence of Mice Born from Transfered Ova,” Cancer Research, 2 (1942), pp. 525–530.

    Google Scholar 

  50. His series rested on three putative mechanisms: inheritance of chromosomes controlling rates of growth in cells, cytoplasmic particles controlling development and differentiation, hormones controlling the development of mammary glands. See Little. “Parental Influence on Cancer,” American Journal of Cancer, 15,1931, p. 97.

    Google Scholar 

  51. H.B Andervont, “The Milk Influence in the Genesis of Mammary Tumors” in Staff of the National Cancer Institute, A Symposium on Mammary Tumors, Publication of the AAAS, Number 22, ed., F.R. Moulton, 1945.

    Google Scholar 

  52. The circulation of all Jackson mice showing mammary tumors do not reveal the same pattern. The fact that strain A, which was used in Bittner’s original foster-nursing experiments, did not experience the fate of C3H is suggestive of the contingency of the circulation process.

    Google Scholar 

  53. J.B. Shimkin, “As Memory Serves: An Informal History of the National Cancer Institute, 1937-1957,” Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 59 (1977), pp. 559–600, see pp. 566-567 on the career of Andervont.

    Google Scholar 

  54. H.B. Andervont, “Influence of Foster Nursing Upon Incidence of Spontaneous Mammary Tumor Cancer in Resistant and Susceptible Mice,” Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 1 (1940), pp. 147–153.

    Google Scholar 

  55. J.J. Bittner, “Breast Cancer in Mice as Influenced by Nursing,” Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 1 (1940), pp. 155–168.

    Google Scholar 

  56. H.B. Andervont, “Influence of Hybridization Upon the Occurrence of Mammary Tumors in Mice,” Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 3 (1943), 359–365.

    Google Scholar 

  57. J.J. Bittner, “Changes of the Incidence of Mammary Carcinoma in Mice of the “A” Stock,” Cancer Research, 1 (1941), pp. 113–114.

    Google Scholar 

  58. W.E. Heston, M.K. Deringer, and H.B. Andervont. “Gene-Milk Agent Relationship in Mammary-Tumor Development,” Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 5 (1945), pp. 289–307.

    Google Scholar 

  59. J.J. Bittner, “Possible Relationship of the Estrogenic Hormones, Genetic Susceptibility, and Milk Influence in the Production of Mammary Cancer in mice,” Cancer Research, 2 (1942), pp. 710–721.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Index Medicus shows evidence of this success. From the late 1930s on, the milk agent was the main topic of a dozen articles a year.

    Google Scholar 

  61. A. Haddow, J.M. Watkinson, and E. Paterson, “Influence of Synthetic Oestrogens upon Advanced Malignant Disease,” British Medical Journal, 2 (1944), pp. 393–399.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Staff of the Roscoe B. Jackson Memorial Laboratory, “The Constitutional Factor in the Incidence of Mammary Tumors,” American Journal of Cancer, 27 (1936), pp. 551–555.

    Google Scholar 

  63. Review in M.B. Shimkin, “Hormones and Mammary Cancer in Mice” in Staff of the National Cancer Institute. A Symposium on Mammary Tumors.

    Google Scholar 

  64. S.G. Taylor et al. “The Effect of Sex Hormones on Advanced Carcinoma of the Breast,” Cancer, 1 (1948), pp. 604–617.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. For instance, the British geneticist L. Penrose concluded one such study: “In view of the work on mice by Bittner, a factor derived from maternal cytoplasm, transmitted by way of milk, colostrom or cytoplasm of the ovum might be a specific cause. If this were so, maternal relatives should be more frequently affected with mammary cancer than the corresponding paternal relatives…. (Our) figures are suggestive though scarcely conclusive of maternal line inheritance.” L.S. Penrose, HJ. Mac Kenzie, and M.N. Kam, “A Genetic Study of Human Mammary Cancer,” British Journal of Cancer, 2 (1948), pp. 168–176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. J.T. Patterson. The Dread Disease: Cancer and Modern American Culture (Cambridge Harvard University Press, 1987) chapter 6; See also D.F. Shaughnessy, “The Story of the American Cancer Society,” Columbia University, 1957, doctoral dissertation, chapter 12.

    Google Scholar 

  67. Shaughnessy, chapter 11. Patterson, chapter 7.

    Google Scholar 

  68. The Journal of Heredity then regularly hosted articles on the issue.

    Google Scholar 

  69. See Ludmerer, Genetics and the American Society, chapter 8; and Kevles,In the Name of Eugenics.

    Google Scholar 

  70. A survey of the ACS journal Cancer News for the years 1947–1955 shows no articles about cancer genetics in humans, although the Committee on Growth established jointly with the National Research Council in 1947 envisioned somework in the field.

    Google Scholar 

  71. C.C. Little, “Program for Research on the Biology of Human Cancer,” Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 2 (1941), pp. 133–137. The first article on the genetics of human cancer published in the NCI journal came out in 1959. The author was an old-guard figure: M.T. Macklin.

    Google Scholar 

  72. E.S. Rüssel, “Origins and History of Mouse Inbred Strains: Contributions of C.C. Little,” in Origins of Inbred Mice, ed. H.C. Morse III, pp. 33–44.

    Google Scholar 

  73. A sketchy description of the system can be found in Mouse News Letter, 5 (1951), pp. 24–36.

    Google Scholar 

  74. E.L. Green, “The Jackson Laboratory: A Center for Mammalian Genetics in the United States,” Journal of Heredity, 57 (1965), pp. 3–12.

    Google Scholar 

  75. See L. Strong, “Inbred Mice in Science,” in Origins of Inbred Mice, ed.H.C. Morse m, pp. 45-68; and C.C. Little, “J.J. Bittner,” Oncologia, 16 (1963), pp 354–356.

    Google Scholar 

  76. A general review on mouse mammary tumors written by L. Dmochowski in 1953, mentions dozens of articles published by members of the staff of the Jackson Memorial Laboratory after 1944 and more than 70 during the years 1933–1943.

    Google Scholar 

  77. J.J. Bittner, “Observations on the Inherited Susceptibility to Spontaneous Mammary Cancer in Mice,” Cancer Research, 4 (1944), pp. 159–167.

    Google Scholar 

  78. J.J. Bittner, “The Causes and Control of Mammary Cancer in Mice,” Harvey Lectures 1946-1947, pp. 221–246.

    Google Scholar 

  79. C. Barnum, Z.B.B. Ball, and J.J. Bittner, “Some Properties of the Mammary Tumor Milk Agent,” Cancer Research, 6 (1946), pp. 573–581.

    Google Scholar 

  80. J.J. Bittner, “Some Enigmas Associated with the Genesis of Mammary Cancer in Mice,” Cancer Research, 8 (1948), pp. 625–639.

    Google Scholar 

  81. Strong, “Inbred Mice in Science.”

    Google Scholar 

  82. P. Rous, “The Nearer Causes of Cancer,” JAMA, 122 (1943), pp 573–581; I. Löwy, “Variance of Meaning in Discovery Accounts: The Case of Contemporary Biology,” Historical Studies in the Physical and Biological Sciences, 21 (1990), pp. 87-121.

    Google Scholar 

  83. Staff of the national Cancer Institute, A Symposium on Mammary Tumors.

    Google Scholar 

  84. Andervont, “Influence of Foster Nursing…” p. 134.

    Google Scholar 

  85. The NCI, for instance, tried to collect mouse milk containing the agent on a large scale. H. Kahler, “Apparatus for Milking Mice,” The Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 2 (1942), pp. 457–458.

    Google Scholar 

  86. Dmochowski’s review of 1953 gives similar weight to the contribution of groups headed by Little (Jackson), Gross (New York), Korteweg (Amsterdam), Bittner (Minneapolis), Heston (NCI), Andervont (NCI), Dmochowski (Leeds).

    Google Scholar 

  87. “Any advances in our knowledge about the genesis of mammary cancer in mice may be attributed to the availability of homozygous or inbred stocks. For research on these strains are to the biologist as pure chemicals are to the chemist.” Bittner, Some Enigmas.

    Google Scholar 

  88. H.B. Andervont, and T.B. Dunn. “Mammary Tumors in Mice Presumably Free of Mammary Tumor Agent.” Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 8 (1945), pp. 227–233.

    Google Scholar 

  89. H.B. Andervont and T.B. Dunn, “Further Studies on the Relation of the Mammary-Tumor Agent to Mammary Tumors of Hybrid Mice,” Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 5 (1948), pp. 89–104.

    Google Scholar 

  90. W.E. Heston, M.K. Deringer, and H.B. Andervont, “Gene-Milk Agent Relationship in Mammary-Tumor Development,” Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 5 (1945), pp. 289–307.

    Google Scholar 

  91. Cannon quoted by Bittner, Some Enigmas, p. 627.

    Google Scholar 

  92. W.E. Heston, “Mammary-Tumor in Agent-Free Mice,” Annals of the New York Academy of Science, 71 (1958), pp. 931–942.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  93. See L. Dmochowski, “The Milk-Agent and the Origin of Mammary Tumors in Mice,” Advances in Cancer Research 1 (1953), pp. 103–172, and J.J. Bittner, “Genetic Concepts in Mammary Cancer in Mice,” Annals of the New-York Academy of Science, 71 (1958), pp. 943-974.

    Google Scholar 

  94. J.R. Heller, “The National Cancer Institute: A Twenty-Year Retrospect,” Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 19 (1957), pp. 195 and p. 197.

    Google Scholar 

  95. R. Bud, “Strategy in American Cancer Research After World War II,” Social Studies of Science, 8 (1978), pp. 425-459.

    Google Scholar 

  96. Bud, “Strategy in American Cancer Research…”, C.P. Rhoads, “Nitrogen Mustards in the Treatment of Neoplastic Disease,” JAMA, 131 (1946), pp. 656–658.

    Google Scholar 

  97. S. Farber et al. “Temporary Remissions in Acute Leukemia in Children Produced by Folic-Acid Antagonist, 4-aminopteryl-glutamic acid (aminopterin),” New England Journal of Medicine, 238 (1948), pp. 787–793.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  98. J.T. Patterson, The Dread Disease chapter 7.

    Google Scholar 

  99. NCI appropriations experienced an exponential growth then: $0.6 million in 1945, $14 million in 1948, $48 million in 1957.

    Google Scholar 

  100. C.G. Zubord. “Origins and Development of Chemotherapy Research at the National Cancer Institute,” Cancer Treatment Reports, 68 (1984), pp. 9–19.

    Google Scholar 

  101. See The National Program of Cancer Chemotherapy Research, Cancer Chemotherapy Reports, January 1959; and I. Löwy, Between Bench and Bedside (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1996).

    Google Scholar 

  102. See K.M. Endicott, “The Chemotherapy Program,” Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 19 (1957), pp.257–293, and Löwy, “Nothing More to Do….”

    Google Scholar 

  103. Zubord, “Origins and Development of Chemotherapy…”, p. 12; Endicott, ‘The Chemotherapy Program…”, p. 292.

    Google Scholar 

  104. See B.F. Hill, “Laboratory Animal Standardization in the United States of America” in Notes for Breeders of Common Laboratory Animals, ed.G. Porter and W. Lane-Petter, (London Academic Press, 1962).

    Google Scholar 

  105. Endicott, “The Chemotherapy Program” p. 281.

    Google Scholar 

  106. Endicott, “The Chemotherapy Program,” p. 280; C.G. Zubord, S.Schepartz, J. Leiter, K.M. Endicott, L.M. Carrese, and C.G. Baker, “History of the Cancer Chemotherapy Program,” Cancer Chemotherapy Reports, 50 (1966), p. 364.

    Google Scholar 

  107. Zubord, Schepartz, and Carter, “Historical Background of the National Cancer Institute’s Drug Development Trust,” National Cancer Institute Monographs, 45 (1975), p. 10.

    Google Scholar 

  108. L. Gross, M. Bessis, interview “How the Mouse Leukemia Virus Was Discovered,” Nouvelle Revue Française d”Hématologie, 16 (1976), pp.287–304.

    Google Scholar 

  109. This perspective may be traced back to his work on tumor immunology at the Pasteur Institute in Paris. A. Besredka and L. Gross, “De L’immunisation Contre le Sarcome de la Souris par la Voie Intracutanée,” Annales de l’Institut Pasteur, 55 (1935), pp. 491–500.

    Google Scholar 

  110. L. Gross, “The Vertical Epidemic of Mammary Carcinoma in Mice,” Surgery, Gynecology and Obstectrics, 88 (1949), pp. 295–308.

    Google Scholar 

  111. L. Gross, Oncogenic Viruses, 1st ed., (London Academic Press, 1962).

    Google Scholar 

  112. L. Gross, “Susceptibility of Suckling-Infant, and Resistance of Adult Mice of the C3H and the C57 Lines to Inoculation with Ak Leukemia,” Cancer, 3 (1950), pp. 1073–1087; and L. Gross, “Pathogenic Properties and Vertical Transmission of the Mouse Leukemia Agent,” Proceedings of the Society for Experimental Biology and Medicine, 78 (1951), pp. 342-348.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  113. M.B. Shimkin, “As Memory Serves. An Informal History of the National Cancer Institute,” Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 59 (1977), p. 559.

    Google Scholar 

  114. L.W. Law, T.B. Dunn, and P.J. Boyle, “Neoplasms in the C3H Strain and in Fl Hybrid Mice of Two Crosses Following Introduction of Extracts and Filtrates of Leukemic Tissues,” Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 16 (1955), pp. 495–519.

    Google Scholar 

  115. L. Gross, “Difference in Susceptibility to Ak Leukemic Agent Between Two Substrains of Mice of C3H Line,” Proceedings of the Society for Experimental Biology and Medicine, 88 (1955), pp. 64–66.

    Google Scholar 

  116. Gross, Oncogenic Viruses.

    Google Scholar 

  117. J. Furth, Proceedings of the Society for Experimental Biology and Medicine, 93 (1956), pp. 165–172.

    Google Scholar 

  118. Law, Dunn, and Boyle, “Neoplasms in the C3H Strain,” Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 16 (1955), pp. 495–519.

    Google Scholar 

  119. L. Gross, “Development and Serial Cell-free Passage of a Highly Potent Strain of Mouse Leukemia Virus,” Proceedings of the Society for Experimental Biology and Medicine, 94 (1957), pp. 767–771.

    Google Scholar 

  120. E. Stewart, B.E. Eddy, and N. Borgese, “Neoplasms in Mice Inoculated with a Tumor Agent Carried in Tissue Culture,” Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 20 (1958), pp. 1223–1243.

    Google Scholar 

  121. J.B. Moloney, “Preliminary Studies on a Mouse Lymphoid Leukemia Virus Extracted from Sarcoma 37,” Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research, 3 (1959), p. 44.

    Google Scholar 

  122. R.A. Manaker, L.R. Sibal, and J.B. Moloney, “Scientific Activities at the National Cancer Institute: Virology,” Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 59 (1977), pp.623–631.

    Google Scholar 

  123. L. Gross, Oncogenic Viruses, 2d ed., 1970.

    Google Scholar 

  124. National Cancer Institute,Annual Report of Activities, Fiscal Year 1968.

    Google Scholar 

  125. National Cancer Institute, Annual Report of Activities, Fiscal Year 1973.

    Google Scholar 

  126. N. Wade, “Scientists and the Press: Cancer Scare Story That Wasn’t,” Science, 174 (1961), pp. 679–680.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Hôpital Necker-Enfants Malades, Paris, France

    Jean-Paul Gaudilliere

Authors
  1. Jean-Paul Gaudilliere
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Hampshire College, Amherst, Massachusetts, USA

    Michael Fortun

  2. Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA

    Everett Mendelsohn

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1999 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Gaudilliere, JP. (1999). Circulating Mice and Viruses. In: Fortun, M., Mendelsohn, E. (eds) The Practices of Human Genetics. Sociology of the Sciences, vol 21. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-4718-7_4

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-4718-7_4

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht

  • Print ISBN: 978-94-010-5985-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-011-4718-7

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation