Lenhoff H M
Biol Bull. 1991 Aug;181(1):72-80. doi: 10.2307/1542490.
Ethel Browne Harvey (1885-1965) will be familiar to some as a researcher on the embryology of sea urchins. Few, however, know her as Ethel Browne who, as a graduate student, published, in 1909, a remarkable paper demonstrating for the first time the induction by a transplant of a secondary axis of polarity in the host. This process was later named "organization" by Spemann and Mangold (1924) in a paper that led to Spemann's being awarded the Nobel Prize. Why did the Nobel Committee, or other embryologists for that matter, not connect Browne's discovery with that of Spemann and Mangold? Did they consider the development of hydra as being too remote from that occurring in embryos of vertebrates? Did the 1909 paper of Ethel Browne in any way influence the thinking of Spemann or Mangold, although it was never referred to in any of Spemann's papers? In light of new information about Spemann's knowledge of Browne's work, we also can ask a number of questions about the interplay of basic prejudices in the reception accorded Browne's work.
埃塞尔·布朗·哈维(1885 - 1965),有些人可能熟知她是海胆胚胎学方面的研究者。然而,很少有人知道她还是埃塞尔·布朗,她在1909年作为一名研究生发表了一篇卓越的论文,首次证明了移植诱导宿主产生次级极性轴。这个过程后来被施佩曼和曼戈尔德(1924年)在一篇论文中命名为“组织形成”,这篇论文也使施佩曼获得了诺贝尔奖。为什么诺贝尔委员会,或者其他胚胎学家,没有将布朗的发现与施佩曼和曼戈尔德的发现联系起来呢?他们是认为水螅的发育与脊椎动物胚胎的发育差异太大吗?埃塞尔·布朗1909年的论文是否以某种方式影响了施佩曼或曼戈尔德的思考,尽管施佩曼的任何论文中都从未提及过这篇论文?鉴于关于施佩曼对布朗工作了解情况的新信息,我们也可以就对待布朗工作时基本偏见的相互作用提出一些问题。