Rudge D W
Department of Science Studies, Western Michigan University, 3134 Wood Hall, Kalamazoo, MI 49008-5033, USA.
Hist Philos Life Sci. 2000;22(2):167-86.
Theodosius Dobzhansky has long been recognized by historians as a pioneer in the combining of the 'field natural history' and 'laboratory experimentalist' traditions in biology (Allen 1994). The following essay analyzes two papers in his well-known Genetics of Natural Populations series, GNP IX and GNP XII, which demonstrate how Dobzhansky combined field and laboratory work in the pursuit of an evolutionary question. The analysis reveals the multiple and complementary roles field observations and experiments played in his investigations. But it also identifies several interpretive problems associated with the use of intervention that limited the effectiveness of his approach. The essay argues that these problems reflect a fundamental tension between the amount of control Dobzhansky had over the circumstances of his experiments and the applicability of his results to natural populations. It concludes that this trade-off represents an important distinction between experiments in biology and most other sciences.
长期以来,历史学家一直认为西奥多修斯·杜布赞斯基是生物学领域“野外自然史”和“实验室实验主义”传统相结合的先驱(艾伦,1994年)。以下文章分析了他著名的《自然种群遗传学》系列中的两篇论文,即GNP IX和GNP XII,展示了杜布赞斯基如何将野外工作和实验室工作结合起来以探究一个进化问题。分析揭示了野外观察和实验在他的研究中所起的多重且互补的作用。但同时也指出了与干预措施使用相关的几个解释性问题,这些问题限制了他方法的有效性。文章认为,这些问题反映了杜布赞斯基对实验环境的控制程度与他的研究结果对自然种群的适用性之间的根本矛盾。文章得出结论,这种权衡体现了生物学实验与大多数其他科学之间的一个重要区别。