Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

‘Could You Love a Chemical Baby?’ Organ Culture in Interwar Britain

  • Chapter
Tissue Culture in Science and Society

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

  • 81 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter looks at popular coverage of another aspect of tissue culture research during the interwar period, focussing on the cultivation of whole organs and embryos in vitro. Although this line of research was marginal compared to the growth of ‘de-differentiated’ cells, it was scientifically important and culturally resonant. The ability to grow embryos and their parts outside of the egg or the mammalian uterus helped answer many questions surrounding growth and differentiation, and allowed scientists to determine the effects various of chemicals and hormones on development. From the 1940s, the method which scientists labelled ‘organ culture’ became an important approach in embryology, cell biology, biochemistry, endocrinology, toxicology and physiology.1

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 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 54.99
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. L.M.F. Franks, ‘Summary and Future Developments’, in Michael Balls and Marjorie Monnickendam (eds), Organ Culture in Biomedical Research: Festschrift for Dame Honor Fell (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976), pp. 549–57.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Jacques G. Mulnard, ‘The Brussels School of Embryology’, International Journal of Developmental Biology, Vol. 36 (1992), pp. 17–24, on p. 23.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Anthony M. Ludovici, Lysistrata: Woman’s Future and Future Woman (London: Kegan Paul & Co., 1926), p. 93.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Anon., ‘Woman Scientist Cultivates Life in Bottles’, the Daily Express (16 March 1936).

    Google Scholar 

  5. John E. McWhorter and Allen O. Whipple, ‘The Development of the Blasto- derm of the Chick In Vitro’, Anatomical Record, Vol. 6 (1912), pp. 121–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. McWhorter and Whipple, ‘Development of the Blastoderm of the Chick In Vitro’ (1912), p. 121.

    Google Scholar 

  7. On Carrel’s influence over tissue culture research in the 1910s and 1920s, see Jan A. Witkowski, ‘Alexis Carrel and the Mysticism of Tissue Culture’, Medical History, Vol. 23 (1979), pp. 279–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Alexander Maximow, ‘Tissue Cultures of Young Mammalian Embryos’, Contributions to Embryology, Vol. 16 (1925), pp. 49–110, on p. 55.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Maximow, ‘Tissue Culture of Young Mammalian Embryos’ (1925), p. 55.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Albert Brachet, ‘Recherches sur le determinisme heredetaire de l’ oeuf des Mammiferes. Development in vitro de jeunes vesicules blastodermiques de Lapin’, Archives de Biologie (Liege), Vol. 28 (1913), pp. 447–503.

    Google Scholar 

  11. David Thomson, ‘Some Further Remarks on the Cultivation of Tissues in vitro’, Proceedings of the Royal Society of Medicine, Vol. 7 (1914), pp. 2–46, on p. 34.

    Google Scholar 

  12. David Thomson, ‘Controlled Growth en masse (somatic growth) of Embryonic Chicken Tissue In Vitro’, Proceedings of the Royal Society of Medicine: Laboratory Reports, Vol. 7 (1913), pp. 71–5, on p. 75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Thomson, ‘Controlled Growth en masse’ (1913), p. 73.

    Google Scholar 

  14. T.S.P. Strangeways and Honor B. Fell, ‘Experimental Studies on the Differentiation of Embryonic Tissues Growing in vivo and in vitro — I. The Development of the Undifferentiated Limb Bud (a) when Subcutaneously Grafted into the Post-Embryonic Chick and (b) when Cultivated in vitro’, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Containing Papers of a Biological Character, Vol. 99 (1926), pp. 340–66, on p. 355.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Honor Fell ‘The Development of Organ Culture’, in Michael Balls and Marjorie Monnickendam (eds), British Society for Cell Biology Symposium 1: Organ Culture in Biomedical Research: Festschrift for Dame Honor Fell, FRS (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976), pp. 1–13, on p. 3.

    Google Scholar 

  16. For the original paper, see T.S.P. Strangeways and Honor B. Fell, ‘Experimental Studies on the Differentiation of Embryonic Tissues Growing in vivo and in vitro — II. The Development of the Isolated Early Embryonic Eye of the Fowl when Cultivated in vitro’, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Containing Papers of a Biological Character, Vol. 100 (1926), pp. 273–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Strangeways, ‘The Living Cell’ (1926), p. 526.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Honor B. Fell, ‘The Development in vitro of the isolated otocyst of the embryonic fowl’, Archiv für experimentelle Zellforschung, Vol. 7 (1928), pp. 69–81.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Fell, ‘Development of Organ Culture’ (1976), p. 3.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Honor B. Fell and Robert Robison, ‘The Growth, Development and Phosphatase Activity of Embryonic Avian Femora and Limb-Buds Cultivated In Vitro’, Biochemical Journal, Vol. 23 (1929), pp. 767–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Nick Hopwood, ‘Embryology’, in Peter J. Bowler and John V. Pickstone (eds), The Cambridge History of Science, Volume 6: The Modern Biological and Earth Sciences (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009), pp. 287–316, on pp. 306–7.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Alan Robertson, ‘Conrad Hal Waddington. 8 November 1905–26 September 1975’, Biographical Memoirs of Fellows of the Royal Society, Vol. 23 (1977), pp. 575–622.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Conrad H. Waddington, ‘Induction by Coagulated Organisers in the Chick Embryo’, Nature, Vol. 131 (1933), pp. 275–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. idem, ‘Experiments on the Development of Chick and Duck Embryos, Cultivated In Vitro’, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Containing Papers of a Biological Nature, Vol. 221 (1932), pp. 179–230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. C.H. Waddington and A.J. Waterman, ‘The Development In Vitro of Young Rabbit Embryos’, Anatomy, Vol. 57 (1932), pp. 355–70.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Alan Robertson, ‘Conrad Hal Waddington’ (1977), p. 590.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Abir-Am, ‘The Assessment of Interdisciplinary Research in the 1930s’ (1988).

    Google Scholar 

  28. Julian Huxley, ‘Tissue Growth: The British Association Meetings’ (1927), p. 8.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Masters, ‘Science Gets Its Biggest Thrill from the Spark of Life’ (1932).

    Google Scholar 

  30. Burke, ‘Could You Love a Chemical Baby? For That’s What Science Looks Like Producing Next’, Tit-Bits (16 April 1938).

    Google Scholar 

  31. J.B.S. Haldane, Daedalus, Or Science and the Future (London: Kegan Paul & Co., 1924), p. 1.

    Google Scholar 

  32. On the background to Daedalus and Haldane’s wartime experiences, see Ronald Clark, J.B.S.: The Life and Work of J.B.S. Haldane (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1984).

    Google Scholar 

  33. See also Turney (1998), pp. 99–101; Susan Squier, Babies in Bottles: Twentieth-Century Visions of Reproductive Technology (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1994), pp. 66–73.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Anon., ‘The Age of Miracles’, the Observer (21 December 1924). An 1926 advert for Daedalus in the Manchester Guardian indicates that the book quickly went through seven impressions. See also Clark, J.B.S. (1984), p. 70.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Haldane, Daedalus (1924), p. 10.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Daniel Kevles, In the Name of Eugenics: Genetics and the Uses of Human Heredity (Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 1995), pp. 91–2.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Kevles, In the Name of Eugenics (1995), pp. 113–28.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Werskey, The Visible College (1978), pp. 96–7.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Kevles notes that the young Haldane ‘sympathized for a time with aspects of [mainstream eugenics] particularly its denigration of the lower classes and eagerness to reduce their rate of reproduction’. See ibid, p. 123. In an analysis of Daedalus, the molecular biologist David Weatherall also claims that: ‘At the time Haldane wrote Daedalus, he was an enthusiastic eugenicist’. See David J. Weatherall, ‘Daedalus, Haldane, and Medical Science’, in Krishna R. Dronamraju (ed.), Haldane’s Daedalus Revisited (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995), pp. 102–24, on p. 112.

    Google Scholar 

  40. See Overy, Morbid Age (2009), pp. 93–9 for discussion of Marie Stopes and eugenics; see also Kevles (1995), pp. 90–1.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Anon., ‘Review of Daedalus, or Science and the Future’, Nature, Vol. 113 (1924), p. 740.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. In a 1932 publication on the culture of chick and duck embryos, Conrad Waddington outlined how Strangeways had cultured whole chick embryos, but added that ‘only a few experiments were made and the results were never published’. See Waddington, ‘Development of Chick and Duck Embryos’ (1932), p. 181. Honor Fell also claimed that Strangeways enjoyed ‘considerable success’ in culturing whole chick embryos.

    Google Scholar 

  43. See Fell, ‘Cell Biology’ (1962), p. 20.

    Google Scholar 

  44. T.S.P. Strangeways, ‘Lecture 1: Tissue Culture’ (December 1926). Wellcome archives, SA/SRL/A.27.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Strangeways ‘Tissue Culture’ (1926).

    Google Scholar 

  46. Henry Harris, ‘This is Not a Prophecy — It’s News About … Test-Tube Babies!’, the Daily Mirror (19 May 1937).

    Google Scholar 

  47. Eden Paul, Chronos, or the Future of the Family (London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co., 1929), p. 51.

    Google Scholar 

  48. F.E. Birkenhead, The World in 2030 (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1930), p. 165.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Julian Huxley, ‘The Tissue Culture King’, reprinted in Geoff Cronklin (ed.), Great Science Fiction by Scientists (New York: Collins Books, 1970), pp. 348–65, on p. 355.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Huxley, ‘The Tissue Culture King’ (1970), p. 359.

    Google Scholar 

  51. J.D. Bernal, The World, The Flesh and the Devil: An Inquiry into the Future of the Three Enemies of the Rational Soul (Second Edition: London: Jonathan Cape, 1970), p. 37.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Bernal, The World, the Flesh and the Devil (1970), p. 32.

    Google Scholar 

  53. See Christine Poggi, ‘Dreams of Metallized Flesh: Futurism and the Masculine Body’, Modernism/Modernity, Vol. 4 (1997), pp. 19–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Bertrand Russell, Icarus, or the Future of Science (London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co., 1924), p. 2.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Anthony Ludovici, cited in Dan Stone, ‘Ludovici, Anthony Mario (1882– 1971)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (Oxford: Oxford University Press, online edition, 2009).

    Google Scholar 

  56. Anthony M. Ludovici, Lysistrata, or Woman’s Future and Future Woman (London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co., 1924), p. 76.

    Google Scholar 

  57. See Robert Crossley, ‘Olaf Stapledon and Idea of Science Fiction’, Modern Fiction Studies, Vol. 32 (1986), pp. 21–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Olaf Stapledon, Last and First Men (London: Millennium Books, 2004), p. xv.

    Google Scholar 

  59. See Robert Crossley, Olaf Stapledon: Speaking for the Future (Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 1994).

    Google Scholar 

  60. Stapledon, Last and First Men (2004), p. 188.

    Google Scholar 

  61. See Charlotte Sleigh, ‘Plastic Body, Permanent Body: Czech Representations of Corporeality in the early Twentieth Century’, Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science, Part C. Studies in the History and Philosophy of the Biological and Biomedical Sciences, Vol. 40 (2009), pp. 241–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. See Ludmilla Jordonova, Sexual Visions: Images of Gender in Science and Medicine Between the Eighteenth and Twentieth Centuries (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1989).

    Google Scholar 

  63. Biographical information in Martin H. Greenberg (ed.), Amazing Science Fiction Anthology: The Wonder Years, 1926–1935 (London: TSR UK, 1987), p. 318.

    Google Scholar 

  64. Francis Flagg, ‘The Machine Man of Ardathia’, reprinted in Greenberg (ed.), Amazing Science Fiction Anthology (1987), pp. 77–95, on pp. 79, 88.

    Google Scholar 

  65. Flagg, ‘Machine Man of Ardathia’ (1987), p. 88.

    Google Scholar 

  66. David H. Keller, ‘A Biological Experiment’, reprinted in David H. Keller, Tales from Underwood (Jersey: Spearman Press, 1952), pp. 135–52, on p. 138.

    Google Scholar 

  67. Keller, ‘A Biological Experiment’ (1952), p. 135.

    Google Scholar 

  68. Turney (1998), p. 115. See also, John Harris, On Cloning (London: Routledge, 2004).

    Google Scholar 

  69. Judith Arlene Klotzko, A Clone of Your Own? The Art and Science of Cloning (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004).

    Google Scholar 

  70. Francis Fukuyama, Our Posthuman Future: Consequences of the Biotechnology Revolution (London: Profile Books, 2002).

    Google Scholar 

  71. Aldous Huxley, Antic Hay (London: Vintage Books, 2004), p. 49.

    Google Scholar 

  72. On Huxley’s relationship with J.B.S. Haldane, see Nicholas Murray, Aldous Huxley: An English Intellectual (London: Little, Brown, 2002); Clark (1984).

    Google Scholar 

  73. Aldous Huxley, ‘Economists, Scientists, and Humanists’, in Adams (ed.), Science and the Changing World (1932), p. 222.

    Google Scholar 

  74. This quote on mass-production is taken from Aldous Huxley, ‘To the Puritan All Things are Impure’, in Aldous Huxley, Music at Night & Other Essays (London: Chatto and Windus, 1931), pp. 173–84, on p. 180.

    Google Scholar 

  75. Aldous Huxley, Brave New World (London: Flamingo Books, 1994), p. 13.

    Google Scholar 

  76. Huxley, Brave New World (1994), p. 5.

    Google Scholar 

  77. Joseph Needham, ‘Biology and Mr. Huxley: review of Brave New World by Aldous Huxley’, Scrutiny (May 1932), pp. 76–9. Cf. Turney (1998), p. 116.

    Google Scholar 

  78. Squier, Babies in Bottles (1994), p. 147.

    Google Scholar 

  79. Needham, ‘Biology and Mr. Huxley’ (1932), p. 78. Emphasis in original.

    Google Scholar 

  80. Honor B. Fell, ‘Tissue Culture: The Advantages and Limitations as a Research Method’, British Journal of Radiology, Vol. 8 (1935), pp. 27–31, on p. 27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. Fell, ‘Tissue Culture’ (1935), p. 27.

    Google Scholar 

  82. Special Correspondent, ‘Woman Scientist Cultivates Life in Bottles’, Daily Express (16 March 1936).

    Google Scholar 

  83. Special Correspondent, ‘Woman Scientist Cultivates Life in Bottles’ (1936).

    Google Scholar 

  84. Harrison Hardy, ‘Any TIN in the Sun?’, the Daily Mirror (20 March 1937).

    Google Scholar 

  85. Burke, ‘Could You Love a Chemical Baby?’ (1938).

    Google Scholar 

  86. Honor B. Fell to Archibald Vivian Hill (30 May 1939), Wellcome Archives, PP/HBF/B.1. For an example of Waddington’s popular writing see, Conrad H. Waddington, ‘Twenty-Five Years of Biology’, Discovery (May 1935), pp. 134–7.

    Google Scholar 

  87. For critical analysis of this issue, see Jackson, George Newnes (2001).

    Google Scholar 

  88. D.L. LeMahieu, A Culture for Democracy: Mass Communication and the Cultivated Mind in Britain Between the Wars (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1988).

    Google Scholar 

  89. Lori Andrews and Dorothy Nelkin, ‘Whose Body is it Anyway? Disputes over Body Tissue in a Biotechnology Age’, the Lancet, Vol. 351 (1998), pp. 53–7, on p. 55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  90. Andrews and Nelkin, ‘Whose Body is it Anyway?’ (1998), pp. 55, 56.

    Google Scholar 

  91. Peter J. Bowler, Science for All: The Popularization of Science in Early Twentieth-Century Britain (Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, 2009).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Manchester, UK

    Duncan Wilson (Wellcome Trust Research Associate)

Authors
  1. Duncan Wilson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Copyright information

© 2011 Duncan Wilson

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Wilson, D. (2011). ‘Could You Love a Chemical Baby?’ Organ Culture in Interwar Britain. In: Tissue Culture in Science and Society. Science, Technology and Medicine in Modern History. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230307513_3

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230307513_3

  • Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-349-32945-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-0-230-30751-3

  • eBook Packages: Palgrave History CollectionHistory (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation