While French biologists were turning a cold shoulder to On the Origin of Species in the 1860s, Charles Darwin was earnestly pursuing a professional connection with one French physiologist in particular: Charles Brown-Séquard. Darwin had been closely following Brown-Séquard’s startling experiments on guinea pigs, which demonstrated that experimentally induced epilepsy could pass from parent to offspring. In Darwin’s mind, Brown-Séquard had produced the most convincing evidence to date that acquired traits could be inherited. Darwin saw opportunities in Brown-Séquard and his (...) work. If Brown-Séquard realized the evolutionary implications of his experiments, and then endorsed the Origin in Paris, Darwin could be well on his way to securing a French audience for his theories. Darwin quickly mobilized his powers of correspondence to make this French connection, but Brown-Séquard received Darwin’s advances with caution. A connection with Darwin could be useful in London and America, where he was increasingly spending time, but to publicly support Darwin would be professionally damaging back home in Paris. This paper examines the dance of letters between Darwin and Brown-Séquard, the politics of citation, and the delicacy of sustaining a transnational biological career between France and Britain in the 1860s. This paper casts a new perspective on an old debate in the history of biology. I show that from within the “heavy cloud” of anti-evolutionary thought in France, there existed a live wire between Brown-Séquard and Darwin. I argue that British evolutionary theory in the age of Darwin was built, in part, with French participation. (shrink)

Scientific theories about the origin-of-life theories have historically been characterized by the chicken-and-egg problem of which essential aspect of life was the first to appear, replication or self-sustenance. By the 1950s the question was cast in molecular terms and DNA and proteins had come to represent the carriers of the two functions. Meanwhile, RNA, the other nucleic acid, had played a capricious role in origin theories. Because it contained building blocks very similar to DNA, biologists recognized early that RNA could (...) store information in its linear sequences. With the discovery in the 1980s that RNA molecules were capable of biological catalysis, a function hitherto ascribed to proteins alone, RNA took on the role of the single entity that could act as both chicken and egg. Within a few years of the discovery of these catalytic RNAs scientists had formulated an RNA World hypothesis that posited an early phase in the evolution of life where all key functions were performed by RNA molecules. This paper traces the history the role of RNA in origin-of-life theories with a focus on how the discovery of ribozymes influenced the discourse. (shrink)

This essay attempts to describe the neo-Lamarckian atmosphere that was dominant in French biology for more than a century. Firstly, we demonstrate that there were not one but at least two French neo-Lamarckian traditions. This implies, therefore, that it is possible to propose a clear definition of a (neo) Lamarckian conception, and by using it, to distinguish these two traditions. We will see that these two conceptions were not dominant at the same time. The first French neo-Lamarckism (1879-1931) was structured (...) by a very mechanic view of natural processes. The main representatives of this first period were scientists such as Alfred Giard (1846-1908), Gaston Bonnier (1853-1922) and Félix Le Dantec (1869-1917). The second Lamarckism - much more vitalist in its inspiration - started to develop under the supervision of people such as Albert Vandel (1894-1980) and Pierre-Paul Grassé (1895-1985). Secondly, this essay suggests that the philosophical inclinations of these neo-Lamarckisms reactivated a very ancient and strong dichotomy of French thought. One part of this dichotomy is a material, physicalist tradition, which started with René Descartes but developed extensively during the 18th and 19th centuries. The other is a spiritual and vitalist reaction to the first one, which also had a very long history, though it is most closely associated with the work of Henri Bergson. Through Claude Bernard, the first neo-Lamarckians tried to construct a mechanical and determinist form of evolutionary theory which was, in effect, a Cartesian theory. The second wave of neo-Lamarckians wanted to reconsider the autonomy and reactivity of life forms, in contrast to purely physical systems. (shrink)

This essay attempts to describe the neo-Lamarckian atmosphere that was dominant in French biology for more than a century. Firstly, we demonstrate that there were not one but at least two French neo-Lamarckian traditions. This implies, therefore, that it is possible to propose a clear definition of a (neo)Lamarckian conception, and by using it, to distinguish these two traditions. We will see that these two conceptions were not dominant at the same time. The first French neo-Lamarckism (1879–1931) was structured by (...) a very mechanic view of natural processes. The main representatives of this first period were scientists such as Alfred Giard (1846–1908), Gaston Bonnier (1853–1922) and Félix Le Dantec (1869–1917). The second Lamarckism – much more vitalist in its inspiration – started to develop under the supervision of people such as Albert Vandel (1894–1980) and Pierre-Paul Grassé (1895–1985). Secondly, this essay suggests that the philosophical inclinations of these neo-Lamarckisms reactivated a very ancient and strong dichotomy of French thought. One part of this dichotomy is a material, physicalist tradition, which started with René Descartes but developed extensively during the 18th and 19th centuries. The other is a spiritual and vitalist reaction to the first one, which also had a very long history, though it is most closely associated with the work of Henri Bergson. Through Claude Bernard, the first neo-Lamarckians tried to construct a mechanical and determinist form of evolutionary theory which was, in effect, a Cartesian theory. The second wave of neo-Lamarckians wanted to reconsider the autonomy and reactivity of life forms, in contrast to purely physical systems. (shrink)

Most studies on the reception of Darwinism in France focus on the scientific community. This essay investigates the popular press. Widely discussed in French newspapers in 1878, Darwinism was connected with a sensational murder case in which two well-educated young men, Aimé Barré and Paul Lebiez, killed an elderly woman. Before his arrest, Lebiez had given a public lecture on the Darwinian “struggle for life.” Competing factions of the press explicitly linked the case with Darwinism to advance either conservative or (...) republican political agendas, which brought Darwinism into the public eye. This essay argues that Charles Darwin’s instrumentalization was decisive in spreading his theory in French society. That same year, the Academy of Sciences elected Darwin to membership after six failed attempts. (shrink)

Claude Bernard (1813–1878) and Emil du Bois-Reymond (1818–1896) rank as two of the most influential scientists of the nineteenth century. Renowned for their experiments, lectures, and writing, Bernard and du Bois-Reymond earned great prestige as professors of physiology in a time when Paris and Berlin reigned as capitals of science. Yet even though they were equals in every way, du Bois-Reymond’s reputation has fallen far more than Bernard’s. This essay compares aspects of the two men’s attitudes to philosophy, history, and (...) biology in an attempt to explain why Bernard remains the better known. The answer lies less in the value of du Bois-Reymond’s contributions than in the way that science is remembered in France and Germany. (shrink)