105 found
Order:
  1.  13
    Jane Maienschein, Mary Sunderland, Rachel A. Ankeny & Jason Scott Robert (2008). The Ethos and Ethics of Translational Research. American Journal of Bioethics 8 (3):43 – 51.
    Calls for the “translation” of research from bench to bedside are increasingly demanding. What is translation, and why does it matter? We sketch the recent history of outcome-oriented translational research in the United States, with a particular focus on the Roadmap Initiative of the National Institutes of Health (Bethesda, MD). Our main example of contemporary translational research is stem cell research, which has superseded genomics as the translational object of choice. We explore the nature of and obstacles to translational research (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   19 citations  
  2. Kim Sterelny, Paul E. Griffiths, David L. Hull, Michael Ruse & Jane Maienschein (2000). Sex and Death: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Biology. Journal of the History of Biology 33 (1):181-187.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   27 citations  
  3. Jane Maienschein (1991). Transforming Traditions in American Biology, 1880-1915. Monograph Collection (Matt - Pseudo).
  4.  72
    Marjorie Grene, Sherrie L. Lyons, Mark V. Barrow Jr, Ronald Rainger, Susan Lindee, Jane Maienschein, Michael Fortun & Joel B. Hagen (1994). The J.H.B. Bookshelf. Journal of the History of Biology 27 (1):161-175.
  5. Jane Maienschein (2004). Whose View of Life?: Embryos, Cloning and Stem Cells. Journal of the History of Biology 37 (1):186-187.
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   12 citations  
  6. Manfred Laubichler & Jane Maienschein (2008). From Embryology to Evo-Devo: A History of Developmental Evolution. Journal of the History of Biology 41 (3):579-582.
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   6 citations  
  7.  4
    Manfred Laubichler, Jane Maienschein & Jürgen Renn (2013). Computational Perspectives in the History of Science: To the Memory of Peter Damerow. Isis: A Journal of the History of Science 104:119-130.
    Computational methods and perspectives can transform the history of science by enabling the pursuit of novel types of questions, dramatically expanding the scale of analysis , and offering novel forms of publication that greatly enhance access and transparency. This essay presents a brief summary of a computational research system for the history of science, discussing its implications for research, education, and publication practices and its connections to the open-access movement and similar transformations in the natural and social sciences that emphasize (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  8.  20
    Jason Scott Robert, Jane Maienschein & Manfred D. Laubichler (2006). Systems Bioethics and Stem Cell Biology. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 3 (1-2):19-31.
    The complexities of modern science are not adequately reflected in many bioethical discussions. This is especially problematic in highly contested cases where there is significant pressure to generate clinical applications fast, as in stem cell research. In those cases a more integrated approach to bioethics, which we call systems bioethics, can provide a useful framework to address ethical and policy issues. Much as systems biology brings together different experimental and methodological approaches in an integrative way, systems bioethics integrates aspects of (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   6 citations  
  9.  48
    Jane Maienschein (1994). 'It's a Long Way From "Amphioxus"' Anton Dohrn and Late Nineteenth Century Debates About Vertebrate Origins. History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences 16 (3):465 - 478.
    Anton Dohrn rejected the popular Amphioxus-ascidian theory of vertebrate origin, which saw Amphioxus as the most primitive vertebrate and ascidians as vertebrate ancestors. Instead he argued for the segmented annelids as the more likely candidate. Attacked for being 'unscientific' by such popular morphologists as Carl Gegenbaur and Ernst Haeckel, Dohrn countered with similar accusations. Since the debate peaked as Dohrn was establishing his Stazione Zoologica in Naples at the end of the nineteenth century, it gained him valuable attention and may (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  10. Alistair Crombie & Jane Maienschein (1996). Styles of Scientific Thinking in the European Tradition. History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences 18 (3):363.
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   13 citations  
  11.  3
    Jason Scott Robert, Mary Sunderland, Rachel Ankeny & Jane Maienschein (2008). Response to Open Peer Commentaries on “The Ethos and Ethics of Translational Research”. American Journal of Bioethics 8 (3):1-3.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   4 citations  
  12.  2
    Jane Maienschein (2009). Regenerative Medicine in Historical Context. Medicine Studies 1 (1):33-40.
    The phrase “regenerative medicine” is used so often and for so many different things, with such enthusiasm or worry, and often with a sense that this is something radically new. This paper places studies of regeneration and applications in regenerative medicine into historical perspective. In fact, the first stem cell experiment was carried out in 1907, and many important lines of research have contributed since. This paper explores both what we can learn about the history and what we can learn (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   3 citations  
  13.  4
    Jane Maienschein, Manfred Laubichler & Andrea Loettgers (2008). How Can History of Science Matter to Scientists? Isis: A Journal of the History of Science 99:341-349.
    History of science has developed into a methodologically diverse discipline, adding greatly to our understanding of the interplay between science, society, and culture. Along the way, one original impetus for the then newly emerging discipline—what George Sarton called the perspective “from the point of view of the scientist”—dropped out of fashion. This essay shows, by means of several examples, that reclaiming this interaction between science and history of science yields interesting perspectives and new insights for both science and history of (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  14.  4
    Jane Maienschein & Manfred D. Laubichler (2010). The Embryo Project: An Integrated Approach to History, Practices, and Social Contexts of Embryo Research. [REVIEW] Journal of the History of Biology 43 (1):1 - 16.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  15.  2
    Jane Maienschein (1991). Epistemic Styles in German and American Embryology. Science in Context 4 (2).
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   8 citations  
  16.  25
    Garland Allen & Jane Maienschein (2001). Editors' Introduction. Journal of the History of Biology 34 (1):1-2.
  17.  11
    Jane Maienschein (2009). Controlling Life: From Jacques Loeb to Regenerative Medicine. [REVIEW] Journal of the History of Biology 42 (2):215 - 230.
    In his 1987 book "Controlling Life: Jacques Loeb and the Engineering Ideal in Biology", Philip Pauly presented his readers with the biologist Jacques Loeb and his role in developing an emphasis on control of life processes. Loeb's work on artificial parthenogenesis, for example, provided an example of bioengineering at work. This paper revisits Pauly's study of Loeb and explores the way current research in regenerative medicine reflects the same tradition. A history of regeneration research reveals patterns of thinking and research (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  18.  22
    Jane Maienschein (1991). From Presentation to Representation in E. B. Wilson's the Cell. Biology and Philosophy 6 (2):227-254.
    Diagrams make it possible to present scientific facts in more abstract and generalized form. While some detail is lost, simplified and accessible knowledge is gained. E. B. Wilson's work in cytology provides a case study of changing uses of diagrams and accompanying abstraction. In his early work, Wilson presented his data in photographs, which he saw as coming closest to “fact.” As he gained confidence in his interpretations, and as he sought to provide a generalized textbook account of cell development, (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   6 citations  
  19.  21
    Shirley A. Roe, Sharon E. Kingsland, Jane Maienschein & Barbara G. Beddall (1989). The J.H.B. Bookshelf. Journal of the History of Biology 22 (1):177-184.
  20.  20
    Jane Maienschein, James P. Collins & John Beatty (1986). Preface. Journal of the History of Biology 19 (2):167-168.
  21.  20
    Lynn K. Nyhart, P. F. Stevens, Jane Maienschein & Mark V. Barrow Jr (1992). The J.H.B. Bookshelf. Journal of the History of Biology 25 (3):497-504.
  22.  20
    Jane Maienschein (1993). Why Collaborate? Journal of the History of Biology 26 (2):167 - 183.
    The recent escalation of concern about scientific integrity has provoked a larger discussion of many questions about why we do science the way we do, as well as about how we should do it. One of these questions concerns collaboration: who should count as a collaborator? This, in turn, raises the question why collaborators collaborate, and whether and when they should. Here, history offers insights that can illuminate the current debate.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   3 citations  
  23.  2
    Jane Maienschein (1984). What Determines Sex? A Study of Converging Approaches, 1880-1916. Isis: A Journal of the History of Science 75:456-480.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   6 citations  
  24.  18
    Shirley A. Roe, Keith R. Benson, Sharon Kingsland, Eugene Cittadino & Jane Maienschein (1986). The J.H.B. Bookshelf. Journal of the History of Biology 19 (3):489-494.
  25.  13
    Jane Maienschein (1994). Cutting Edges Cut Both Ways. Biology and Philosophy 9 (1):1-24.
    Emphasis on cutting edge science is common today. This paper shows that the concept, which selects some science at any given time as epistemically preferable and therefore better, actually gained acceptance by the turn of this century in biology and began immediately to have consequences for what biological research was done. The result, that some research is cut out while other work is privileged, can have pernicious results. Some of what is designated as not cutting edge may, in a different (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  26.  13
    Jane Maienschein (2004). Evolution, Embryology. Ludus Vitalis 12 (21):237-245.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  27.  32
    Jane Maienschein (2002). Stem Cell Research: A Target Article Collection Part II - What's in a Name: Embryos, Clones, and Stem Cells. American Journal of Bioethics 2 (1):12 – 19.
    In 2001, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the "Human Cloning Prohibition Act" and President Bush announced his decision to allow only limited research on existing stem cell lines but not on "embryos." In contrast, the U.K. has explicitly authorized "therapeutic cloning." Much more will be said about bioethical, legal, and social implications, but subtleties of the science and careful definitions of terms have received much less consideration. Legislators and reporters struggle to discuss "cloning," "pluripotency," "stem cells," and "embryos," and (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  28.  16
    Shirley A. Roe, Jane Maienschein, Ronald Rainger, Elizabeth B. Keeney & Donald Worster (1988). The J.H.B. Bookshelf. Journal of the History of Biology 21 (3):521-526.
  29.  6
    Jane Maienschein (1987). Heredity/Development in the United States, Circa 1900. History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences 9 (1):79 - 93.
    Historians have emphasized the appearance of a productive research program in genetics after 1910, and philosophers and biologists have considered endorsement of genetics as a progressive move, indeed as a starting point for modern experimental biology. These efforts focus on what biology had changed to. This paper examines the condition from which biology moved, stressing the way in which Americans held heredity and development as a natural, intimately intertwined couple. Heredity accounts for likenesses, development for variation, and the two act (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   4 citations  
  30.  11
    Jane Maienschein (1990). Cell Theory and Development. In R. C. Olby, G. N. Cantor, J. R. R. Christie & M. J. S. Hodge (eds.), Companion to the History of Modern Science. Routledge 357--373.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  31.  2
    Jane Maienschein & George Smith (2008). What Difference Does History of Science Make, Anyway? Isis: A Journal of the History of Science 99:318-321.
    This essay opens up the question of what difference the history of science makes. What is the value of the history of science, beyond its role as an academic pursuit that we historians of science know and love? It introduces the set of essays that follow as explorations that grew out of a seminar on this topic and that arise from the authors' particular concerns both that historians of science do not work hard enough to make their work of value (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  32.  2
    Jane Maienschein (1978). Cell Lineage, Ancestral Reminiscence, and the Biogenetic Law. Journal of the History of Biology 11 (1):129 - 158.
  33.  8
    Mark V. Barrow Jr, Keith R. Benson, Paula Findlen, Deborah Fitzgerald, Joel B. Hagen, Joy Harvey, Sharon E. Kingsland, Jane Maienschein, Gregg Mitman & Lynn K. Nyhart (1996). The JHB Bookshelf. Journal of the History of Biology 29:463-479.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  34.  29
    Jane Maienschein (2000). ``Why Study History for Science?''. Biology and Philosophy 15 (3):339-348.
    David Hull has demonstrated a marvelous ability to annoy everyone who caresabout science (or should), by forcing us to confront deep truths about howscience works. Credit, priority, precularities, and process weave together tomake the very fabric of science. As Hull's studies reveal, the story is bothmessier and more irritating than those limited by a single disciplinaryperspective generally admit. By itself history is interesting enough, andphilosophy valuable enough. But taken together, they do so much in tellingus about science and by puncturing (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  35.  1
    Jane Maienschein (forthcoming). Garland Allen, Thomas Hunt Morgan, and Development. Journal of the History of Biology.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  36. David Magnus, Richard Creath & Jane Maienschein (2000). Biology & Epistemology. In Richard Creath & Jane Maienschein (eds.), Biology and Epistemology. Cambridge University Press
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  37.  6
    Jane Maienschein (2013). Understanding Embryos in a Changing and Complex World: A Case of Philosophers and Historians Engaging Society. [REVIEW] Erkenntnis 79 (S5):1-19.
    The case of embryo research provides insight into the challenges for historians and philosophers of science who want to engage social issues, and even more challenges in engaging society. Yet there are opportunities in doing so. History and philosophy of science research demonstrates that the public impression of embryos does not fit with our scientific understanding. In cases where there are competing understandings of the phenomena and public impacts, we have to negotiate social responses. Historians and philosophers of science can (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  38.  14
    Viktor Hamburger, Garland E. Allen, Jane Maienschein & Hans Spemann (1999). Hans Spemann on Vitalism in Biology: Translation of a Portion of Spemann's "Autobiography". [REVIEW] Journal of the History of Biology 32 (2):231 - 243.
  39.  5
    Jane Maienschein (2001). On Cloning: Advocating History of Biology in the Public Interest. [REVIEW] Journal of the History of Biology 34 (3):423 - 432.
    Cloning -- the process of creating a cell, tissue line or even a complete organism from a single cell -- or the strands that led to the cloning of a mammal, Dolly, are not new. Yet the media coverage of Dolly's inception raised a range of reactions from fear or moral repulsion, to cautious optimism. The implications for controlling human reproduction were clearly in the forefront, though many issues about animals emerged as well. On topics of public interest such as (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  40. Richard Creath & Jane Maienschein (eds.) (2000). Biology and Epistemology. Cambridge University Press.
    This set of original essays by some of the best names in philosophy of science explores a range of diverse issues in the intersection of biology and epistemology. It asks whether the study of life requires a special biological approach to knowledge and concludes that it does not. The studies, taken together, help to develop and deepen our understanding of how biology works and what counts as warranted knowledge and as legitimate approaches to the study of life. The first section (...)
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  41.  6
    Jane Maienschein & Michael Ruse (eds.) (1999). Biology and the Foundation of Ethics. Cambridge University Press.
    There has been much attention devoted in recent years to the question of whether our moral principles can be related to our biological nature. This collection of new essays focuses on the connection between biology, in particular evolutionary biology, and foundational questions in ethics. The book asks such questions as whether humans are innately selfish, and whether there are particular facets of human nature that bear directly on social practices. The volume is organised historically beginning with Aristotle and covering such (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  42.  12
    James P. Collins, John Beatty & Jane Maienschein (1986). Introduction: Between Ecology and Evolutionary Biology. [REVIEW] Journal of the History of Biology 19 (2):169 - 180.
  43.  16
    Jane Maienschein & Richard Creath (2007). Body Worlds as Education and Humanism. American Journal of Bioethics 7 (4):26 – 27.
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  44.  2
    Jane Maienschein (2009). Heredity and Hope: The Case for Genetic ScreeningBabies by Design: The Ethics of Genetic ChoiceThe Case Against Perfection: Ethics in the Age of Genetic Engineering. [REVIEW] Isis: A Journal of the History of Science 100:134-136.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  45.  2
    Jane Maienschein (2012). Reproduction by Design: Sex, Robots, Trees, and Test-Tube Babies. [REVIEW] British Journal for the History of Science 45 (4):697-699.
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  46.  5
    Jane Maienschein (1999). Diversity in American Biology, 1900-1940. History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences 21 (1):35 - 52.
    This paper argues both that the decentralized and democratic context in the United States prior to World War II encouraged the development of diverse approaches, programs, and institutional supports for the biological sciences, and that the resulting pluralism is consistent with the complex and messy ways that science is used in a democratic society. This is not a claim that only U.S. science experiences such diversity, nor that the way science plays out in our American form of modified constitutional democracy, (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  47.  8
    Garland Allen, Mark Barrow, Jane Maienschein & Everett Mendelsohn (2002). In Passing. Journal of the History of Biology 35 (2):iv.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  48.  3
    Jane Maienschein (forthcoming). Part II-What's in a Name: Embryos, Clones, and Stem Cells. American Journal of Bioethics 2 (1):12-30.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  49.  9
    Jane Maienschein (2008). Elizabeth Blackburn and the Story of Telomeres: Deciphering the Ends of DNA (Review). Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 51 (4):655-658.
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  50.  2
    Jane Maienschein (1986). Arguments for Experimentation in Biology. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1986:180 - 195.
    By 1900 most biologists accepted experimentation as appropriate for at least parts of biology. Some claimed experimentation as the best or only proper approach to biology, while others regarded it as an acceptable addition to existing methodologies. Different researchers defined experimentation in different ways, and they held different aspirations for their experimental programs. This paper explores three sets of ideas, represented respectively by the French in the 1870s, the Germans in the 1880s, and the Americans in the 1890s. It examines (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
1 — 50 / 105