‘A new and hopeful type of social organism’: Julian Huxley, J.G. Crowther and Lancelot Hogben on Roosevelt's New Deal

The admiration of the Soviet Union amongst Britain's interwar scientific left is well known. This article reveals a parallel story. Focusing on the biologists Julian Huxley and Lancelot Hogben and the scientific journalist J.G. Crowther, I show that a number of scientific thinkers began to look west, to the US. In the mid- to late 1930s and into the 1940s, Huxley, Crowther and Hogben all visited the US and commented favourably on Roosevelt's New Deal, in particular its experimental approach to politics (in the form of planning). Huxley was first to appreciate the significance of the experiment; he looked to the Tennessee Valley Authority as a model of democratic planning by persuasion that could also be applied in Britain. Crowther, meanwhile, examined the US through the lens of history of science. In Famous American Men of Science (1937) and in lectures at Harvard University, he aimed to shed light on the flaws in the Constitution which were frustrating the New Deal. Finally, Hogben's interest in the US was related to his long-standing opposition to dialectical materialism, and when he finally saw the US at first hand, he regarded it as a model for how to bring about a planned socialist society through peaceful persuasion.

R. A. Fisher, Lancelot Hogben, and the ‘Competition’ for the Chair of Social Biology at the London School of Economics in 1930: Correcting the Legend

From 1930 to 1937 Lancelot Hogben FRS occupied the Chair of Social Biology at the London School of Economics and Political Science. According to standard histories of this appointment, he and R. A. Fisher FRS both applied for the position, but Hogben was selected over Fisher. The episode has received attention in large part because of the later prominence of the two figures involved. The surviving archival records, however, tell a remarkably different story. Neither Fisher nor Hogben was ever an official candidate for the chair. Indeed, Fisher seems not to have applied for the position at all, and Hogben was approached only behind the scenes of the official search. The purpose of this paper is to correct and complete the history of this episode.

Biometric and developmental gene–environment interactions: Looking back, moving forward

A history of research on gene–environment interaction (G × E) is provided in this article, revealing the fact that there have actually been two distinct concepts of G × E since the very origins of this research. R. A. Fisher introduced what I call the biometric concept of G × E (G × EB), whereas Lancelot Hogben introduced what I call the developmental concept of G × E (G × ED). Much of the subsequent history of research on G × E has largely consisted of the separate legacies of these separate concepts, along with the (sometimes acrimonious) disputes that have arisen time and again when employers of each have argued over the appropriate way to conceptualize the phenomenon. With this history in place, more recent attempts to distinguish between different concepts of G × E are considered, paying particular attention to the commonly made distinction between “statistical interaction” and “interactionism,” and Michael Rutter's distinction between statistical interaction and “the biological concept of interaction.” I argue that the history of the separate legacies of G × EB and G × ED better supports Rutter's analysis of the situation and that this analysis best paves the way for an integrative relationship between the various scientists investigating the place of G × E in the etiology of complex traits.

Essay review. Lancelot Hogben, F.R.S. (1895–1975): A review of his autobiography

Adrian and Anne Hogben, Lancelot Hogben–scientific humanist . Merlin Press, Woodbridge, Suffolk, 1998. Pp. 254, £14.95 (hardback). ISBN 0 85036 470 1.