Institutionalizing molecular biology in post-war Europe: a comparative study
Introduction
In September 1963, 25 scientists from Europe, the United States, and Israel met in Ravello (Italy), where they decided to set up a European Molecular Biology Organisation (EMBO). They elected a provisional executive committee composed of researchers from very different scientific backgrounds: crystallography (Max Perutz and John Kendrew from the United Kingdom), microbiology (François Jacob from France and Ole Maaløe from Denmark), biochemistry (Hans Friedrich-Freksa and Adolf Butenandt from Germany), biophysics (Edouard Kellenberger from Switzerland, Charles Sadron from France and Arne Engström from Sweden), physical chemistry (Alphonso Liquori from Italy and Ephraim Katchalski from Israel), embryology (Jean Brachet from Belgium) and genetics (Adriano Buzzati-Traverso from Italy).1 In the following months, they invited 140 other prominent scientists to join the organisation.
A decade earlier, however, most of these researchers had not know each other, and were hardly interested in each other’s work. They had identified themselves, not with molecular biology, but with the speciality in which they had acquired their training. According to John Kendrew, in the 1940s and 1950s, phage geneticists and crystallographers for example, were ‘almost entirely isolated from each other’ (Kendrew, 1967, p. 141). In 1963, both communities considered their research to be at the centre of a new field called molecular biology.
It was only shortly before the foundation of EMBO that the term ‘molecular biology’ acquired its social reality and began to be used in Europe and in the United States to identify a field of research, a professional identity, and the research institutions associated with it. The Journal of Molecular Biology, for example, was founded in 1959 under the leadership of John Kendrew. Between 1957 and 1962, several of these future EMBO members designed large scale projects that were addressed to national funding agencies, in order to create institutions devoted to their new field in Germany, Britain, France, Italy, Switzerland, and Belgium. In the sense that they led to the creation of the first institutes of molecular biology in their respective countries, these various projects were demonstrably successful in contributing to the establishment of the field.
The institutional history of recent scientific fields is usually framed within a local or national perspective, and historians of science have now, generally speaking, moved away from ‘top-down’ master narratives to more confined accounts. The history of molecular biology is no exception, as can be seen, for example, in Lily Kay’s masterly study of the ‘molecular vision of life’ at the California Institute of Technology (Kay, 1993). Similarly, the rise of molecular biology in Europe has recently been studied through two of its key institutions, the Pasteur Institute in Paris and the Medical Research Council laboratory in Cambridge (Gaudillière, 1993, Gaudillière, 2002, de Chadarevian, 1994, de Chadarevian, 2002). In these studies, local factors—such as personal networks and particular organisational configurations—play a crucial role in the institutionalisation process, along with national factors, such as national research traditions, academic systems, science policy, and the war legacies. The very different national war-time experiences, for example, were shown to affect profoundly the development of molecular biology in the post-war period (Gaudillière, 1991, de Chadarevian, 2002). In the United States, and to a lesser extent in Europe, the Rockefeller foundation played an essential role in fostering the development of molecular biology. Thus, through their focus on local dynamics, these studies also address more global trends.
One might wonder, however, whether these more global trends could not profitably be identified by bringing different local stories, despite their contingent aspects, into a common perspective. In particular, could not the creation in Europe around 1960 of different new institutes for molecular biology be brought into a common framework extending beyond the national portrayals, since the promoters of these institutes, unlike their American counterparts, confronted comparable political, economic and cultural forces specifically related to the post-war European situation? Thus, could the European post-war context, rather than the very diverse national wartime experiences, provide a useful framework to compare these different cases? Could this shared framework highlight connections between the different cases and common factors not apparent in the national or local stories?2 Since the promoters of these different institutes defined the meaning of molecular biology in their local context, would the comparison of these cases not permit a better understanding of the broad meaning that molecular biology had acquired at that time, at least in Europe?
In order to answer these questions, this paper proceeds via a ‘bottom-up’ approach. It re-examines and compares the institutionalisation of molecular biology in four local contexts that have been studied previously: Cologne (Germany), Cambridge (United Kingdom), Paris (France), and Geneva (Switzerland), and focuses more specifically on four projects that were submitted to national funding agencies for the purpose of creating new institutions devoted to molecular biology. As one would expect, a comparison between these four documents reveals the many differences arising from the various local and national contexts, but also the striking similarities consequent upon the post-war European situation. This comparison proceeds in two steps. First, it examines how molecular biology was construed, and second, how this new field was legitimised and acquired its broader meaning.
Focusing only on these institutional plans would, of course, be insufficient to draw meaningful comparisons between the four cases. I have relied therefore on broader archival work as well as on the detailed histories that can be found in the work of Soraya de Chadarevian on Cambridge (de Chadarevian, 2002, de Chadarevian, 1996, de Chadarevian, 1994), Jean-Paul Gaudillière on France (Gaudillière, 2002, Gaudillière, 1993, Gaudillière, 1994), Ute Deichmann on Cologne (Deichmann, 1996, Ch. 7) and my own on Geneva (Strasser, 2002a).3
Two main reasons have led to the choice of these four cases. Firstly, they include the two major players in the development of molecular biology in Europe, namely the Medical Research Council research group in Cambridge and the Pasteur Institute group in Paris, as well as two somewhat more peripheral groups.4 Secondly, each case documents the creation of the first institute of molecular biology in its respective national context.5
Section snippets
Local contexts
The German document was the first to be issued, on 20 November 1957. On that day, Joseph Straub, a professor of botany at Cologne University, addressed a long letter to the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG), the main state agency supporting German research.6 Straub requested DM 2.5 million in order to found a ‘modern institute
Defining molecular biology, its history and its social organisation
I now wish to take a closer look at the way in which the authors of the four documents defined the new field that they wished to institutionalise. In their proposals, they delimited the goals of their discipline, reflected on its history and suggested how research should be organised. In previous years, these authors had not identified themselves with molecular biology, but with disciplines such as biophysics, genetics, microbiology, or biochemistry. They therefore elaborated definitions of
Legitimating molecular biology
In 1961, the MRC explained its decision to build a laboratory of molecular biology by the fact that ‘a strong case existed on scientific grounds’.35 I wish to demonstrate here that the British plan, as well as the other attempts to institutionalise molecular biology in Europe, did not succeed solely because ‘a strong case existed on scientific grounds’, but
Conclusion
This paper has tried to explain how, around 1960, the promoters of molecular biology in Europe defined their new discipline. It has therefore brought the question concerning the origin of molecular biology into a different light. The term ‘molecular biology’ has indeed been previously employed in two different contexts. First, intellectual historians have taken it to designate scientific research (from the 1930s onward) of the kind that, in the 1960s, came to be carried out under the name of
Acknowledgements
I am intellectually indebted for this paper to Soraya de Chadarevian, Jean-Paul Gaudillière, Ute Deichmann, Jean-François Picard and Pnina Abir-Am. Robert Olby and Bernardino Fantini critically read this manuscript, and I benefited from constant discussions with Marc Geiser. The archivists at the California Institute of Technology, the Pasteur Institute, the CNRS, the French Ministry of Education, the Public Record Office and the University of Geneva have also been extremely helpful. My warmest
References (95)
Beyond deterministic sociology and apologetic history: Reassessing the impact of research policy upon new scientific disciplines (Reply to Fuerst, Bartels, Olby and Yoxen)
Social Studies of Science
(1984)Themes, genres and orders of legitimation in the consolidation of new scientific disciplines: Deconstructing the historiography of molecular biology
History of Science
(1985)The Biotheoretical gathering, trans-disciplinary authority and the incipient legitimation of molecular biology in the 1930s: New perspectives on the historical sociology of science
History of Science
(1987)The politics of macromolecules: Molecular biologists, biochemists, and rhetoric
Osiris
(1992)From multidisciplinary collaboration to transnational objectivity: International space as constitutive of molecular biology, 1930-1970
The molecular transformation of twentieth-century biology
Molecular biology in the context of British, French and American cultures
International Social Science Journal
(2001)Les Etats-Unis, 1945–1953, les Américains et la France
Sondages. Revue française de l’opinion publique
(1953)Résolutions adoptées à la séance de clôture du novembre 1956
Les Cahiers de la République
(1957)Jahrbuch 1951 der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der Wissenschaften E
(1961)