A M . ZOOLOGIST, 6:621-626 (1966).
New Patterns in the Organization of Biology
CLIFFORD GROBSTEIN
Department of Biology, University of California, San Diego
La Jolla, California
(Address to the American Society of Zoologists, August 18, 1966)
At the time I chose my title I was undecided between two possible topics, and
so picked a title sufficiently ambiguous to
cover both. Now I must declare myself.
My own research interest—the mechanisms
of embryonic tissue interaction—is legitimately encompassed by the term, "biological organization." Under this title I could
have talked about communication between
tissues; indeed, I could have talked about
almost any aspect of the behavior and
functioning of organisms, including their
relationship to each other and among their
parts. However, this is not what I have
decided to do. Instead I want to talk about
the organization of biologists—the communication among them and the relationships
between groups of them as parts of the
biological community. I think that this is
a more pressing, and perhaps more provocative, matter for members of this Society
than what I might say about development.
I would emphasize that it is a pressing
matter. The organization of the biological
community has been in a prolonged crisis
for a decade or more. The unfortunate difficulties which almost overcame the AIBS
several years ago were only symptomatic of
the crisis, and the financial recovery of the
AIBS by no means marked the end of it.
As a community we are still in a morass
organizationally. We are like an army of
many overlapping divisions, most of which
are out of touch with GHQ and not only
fail to act in concert, but show alarming
tendencies to whack away at each other in
a confusion of identity. As a community
we are plagued by administrative inefficiency and haunted by divided purpose. At
the moment we are threatened by new
cleavages even as old ones give promise of
healing. 1 believe it is past time for stocktaking and remedial action. In what fol-
lows I shall attempt to make a small contribution in this direction, and I shall propose a step which ASZ can take which I
believe would be helpful both to it and
to the general problem.
What is the crux of the problem? Any
successful community is based upon some
common activity or other kinship, and a
system of communication which integrates
the life of its members. The biological community has failed to delineate and cultivate
its common base and, hence, has failed to
develop integrated organization. This was
true in the "olden days" when the focus was
on kinds of organisms, and biologists named
the organisms they described after themselves, and their own activities after the
organisms they studied. The dichotomies
then initiated are preserved in the name of
this Society and in the structure of some
of our great universities. Today the modernists among us frequently eschew terms
like zoologist, botanist, bacteriologist, or
mycologist—and name themselves instead
after methods and instruments (incidentally sometimes confusing them with objectives). Thus, we have electron microscopists, biochemists, and tissue culturists.
What seems never to have gotten through
to the whole community is that the entire
fabric of life is its common focus, that this
entire fabric is integral. All of its manifestations constitute the phenomenon of
common interest, and all biologists share
the common task of depicting, explaining,
and controlling the totality. Given the
breadth, complexity, and magnitude of this
task it is perhaps not surprising that the
various parties involved in it sometimes
fail to recognize each other as allies. All
the more reason, however, why integrative
communication based on recognized common interest is essential.
(621)
622
CLIFFORD GROBSTEIN
Among the fundamental communicative The first was the marked increment in biodevices for science have been its societies. medical research which resulted from the
The scientific societies transformed com- vastly expanded financial support emanatmunication by letter and chance encounter ing from the NIH. The scaling up of numinto communication in print and pre- bers of investigators, numbers of meetings,
arranged meetings. Our own Society was numbers of paper-reading sessions, numbers
founded in 1902 essentially for these pur- of journal pages, and numbers of research
poses, and the vigor and productivity of its projects strained the points of the older
early life testify that it served the purposes mechanisms for doing scientific business.
of its founders well. As it began its second The second was the accretion to the biohalf-century, however, evidence accumu- logical community of a whole new cadre
lated that all was not well. The official of people trained primarily as chemists,
report of the Policy Committee which was physicists, and mathematicians. The third
appointed in 1955 notes that "sometime was the rapid and enormously successful
prior to 1954 there arose among members advance in our understanding of biological
increasing criticism of the established poli- processes at the molecular and cellular
cies of the American Society of Zoologists." levels. The combination of these factors
Behind this austere language were the fol- changed the character of the biological comlowing facts. Membership rolls were stag- munity and made for new orientation in
nating; the average age of the Society's approaches and objectives. The truly specmembers was increasing one year each year. tacular progress at the meeting place of the
Meanwhile, the biological community as a biochemist, cytologist, and geneticist came
whole was enlarging, and what were called somewhat later, but it was the premonitory
"splinter societies" were multiplying and change of tidal direction which shook the
prospering. The "large voice" of science ASZ a little more than a decade ago.
had been assigned to AAAS, and of biology
The consequences now are apparent to
to AIBS. The ASZ was caught between all of us. Departments and curricula are
specialization below and consolidation being redesigned, funds are being realloabove and appeared to be without function. cated, and biologically-oriented professions
"Realists" urged that it be disbanded.
are being reorganized. Whatever carping
This dinner testifies that the Society was there may be as to detail, there can be no
not disbanded. The divisional structure doubt that the new currents flowing
recommended by the Policy Committee through biology bode good; they have alsparked new growth of membership; the ready brought some of the most substantial
Society is financially healthy; we seem to scientific advances of our century, and the
be having a happy ending to the earlier end is not yet in sight. Why, then, are we
crisis. But I, and 1 think others, am still having organizational problems? What, in
troubled. My own concern is that we may particular, is the difficulty with ASZ?
have so far found a solution only of conIf the primary business of scientific sovenience rather than of substance, that the cieties is integrative communication among
Society may become merely a holding com- groups with common interest, the issue
pany for miscellany, rather than a leader clearly is whether ASZ is such a group, and
of scientific advance with strong purpose whether meaningful communication is beand direction.
ing effectively promoted by it. The group in
Let me explain a little further. I believe this instance is defined as "zoologists,"
that the rough water which ASZ encoun- which most people would translate as "anitered a little more than a decade ago was mal biologists." Is the biology of animals
no local riptide. It was a sign of major an optimally effective common interest for
turbulence, in science as a whole and in a major scientific group? I am of the opinbiology in particular. It stemmed from sev- ion that it no longer is, and that this is the
eral things which now are commonplace, crux of the ASZ problem. On the one
but then were novel enough to be startling. hand, it is too restricted to focus on ani-
NEW PATTERNS IN THE ORGANIZATION OF BIOLOGY
mals, since many of our most important
general questions today relate to phenomena which are common to all organisms.
On the other hand, focus on animals is too
broad when our concern is with the special
problems of particular groups, as is the
case with entomology. I submit that the
most significant and provocative questions
today are not about all animals as a group,
that the number of questions which
uniquely pertain to the animal kingdom is
much smaller—and the nature of the questions much less profound—than those which
currently agitate the minds of most forwardlooking biologists. Whether one is concerned with metabolism, heredity, development, evolution, population dynamics, or
the energetics of ecosystems one must be
familiar with and concerned about all organisms. It is divisive and duplicative to
be concerned with animals alone. Biology
is not the sum of zoology, botany, and
bacteriology, as seemed the case a generation or two ago. Zoology, in fact, is no
longer a major division of biological science. It is at best a small specialized area;
at worst it is an archaic term with trivial
current reference. It does not provide a
useful base for vigorous scientific activity.
Does this mean that there no longer is a
function for societies like ASZ? That is
not the conclusion of the past decade, if we
accept as testimony the reinvigoration
which followed the establishment of divisional structure. The rise of molecular and
cell biology may have shaken the foundations, but it also has sharpened the definition of the remainder of biology. There is
no part of the science which does not involve considerations of molecules and cells,
but there are parts and issues of biology
which molecular and cell biologists are
not likely to consider. What are the activities and components of a minimal organism? What grades of organisms are there
in terms of functional complexity and what
are the essential characteristics of each?
What are the mechanisms of translation
of molecular and cellular properties into
those of the several grades of organisms?
What advantage does each grade of organization confer, and how do organisms of
623
different grade interact to yield maximum
exploitation of the biotic environment?
Why do organisms progress in complexity
both developmentally and phylogenetically? [What pathways to increasing complexity of organization are open and how
are choices among them made?] What are
the mechanisms required for increasing
complexity, particularly for its integration?
What rules govern associations between
organisms, and how do such associations
act back upon the organisms concerned?
To what extent does evolutionary change
go on in individual species, and to what
extent in collectively-interacting groups of
diverse species within an ecosystem? These
are questions posed by students of organisms—of all organims, whether animal,
plant, bacteria, or even virus. Zoology no
longer is a major branch of biology, but
the biology of organisms remains a vital
and central concern. It is not to be forgotten that in the flux of evolution, organisms are the fundamental counters. It is
upon them that selective forces play; it is
their reproductive success or failure which
determines the future. In this sense, the
concept of the "independent" living unit
designated organism—which is morphological and physiological in connotationmight more fashionably be designated "selectron." It is this quality which all organisms share, and which perhaps best
expresses why organisms remain the fundamental biological unit.
As I see it, it is the cultivation of organismal biology which affords ASZ its opportunity for fullest expression. There has been
much weeping in some circles about the
tyranny of molecular biology, and its threat
to biology as a whole. I cannot share this
doleful view. It is true that some of our
biologically unanointed new colleagues
more characteristically flush with success
than blush with modesty. It is also true
that some of the rest of us are green with
envy rather than white with purpose. What
is being done by students of organisms to
match the energy and dynamism of molecular biology, and particularly to improve
the image presented to young biologists
in training? How much has been done, for
624
CLIFFORD GROBSTEIN
example, to distill from the vast assemblage
of information about organisms the truly
essential general statements which must be
communicated to students? For years we
have taught bacteriology, botany, invertebrate zoology, comparative anatomy, and
comparative embryology—frequently in
several non-communicating departments.
What have we done to reorganize and condense this material so as to offer to the student a science of organisms instead of a
welter of largely unrelated and frequently
undigested information? How can a helterskelter set of facts about organisms compete
for interest with the beautifully precise and
logical presentation one now can make of
the cellular and molecular basis of heredity? How can we take time to teach the
structural details of all major phyla if it
prevents students from having direct contact with a recent triumph of human understanding? What are we doing to find more
economical ways to convey a proper appreciation of organisms, and a proper measure
of the remaining depths of our ignorance
about their basic mechanisms? How can
unreconstructed and fragmented teaching
of organisms attract bright young minds to
graduate studies? Who is devising imaginative graduate training programs for biologists of organisms, with appeal comparable to training programs in cell and
molecular biology? Can training programs
for organismal biology be effectively organized under the traditional headings of
zoology, botany, and microbiology? Is it
not time to recognize that it is the biology
of organisms—their central problems as
fundamental units in living systems—which
is focal rather than the peculiar properties
of particular groups?
These questions bring me to my main
point. ASZ makes sense as a society devoted to the study of organisms, and this is
the direction in which it has been moving.
It makes less than full sense, however, when
it is limited to the study and consideration
of animals. A full theory of organisms and
their significance in the total biotic fabric
must deal with all organisms. The present
cleavage among students of animals, plants,
and micro-organisms inhibits the develop-
ment of such theory—not only because it
divides those presently active but because
it fails in the attraction of new recruits.
The answer seems obvious. The several
societies concerned with organisms as a
whole should take steps toward consolidation; they should be moving toward a general society concerned with the biology of
organisms.
Such a move would be in keeping with
the needs of biology as a whole. We have
been a sadly fragmented discipline organizationally; the multiplicity of our societies
astonishes people in almost any other field.
Consolidation of existing societies is in
order, as a step toward full unification. The
history of AIBS, however, shows the difficulty of accomplishing full unification in
one encompassing step. Many biologists
prefer the intimacy of association provided
by their specialist group, and feel little
identification with overall concentrations.
These feelings have hardly diminished in
the face of the increasing size of the community, and the problems posed by the
mass jamborees that now serve as scientific
meetings. If we are to have meaningful
unification, it seems likely that it will
come by consolidations which preserve and
augment the traditional and essential role
of the scientific society—to promote communication among investigators with common interest. However, along the way to
unification—and possibly even as a permanent feature of our organization—there is
place for intermediate groups between the
specialized society and the general association.
Let me elaborate. Organizationally, I
am suggesting that biologists may need to
recognize three essential levels in their operations: the discipline as a whole; their
particular specialization; and an intermediate level which is broader than their
specialization but is meaningful in promoting it. The first level is essential because
there are social, professional, and intellectual problems and activities which are
broadly biological and must be formulated
and approached in these terms. The training of future biologists, the biological
understanding inculcated in general edu-
N E W PATTERNS IN1 THE ORGANIZATION OF BIOLOGY
cation, the economic and social status of
the profession, the conservation and utilization of biological resources—these are
examples of what the biological community
as a whole must deal with. The AIBS was
established to accomplish much of this; it
has struggled manfully with its mandate;
it remains something less than a complete
success. We must recognize, however, that
we have no choice but to function at this
level, and that we cannot do so really effectively until biologists of all kinds are
brought under one tent. AIBS has not yet
been able to accomplish this; its failure to
do so is its major weakness. It remains
representative of only part of the community; it inspires little interest, confidence,
or enthusiasm in the rest. Risking oversimplification, one can say that cell and
molecular biologists, and those with medical affinities, are least involved with AIBS.
Apart from tradition and suspicion, this
maldistribution is induced by the close
coupling of AIBS with a meeting pattern.
It is a hopeful sign that a committee of
AIBS is considering its meeting arrangements. I think it is time to realize that the
strong voice and integrative center needed
by the biological community is not necessarily synonymous with, nor necessarily
even related to, optimal meeting arrangements. Direct communication among members was the primordial function of the
scientific society. As science grew, new
functions were required and were assumed
by what continued to be called scientific
societies. We now must accept the fact of
differentiation of our organizational arrangements, in particular between the original functions of a society and the functions
of an association. The AAAS is an association for all of science, and AIBS or its
equivalent should be for all of biology.
They are needed to serve many essential
functions for the science as a whole, but
both are now too large to satisfy directly,
in an annual meeting of the whole, the primordial need for working communication.
Basically, scientific communication is the
function of the specialized level of operation; this is where the real hunger exists
for direct and effective communion. Spe-
625
cialized societies can vary in size, in degree
of specialization, and in method of operation. This should be so since these are the
working communication devices of groups
of people with common purpose, and they
should be flexible and varied to fit the need.
Their very individuality, however, constitutes their problem if they require considerable time and energy from their members.
Meeting arrangements, for example, are
time-consuming and joint meetings of
groups of societies have proven both economical and advantageous from other
points of view. This provides the practical
justification for groupings above the level
of the specialized societies, groupings into
broad sectors containing specialties of related interest. It is at this level that there
has been the most organizational flux in recent years. Earlier taxonomic splitting gave
rise to ASZ and like groups. Cleavage planes
along other lines gave rise to anatomists,
physiologists, microscopists, geneticists, biophysicists, etc. The issue now is to reverse
the splitting, and to consolidate into groups
which are meaningful in terms of the present state of biology as a science. The American Society of Cell Biology, for example,
was formed to bring together all those interested in cells regardless of background or
technique. My feeling is that we should
move along these lines—in the direction of
reducing the number of intermediate
groupings by focusing them on central biological concepts. The cell is one such central concept; the organism certainly is another.
To propose, therefore, that the ASZ
should be merged into a Society for Organismal Biology is to recommend that the
specialized groups dealing with various aspects of organisms should be collected into
one general society which can confer the
advantages of larger size and heterogeneity
without interfering with the flexibility and
intimacy of the individual working group.
The proposal would consolidate and give
greater prominence to organismal biology
at a time when its image is blurred. Further, it is a projection of the trend established in ASZ during the past decade. Of
our seven existing divisions (and I am
626
CLIFFORD GROBSTEIN
happy to welcome our newest—the Division
of Ecology) five are concerned virtually exclusively with whole organisms and the
other two—comparative physiology and developmental biology—are strongly so oriented. It is logical now to associate these
divisions with others dealing with aspects of
plants and micro-organisms. Indeed, in a
number of instances the intermixing would
occur within the division itself. In the case
of developmental biology, and presumably
ecology, the proposal would remove artificial barriers, bringing together workers on
common problems who are presently separated by taxonomic considerations.
It is not intended, of course, to produce
a massive, rigid, monolithic structure. The
general society envisioned would be considerably larger than ASZ but smaller than
AIBS. Its divisions would not necessarily
all meet simultaneously, nor invariably in
the same combinations. Moreover, by meeting several times a year in strategically selected parts of the country the Society
could provide more people with more
meaningful meetings, at the same time involving more graduate students and
younger investigators in its activities. There
is no reason, either, why divisions might not
meet with divisions or societies not involved
in the Society for Organismal Biology. The
animal behaviorists, for example, might
sometimes meet with the Society for Evolution, and the developmental biologists
might meet with the Society for Cell
Biology.
Such a scheme applied to all of biology
would yield perhaps half a dozen general
societies conforming to major conceptual
divisions of the science. Each of these
would constitute a loose grouping of working societies, primarily to provide meeting
arrangements and to secure such other advantages as are afforded by size. General
societies would represent broad areas, but
would not undertake to function for biology as a whole, particularly in relation to
the kind of issues reserved to AIBS. This
broadest biological organization should be
concerned with "external affairs" and matters of state—with the activities and problems which biology shares with all of science
or all of society. A scheme of this kind
might provide biology in contrast to the
present with a logical organizational structure. It might give to biologists the comfortable pride that they can organize their
own vital processes at least as well as the
organisms they study. The management of
increased size and complexity is precisely
the problem solved by organisms moving
up the evolutionary trail. Can we not do
at least as well with conscious understanding and planning as our forebears did with
chance and selective survival? Who but
zoologists—students of the complexities of
the highest levels of organization known
to have been achieved—are better qualified
and hence more obligated to try?