1. An earlier version of this paper was presented at the meetings of the American Association for the History of Medicine, San Francisco, CA, 1984. I am grateful to Howard S. Becker, Kathy Charmaz, Nan P. Chico, Joan H. Fujimura, Elihu M. Gerson, Marilyn Little, Sheryl Ruzek, Leonard Schatzman, S. Leigh Star, and Anselm L. Strauss for their ongoing support of the project on which this paper is based. Merriley Borell, Jane Maienschein, and other participants in the conference from which this volume emerged also provided invaluable assistance. The Special Collections of the University of Chicago, the University of California, Davis, the Chesney Archives of the Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, the Carnegie Institution of Washington, and the Rockefeller Archives graciously allowed me access to unpublished materials. The research has been supported by the Tremont Research Institute, the University of California, San Francisco, and the Rockfeller University.
2. This shift of emphasis took place in most areas of biological, medical, and agricultural research. See, for example, Garland Allen, Life Sciences in the Twentieth Century (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1978); Adele E. Clarke, “Emergence of the Reproductive Research Enterprise: A Sociology of Biological, Medical and Agricultural Science in the United States, 1910–1940” (Ph.D. diss., Univ. of California, San Francisco, 1985); William Coleman, Biology in the Nineteenth Century: Problems of Form, Function and Transformation (New York: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1977); Coleman, “The Cognitive Basis of the Discipline: Claude Bernard on Physiology,” Isis 76(1985): 49–70; Gerald L. Geison, “Divided We Stand: Physiologists and Clinicians in the American Context,” in The Therapeutic Revolution: Essays in the Social History of American Medicine, ed. Morris J. Vogel and Charles Rosenberg (Philadelphia, PA: Univ. of Pennsylvania Press, 1979) pp. 67–90; Geison, Michael Foster and the Cambridge School of Physiology: The Scientific Enterprise in Late Victorian Society (Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press, 1978); Gerson, “Styles of Scientific Work and the Population Realignment in Biology, 1880–1925” (paper presented at the Conference on History and Philosophy of Biology, Ohio, 1983); Gerson, “The Realignment of Population Biology, 1880–1925” (paper presented at the Society for Social Studies of Science, Philadelphia, PA, 1982); A. McGehee Harvey, Adventures in Medical Research: A Century of Discovery at Johns Hopkins (Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, 1976); Rosenberg, “Rationalization and Reality in Shaping American Agricultural Research, 1875–1914,” in The Sciences in the American Context: New Perspectives, ed. Nathan Reingold (Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution, 1979) pp. 143–163; Rosenberg, No Other Gods: On Science and American Social Thought (Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, 1976); and Margaret Rossiter, “The Organization of the Agricultural Sciences,” in The Organization of Knowledge in Modern America, 1869–1920, ed. Alexandra Oleson and John Voss (Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, 1979) pp. 279–298.
3. For some of the leading examples of such developments, see the other chapters in this book, especially these of Diana Long, Merriley Borell, and Jane Maienschein.
4. For analyses of problems of disciplinary emergence and substantive cases, see Adele E. Clarke, “Emergence”; Geison, ed., Professions and Professional Ideology in America (Chapel Hill: Univ. of North Carolina Press, 1983); Geison, “Scientific Change, Emerging Specialties and Research Schools,” Hist. Sci. 19(1981): 20–40; Loren Graham, Wolf Lepenies, and Peter Weingart, eds., Functions and Uses of Disciplinary Histories (Boston: Kluwer, 1983); Robert Kohler, From Medical Chemistry to Biochemistry: The Making of a Biomedical Discipline (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1982); Gerard Lemaine, Roy MacLeod, Michael Mulkay, and Weingart, eds., Perspectives on the Emergence of Scientific Disciplines (Chicago: Aldine, 1976); Philip J. Pauly, “The Appearance of Academic Biology in Late 19th Century America,”J. Hist. Biol. 17(1984): 369–397; Rosenberg, “Toward an Ecology of Knowledge: On Discipline, Contexts and History,” in The Organization of Knowledge, pp. 440–455; Rosenberg, “Rationalization and Reality”; and Rosenberg, No Other Gods.
5. See, for example, Maienschein, “Agassiz, Hyatt, Whitman and the Birth of the Marine Biological Laboratory,” Biol. Bull. Woods Hole 168 Suppl. (1985): 26–34; Maienschein, “Early Struggles at the Marine Biological Laboratory,” Biol. Bull. Woods Hole 168 Suppl. (1985) 192–196; Reingold, ed., The Sciences in the American Context; and Jeffrey Werdinger, “Embryology at Woods Hole: The Emergence of a New American Biology” (Ph.D. diss., Indiana Univ., 1980).