Time, impact, and the need for digital history and philosophy of science

Author Posting. © History of Science Society, 2016. This article is posted here by permission of History of Science Society for personal use, not for redistribution. The definitive version was published in Isis 107 (2016): 344-345, doi:10.1086/687213

How can history of science matter to scientists?

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 science. The authors consequently suggest that historians of science also adopt this perspective as part of their methodological repertoire

Explaining regeneration: cells and limbs as complex living systems, learning from history

© The Author(s), 2021. This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License. The definitive version was published in MacCord, K., & Maienschein, J. Explaining regeneration: cells and limbs as complex living systems, learning from history. Frontiers in Cell and Developmental Biology, 9, (2021): 734315, https://doi.org/10.3389/fcell.2021.734315.Regeneration has been investigated since Aristotle, giving rise to many ways of explaining what this process is and how it works. Current research focuses on gene expression and cell signaling of regeneration within individual model organisms. We tend to look to model organisms on the reasoning that because of evolution, information gained from other species must in some respect be generalizable. However, for all that we have uncovered about how regeneration works within individual organisms, we have yet to translate what we have gleaned into achieving the goal of regenerative medicine: to harness and enhance our own regenerative abilities. Turning to history may provide a crucial perspective in advancing us toward this goal. History gives perspective, allowing us to reflect on how our predecessors did their work and what assumptions they made, thus also revealing limitations. History, then, may show us how we can move from our current reductionist thinking focused on particular selected model organisms toward generalizations about this crucial process that operates across complex living systems and move closer to repairing our own damaged bodies.This article was a product of the McDonnell Initiative at the Marine Biological Laboratory. The McDonnell Initiative began with support from two generous grants from the James S. McDonnell Foundation, along with substantive input from the Foundation Director, Susan Fitzpatrick (“Integrating the Life Sciences with the History and Philosophy of Science” JSMF Grant No. 220020480 and “Transforming Discovery: Historians, Philosophers, and Life Scientists Exploring Regeneration” JSMF Grant No. 220020480.01)

Understanding regeneration at different scales.

© The Author(s), 2019. This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License. The definitive version was published in MacCord, K., & Maienschein, J. Understanding regeneration at different scales. Elife, 8, (2019):e46569, doi:10.7554/elife.46569.Regeneration occurs at many different levels in nature, from individual organisms (notably earthworms and hydra), through communities of microbes, to ecosystems such as forests. Researchers in the life sciences and the history and philosophy of science are collaborating to explore how the processes of repair and recovery observed at these different scales are related.James S. McDonnell Foundatio

Help with Data Management for the Novice and Experienced Alike

With the powerful analyses and resources they enable, digital humanities tools have captivated researchers from many different fields who want to use them to study science. Digital tools, as well as funding agencies, research communities, and academic administrators, require researchers to think carefully about how they conceptualize, manage, and store data, and about what they plan to do with that data once a given project is over. The difficulties of developing strategies to address these problems can prevent new researchers from sticking with digital tools and flummox even experienced researchers. To help overcome the data hurdle, we present five principles to help researchers, novice and experienced alike, conceptualize and plan for their data. We illustrate the use of those principles with two digital projects from the history of science, the Embryo Project and the Marine Biological Laboratory History Project, and their associated HPS Repository for data. The principles apply beyond the digital realm, so those who collect and manage data by more traditional means will also find them useful

Introduction

Author Posting. © University of Chicago Press, 2019. This article is posted here by permission of University of Chicago Press for personal use, not for redistribution. The definitive version was published in Gibson, A., Laubichler, M. D., & Maienschein, J. Introduction. Isis, 110(3), (2019): 497-501, doi: 10.1086/705542.Digital technologies have transformed both the historical record and the historical profession. This Focus section examines how computational methods have influenced, and will influence, the history of science. The essays discuss the new types of questions and narratives that computational methods enable and the need for better data management in the history and philosophy of science (HPS) community. They showcase various methodological approaches, including textual and network analyses, and they place the computational turn in historiographical and societal context. Rather than surrendering to either technophilia or technophobia, the essays articulate both the benefits and the drawbacks of computational HPS. They agree that the future of the field depends on the successful integration of technological developments, social practices, and infrastructural support and that historians of science must learn to embrace collaboration both within and beyond disciplinary boundaries.2020-09-0

Help with Data Management for the Novice and Well-Seasoned Alike

With the powerful analyses and resources they enable, digital humanities tools have captivated researchers from many different fields who want to use them to study science. Researchers often know about the learning curves posed by those tools and overcome them by taking workshops, reading manuals, or connecting with communities associated with digital tools. But a further hurdle looms: data. Digital tools, as well as funding agencies, research communities, and academic administrators, require researchers to think carefully about how they conceptualize, manage, and store data, and about what they plan to do with that data once a given project is over. Developing strategies to address these problems can prevent new researchers from sticking with digital tools and flummox even senior researchers. To help overcome the data hurdle, we present four principles to help researchers, novice and seasoned alike, conceptualize and plan for their data. We illustrate the use of those principles with two digital projects from the history of science, the Embryo Project and the Marine Biological Laboratory History Project, and their associated HPS Repository for data. The principles, while useful for digital projects and especially for people new to digital tools and to managing data, apply beyond the digital realm, so those who collect and manage data by more traditional means will also find them useful. Most importantly, those principles help researchers design plans for data that complement the unique features of their individual research projects

Libbie Hyman

66 p. : ill. ; 26 cm.Study of invertebrates at the American Museum of Natural History / Neil H. Landman and Judith E. Winston -- Libbie Hyman and the American Museum of Natural History / Judith E. Winston -- Libbie Hyman at the University of Chicago / Jane Maienschein -- Libbie Hyman and comparative vertebrate anatomy / Marvalee H. Wake -- Contributions of Libbie H. Hyman to knowledge of land planarians: relating personal experiences (Tricladida: Terricola) / Robert E. Ogren -- Libbie Henrietta Hyman: her influence on teaching and research in invertebrate zoology / M. Patricia Morse -- Systematics of the flatworms- Libbie Hyman's influence on current views of the Platyhelminthes / Seth Tyler.Includes bibliographical references."This issue of Novitates consists of papers presented at a symposium on the life and work of American zoologist Dr. Libbie Henrietta Hyman, 1888-1969, held at the annual meeting of the American Society of Zoologists in Atlanta, Georgia, December 1991. Judith E. Winston provides an introduction to Libbie Hyman's early years. Growing up in Fort Dodge, Iowa, young Libbie demonstrated a love of nature and a drive for learning that eventually led to a scholarship at the University of Chicago, where she majored in zoology. Jane Maienschein covers Libbie Hyman's Chicago period. During that period Libbie gained experience in experimental biology by participation in Charles Manning Child's research program on metabolic gradients, which applied the "Chicago style" of biology. The lack of good manuals for the comparative anatomy and zoology labs she taught as a graduate student led Libbie to develop her own laboratory manuals, published by the University of Chicago Press. Marvalee Wake discusses Libbie Hyman's interactions with the press about these guides. Hyman's correspondence with press officials revealed her growing frustration as she desired more time to work on invertebrates, but was persuaded to revise vertebrate anatomy texts instead. Despite her protests, her seminal ideas and approaches to learning vetebrate anatomy were profoundly important. Judith Winston discusses Libbie's productive career at the American Museum of Natural History. In 1930, Dr. Hyman left Chicago to pursue the invertebrate work that interested her most-and found a welcome in G. K. Noble's Department of Experimental Biology at the AMNH. With his help she obtained an unpaid position as a research associate, office space, and use of the AMNH library, vital to her project, a treatise on invertebrate zoology. Her 6 volume treatise, The Invertebrates, was published between 1940 and 1967 by McGraw-Hill. In 1943 she transferred to the AMNH Department of Invertebrates. Neil Landman outlines the history of that Department in the Museum, and Libbie's connection with it. M. Patricia Morse discusses Dr. Hyman's influence on invertebrate zoology in general. Her treatise set the tone for invertebrate zoology courses and the publication of books on the subject. Each volume was eagerly received by zoologists, not only for thorough coverage of the literature (including non-English language literature), but also for uniformity of approach, comprehensive illustrations, and thoughtful synthesis of phylogenetic relationships for each group covered. Robert Ogren discusses Libbie Hyman's contributions to land planarian taxonomy. Hyman was the first American zoologist recognized as an authority on Turbellaria, Tricladida, and Terricola. Contributions began after her 1937 appointment as research associate at the American Museum of Natural History and continued for 25 years, resulting in 11 taxonomic papers, the last published in 1962. Seth Tyler discusses Libbie Hyman's overall influence on the systematics of turbellarian flatworms, especially through the comprehensive review of flatworms published in Volume II of The Invertebrates. The system of classification she adopted for the phylum Platyhelminthes was that of Bresslau, dating to 1933. Modern systematists have clarified the phylogenetic relationships of flatworm groups, in particular by using characters discerned with electron microscopy; and application of principles of cladistic systematics has been important in grouping turbellarians and the major groups of parasitic flatworms into supraordinal taxa. A number of competing systems for these higher-level groupings have been proposed, and these are being tested with molecular techniques comparing nucleic-acid sequences. Still, the current best-accepted system clearly bears Hyman's stamp; her views of evolution in the phylum and its taxonomy are still relevant"--P. 2