Archival Sources for the History of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology: A Reference Guide and Report. David Bearman , John T. Edsall , Margaret Miller , Matthew Konopka

Isis ◽  
1981 ◽  
Vol 72 (3) ◽  
pp. 506-507
Author(s):  
Clark A. Elliott
Science ◽  
1970 ◽  
Vol 170 (3955) ◽  
pp. 349-351 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. T. Edsall
Keyword(s):  

2019 ◽  
Vol 93 (9) ◽  
Author(s):  
James M. Pipas

ABSTRACTThis summer marks the 51st anniversary of the DNA tumor virus meetings. Scientists from around the world will gather in Trieste, Italy, to report their latest results and to agree or disagree on the current concepts that define our understanding of this diverse class of viruses. This article offers a brief history of the impact the study of these viruses has had on molecular and cancer biology and discusses obstacles and opportunities for future progress.


2017 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 53
Author(s):  
Renan Goncalves Leonel Da Silva ◽  
Maria Conceicao Da Costa

This paper presents some sociological debates involved in the new field of life sciences at the end of 20th century. From a bibliographic review concerning history of science and Social Studies of Science, it will be presented some particular sociological issues of the research on molecular biology and its historical evolution – the formation of speeches and legitimization; institutional arrangements and alliances in post-war period. We will focuses on the emerging systems of information and communication technology, ICTs. and how it transformed the biomedical research. The goal is to show briefly how molecular biology was built, from the post-war period to the end of the 90’s, and what was the main proceedings of interdisciplinary associations and technoscientific interactions in the life sciences agenda.


1999 ◽  
Vol 354 (1383) ◽  
pp. 675-685 ◽  
Author(s):  
L. Bos

Beijerinck's entirely new concept, launched in 1898, of a filterable contagium vivum fluidum which multiplied in close association with the host's metabolism and was distributed in phloem vessels together with plant nutrients, did not match the then prevailing bacteriological germ theory. At the time, tools and concepts to handle such a new kind of agent (the viruses) were non–existent. Beijerinck's novel idea, therefore, did not revolutionize biological science or immediately alter human understanding of contagious diseases. That is how bacteriological dogma persisted, as voiced by Loeffler and Frosch when showing the filterability of an animal virus (1898), and especially by Ivanovsky who had already in 1892 detected filterability of the agent of tobacco mosaic but kept looking for a microbe and finally (1903) claimed its multiplication in an artificial medium. The dogma was also strongly advocated by Roux in 1903, when writing the first review on viruses, which he named ‘so–called “invisible” microbes’, unwittingly including the agent of bovine pleuropneumonia, only much later proved to be caused by a mycoplasma. In 1904, Baur was the first to advocate strongly the chemical view of viruses. But uncertainty about the true nature of viruses, with their similarities to enzymes and genes, continued until the 1930s when at long last tobacco mosaic virus particles were isolated as an enzyme–like protein (1935), soon to be better characterized as a nucleoprotein (1937). Physicochemical virus studies were a key element in triggering molecular biology which was to provide further means to reveal the true nature of viruses ‘at the threshold of life’. Beijerinck's 1898 vision was not appreciated or verified during his lifetime. But Beijerinck already had a clear notion of the mechanism behind the phenomena he observed. Developments in virology and molecular biology since 1935 indicate how close Beijerinck (and even Mayer, Beijerinck's predecessor in research on tobacco mosaic) had been to the mark. The history of research on tobacco mosaic and the commitments of Mayer, Beijerinck and others demonstrate that progress in science is not only a matter of mere technology but of philosophy as well. Raemaekers' Mayer cartoon, inspired by Beijerinck, artistically represents the crucial question about the reliability of our images of reality, and about the scope of our technological interference with nature.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document