Art. Alfonso Herrera-Ledesma

7/29/2019 Art. Alfonso Herrera-Ledesma

1/24

Journal of the History of Biology 36: 285307, 2003. 2003 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.

285

The Institutionalization of Biology in Mexico in the Early 20th

Century. The Conflict between Alfonso Luis Herrera (18681942)and Isaac Ochoterena (18851950)

ISMAEL LEDESMA-MATEOSHistoria de la Biologia

Campus Iztacala, UNAM

Los Reyes Iztacala, Tlalnepantla

Estado de Mxico 54090

Mxico

E-mail: [email protected]

ANA BARAHONA

Departamento de Biologa EvolutivaFacultad de Ciencias, UNAM

Col. Miguel Hidalgo

Tlalpan 14410

Mxico, D.F.

Mxico

E-mail: [email protected]

Abstract. The aim of this work is to evaluate the role played by Alfonso Luis Herreraand Isaac Ochoterena in the institutionalization of academic biology in Mexico in the early20th century. As biology became institutionalized in Mexico, Herreras basic approach tobiology was displaced by Isaac Ochoterenas professional goals due to the prevailing politicalconditions at the end of 1929. The conflict arose from two different conceptions of biology,

because Herrera and Ochoterena had different discourses that were incommensurable, notonly linguistically speaking, but also socioprofessionally. They had different links to influen-tial groups related to education, having distinct political and socioprofessional interests. Theconflict between Herrrera and Ochoterena determined the way in which professional biologyeducation has developed in Mexico, as well as the advancement in specific research subjectsand the neglect of others.

Keywords: Alfonso L. Herrera, biology in Mexico, biology in the early 20th century, biologyand medicine, institutionalization of biology, Isaac Ochoterena

The aim of this work is to evaluate the role played by Alfonso LuisHerrera and Isaac Ochoterena in the institutionalization of academic biologyin Mexico, analyzing their respective contributions, the characteristics of

their scientific thought, and the discursive formations they represent in theirrespective historical contexts. We mean by discursive formation a defined setof discourses, a system involving objects and types of enunciations; it implies


2/24

286 ISMAEL LEDESMA-MATEOS AND ANA BARAHONA

an articulated networks of ideas, notions, prejudice and concepts that definethe individual performance as ones self and as a member of a community. Aswe will see later, Herrera and Ochoterena represented different approaches ofseeing and practicing biology.1

Both scientists have been considered leading and prominent figures inthe history of biology in Mexico in the 20th century. However, rarely havetheir many strong differences been examined in studies of Mexican science.Despite the fact that Herrera obtained his bachelor degree in pharmaceutics,he considered himself a biologist, and he promoted the development of ageneral biology as a unified and independent discipline introducing evolu-tionary thought.2 That conception of biology had the aim of explaining thewhole of lifes phenomena, its origin and evolution. According to that interest,Herrera founded in 1904 the first Biology chair and after that, a governmentalresearch institution called the Direccin de Estudios Biolgicos (DEB) in1915 Head Office for Biological Studies to carry out basic research, but

also including an important practical emphasis.On the other hand, Ochoterena was an autodidact and a primary school

teacher. After several years he became professor at the Universidad NacionalAutnoma de Mxico (National Autonomous University of Mxico, UNAM)and a researcher in the DEB. Ochoterena focused his interest in botany, histo-logy and other mainly descriptive disciplines. When he became dean of theBiology Institute at UNAM in 1929 he promoted a descriptive and practicalbiology with emphasis on medical problems.

1 In this article the concepts of discourse and discursive formation are used in accordancewith the work of Michel Foucault. Discourse: A combination of enunciations dependenton the same formation system so that I may mention a Clinical discourse, an Economic

discourse, a Natural History discourse, a Psychiatric discourse. . .

(Foucault, 1969, p. 141).The discourse does not form a rhetorical or formal unity indefinably repeated and whichappearance or utilization in history could be appointed (and explained if the case arises); itis composed of a limited number of enunciations by means of which one can define a setof conditions of existence (ibidem, p. 153). In this way, those who are enrolled in differentdiscourses do not talk about the same thing, their enunciations are different, addressingdifferent audiences in different conditions (ibidem, p. 155).

2 According to Smocovitis it is not possible to talk about an autonomous science of lifeuntil this could be unified by evolution introducing a special biological causality. That is why,the Theory of Evolution is the great unifying theory of Biology (Smocovitis, 1992 p. 34;Mayr, 1998 pp. 821). As a matter of fact, a distinctive and characteristic element of a generalbiology, autonomous and unified, is the evolutionist approach which permits a demarcationfrom the aspects of biology linked to medicine. It is not a matter of establishment and oppos-ition between biology and medicine but relates to recognizing that the existence of a Biologyindependent of the field of medicine ambit is something different from a fully MedicalizedBiology. The radical elimination of the interest in evolution favored the orientation of biologytowards aspects rooted in the descriptive tradition of Natural History: botanical and zoologicaltaxonomy and morphology or aspects of medical interest such as histology and parasitology.


3/24

THE INSTITUTIONALIZATION OF BIOLOGY IN MEXICO 287

Our basic hypothesis follows: as biology became institutionalized inMexico, Herreras general and basic approach to biology was displaced byOchoterenas professional goals. As we will see, a close link was forgedwith the discursive formation of the medical community. This resulted inboth discursive and socioprofessional incommensurabilities. The incommen-surability among different discursive formations implies the impossibility ofcommunication among opposite positions and by the replacement of onediscourse by another. Moreover, in accordance with Biagioli, we think thatincommensurability is related to the socioprofessional identity and relativepower and status of those involved in the nondialogue.3 As a consequence,biology in Mexico stressed applied aspects at the expense of a more widely-focused scientific biology, noticeably forsaking evolutionary thinking. Thefirst years of the institutionalization process of academic biology in Mexico,thus, will be represented as a conflict between two personalities each onehaving a fundamental role in the emergence of biological thinking and

research, but also having distinctive and divergent conceptions, discourses,and socioprofessional identities.

It is worth notice that the beginnings of biology in Mexico can be traced tothe botany, zoology, and microscopy courses given at the Escuela Nacionalde Altos Estudios (National School of Higher Studies), which in 1911 offeredfor the first time the opportunity of becoming an Academic Professor inNatural Sciences. At first no one took advantage of the opportunity, althoughsome people, especially physicians and teachers, attended selected coursesfrom the program, arguably to widen their views or to enhance their teachingpractice. Only in 1922 did two people apply for the entire program, eventuallyleading to the degree of Professor in Natural Sciences, although only one

graduated in 1926: Enrique Beltrn Castillo. This scanty record is not trivial,for it shows that for 15 years, in spite of the availability of a professionalnaturalist career (Professor in Natural Sciences) in Mexico, no one graduatedfrom the program. Instead, pursuers of biological themes came mainly fromthe medical field, which had a solid tradition in the study of natural history.

3 Biagioli, 1993, p. 213. According to this author Historical cases of scientific changeindicate that the breakdown of communication does not need to be directly caused by thedifferent linguistic structures of the competing theories or paradigms. Rather, it is oftenassociated with an analysis of the rhetorical strategies of non-dialogue adopted by theopposing parties in case of cross-disciplinary disputes (ibidem, p. 216); so difference insocioprofessional identity determines the possibility instances of transpassing professionalor disciplinary boundaries and violating socio-professional hierarchies (ibidem, p. 215).Moreover, Further evidence for the importance of socio-professional identities in regulatingcommunication between scientific practitioners comes of communication or the emergence ofincommensurability (ibidem, p. 218).


4/24


An additional consideration is that the institutionalization process ofbiology studied herein includes the impact of the Mexican Revolution, startedin 1910, and takes place in the complex sociopolitical context of 1929, whichled to social reorganization phenomena and to the settlement of new eliteslinked to the ascending groups among which former prestigious guilds suchas the medical community were aspiring to preserve their status under thenew circumstances, although with different actors, as partakers of the newpower and social framework in a nation being rebuilt. Ochoterena alongwith Fernando Ocaranza and Eliseo Ramrez represent these new actors,forming the upward elites while Herrera represents the continuity of a pastdeeply rooted in the regime of President Porfirio Daz.

Mexican Political Background

The historical framework represented by the Mexican Revolution must betaken into account. Porfirio Dazs dictatorship (18771911) favored highereducation and scientific research in accordance with the French model,together with the positivist tradition, introduced to Mexico by Gabino Barredaduring the regime of Benito Jurez (18581861; 18651867; 18711872).Under the influence of Justo Sierra, Secretary of Public Education, the domin-ating trend shifted towards Spencerian positivism, setting aside Comtesthought. It was during the regime of Daz that the Instituto Mdico Nacional,the Sociedad Cientfica Antonio Alzate, and the Sociedad Mexicana de

Historia Natural, the organization in which Herrera began his scientificactivity, appeared. During the second stage of the Diaz regime there is

a turn to the right wing and scientific activities are neglected. Orden yProgreso (Order and Progress) is the slogan of the Government inspiredby positivist thought but instilled with the ideas of Spencer and SocialDarwinism. According to Leopoldo Zea, the bourgeoisie needed to invalidatethe philosophy of the Revolution and to do that, it was necessary to proposea counterrevolutionary philosophy, this is Orden.4

The Revolutionary conflict began with Francisco I. Maderos call foruniversal suffrage and the prohibition of reelection, which gave rise toan armed uprising (November 10, 1910). After Dazs resignation and theinterim presidency of Francisco Len de la Barra, Madero assumed the pres-idency on November 6, 1911, but in February, 1913 was assassinated byMexican Army General Victoriano Huerta, who remained in power until1914, as the war against the usurping government continued. This contextof political instability prevailed until the twenties. After taking the capital

4 Zea, 1968, p. 40.


5/24


city in 1915, Venustiano Carranza, one of the revolutionary leaders, headeda new government. Carranza promulgated the new political constitution in1917, but was assassinated in 1920.5

In the tortuous process followed by the Mexican Revolution, there was areturn of the conservative forces which, from the days of the regime of Daz,gradually continued inserting themselves in the Government and so becamethe base for the coup detat in 1913 and for Huertas regime. In spite of thevictory by Carranza and the constitutionalist army, these right wing forces,gradually entered each new government that followed in the Revolutionsfootsteps.6

Plutarco Elas Calles had been president from 1924 to 1928 succeedingGeneral Alvaro Obregn, who governed from 1920 to 1924. Re-elected Pres-ident in 1928, Obregn was assassinated and the Government was left inthe hands of Emilio Portes-Gil, a subordinate to the strong political controlof Calles, who continued as the moral leader of the ruling party. In 1928,

the revolutionary government was confronted by a religious insurrection, therebelin cristera (19281932). In response, Calles consolidated his politicalstrength during a period known as El Maximato (19281936).

The predominant political conditions in Mexico in 1929 were verycomplex. First, 1929 was the year when the National Revolutionary Party(or PNR) was founded from a coalition of several political groups that origin-ated during the Mexican Revolution. The formation of this political partyestablished the starting point of a process known as institutionalization ofthe Revolution, which ended with the foundation of the Institutional Revolu-tionary Party (or PRI). This was the permanent ruling party until December2000.

Second, it was in 19281929 when, as the historian Jean Meyer said, aclose and opportunistic relationship formed out between the Church and theState. Facing a new conflict in the university environment with strong conser-vative influences, autonomy was given to the National University of Mexico(later UNAM). In that part of the process of (institutionalization) of theRevolution, academic and political groups were looking for a more favourableplace under the new political conditions.7 Physicians took advantage of the

5 Herrera as a scientist was backed, at the beginning, by the regime of D az, so whenthe chair of Biology was suppressed in 1906, he was appointed Director of the Comisionde Parasitologa Agrcola, where he prepared his vast work Las Plagas de la Agricultura(The Pests in Agriculture). However, at the outbreak of the Revolution in 1910, he followedthe cause and in 1915 he convinced General Venustiano Carranza of the need to create theDireccion de Estudios Biologicos with the backing of the Secretary Pastor Rouaix.

6 In such a political context, Herrera looks like the representative of a Mexico long goneby, with outdated values which influenced his exclusion.

7 Meyer, 1973, p. 311.


6/24


unstable situation, to gain a prominent position inside UNAM, which fellunder the control of both physicians and lawyers.

In its post revolutionary stage, Mexico was characterized by a differentsocial mobility with the appearance of emerging actors from a new polit-ical class and with elites linked to the new governments. Herreras handicapis his continued ascription with the regime of Carranza and his vision,while Ochoterena along with Ocaranza and Ramrez ally themselvesto emerging groups linked to the interests of the new institutional order ofmedicine. Here, the medical community searched for a privileged position,and they obtained it in the foundation of the Biological Research Institute,which favored applied research at the expense of a general biology programprimarily oriented towards the fundamental problems of life science andsecondarily, to possible applications either to agriculture or to medicine.

Alfonso L. Herrera and the First Biology Chair

Alfonso Luis Herrera (18681942) was the son of the prominent Mexicannaturalist, Alfonso Herrera (18381901). He obtained a pharmacy degree in1889, writing a thesis entitled Chemical dialysis. Uses of lime sulphate.Soon after graduating he was appointed to the zoology and botany chairsat the Escuela Normal para Maestros (Normal College for Teachers) andalso as assistant naturalist at the Museo Nacional (National Museum). Uponrestructuring of the Instituto Mdico Nacional (National Medical Institute) inJune 1890, Herrera was appointed assistant in the Natural History section.

Herreras father was a scientist who had enjoyed many privileges under

the President Porfirio Daz, which enabled the young Herrera to have an earlycontact with an educational environment and the foremost ideas of the time.Together with his evident genius, all this created a context in which he couldpromote various personal interests, such as the publishing in 1897 of his

Recueil des lois de la Biologie Gnrale (Collection of the Laws of GeneralBiology), printed in French in Mexico considered to be the most importantDarwinian work in the nineteenth century in Mexico and still regarded as asynthesis of the evolutionary movement in the country.8

In 1902, Herrera established the first general biology course in Mexico atthe Escuela Normal (Normal College). To accompany the course, Herrerawrote the textbook, Nociones de Biologa (Notions of Biology), whichappeared in 1904 and was the first biology book published in Mexico.9

Herreras vision for biology is masterfully depicted in this work. It reveals

8 Moreno de los Arcos, 1984, pp. 3839.9 Beltran, 1968, p. 38. See also Beltran, 1972, pp. 319320.


7/24


that Herrera had firsthand information about evolution and a conceptionof biology that paralleled the fields development in Europe. Even moreimportant, his evolutionary stance is clearly laid out in the book. Indeed,its publication can be considered of as the fundamental moment in theintroduction of biology in the country.

The first Mexican textbook on general biology was expanded, translatedinto French and edited in Berlin two years later under the title NotionsGnrales de Biologie et de Plasmogenie Compares (General Notions ofBiology and Comparative Plasmogeny) with a foreword by professor M.Benedikt of Vienna.10 Herreras purpose in the new edition was to link thebiology he wanted to establish in Mexico with the disciplines advances inEurope. Additionally, he began to develop his own theory on the origin oflife, which was referred to as plasmogeny, the focus of his research later inhis career.

These new initiatives came under attack as both the contents of Herreras

lectures and the ideas found in his books were at odds with a number of deeplyingrained prejudices held by powerful political and religious sectors, so thatin 1906 the course was suppressed.11 The course termination happened in thecontext of a more general reorganization of teaching at the university, whichsuggests a covered-up ousting in view of the criticisms. Herrera himselfclaimed in 1921, the government suppressed the whole year where biologyand other courses that looked dangerous for the youth and religious beliefswere taught and I was compensated for the loss of my course by a transfer,with a higher salary, to another institution in which general biology wasntstudied save for its application to small problems.12 This not withstanding,Herrera went on with his research, maintaining his evolutionary perspective

even when he later began teaching in Escuela Nacional de Altos Estudios(National School of Higher Studies).It is noteworthy that, even as the first biology course was taught at the

Escuela Normal, by 1934 students of the College by then called EscuelaNacional de Maestros (National Teachers School) kept attending thedisconnected and poorly-organized courses of Botany; Zoology; Anatomy,Physiology and Hygiene, all of which lacked exposure whatsoever to funda-mental biological phenomena. In 1935 upon the initiative of Enrique Beltrn,Herreras disciple, that a course called Pedagogic Biology was included,which was aimed at educators and teachers to assist in the elimination ofprejudices and superstition that often obscure childrens minds.13

10 Herrera, 1906.11 Beltran, 1968, p. 47. See also Beltran, 1978, p. 51.12 Herrera, 1921, pp. 27.13 Beltran, 1968, p. 55.


8/24


Thus, the establishment of the first biology chair (1902), the writing of anappropriate textbook (1904), and changes to these curricular elements createquestions begging for clarification, which will reflect on the development ofbiology in Mexico.

Herreras Conception of Biology within a University Setting

Professor Herrera conceived of biology as an independent science responsiblefor explaining life phenomena in general. Choosing plasmogeny as a startingpoint, he created a new science that aimed at studying the origin of proto-plasm and, thus, of all life so that an understanding of the processes of organicevolution was possible. In fact, Herrera was one of the main introducers ofDarwinism to Mexico, both through the establishment of the first biologychair in 1902 and through many pages ofNociones de Biologa.

Herreras initiatives were strongly attacked because they conflicted with

the social needs at that moment, which, according to the trend toward enhan-cing economic development, gave priority to practical studies. In a paralleldirection, groups with numerous religious prejudices that had an importantsocial influence, as well as the clergy as a group, were irritated by both thecontents of Herreras biology courses and his ideas. And so, the Biology Chairwas cancelled in 1906 because it was considered dangerous to the youngpeople and to beliefs.14

In Mexico, the establishment of biology as a science did not take place theway it did in Europe, due to the delay in the coming to Mexico of the theoriesthat emerged in that continent. The local scientific communities had neitherthe same degree of consolidation, nor the number of researchers working in

the biological sciences. In Mexico, the process of introduction of the mainbiological concepts and theories took more time. By the very nature of itssubject life, its structures, functions, continuity, diversity and evolution biology is laden with potential ideological components that complicated theestablishment of biological disciplines, the institutionalization of biology,and the formation of a scientific community of biologists in Mexico. Atthe same time, this character provides for the importance of studying thisperiod so that light may be shed on the complex developmental conditions ofMexican biology and, perhaps, even on its current status.

Herrera joined the Higher Studies National School in 1922 and tookthe zoology chair from which he imparted a general vision of biologicalphenomena. However, having only one student severely limited the reach

for his teaching. Note that even as a member of the teaching body (asthe Academic Professor in Natural Sciences) Herrera did not teach general

14 Herrera, 1921, pp. 27.


9/24


biology, a revealing fact about the dominant trends on institutional organi-zation of science teaching at the time. That is, there was a tendency to keepintact the idea of the descriptive natural sciences (botany, zoology, morpho-logy) and not to consider general biology as an independent and unifiedscience.

The Direccin de Estudios Biolgicos (DEB)

Herrera carried to his biology career his personal sympathies for the MexicanRevolution, notwithstanding his privileged position during the regime ofPorfirio Daz. He himself divided the history of Mexican biology into twoperiods: one pre-Revolutionary (18211909) and one revolutionary (19101921). The first one was characterized by an incoherence in work and anaccumulation of materials, although he soon conceded that the revolutionaryperiod actually did not begin until 1915, upon the founding of the Direccinde Estudios Biolgicos (DEB) at the Ministry of Development.15

The founding of DEB was a milestone in the development of Mexicanbiology for it meant a change of focus in biological research and it widenedthe gap between Herrera and the medical community. Eventually this divi-sion led to DEBs disappearance and Herreras isolation, as a result of theconflict with Isaac Ochoterena and the formation of the Institute of Biologyat UNAM.

The beginning of DEB dates from an initiative by engineer Pastor Rouaix,then the Secretary of Industry. The initiative consisted of an overhaul of a bigand complicated body that included the Museo de Historia Natural (Museumof Natural History), the Instituto Mdico Nacional (National Medical Insti-

tute), formerly dependent on the Secretara de Educacin Pblica (Ministryof Public Instruction), and the Comisin Geogrfico-Exploradora (Geograph-ical Survey) with its museum located in the ancient archbishops palace inTacubaya To make all this work, Rouaix put it in Herreras hands who, inaddition to his scientific merits had sympathized with the revolution since1910.16

DEB comprised three sections: first, the Instituto de Biologa General yMdica (Institute for General and Medical Biology) that, as Herrera notedin his inaugural address, can be seen as a vigorous, unexpected and superbmutation of the National Medical Institute;17 second, the Museum of NaturalHistory that incorporated the Tacubaya Museum collections and operated onChopo Street 8; and third, a Departamento de Exploracin de la Flora y

15 Ibidem, pp. 27.16 Beltran, 1977, p. 21.17 Herrera, 1915, p. 5.


10/24


la Fauna (Flora and Fauna Exploration Department), that not only wouldsupply materials for lab research and Museum collections but would alsostudy and map natural resources all over the Republic. The seat of DEBand its Institute for General and Medical Biology was a building located onBalderas Street 94 in Mexico City, where the National Medical Institute hadits headquarters since 1902. (In 1927, in order to accommodate the Comisin

Nacional de Irrigacin (National Irrigation Commission), DEB was movedto the unsuitable facilities ofCasa del Lago in Chapultepec Park.18

This set the stage for the events leading to Herreras dismissal andOchoterenas enthronement during the institutionalization process.

Isaac Ochoterena: A Different Vision of Biology

Isaac Ochoterena Mendieta (18851950) originally came from Atlixco,

Puebla and was admitted to the National Preparatory School (High School)ostensibly to pursue a medical career.19 However, his fathers death preventedhim from receiving a baccalaureate, so he applied for an examination atthe Ministry of Public Instruction to obtain a teaching permit for primaryschools, which he received in 1901.20 Primarily a self-taught teacher, hebegan working in the state of Puebla and then in Durango where he wouldbecome a school principal and later a public instruction inspector in CiudadLerdo until 1913.

Ochoterenas inspector job enabled him to travel extensively throughoutDurangos arid lands and mountain ranges, strengthening his botanical inclin-ations and exposing him to zoological observations as well.21 From there,Ochoterena moved to San Luis Potos still as a public instruction employee.The whole period was particularly relevant to his academic and politicalfuture, since this period coincided with the turmoil of the Mexican revolution,in an area particularly involved in the conflict and a hostile environment unfitfor scientific activity.22

In August 1915 Subsecretary Rouaix, responsible at that time for theMinistry of Industry, announced to Ochoterena the existence of a presidentialagreement by which he was appointed to classify the plants that were to beused in stabilizing the dunes around the City of Veracruz.23 Subsequently,Ochoterena joined DEB in 1916 being in charge of the Vegetal Biology

18 Beltran, 1977, pp. 2425.19 Valdes Gutierrez, 1985, pp. 17.

20 Archivo Historico SSA, 1946, File 4646.21 Valdes, 1985, pp. 17.22 Valdes, 1985, pp. 17.23 Archivo Historico SSA, 1946, File 4646.


11/24


Section until 1918 when he left the institution. Similarly, Dr. FernandoOcaranza, later to be associated with Ochoterena, originally worked as Chiefof the Experimental Physiology Section.24

During his stay at DEB, Ochoterena developed an interest in biologicalevolution and the origin of life. This is clear in several papers and a book,

Lecciones de Biologa (1922). Likewise, Fernando Ocaranza introducedevolutionary topics in the biology courses he gave at the Medical School,National University. As we will see later, Ochoterena and Ocaranza even-tually abandoned such viewpoints as they attempted to denounce Herrera,who they characterized as the father of plasmogeny, a pseudoresearchprogram.25

Ochoterena and Other Academic Environments

Eliseo Ramrez Ulloa, another person who along with Ocaranza, pushed to

exclude Herrera from the scientific field, invited Ochoterena to the EscuelaMdico Militar (Military Medical School) as a teacher in 1917, wherehe founded and taught histology and embryology courses.26 In 1920 theSociedad Mexicana de Biologa (Mexican Biology Society) was foundedwith Fernando Ocaranza, Isaac Ochoterena, and Eliseo Ramrez as prominentmembers.27

At the same time, between 1920 and 1935, they published the RevistaMexicana de Biologa (Mexican Journal of Biology), a medium independentfrom the DEB Bulletin, to publish their own research.28

By 1921 Ochoterena was appointed head of the Departamento de Biologade la Escuela Nacional Preparatoria (Biology Department at the NationalPreparatory School) and curator of its Cabinetes de Historia Natural (NaturalHistory Cabinets). During this period he pursued his research activities and,being in a university environment, began to cultivate relationships with phys-icians from several medical colleges and also with professors from otherfaculties such as Filosofa y Letras (Philosophy and Literature) and EstudiosSuperiores (Higher Studies) then responsible for higher biological educa-tion. From then on, and taking advantage of his new academic position,Ochoterena began to create a core of young disciples (Helia Bravo, EduardoCaballero y Caballero, and Jos de Lille, among others). This human resourcewould later prove instrumental in starting the Institute of Biology at UNAM.

24 Beltran, 1977, pp. 2628.25 Ramrez Ulloa, 1922, p. 214.26 El Colegio Nacional, 1946, pp. 5977. See also Valdes, 1985, pp. 17, and: Vega, 1945,

pp. 130.27 Beltran, 1977, pp. 159160.28 Ibidem, p. 427.


12/24


In 1925 the National University of Mexico was reorganized and the HigherStudies Faculty disappeared, its courses being now taught at the Philosophyand Literature Faculty as a Specialization in Natural Sciences. Surprisingly,Herrera and Enrique Beltrn were left out and Ochoterena joined the faculty.Instead of teaching Botany or Histology he superseded Herrera in lecturingZoology.29

The conflict between Herrera and Ochoterena does not arise from basictheoretical or academic differences only but from a conflict of interestsstemming from a discursive and socioprofessional incommensurability.30

Ocaranza and Ramirez represent the goals of a socioprofessional group:the medical community. Along with Ochoterena, they shared a discursiveorientation opposed to Herreras. These discursive formations are differentbecause they correspond to different socioprofessional interests. This was nota problem based on the rejection of evolutionary theory or the study of theorigin of life, because a few years before Ochoterena and Ocaranza did show

an interest in evolution and the origin of life. They later abandoned this view-point as a consequence of the integration of an academic and professionalcore that vindicated the National Medical Institutes Achievements31 andpursued hegemony in the field by opposing research lines carried at DEB.

From 1925 on, Ochoterena, with his close ties to Fernando Ocaranza andEliseo Ramrez, began to enjoy a notoriety in the decision-making circlesat the University, including the Consejo Universitario (University Council).This can be clearly seen through the revision of official records. For instance,in 1927, Ochoterena together with Antonio Caso and others proposed asmembers of a committee, modification of the biological curriculum thenavailable at the Philosophy and Literature Faculty suggesting that instead

of awarding such degrees as Professor in Natural Sciences, the degrees ofBachelor, Master and Doctorate in Sciences should be the ones given.32 In1929 the National University obtained autonomy and the federal governmentgranted it a very valuable heritage, with libraries, buildings and laboratories,that were before States property including part of DEB that was directed byHerrera, and dependent on the Ministry of Development until that time tostart the new Institute of Biology.

Ochoterena and UNAMs Institute of Biology

On October 16, 1929, Fernando Ocaranza proposed to the board of trusteesthe slate of three candidates to become director of the newly established Insti-

29 Ibidem, p. 19.30 Their theoretical and conceptual differences were present, and these became deeper

differences along with their professional development.31 Ochoterena, 1930, p. 1.32 ACESUUNAM, 1929, Box 20, File 147.


13/24


tute of Biology. The names were: Eliseo Ramrez, Ignacio Gonzlez Guzmn,and Isaac Ochoterena. The last was ultimately rewarded with the office.33

When the Institute of Biology was created, it incorporated most of the areasof DEB except, sadly, the Botanical Garden, the Zoo, and the Aquarium,so painstakingly put together by Herrera. These parts then became part ofChapultepec Park managed by the Departamento del Distrito Federal (CityHall). At the same time, Casa del Lago was granted to the University to housethe new Institute, which would also manage the Natural History Museum atChopo Street.34

At the time of its inception, the Institute was organized in sections.The best known among these was botany, including the Herbario Nacional(National Herbarium) where 30,000 specimen collections were readily cata-logued. One of the Institutes functions was to answer questions raised bygovernmental departments about plants and animals. Later, a section for suchinquiries was opened, but it had a short life span. Zoology had its own section,

consisting of several laboratories including general, applied, and medicalentomology as well as vertebrates, hydrobiology, helminthology, pharmaco-logy, chemistry and histology. The Natural History Museum proved to be verypopular, receiving 5,000 visitors in 1929 and 170,000 in 193435 (a remarkablegrowth in 5 years). Furthermore a new journal, Annals of the Institute of

Biology, appeared in 1934 to report on research carried at the Institute. Itwould soon become the main medium for Ochoterena and his followers.

In addition to directing the Institute, Ochoterena retained the academicreins of biology teaching at the National Preparatory School. When UNAMsFacultad de Ciencias (Sciences Faculty) was founded in 1939, he becamehead of the Departamento de Biologa (Biology Department), which enabled

him to have a powerful influence on the nature of what a biological careerwould be. He lectured on histology, biology, and the history of science.36

From 1941 to 1943 the Puebla lawyer, general and Secretary of PublicEducation, Octavio Vjar Vzquez, appointed Ochoterena General Directorin charge of Educacin Superior e Investigacin Cientfica (Higher Educationand Scientific Research).37 Ochoterena received, among many other distinc-tions, an honoris causa doctorate from UNAM in 1940 while Dr. GustavoBaz Prada was rector. Finally, in recognition of his biological service, in1943 he was named a founding member of the El Colegio Nacional (NationalCollege); more than 15 living species have been named after him.38

33 ACESUUNAM, 1929, Box 23, File 147, Doc. 2342 FC3.34 Beltran, 1977, p. 59.35 Valdes, 1990, p. III.36 Valdes, 1985; El Colegio Nacional, 1946.37 Beltran, 1977, p. 178.38 Valdes, 1985.


14/24


Ochoterenas Conception of Biology: A Discursive Formation

According to Valds, Ochoterenas work and activity constitutes a bridge

between encyclopedist cabinet biology tradition and institutionalized fieldbiology, that is, between the cabinet natural history to biology that links thefield with the laboratory to make morphological and taxonomical descrip-tions.39 If, instead of focusing on Ochoterenas research reports, we analyzethe works in which he expounds his vision of biology and its teaching, itbecomes apparent that the underlying discourse and discursive formation inOchoterenas career represents a breach from Herreras views stressing theproblems of origin of life, organic evolution, and the conceptual meaningof the phenomenon of life as fundamental starting points for biologicalthought. Instead, Ochoterenas version of biology is more practical, andhowever theoretically significant, it is much more closely related to medicalpractice. As a result his notion of biology conveys the importance of histolo-

gical studies or of parasitic diseases caused by helminthes, studies which heencouraged or took part in as director of the Institute. He indeed abandonedcabinet biology to champion the development of an applied biology closelylinked to medicine.

In many of his publications, Ochoterena focused on an array of subjects.His focus entailed a conjunction of the histological vision with specificdisciplines such as neurology, teratology, embryology, parasitology, patho-logy, histological techniques in general, and plant and comparative histology.Indeed, it is impressive to classify by subject the items in his publications andhave an idea of the wide-ranging topics he treated.

General biology was not high in Ochoterenas priorities, although it inter-

ested him at an early stage. Nonetheless, as an educator he wrote generaltexts: Lecciones de Biologa (1922) and Tratado Elemental de Biologa(1934), the last edition of which appeared in 1950 after Ochoterenas death(and which was often reprinted afterwards). Ochoterena emerged then as anall around applied biologist, enthusiastic for a tight union between medicineand biology, independently from his more general vision laid down in his text-books. This facet cannot be overstated for it shows Ochoterena as the divulgerof an institutionalized knowledge. According to T.S. Kuhn and M. Foucault,textbook writing is critical for the consolidation of certain paradigms andthe establishment of intersubjectivity elements within scientific communitiesand the constitution of discursive formation transmitted by teaching.40 In thisexample, Ochoterenas discourse required a consideration of the meaning of

teaching, not just its contents.

39 Valdes, 1985.40 Kuhn, 1970, p. 10 and pp. 164168; Foucault, 1969, pp. 3338.


15/24


Ochoterenas climb to prominence can be linked to the fact that the disap-pearance of the National Medical Institute in favor of DEB in 1915 wasseverely criticized41 by wide sectors of the powerful medical community.In turn, both the disappearance of the DEB and the establishment of theInstitute of Biology vindicated the displaced medical community. In theNational Medical Institute, botany research projects were developed withtherapeutic goals, for pharmacognosy and for descriptive studies with a kindof medical and naturalist approach. However, the most important point wasthat biological research was considered typically medical, so to entrust thiskind of research to Herrera (who was a pharmacist, but considered himself abiologist) was a terrible opprobrium.

Moreover Herrera, besides his evolutionary preoccupations, was con-cerned with agricultural applications he wrote a book called AgriculturalPests and was the head of the Comisin de Parasitologa Agrcola (Agricul-tural Parasitology Committee), much to the dislike of certain Agronomists

this, together with his revolutionary penchant, his anti-clerical position andhis estrangement from the medical profession, contributed to his exclusion atthe moment when the government ordered the disappearance of the DEB andtransferred all its installations to UNAM for the Institute of Biology.

The matter is to be considered in the light of the mission statement forthe Institute of Biology proposed by Fernando Ocaranza, along with twoother professors, Mariano Moctezuma and Samuel Morones, members of acommission appointed by the Board of Trustees of the UNAM in October1929. Ocaranza, who at the time was director of the Faculty of Medicine,joined them to write . . . upon being established, the Institute must reach anagreement with the demands of workers unions as well as those agencies in

charge of the furtherance of the groups that make up the national collectivity.For the moment, the most urgent research shall refer to man and his environ-ment in our country, they must therefore be mainly physiological inasmuchas that implies the relationship between man and environment, and partic-ularly they shall address hygiene and prophylactic matters. With this view,the personnel in charge shall be well versed in both technical and theoreticalaspects of physiology, hygiene, microbiology, botany and zoology.42

The authors proposed that the Institute be divided into four sections,Physiology, Pharmacology, Botany and Zoology. They added: As it can beseen, since the present demands of national reconstruction do not call for it,no provision is made for a General Biology section that would investigate, incollaboration with similar Institutes abroad, such arduous and transcending

problems as the origin of life and the conception to be held thereof. On the

41 See Ledesma-Mateos, 1999, pp. 185184, 194.42 ACESUUNAM, 1929, Box 23, File 147, Doc. 2342, FC3.


16/24


contrary, all its energies must focus on the solving of national problems inaccordance with the collective, syndicated or co-operative organization thathas been developing in the country . . .43

As it can be inferred, Ocaranza and Ochoterena promoted a vision ofbiology radically opposed to that held by Herrera. According to our interpret-ation, this difference did not follow only from personal reasons or viewpoints,but was related to the persistence of a discourse growing out of the politicalconditions prevailing in 1929, which linked biology more closely to medi-cine.44 This was considered to be the more appropriate role for biology asit addressed the needs of the country more than the eminently scientific, buttheoretically oriented general biology.

With that mindset, we can see the importance of the mission statementfor the Institute of Biology where certain topics of general biology and,particularly, the origin of life and biological evolution are proscribed. Andyet, four years before, both Ochoterena and Ocaranza introduced those topics

in their teaching and their books. It can be seen that the rejection of evolu-tion (and particularly the study of lifes origin) at the time of biologysinstitutionalization in Mexico was not an academic problem at all but,rather, the construction of a discursive formation in accordance with specificsocioprofessional identities.

Two Different Conceptions of the Biological Sciences

If Ochoterena had a different conception of biology than the one sustainedby Herrera, this is a differentiation that became stronger parallel with hisapproach to Fernando Ocaranza and Eliseo Ramrez and his withdrawal fromthe DEB. So the background of the problem is not academic but discursive,meaning that their enunciations are different, addressing different ideas underdifferent conditions. Ochoterena moves in the same direction as his peers,constructing an applied biology oriented towards medicine, and this producesthe gap that lead to his estrangement from Herrera and so the setting out of asocioprofessional incommensurability.

In agreement with the idea mentioned above, the conflict between Herreraand Ochoterena is not a kind of theoretical controversy. In fact it is a disagree-ment between different discursive formations that can be explained by asocioprofessional incommensurability. Ochoterenas concerns were those

43 ACESUUNAM, 1929, Box 23, File 147, Doc. 2342, FC3.44 This discourse expounds health care problems and other medical aspects as fundamental

to the development of the country and so they demand all the attention that should be paid tothem, in a stage of national reconstruction, as it is asserted in the project of a program for theInstitute of Biology submitted to the University Council (see reference 39).


17/24


of the medical community (with whom he shared, for example, a narrowperspective about the world and science). Herrera, on the other hand, soughtto begin the development of a new science, plasmogeny, which could pave theway to understand the uniformity of nature and the origin of life from inor-ganic matter. However, the socioprofessional incommensurability betweenOchoterena and Herrera correlated with their clear differences in biologicalconceptions.

For Herrera material phenomena of all organisms, in the past as in thepresent, had or have as causes known physicochemical forces. Biology isthe science of these phenomena45 and since life consists in the activityof protoplasm . . . and the goal of biology is the study of all displays ofprotoplasm, this science could be named general plasmogeny.46 Shortlythereafter, Herrera extended the concept, claiming plasmogeny not onlyinvestigated life forms, but also their relations with geology and the rest ofthe universe in a harmonic whole. Thus, those aspects of plasmogeny that

studied cellular formation through the replication of its shape and function,served to understand the origin of life.47

Ochoterenas conception of biology was less ambitious in its goals. Hisnotions were guided by his attempt to form a link between biological researchand its medical applications. When Ochoterena defined biology, he criti-cized Auguste Comte: Biology comprehends the knowledge about the wholedisplay of life and, therefore, botany, zoology, pathology, anthropology, soci-ology, after the progressive spreading of their fields of action, compose, atpresent, a colossus whose magnitude makes it inaccessible. As a corrective,Ochoterena claimed, together with other authors, that at least for educa-tional goals, the concept should be constrained to the limits that Lamarck and

Treviranius established for it. . .

looking at biology as a branch of NaturalSciences, which studies common phenomena of living beings and how thelatter reply to the actions of the former. Moreover, Ochoterenas pragmaticand empiricist vision claims that biologists have to question nature, and theyhave to follow the rules that result from knowledge, although these do notagree with the philosophical thought that promotes research . . .48

Ochoterenas style of biology can be described as descriptive, encyclo-pedic and utilitarian (containing complete information about living beings),which is also closely linked to human health, nutrition, and the use of thenational natural resources. A good example could be his research about theuse of Mexican chili as a source of pigments used as histological dyes. Other

45 Herrera, 1904, p. 9.46 Herrera, 1904, pp. 1415.47 Herrera, 1925, pp. 131, 139.48 Ochoterena, 1937, pp. 12, 4.


18/24


examples include the study of the yeast responsible for the fermentationof pulque, and morphological and taxonomic studies of parasitic organ-isms of public health concern in Mexico. In contrast, Herreras thoughts ranalong the lines of basic biology, closely linked to plasmogeny. He consideredmany evolutionary ideas, engaged in solving essential phenomena of lifeand the understanding of its origin, but still worried about pragmatic topicsof national import. Herreras work also included studies about agriculturalplagues and inventories of the National Museums collections (about whichhe knew little more than he did about national natural resources). Besides,Herrera had a clear intention to favour the creation of new spaces and jobsfor biologists, independent of the medical community. Moreover, because heunderstood that Mexican biology had to be in communication with world-wide science, Herrera had a continual interest to ensure that his works weretranslated into French and published in international journals.

Herrera and Ochoterena: Incommensurability Between Both Discourses

The conflict between Herrrera and Ochoterena determined the way thatprofessional biology education has developed in Mexico ever since, as wellas advancement in specific research subjects and the neglect of others.A consequence of this conflict, which ended when the Biological StudiesDirection was closed, was the beginning of institutionalization of biologyin Mexico. This included the determination of the academic orientationfollowed by UNAM in this area of knowledge.

Herrera supported the conception of biology as an autonomous science,

based on evolutionary thought and on the human capacity to discover lifesmysteries and its origins. Moreover, Herrera had a major preoccupation withagriculture, in order to allow biology to help people.49 He considered itimportant that science could assist in the development of Mexico.

Ochoterena thought differently. For him, biology had to be closely relatedto medical practice, an auxiliary science to medicine. Therefore, fundamentaltheories (such as evolution, genetics, etc.) were relegated to a secondarylevel. With this perspective, Ochoterenas thought was compromised becausehe had a close relationship with people who exerted political control inthe country. Thus he displaced Herreras conception and imposed his ownconception of biology in Mexico, which is still felt at the present moment.

49 This does not mean that there is a conflict or opposition between a Biology orientedtowards Agriculture and another biased in favor of medicine. Herreras proclivity to Agri-culture arises from his experience as a Director of the Comision de Parasitologa Agrcola(Agriculture Parasitology Commision), same which is another component of his discursiveformation.


19/24


The plasmogeny theory has, as a background, Herreras philosophicalposition related to natures unity as well as the need to understand the appear-ance of life as a part of his understanding of life itself and a conception ofbiology as an independent and unified discipline unlike Natural History withits separated disciplines (e.g., taxonomy, zoology, botany, and so on).

Ochoterenas refusal to accept Herreras theory of the origin of life isnot due to a discrepancy in scientific approach but to the fact that bothof them possess different discourses in the foucaultian sense of the term,which involves interests, prejudice and extra scientific appreciations. In a firststage of his activities as a researcher, Ochoterena sympathized with Herrerasideas; he dedicated several works to him and even translated a text byJules Felix entitled: Universal Plasmogeny, Biology and Biomechanics.50

However, as soon as he joined the group formed by Fernando Ocaranza andEliseo Ramrez, he distanced himself from plasmogeny. There are no textsexplaining this desertion. Nevertheless, Eliseo Ramrez attacked Herreras

work as pseudoscience in 1922.51When Ocaranza, from his prominent position in university politics,

proposed the working program for the new Institute of Biology, he statedthat research related to the origin of life would not take place in view of thenational priorities that place it low on the list.

On the other hand, as far as their scientific conceptions are concerned,it should be taken into account that Ochoterena and Herrera were peoplewith different educational backgrounds and from different eras. Herrera livedin a period when the United States and Europe embraced biology as a newscience. In its full constitutional process Herrera was attentive to the arrivalof new theories, as can be seen in his work (1904). He received Darwinism

directly; he confronted its opponents; he joined C. Bernard in arguing onthe cellular theory and on problems posed by heredity. Although Herrerainherited the tradition of Natural History from his father, he soon broke fromit (1897), foreshadowing his later position towards a general biology, a factthat can be seen in the transformation of the chair of Natural History at theNormal School into a chair of Biology (1902).

With Herrera, there was an attempt to move biology beyond the museuminasmuch as his idea of biology was not seen as a by-product of naturalhistory, but a rupture with it. Towards the end of the 19th century, researchfields in the United States developed in embryology, physiology, ecology,animal behavior and genetics, representing several of the specialty areasof biology; these became clearly demarcated by the early 20th century,

50 Felix, 1912 In: Ledesma-Mateos and Lazcano, 2000, pp. 151171.51 See Ramrez, 1922.


20/24


while natural history stayed alive.52 The establishment of the Institute ofBiology in Mexico could have promoted the return to the museum withoutthe coexistence of the Natural History tradition with an emerging biology.

On the contrary, Ochoterena began his activity several years later, as anautodidact, practicing botany from a naturalistic taxonomic perspective. Lateron, he became active as a histologist and cytologist, initially under Herrera atthe DEB. Ochoterena was quick to assimilate the influence of a much moreconsolidated foreign biology, with a higher certitude and to develop researchmore attached to the morphological and descriptive tradition, contrary toHerrera.

When Ochoterena took charge of the Institute of Biology, he also assumedcontrol of biology teaching at the Philosophy and Literature Faculty, andlater on at the Sciences Faculty, as well as at the High School of UNAM.His working plan was determinant inasmuch as he had the control over theteachers. Therefore, the curricula and the students programs were prepared

in accordance with Ochoterenas biological orientation.The evolution and the origin of life are set aside, in favor of morphology,

histology, parasitology and botanical and zoological taxonomy. It sufficesto analyze the list of the topics in the first theses for Bachelors, Mastersand Doctorate degrees carried out at the Philosophy and Literature Faculty,later moved to the new Sciences Faculty, to perceive the direction taken bybiological studies.

Taking into account the first years during which the Masters degree inBiology was taught, from 1931 to 1943, 39.28% of the theses completedfocused on descriptive zoology, including histological works; 32.14% tosystematic botany and plant histology and 14.28% to themes of a medical

character (pharmacology, hematology and biostatistics). Later, when Mastersdegree courses became Bachelors degree courses during the first five years ofgraduation between 1947 and 1951, 35.7% of the theses were written aboutmedical topics (hematology, clinic chemistry, pharmacology and medicalethnozoology); 28.57% with certain medical or veterinary implications(bacteriology, mycology and parasitology); 17.85% on morphology; 10.71%on systematics and 7.14% on experimental biology (biochemistry, physiologyof metamorphosis).53 In UNAM between 1938 and 1943 there were onlyfour doctoral theses in biology. If the titles of each one of the theses arereviewed (Bachelors, Masters and Doctoral) one can perceive the weight ofthe orientation given to biology by Ochoterena.

Similarly, Ochoterena edited the most important serial publication on

Mexican biological research during the period under study, Anales del Insti-

52 Benson says that Academic biology emerged as a byproduct of the new researchobjectives and research methods in Natural History, Benson, 1998, p. 77.

53 Ledesma-Mateos et al. (forthcoming).


21/24


tuto de Biologa, with a majority of the articles contributed by his co-workers.They are, at the same time, the ones who wrote up the aforementioned thesesand, thereby, their orientation is the same.

Conclusions

In this work we have shown how biology emerged and how it was institu-tionalized at the beginning of the 20th century in Mexico. We can trace thebeginning of biology in Mexico to 1911 where for the first time, the oppor-tunity of becoming a professor in natural sciences was offered at the Escuela

Nacional de Altos Estudios (National School of Higher Studies), althoughin 15 years nobody graduated from this professional program. Those whowanted to study biological themes came mainly from the medical community,which had with a solid tradition in the study of nature.

The institutionalization of biology in Mexico was a complex process,closely related to the establishment of a biological community and the begin-ning of this discipline in Mexico, and thus leading to the formation of aspecific discourse. This process, too, was influenced by the political environ-ment of the time in which the revolutionary conflict (19101917) and then,the institutionalization of the Revolution (1929), motivated academic groupsto look for better places to develop their activities. Agricultural thoughtwas shifted toward medical thought, and control of biology returned toa community that had been previously consolidated. It was impossible tothink of an autonomous biology that shifted away from medical control.The traditions of the National Medical Institute were too strong to wipeaway, and with the disappearance of the Biological Studies Direction it

recovered its historical place. Thus, a new Biology Institute (UNAM), whichhad a well-defined research program and was closely linked to the medicalcommunity, emerged to assume the demarcations imposed by the Mexicossolid naturalistic tradition.

The conflict between Herrera and Ochoterena was not only due to theexistence of two different conceptions of biology, both as a science and asa practice, but also to the fact that Herrera and Ochoterena had differentdiscourses that were incommensurable, not only linguistically, but alsosocioprofessionally. In other words, they had different links to influentialgroups related to education, having distinct political and socioprofessionalinterests.

A key point was that Ochoterena was not only in contact with the localmedical community, but he belonged to it. This community was by far themore consolidated at the time, while Herrera was more interested in main-taining contact with the international scientific community, earning a reputa-tion as the proponent of Plasmogeny. This difference in point of view allowed


22/24


the shift of biology in Mexico toward medical topics, building a descriptivebiology, and abandoning the more general and theoretical underpinnings ofbiology associated with evolutionary thought.

We think the lack of an articulator of paradigms in general biology withany influence on the national scientific community determined the exclusionof Herreras program, while Ochoterenas discourse was closely related to awell established medical community whos interests were eventually widelyadopted.

Acknowledgements

An earlier version of this paper was presented at the Annual Meeting of theISHPSSB, in Seattle, WA. July 1997, and the V Latin American Congress ofthe history of science and technology in Rio de Janeiro Brazil, July 1998. Wewould like to thank Fabricio Gonzlez, David Gernandt, Rosaura Ramrez,Anglica Rueda, Edna Surez, the two anonymous reviewers and speciallyKeith Benson, for their comments on previous manuscripts. We also thankEduardo Rosado Chauvet for style reading of the manuscript. This work waspartially supported by the National University of Mexicos grant DGAPA-PAPIIT No. IN402397.

References

Archivo del Centro de Estudios sobre la Universidad Nacional Autnoma de Mxico

(ACESUUNAM). 1929. H. Consejo Universitario, Box 20, File 147 Archivo Histricode la Secretara de Salalubridad y Asistencia (SSA). 1946. File 4646 of the Secretarade Instruccin Pblica y Bellas Artes, Seccin Universitaria: Hoja de servicios y otrosdocumentos de Isaac Ochoterena.

Beltrn, Enrique. 1968. Alfonso L. Herrera (18681968). Primera figura de la BiologaMexicana. Revista de la Sociedad Mexicana de Historia Natural XXIX: 3792.

1972. Herrera, Alfonso Luis. Charles Coulston Guillispie (ed.), Dictionary of ScientificBiography, XV vols. Vol. VI. New York: Charles Scribners and Sons.

1977. Medio Siglo de Recuerdos de un Bilogo Mexicano. Mxico: Sociedad Mexicanade Historia Natural.

1978. Alfonso L. Herrera: un pionero mexicano en el campo de la biopoyesis. Lazcano-Araujo Antonio and Barrera Alfredo.

Benson, Keith R. 1998. From Museum Research to Laboratory Research: The Transform-

ation of Natural History into Academic Biology. In Rainger, Benson and Maienschein(eds.), p. 77.Biagioli, Mario. 1993. Galileo Courtier. The Practice of Science in the Culture of Absolutism .

Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Colegio Nacional (El). 1946. Doctor Isaac Ochoterena. Memoria de El Colegio Nacional,

Vol. I, nm. nico. Mxico: El Colegio Nacional.


23/24


Felix, Jules. 1912. La plasmogenia, la biologa y la mecnica universales. Trad. De I.Ochoterena. Boletn de la Alianza Cientfica Universal de Durango, Mxico. T. III,pp. 7984, 102111, 132150. En Ledesma-Mateos I and Lazcano-Araujo, A. 2000.

Foucault, Michel. 1969. LArcheologie du savoir. Paris: ditions Gallimard.

Herrera, Alfonso L. 1897. Recueil des lois de la biologie gnrale. Oficina Tipogrfica de laSecretara de Fomento, Mxico. 1904. Nociones de Biologa. Mxico: Imprenta de la Secretara de Fomento. Edicin

facsimilar 1992. Mxico: Universidad Autnoma de Puebla. 1906. Notions Gnrales de Biologie et Plasmognie Compares. Berln: W. Junk

Editeur, 260 + XXX pp. 1915. Inauguracin de la Direccin de Estudios Biolgicos. Boletn de la Direccin de

Estudios Biolgicos de la Secretara de Fomento 1(1): 514. 1921. La biologa en Mxico durante un siglo. El Demcrata, September 21st. 1925. Una nueva ciencia: La plasmogenia. Barcelona: Casa Editorial Maucci.Kuhn, Thomas S. 1970. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 2nd ed. Chicago: The

University of Chicago Press.Lazcano-Araujo, Antonio and Barrera, Alfredo. 1978. El origen de la vida. Sympsium

conmemorativo en homenaje a Alexander Ivanovich Oparin. UNAM, Mxico.

Ledesma-Mateos, Ismael. 1999. El conflicto entre Alfonso L. Herrera e Isaac Ochoterena yla institucionalizacin de la biologa en Mxico. PhD thesis, School of Sciences/UNAM,Mxico.

Ledesma-Mateos, Ismael et al. Las tesis de bilogo en la UNAM: Facultad de Ciencias yENEP Iztacala, un estudio comparativo. FES Iztacala/UNAM, Mxico (forthcoming).

Ledesma-Mateos, Ismael and Antonio Lazcano-Araujo (eds.). 2000. Obra Completa de IsaacOchoterena, Vol. I. Obra cientfica. Mxico: El Colegio Nacional.

Mayr, Ernst. 1988. Toward a New Philosophy of Biology. Cambridge: Harvard UniversityPress.

Meyer, Jean. 1973. La rvolution mexicaine. Paris: Calman-Levy.Moreno de los Arcos, Roberto. 1984. La polmica del Darwinismo en Mxico. Siglo XIX.

Mxico: UNAM.Ochoterena, Isaac. 1930. Proemio. Anales del Instituto de Biologa de la UNAM, Vol. I,

nm.1. 1937. Tratado elemental de Biologa. Mxico: Ediciones Botas.Rainger, Ronald, Benson, Keith R. and Maienschein, Jane (eds.). 1998. The American

Development of Biology. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Ramrez Ulloa, Eliseo. 1922. La simulacin en la investigacin biolgica. Obras Completas.

T III. Mxico: El Colegio Nacional. 1989, p. 214.Smocovitis, Vassiliki Betty. 1992. Unifying Biology: The Evolutionary Synthesis and

Evolutionary Biology. Journal of History of Biology 25: 165.Valds Gutirrez, Javier. 1985. Isaac Ochoterena (18851950). Inedit publication. 1990. Sesenta aos del Instituto de Biologa, 19291989. Ciencias, Suplemento

(April): IIVII.Vega, Crisforo. 1945. Folleto Bio-bibliografico del seor Profesor y Doctor Isaac

Ochoterena. Mxico: Imprenta del Instituto de Biologa.Zea, Leopoldo, 1968. El positivismo en Mxico: nacimiento, apogeo y decadencia. Mxico:

Fondo de Cultura Econmica.


24/24

Art. Alfonso Herrera-Ledesma

Documents

Transcript of Art. Alfonso Herrera-Ledesma