AMER. ZOOL., 27:759-771 (1987)
H. Newell Martin, W. K. Brooks, and the
Reformation of American Biology1
KEITH R. BENSON
Department of Bwmedical History, University of Washington,
Seattle, Washington 98195
SYNOPSIS. Johns Hopkins University pioneered a new model for graduate education in
biology. Prior to its opening in 1876, opportunities for graduate education in biology
were extremely limited in the United States. Under the careful leadership of W. K. Brooks
and H. Newell Martin, Johns Hopkins not only provided for the education of many of
the first generation of American-trained biologists, but it also developed a new and workable model for advanced training in the biological sciences. This model, formed around
laboratory training and original research, was adopted by many American universities by
the end of the nineteenth century.
There is a tremendous temptation to base
the glorification of the biology program at
Johns Hopkins University upon the reputations of its impressive faculty and illustrious students. Names like Martin, Brooks,
Morgan, Wilson, Conklin, Harrison, Jennings, and Willier, just to mention a few,
come immediately to mind. Similarly, many
historians, focusing on the achievements of
the students at Johns Hopkins, have spilled
much ink arguing over the relative importance of the physiology and morphology
orientations of the department in its early
years in producing such influential scientists. Attention in both of these directions
is certainly warranted; however, it seems
to me we may miss the critical role Johns
Hopkins University played in the reformation of American biology if we fail to
consider the setting in which the "Hopkins
model" developed and had its greatest
impact. In an attempt to accomplish this
task, I will focus attention on the character
of American biology circa 1876, the year
Johns Hopkins University opened, and on
the development of the physiology program under H. Newell Martin and the
zoology program under William Keith
Brooks.
research, but the establishment of institutions of research.
The most important recent development of science has been the establishment of endowed institutions for
research . . . . In all our leading universities there are professors whose attention is devoted to advanced students and
investigation, and their laboratories may
be regarded as research institutions^ 1)*
Cattell, continuing in the same article,
claimed that this improvement in science
was largely responsible for the greater
material wealth of Americans and for the
increase in life expectancy. Yet, he
lamented, fewer than 1,000 individuals
were involved in scientific research in 1910.
Cattell's lamentation, however, must be
seen in the proper context to be understood clearly. Indeed, only twenty-five years
earlier, the editors of Science stated that
there was no research tradition in the
United States. Noting that Americans had
made few contributions to science and
"have never fostered research," especially
compared to France, England, and Germany, the anonymously authored article
did indicate there were signs of change.
In 1910, J. McKeen Cattell claimed that
the most important development in American science was not a particular piece of
1
From the Symposium on The Role of Johns Hopkins
University in the Development of Experimental and Quantitative Biology in America presented at the Annual
Meeting of the American Society of Zoologists, 2730 December 1985, at Baltimore, Maryland.
. . . but amongst us is a little band of men
who have before them the model of Germany, and who are working earnestly for
* Because of the unusual nature of some of the
references in this paper, they will be cited by number
rather than by author and date, the normal journal
style.
759
760
KEITH R. BENSON
the intellectual elevation of their country. Their first object is necessarily to
render research more important in public estimation, and so to smooth the way
for a corps of professional investigators.
Every thoughtful person must wish success to the attempt.(2)
Cattell's previous remarks, therefore, have
added significance beyond the condition of
American science in 1910. One, they indicate how far American science had developed in just a quarter century. Two, they
also indicate the importance of research in
the development of science. And three,
they indicate the value science had for the
American people and the promise of continued growth for the scientific community.
The change between 1883 and 1910 was
due in large measure to the reforms in science education that were encouraged by
the " . . . men who have before them the
model of Germany."(3) In biology, the
change was centered in and most clearly
evidenced at the new Biology Department
of Johns Hopkins, the first department of
advanced graduate education in biology in
the United States. While Louis Agassiz's
contributions to the American biological
community were substantial and have long
been stressed, his influence was primarily
directed toward providing a professional
character to the largely amateur natural
history community between 1850 and
1870.(4) Through his Museum of Comparative Zoology (MCZ), a name Agassiz
chose to define the scientific nature of his
museum work, he carefully elaborated a
program in morphology that was the basis
for advanced instruction in biology for an
entire generation of biologists including A.
S. Packard, Alpheus Hyatt, E. S. Morse,
Nathaniel Shaler, and Frederick Putnam.
Agassiz's program was the first revision to
the collecting, describing, preserving, and
drawing tradition of the amateur natural
history community. But in practice, the
studies at the MCZ only refined and defined
the natural history tradition. That is, the
study of animal form under Agassiz was
museum-oriented natural history in a
professional, institutional setting.
While Agassiz developed the MCZ at
Harvard, research laboratories emerged
throughout Europe. These institutions,
almost all associated with a university,
offered advanced instruction and research.
Students in the laboratory received not only
a firm preparation in science, but they were
also required to design research projects
that contributed to clarifying recognized
problems in science. The national center
of the laboratory approach in science education was Germany. According to E. Ray
Lankester, over twenty universities had
research institutions in the biological sciences, typically in physiology, zoology,
anatomy, pathology, or botany.(5)
But prior to the last quarter of the century, the United States completely lacked
similar laboratories. True, science students
could receive advanced instruction at Yale's
Sheffield School of Science or at the MCZ.
But neither of these institutions offered an
educational experience that was in any way
strictly analogous to the European laboratories. The American students were not
exposed to the same laboratory approach
that emphasized original research as part
of one's education. Furthermore, Agassiz's
death in 1873 exacerbated the situation by
removing one-half of the advanced education opportunities available on this side
of the Atlantic.(6) The only recourse
American students had if they hoped to
obtain the new type of advanced training
was to travel to Europe, an option that was
frequently exercised by young scientists and
physicians in the 1870s and 1880s.(7) Perceptive American educators and established scientists recognized the problem;
clearly there was a need to reevaluate the
educational system in American universities and provide a new approach.
In reality the reform movement in higher
education was part of the general reform
mood that characterized American society
following the cessation of the Civil War.
Many Americans shared the conviction that
the entire society would benefit from
enlightened change. Reformers offered
substantive changes in industry, public
health, the legal and medical professions,
government, and education. Interestingly,
the models for reform were not uniquely
REFORMATION OF AMERICAN BIOLOGY
American but drew heavily upon European
institutions.(8) Perhaps the best example
of the importance of the European bias was
the reform in science education. Major
educational leaders, with the substantial
backing of wealthy philanthropists, were
convinced that the revitalization of the
country following the devastation of the
Civil War was dependent upon the creation
of a new group of citizens. The "new"
referred to an educated class familiar with
science. This was a common theme of the
five university presidents most closely associated with the formation of the modern
American university; Andrew D. White of
Cornell, Charles W. Eliot of Harvard, William R. Harper of the University of Chicago, James B. Angell of Michigan, and
Daniel Coit Gilman of Johns Hopkins University.
Of these leaders and institutions, Gilman
and Johns Hopkins held the most promise
for immediate reform. Healthily endowed
by an impressive bequest from the estate
of the railroad magnate of the same name,
fortuitously provided with a loose mandate
to foster advanced education and a medical
center, liberally guided by an enlightened
Board of Trustees concerned with educational issues, and carefully watched over
by one of America's truly great university
presidents, Johns Hopkins University was
indeed presented with a unique opportunity to provide a new direction for advanced
instruction.(9) President Gilman accepted
the new challenge and approached his
charge fervently and seriously. When he
began at the new institution in 1875, Gilman set as his goal to establish a new educational venture centered on graduate
instruction. For advice, Gilman turned
toward Europe. He visited virtually every
important science laboratory, especially
those in Germany and England. And he
relied heavily on the advice of his European counterparts, especially T. H. Huxley, who also was an educational reformer,
for insights into the laboratory model of
science education.
Gilman's early plans for the Biology
Department reflected Huxley's ideals. Early
in 1876, Gilman announced that Johns
Hopkins would offer a program in "Nat-
761
ural History or Biology," certainly not a
clear alternative to the tradition previously
established at Yale and Harvard.(10) But
following his consultations with Huxley,
Gilman abruptly changed his design and
announced that the new department was
to be constructed ". . . on a plane similar
to that of Prof. Huxley at South Kensington."(1 1) This change is significant because
Huxley's laboratory had a physiological
orientation; that is, it stressed functional
considerations in addition to the more traditional questions of animal form (morphology). At the same time, Huxley
encouraged Gilman to establish a department that included both physiology and
morphology, Huxley's "twin aims" of biology. (12)
Gilman's choice to head Johns Hopkin's
new department also indicated his decision
to prefer the laboratory approach of Huxley. Following the advice of Huxley and
Michael Foster, the head of England's most
productive physiological laboratory at
Cambridge,(13) he hired the young English
physiologist H. Newell Martin, a student
of Foster and collaborator with Huxley.
Because Martin was the only appointment
in the newly-formed Biology Department,
he was the department! Gilman's selection
was consistent with the bequest of Johns
Hopkins that called for an educational
institution that included medicine. Physiology was the branch of biology that had
the clearest connection to medicine. Furthermore, because Martin was a product
of one of the leading physiology programs
in Europe and had close connections with
European physiologists, he embodied the
essential characteristics to develop a similar program in Baltimore. The medical
community was quick to notice the possible
importance of the new direction the Biology Department was taking.
The nearer our medical education
approaches to the European models in
this direction [physiological research],
the freer shall we be from quackery and
humby, and the better able to occupy
our proper positions.(14)
Gilman's decision to invite Martin to the
United States, therefore, was in keeping
762
KEITH R. BENSON
with the reform mood in education and morphological investigations, and the
medicine.(15) Martin was expected to principle of the conservation of energy in
develop a sound physiology program that biological systems, the province of physiwould serve as the foundation for a new ology, Martin wanted a department that
style of medical education in the United would address both the study of form and
States, based heavily upon the model of the the investigation of function. Consequently, he recommended that Gilman
European physiology laboratory.
Not surprisingly, Gilman's plans elicited make an additional appointment to the
an immediate and enthusiastic response. department, that of a morphologist.
The Boston Medical and Surgical Journal
Martin's request is notable for the subclaimed the "youngest university of the day sequent development of professional biolis springing up with a rapidity character- ogy in America. Prior to the opening of
istic of the age we live in" and praised John Johns Hopkins University, biology was
Hopkins for moving in a direction on the addressed commonly under the ill-defined
"same plan as those in the Leipzig Hospi- category of natural history with no areas
tal. "(16) The Medical Record echoed this of specialization except the various taxoattitude and endorsed the "high and thor- nomic groups. Agassiz did use the more
ough standard of education" promised by exclusive term "zoology," but in practice
the announcement from Johns Hopkins of his orientation was not markedly different
a "preliminary medical course" that con- from natural history. Martin's demarcasisted of preparatory work in biology, mor- tion of the Biology Department, therefore,
phology, physiology, histology, osteology, provided one of the earliest separations of
anatomy, embryology, and advanced stud- biology in an academic setting. When Gilies in physiology and histology.(17) Unfor- man's ideal department opened in 1876,
tunately for those hopeful of the impact of Professor Martin directed the department
these measures on medical education but and represented the physiological side of
fortunately for the future of graduate edu- biology. William Keith Brooks, originally
cation in biology, the preliminary medical referred to as Martin's assistant although
course never fully materialized beyond the the chairman strongly disputed this despreliminary stage, and the department ignation, was placed in charge of morfailed to develop a lasting tie to medi- phology. Because each of these "sub-divicine.(18) Part of the reason was that the sions" was based on the areas of interest
hospital plans of Johns Hopkins were of the two faculty members, the character
delayed; financial considerations pre- of each area reflected the biases of Martin
vented the opening of the university hos- and Brooks. Remarkably, this character was
pital until almost twenty years after the quite uniform despite the different fields
university opened. But a more important of investigation. Both young men shared
factor was that Martin was not committed the vision of the European ideal of gradto an exclusive medical orientation for the uate education; exposure to the classical
department.
literature in the field, discussion of major
scientific problems through seminars, and
Martin's own education, albeit in a phys- the development of an original research
iology laboratory, was thoroughly English project carried out by the student and subin character. That is to say, his educational sequently published in the scientific literbackground taught physiology as one part ature. Both also stressed the teaching of
of biological inquiry. Therefore, Martin biology through the laboratory and not ex
was convinced that the education of a biol- cathedra or from the lecture podium.
ogist must follow the "mutual dependence Finally, both were firmly convinced that
of biological studies" in physiology and the critical need in the United States was
morphology, a theme Huxley constantly to teach young biologists the methods of
pointed out to his American col- science. The problem, recognized by many
leagues.(19) Recognizing that biology in the American biologists and pointed out clearly
nineteenth century was based on the doc- by C. O. Whitman, was that "young nattrine of evolution, the primary focus of
REFORMATION OF AMERICAN BIOLOGY
uralists" required experience in the development and application of methods.(20)
But these methods were largely unavailable in the United States in the 1870s and
1880s.
Despite their overt similarity in style and
attitude toward biology, they still faced a
formidable task in developing a graduate
program in a country almost completely
devoid of any tradition in academic biology. Gilman's ambivalence in 1876 as to
whether the department would feature
"Natural History or Biology," or be a laboratory similar to "that of Prof. Huxley at
South Kensington," is illustrative of the
problem. Even Martin and Brooks's
appointments bear this out: Martin was
head of the "Biology" department and
Brooks was an "Associate of the University" assigned to "Natural History."(21) But
what did a biology department encompass?
How was a program in biology to be developed? What areas of biology needed to be
denned? By 1880, Martin and Brooks succeeded in institutionalizing the boundary
areas in the department by circumscribing
the orientation into "Animal Physiology"
and "Zoology." For the next thirteen years,
the two colleagues organized carefully
denned programs of "Advanced Instruction" under these two categories of biological work that enabled an impressive
collection of young American biologists to
obtain graduate experience in biology.
To be sure, the department's original
orientation was toward only the "physiological side" of biology. After all, Martin
was a physiologist and he was hired to create
a biology department based on the laboratory model emphasizing physiological
research. But it is clear that Martin was not
interested in a narrowly-focused department. In fact, most of his attention in the
first few years of the department was
directed toward the introductory biology
class and not advanced instruction in physiology.(22) Martin's original courses were
in General Elementary Biology, which he
taught with Brooks, and Advanced Physiology and Histology, which he taught alone.
This format was intended to provide
undergraduates not with a specialized education, but with a general exposure to the
763
variety of forms of living organisms (morphology) and the properties exhibited by
living forms (physiology).(23) Significantly,
this broad exposure was not intended only
for medical students. Martin was convinced that the Biology Department should
also encourage students to select a Bachelor of Arts degree and then to specialize
in graduate school either in zoology, botany, or physiology (a Bachelor of Medicine
degree was proposed for the preliminary
medical students).
Despite the initial excitement for a biology department that was .directly related
to medical education, Martin had a different plan. Even physiology, perhaps the area
medical reformers were drawn to most, was
to be studied at Johns Hopkins on its own
merits and apart from a necessary direct
connection to medicine. Martin felt that
pure research of this style would develop
a physiology tradition in the United States
and also have applications to medicine as
a result of the research.
Numerous good teachers do, no doubt,
give instruction concerning these main
facts already acquired which it is essential for the practitioner to know, but it
seemed important to introduce a graduate course to train men as specialists in
physiology, so that they might not only
be qualified to teach it, but add to our
knowledge of the working of the living
body, and to supply new facts for the
physician to utilize.(24)
Martin wanted a physiology program in the
department that was on par with those in
Europe. This meant that physiology was to
be "pursued for its own sake" instead of
only for its "immediate connection with a
medical curriculum."
For Martin's contribution to the Biology
Department, "animal physiology has [sic]
formed one of the subjects for special
advanced study . . . ." The model, of
course, was that of Foster's laboratory at
Cambridge. While Martin lectured to the
introductory classes in general biology,
advanced instruction, the "main work" of
the department, was carried on in the laboratory. Martin adopted this approach for
both personal and practical reasons. Based
764
KEITH R. BENSON
on many student reports and evidence from
manuscript sources, Martin was a notoriously poor lecturer; it did not help that
he had a personal disdain for this approach
to education. At the same time, however,
there were few textbooks available in physiology in the United States.(25) So Martin
provided much of the needed introductory
material through lectures, but used the laboratory approach for more advanced
instruction. In this latter direction, Martin
excelled.
T h e laboratory-oriented instruction
offered at Johns Hopkins became a trademark of the department. In fact, many references to the department in the 1880s use
the title "Biological Laboratories" in
addressing Martin's product. When the
department first opened in 1876, these
facilities were located on the third floor of
Hopkins Hall, euphemistically referred to
by the students as the "attic rooms" for
their location on the top floor of the
library.(26) As his initial task, Martin purchased the equipment for a biological laboratory: microtomes, reagents, materials
for dissection, and physiological apparatus
soon filled the rooms. The facilities were
immediately put to use. By 1881 Martin
had already directed the research of three
of his most well known students, Henry
Sewall (1879, work of the gastric glandular
epithelium), Edward Hartwell (1881, anatomy and physiology of the turtle), and W.
T. Sedgwick (1881, quinine and the reflex
reaction).
The physical setting of the "Biological
Laboratories" improved dramatically with
the completion of a new three-floor building constructed exclusively for laboratory
work. The new building, costing $70,000,
was "unrivaled in the United States and
not surpassed in the world."(27) More
equipment was purchased from a special
appropriation of the trustees. This new
equipment included the latest instrumentation for physiology, such as the Ludwig
Kymographium, and new microscopical
aids, especially in the form of the rotary
microtomes that were being improved dramatically in the 1870s and 1880s. Still the
primary orientation of the Biological Laboratory, as the new building was called,
reflected Martin's conviction that physiology was the "queen" of the biological
sciences and zoology and botany were the
"handmaidens."(28) But the royal analogy
did not indicate that Martin held zoology
and botany in disdain. Instead, it reflected
Martin's accurate assessment of the state
of American physiology in the 1870s and
1880s. After all, the study of plants and
animals, although not in a graduate setting,
had been the major target of American
natural history but physiology, which cut
across both botany and zoology, was
scarcely developed.
Quite clearly, Martin did not favor any
discouragement of the zoological or botanical departments of biology. In the same
year that the Biological Laboratory was
constructed, Martin participated in the
formation of the Society of Naturalists of
the Eastern United States. This group specifically addressed natural history, the primary focus of the American biological
community, and their main concern was
aimed at the advancement of education in
natural history. The stated objective was
. . . the discussion and methods of investigation and instruction, laboratory
technique and museum administration,
and other topics of interest to investigators and teachers of natural history,
and for the adoption of such measures
as shall tend to the advancement and diffusion of the knowledge of natural history in the community.(29)
Martin, who served as an elected officer of
the Society of Naturalists, also was an early
organizer of the Baltimore Naturalists'
Field Club or the Naturalists' Field Club
as it was referred to in the university Circulars.(30) The club was organized by
members of the university and also included
amateur naturalists from the Baltimore
area. Martin helped to organize and conduct the weekly meetings and collecting
excursions of the Naturalists' Field Club.
In fact, the new laboratory even housed
the museum for the zoological and botanical collections from the many excursions.
Martin's comments regarding the role of
physiology in the biological sciences are to
be understood, therefore, as stressing the
REFORMATION OF AMERICAN BIOLOGY
need to advance or expand the biological
community by encouraging physiological
investigations, an area poorly developed in
American biology prior to Martin's arrival
in this country. Martin saw the "queen"
discipline as offering a new approach that
could be applied equally well to zoology or
botany. The organization of the Biological
Laboratory revealed Martin's views. The
first floor was devoted to the introductory
classes, so it included a large lecture room
and a laboratory equipped for demonstrations to large classes. Again, these classes
bore Martin's stamp: introductory classes
needed to teach broad generalizations concerning life, often effectively conveyed
through the laboratory.
Attention is directed to the broad characteristics phenomena of life and living
things rather than to the minutiae of
descriptive Botany or Zoology . . . . In
the laboratory the student learns how to
observe, how to verify and describe what
he observes, how to dissect, and how to
use a microscope . . . . In the lecture
room attention is mainly given to the
fundamental biological facts and laws
which the particular plant or animal
under consideration is fitted to illustrate,
the object being rather to give the student an idea of what is meant by the
terms living things, plant, animal, tissue
differentiation, life history, organ, function, etc
(31)
Such an introductory class was influenced
by Martin's exposure to Michael Foster and
T. H. Huxley, but the institutionalization
of the class must be credited to Martin.
Indeed, Gerald Geison stresses that in
terms of
the detailed elaboration of the laboratory system of teaching elementary
biology, he [Martin] may actually have
taken almost as large a share as Foster
or even Huxley himself.(32)
765
Martin, although many felt Martin was the
chief contributor.(33) Obviously Martin
was well prepared to implement the new
introductory model at Johns Hopkins.
Advanced instruction in physiology was
conducted on the third floor. Second-year
students in the department could select
from animal physiology or animal morphology; however, if they elected to choose
biology as the major area of undergraduate
education, they were required to take both
courses. The "collegiate instruction," or
undergraduate class, in "Animal Physiology and Histology" was an introductory
course in these subjects. Standard laboratory procedures were carried out by the
students but the use of "delicate instruments" was restricted to class demonstrations. It was the advanced course in "Animal Physiology," offered for graduate
students under "university instruction,"
that was the focus of the third-floor activities.
The new biological laboratory opened
last October, has been especially constructed with reference to providing
opportunity for advanced work in experimental physiology. The collection of
physiological instruments belonging to
the University is unusually large and
complete . . . . There is also a well-fittedup workshop in the laboratory in which
a skilled mechanic is kept constantly at
work repairing and constructing instruments. The laboratory contains two large
rooms for general advanced work in animal physiology, in addition to other specially designed for work with the spectroscope, with the myograph, for
electrophysiological researches, and for
physiological chemistry.(34)
The Biological Laboratory, the physiological and microscopical instrumentation,
the introductory teaching format, and the
physiological method of inquiry were all
novel. Martin must be credited for introThe widely-used and influential English ducing these innovations into American
text, A Course of Practical Instruction in Ele- biology. Not only did his physiological promentary Biology, which was largely respon- gram produce several important pieces of
sible for the rapid development of labo- research, it also served as the model for
ratory teaching in England, was written by many other American physiology laboraT. H. Huxley with assistance by H. Newell tories within universities.
766
KEITH R. BENSON
But Martin never intended to build a
department only with physiology. To complement his interest in questions of function, he wanted a colleague trained in morphology. The man selected to this position,
William Keith Brooks, proved to be an
excellent choice.(35) Initially Brooks's role
in the department was secondary to Martin's. His only major duty was to assist Martin in teaching the new General Elementary Biology course. But part of Brooks's
secondary status was due to his late
appointment to the faculty. Brooks was
originally accepted to Johns Hopkins as a
graduate fellow but was then asked to
become an "associate" in "Natural History" just a few months before the university opened. Even this position was not
made firm until after Martin arrived in Baltimore in August of 1876. In addition, most
of the new students at Johns Hopkins were
"young physicians or medical students"
who were attracted to the new university
by its new model of medical education.(36)
Therefore, not only was Brooks totally
unprepared "to have charge of the morphological instruction," but there were few
if any morphology students in the department.(37) By 1878 the disparity between
the two instructors had all but disappeared
and the department no longer had a strict
medical or physiological orientation.
Brook's teaching now included courses in
Comparative Anatomy and Zoology, Animal Embryology, and advanced Animal
Morphology. The balance of the physiology and morphology aspects of the department is evidenced by the first graduate
degrees: one was awarded to Henry Sewell
in animal physiology and the other to S. F.
Clarke in zoology (morphology). By 1884,
a total often Ph.D. degrees were awarded,
five from Brooks and five from Martin.
Brooks's task at Johns Hopkins had a
basic similarity to Martin's, but it was also
distinct. That is, he was to create a graduate program in morphology, but unlike
Martin, he had no model and no experience in the European laboratory methods.
Instead, Brooks had worked at Louis Agassiz's summer seaside laboratory at Penikese, America's initial marine observatory,
and he had completed his doctoral research
at Alexander Agassiz's private research
laboratory at Newport, Rhode Island. He
had also worked for a year as a curator at
the Boston Society of Natural History
under Alpheus Hyatt. Perhaps from his
American experience he, too, became convinced that laboratory methods held the
most promise for attacking the major problems in morphology. Brooks's laboratory
at Johns Hopkins, however, did not require
a special building in Baltimore, but a laboratory with a seaside location. Brooks
made his plea to the university trustees in
1878 to establish a marine station on the
Chesapeake Bay to supplement the
cramped quarters for embryological work
in the Biology Department. Arguing that
a laboratory would encourage student
research, serve as a summer training program in zoology, promote knowledge of
the Atlantic marine fauna and flora, and
enable Brooks and his students to collect
laboratory materials for the academic year,
Brooks was able to sell the administration
on funding the embryonic Chesapeake
Zoological Laboratory (CZL) beginning in
the summer of 1878.
The CZL's role in the morphology program of the Biology Department grew in
importance until it became essential to
Brooks's mission. In many ways the CZL
was the equivalent to Martin's physiology
laboratory located on the third floor of the
Biological Laboratory. While in its early
years the CZL offered a marine experience
only for students interested in marine work,
by the early 1880s, it became a requirement of all students in advanced morphology and the major setting for research
in morphology.
Rooms for advanced work in this subject
are also contained in the laboratory and
a course of advanced lectures will be
given by Dr. Brooks. The chief advanced
study in animal morphology is however
carried on at the Marine Laboratory,
open at the seaside from the beginning
of June until the end of August, under
the direction of Dr. Brooks.(38)
Summer session laboratory work at the CZL
became an integral part of the "Hopkins
model" of graduate education in biology.
REFORMATION OF AMERICAN BIOLOGY
Most of Brooks's students conducted their
doctoral research along the shores of the
Chesapeake or at Beaufort, North Carolina, the major site of the CZL during most
of the 1880s. In addition, essentially all of
Brooks's impressive research in morphology was done in the summer months, independent investigators, including William
Bateson, attended the CZL sessions, and
the marine station developed an international reputation. As E. Ray Lankester
stated, the CZL was one of the major seaside laboratories in the world and the only
one in the United States that encouraged
research.(39) This latter point is very
important since the CZL and its students
were influential in contributing to the
development and institutionalization of the
Marine Biological Laboratory at Woods
Hole.
Educationally, Brooks was confident that
the summer work, which included both
field experiences and laboratory work (primarily microscopical studies of embryonic
development), provided the essential training for a student's later work in morphologyThe student had the opportunity of laying a broad foundation for his future
work as a naturalist, of finding for himself some matters to investigate, and thus
early to acquire the mental habit of the
independent investigator.(40)
767
ual, the "Teacher's Class in Zoology at
Johns Hopkins University," in which he
provided careful, step-by-step instructions
for teachers who had no previous experience in the laboratory.(41) At the same
time, he published the Handbook of Invertebrate Zoology, the first American text
describing the proper laboratory procedures for research in invertebrate zoology.(42) To instruct the graduate students
Brooks adopted a different technique.
Compared with Martin, Brooks was an
adept lecturer, often providing clear and
memorable descriptions of natural phenomena. But in the laboratory, while they
both tended to pay only minimal attention
to students, Brooks in particular encouraged his students to learn on their own,
perhaps reminiscent of his own experience
with Agassiz. Brooks provided the equipment, material, and beginning instruction
to the students. For guidance after this
preparation, the students were directed to
the literature or to consult with each other.
On some occasions the result was frustration; but on most occasions, as Martin
pointed out with his students, the students
learned on their own to judge for themselves whether the results of the research
were justified.(43)
The primary concern Brooks had in his
laboratory was that the students be provided with an atmosphere in which they
could develop their own skills as indepenThe same approach, only lacking the field dent researchers. The emphasis was upon
work, was carried out at the Biological Lab- exposing young biologists to the expandoratory in Baltimore. The zoology labo- ing field of laboratory methods, most of
ratory, located on the second floor with the which came from Europe. Brooks agreed
scarcely-developed botany laboratory, was with C. O. Whitman that the American
completely equipped with the latest micro- biological community needed to direct
scopes and microtomes for embryological more attention to the methods and faciliresearch. But like Martin, Brooks faced the ties of research.
problem that there were no American labWhatever improves our facilities for
oratory textbooks. One of his initial tasks,
study will tend to increase the general
therefore, was to establish not only a gradinterest in biology, and to augment the
uate program in morphology but to organumber of naturalists who will seek the
nize the research tools and methods in a
best
that the world affords in the way of
manner to teach them effectively.
methods.(44)
Again, Brooks mirrored Martin in terms
of his personal interest in not only the lab- Both the morphological laboratory at Johns
oratory method of instruction but orga- Hopkins and the summer sessions of the
nizing the laboratory approach in research. Chesapeake Zoological Laboratory were
One of his first projects was to write a man- focused on teaching methods and encour-
768
KEITH R. BENSON
aging the development of research skills.
Their role in this direction is all the more
notable since the first monograph on
microscopical technique for embryological
morphology was not available until 1885
when Whitman's classic, Methods ofResearch
in Microscopical Anatomy and Embryology, was
published.(45)
Together, Brooks and Martin were
responsible for developing the first well
articulated alternative to museum-oriented studies in natural history. Although
neither man was averse to the methods of
the older tradition, both were committed
to the new laboratory methods in biology
that were associated with physiology and
embryological morphology. Martin's work
emphasized experimental manipulations of
living organisms or systems of the living
organism to study animal function. Brooks,
in a complementary role, developed an
exemplary program in embryology based
on the descriptive study of developmental
events. But the innovative laboratory orientation of the Biology Department was
not the only legacy from Baltimore.
The concerted effort of Gilman, the
trustees, and the faculty to design a new
university system, the so-called "Hopkins
model," also meant a new type of graduate
experience in biology. Martin and Brooks
were active participants in the reform measures. In addition to the completion of specific course requirements, graduate students had additional requirements that
made the doctoral degree a rigorous, significant, and accurate indication of scholarly and scientific achievement. All the students were required to attend the journal
club where recent publications in biology
were read and discussed. Brooks expanded
this program in morphology by producing
a comprehensive reading list that was given
to each graduate student in morphology
with the expectation that the entire list be
read. And the list of articles Brooks
included was complete!(46) Certainly any
student who completed the task, and evidence indicates most did, would be at the
least well exposed to the major problems
and themes in morphology.(47) Additionally, the typical Johns Hopkins's reading
group, or "seminaries," were also offered
in morphology and physiology. These seminars were designed to aid the students to
become more adept in the scientific ways
of thinking by reading and discussing classic works in biology. Often Brooks and
Martin presented their own work and ideas
before the students.
The journal club and the seminaries,
typical features in most academic departments at Johns Hopkins, had a notable
impact on the character of the material
taught in the Biology Department. Because
the United States lacked a scientific
research tradition, there were no institutions prior to the 1880s that had the appropriate library facilities where students had
access to the latest research. In addition,
much of the latest work was conducted in
German laboratories and published in German journals; unfortunately, most American university students had minimal language abilities. As a result, the journal club
and seminar became the vehicle to expose
students to the recent biological literature.
Brooks and Martin brought specific published research to the attention of their
students. Other students with language
skills were assigned to translate articles for
their peers. In this manner, the Biological
Laboratory at Johns Hopkins was able to
boost its research collection and to provide
its students with an almost unparalleled
resource to the biological literature.
But the lack of a tradition in biological
research also meant that American investigators had few journals in which to publish
their research. When Johns Hopkins
opened in 1876 there were essentially no
specialty journals in the biological sciences
in the United States. To ameliorate this
problem, which was also endemic to other
academic fields, Gilman encouraged his
faculty to establish scholarly journals.(48)
Brooks founded the short-lived Scientific
Results of the Sessions of the Chesapeake Zoo-
logical Laboratory. But because this journal
included only the results of the work from
the CZL in morphology, President Gilman
suggested that the Biology Department
publish a more inclusive journal. In 1879,
Brooks and Martin began Studies from the
Biological Laboratory of Johns Hopkins Uni-
versity to publish the results from physio-
REFORMATION OF AMERICAN BIOLOGY
logical and morphological research in the
department. Brooks also started a third
journal, Memoirs from the Biological Laboratory of the Johns Hopkins University, to publish
research papers of a longer and more
detailed nature. By establishing these journals, Brooks and Martin provided the graduate students with an opportunity to publish their doctoral research. This had the
important impact of helping to increase the
reputation of the Biology Department and
helping to establish the reputation of the
young students.
The "Hopkins model" for biology was
innovative, unique and successful; and the
department bore the signature of Martin
and Brooks. While natural history and
museum activity that represented American academic biology at mid-century did
not cease entirely, the central force of the
Biological Laboratory and the CZL was
decidedly different from any previous institution. Laboratory teaching, laboratory
methods in biology, and laboratory
research for advanced education became
the main thrusts at Johns Hopkins. But
equally important to the new laboratory
emphasis was the new graduate model that
required students to be well versed in the
current physiological and morphological
literature, to be acquainted with classic
papers in biology, and to be acquainted
with biological research through studentinitiated investigation. As a result, the
model developed in Baltimore was the prototype for subsequent graduate programs
that were established in American universities.
Cattell's remarks in 1910, therefore, take
on a new perspective after this examination of the formation of the Biology
Department. While there may have been
fewer than 1,000 scientific researchers in
1910, there were almost no Americantrained scientists before Johns Hopkins
opened. Brooks, for example, received only
the third Ph.D. conferred at Harvard! But
under the careful guidance of Brooks and
Martin the department at Johns Hopkins
trained over 70 Ph.D.s in physiology and
zoology, most of whom were listed among
the 190 physiologists and zoologists in Cattell's American Men in Science. (49) The JHU
769
impact, however, did not stop with the production of doctoral students. Of those who
obtained their education in the department, the majority enjoyed research careers
at many universities that had implemented
graduate programs in biology along the
model of Johns Hopkins. "Hopkins men"
headed departments at Michigan, Columbia, MIT, Yale, Princeton, Bryn Mawr,
California Institute of Technology, Williams, and Missouri. Perhaps even more
impressive is the observation that almost
twenty graduates of the Biology Department during the tenure of Brooks and
Martin became trustees of the Marine Biological Laboratory, America's premier
research laboratory at the turn of the century. It is not an underestimate, therefore,
to claim that the Biology Department at
Johns Hopkins University, under the leadership of Martin and Brooks, not only
played a critical role in educating many of
America's leading biologists, but also in
formulating the new model for the graduate education of the American biology
community.
REFERENCES
1. Cattell,J. McKeen. 1910. American men of science:
A biographical dictionary. 2nd ed., T h e Science
Press, New York.
2. Anonymous. 1883. National traits in science. Science 2:457.
3. Anonymous. The German university became the
model for American scientists largely because
of the successes of German science in the nineteenth century that were based on laboratory
research. This article in Science illustrates the
aspects of German science American educators
emulated most. For a more critical assessment
see Benson, Keith R. The Naples Stazione Zoologica and its impact on the emergence of
American marine biology: Entwichlungsmechamk and cell-lineage studies (paper delivered
at West Coast History of Science Society meetings, 12 November 1983).
4. Lurie, Edward. 1960. Louis Agassiz: A life in science.
University of Chicago Press, Chicago; 1974.
Nature and the American mind: Louis Agassiz and
the culture of science. Science History Publications, New York; and Winsor, Mary P. The
decomposition of Louis Agassiz's ideal museum
(paper delivered at History of Science Society
meetings, 28 December 1984).
5. Lankester, E. Ray. 1883. The endowment of biological research. Science: 2:507.
6. Benson, Keith R. 1985. American morphology
in the late nineteenth century: The biology
770
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
KEITH R. BENSON
department at Johns Hopkins University. Journal of the History of Biology 18:170 (note 21).
For additional information, including some inter- 22.
esting statistical data, see Cattell. American men
of science and Bonner, Thomas Neville. 1963.
American doctors and German universities. Uni- 23.
versity of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, Nebraska.
24.
As in note 3, the claim here is not that European
institutions, especially biological laboratories, 25.
were transported to the United States in their
Germanic form, but that American educators
looked to Europe for models. The actual form
the American institutions developed was, in
most cases, unique to this country.
Hawkins, Hugh. 1960. Pioneer: A history ojtheJohns
Hopkins University, 1874-1889. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, New York. Hawkin's study
provides an excellent overview of Gilman's
contributions to the formation of Johns Hop- 26.
kins.
17 January 1876. Preliminary announcement. 27.
Johns Hopkins University, report of the president.
30.
Letter, D. C. Gilman to H. Newell Martin. 14
March 1876. Johns Hopkins University, Eisenhower Library Special Collections, Gilman Col28.
lection.
Benson, Keith R. 1985. American morphology
in the late nineteenth century: The biology
department at Johns Hopkins University. Jour- 29.
nal of the History of Biology 18:166-167.
Geison, Gerald. 1978. Michael Foster and the Cam- 30.
bridge School of Physiology: The scientific enterprise
in late Victorian society. Princeton University 31.
Press, Princeton.
32.
Anonymous. 1878. The preliminary medical
course at Johns Hopkins. The Medical Record
14:152.
Philip J. Pauly's excellent article, 1984. The 33.
appearance of academic biology in late nine- 34.
teenth-century America. Journal of the History of Biology 17:369-397, details the empha- 35.
sis that medical reformers made on the
introduction of science into medical school curricula through the use of laboratory sciences.
Anonymous. 1878. The Johns Hopkins University. The Boston Medical and Surgical Journal 36.
49:605.
Anonymous. The preliminary medical course at
Johns Hopkins. The Medical Record 14:151.
Pauly, Philip J. 1984. The appearance of aca- 37.
demic biology in late nineteenth-century 38.
America. Journal of the History of Biology 17:
378-382. This section in Pauly's article deals 39.
specifically with the development of science and
medicine at Johns Hopkins University.
Martin, H. Newell. 1877. Thestudy and teaching
of biology. Popular Science Monthly 10:302- 40.
303.
Whitman, C. O. 1883. The advantage of study 41.
at the Naples Zoological Station. Science 2:95.
The graduate scholarships also indicate this 42.
ambiguity. There were no scholarships awarded
initially in biology; the first two awards were
given in "Natural History" to Samuel F. Clarke
and Henry J. Rice.
Martin's dedication to the beginning courses is
apparent from the Report of the President and
University Circulars dating from 1876-1878.
1882. Seventh Annual Report. Johns Hopkins
University, Report of the President 28.
Ibid. 30.
By the end of the nineteenth century, many physiology programs in the United States used one
of the editions of Michael Foster's textbooks.
But of the "ordinary textbooks" Martin
referred to, few were readily available in the
United States in 1876. These works included
texts written by John Dalton, William B. Carpenter, Austin Flint, Frans Donders, Karl Ludwig, Karl Vierordt, John D. McKendrick, Ludimar Hermann, and, of course, Foster.
Andrews, E. A.June, 1948. The old laboratory
. . . . Hopkins Biology Newsletter. 1.
Ibid. Andrews remarks were taken from Martin,
H. Newell. 1895. Modern physiological laboratories—what they are and why they are. In
H. Newell Martin, Physiological papers, pp.
227-241. Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.
Martin, H. Newell. 1895. Physiological papers, pp.
227-241. Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.
Anonymous. 1883. The society of naturalists of
the eastern United States. Science 1:411-412.
1884-1885. University Circulars. Johns Hopkins
University. 9.
Ibid. 8.
Geison, Gerald. 1978. Michael Foster and the Cambridge School of Physiology: The scientific enterprise
in late Victorian society. Princeton University
Press, Princeton, p. 142.
Ibid., p. 143.
1884-1885. University Circulars. Johns Hopkins
University. 9.
For more detailed information on Brooks, see
Benson, Keith R. William, Keith Brooks (18481908): A case study in morphology and the
development of American biology. Ph.D. Diss.,
Oregon State University, 1979.
Letter, W. K. Brooks to Alexander Agassiz. 26
October 1876. Johns Hopkins University,
Eisenhower Library Special Collections, Gilman Collection.
Ibid.
1884-1885. University Circulars. Johns Hopkins
University. 9.
Lankester, The endowment of biological research.
514. Lankester made similar remarks in an earlier article, 1880. An American seaside laboratory. Nature 21:497-499.
1910. William Keith Brooks. Journal of Experimental Zoology 9:19.
Brooks, W. K. (n.d.) Teacher's class in elementary
zoology. Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.
Brooks, W. K. 1882. Handbookfor invertebrate zoology: For laboratories and seaside work. S. E. Cassino, Boston.
REFORMATION OF AMERICAN BIOLOGY
43. For a number of anecdotal accounts of Brooks'
laboratory style, see the articles in the 1910.
Journal of Experimental Zoology. 9.
44. Whitman, C. O. 1883. The advantage of study
at the Naples Zoological Station. Science 2:97.
45. Whitman C. O. 1885. Methods of research in microscopical anatomy and embryology. S. E. Cassino,
Boston.
46. Brooks, W. K. 1890. Course of readings for graduate and special students in morphology at the
Johns Hopkins University. University Circulars. Johns Hopkins University 9:37.
771
47. Both E. G. Conklin (Princeton University) and
C. Winterton Curtis (University of Missouri)
left substantial records of their reading from
the graduate reading list in their manuscripts.
Presumably other graduate students were
equally zealous.
48. Hawkins, Hugh. 1960. Pioneer: A history of theJohns
Hopkins University, 1874-1889. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, New York, pp. 73-74.
49. Ibid., pp. 122-124.