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 Conict between Alfonso Luis Herrera (18681942) and Isaac Ochoterena (18851950)
ISMAEL LEDESMA-MATEOS
Historia de la Biologia Campus Iztacala, UNAM Los Reyes Iztacala, Tlalnepantla Estado de Mxico 54090 Mxico E-mail: ledesma@servidor.unam.mx

ANA BARAHONA
Departamento de Biologa Evolutiva Facultad de Ciencias, UNAM Col. Miguel Hidalgo Tlalpan 14410 Mxico, D.F. Mxico E-mail: abe@hp.fciencias.unam.mx Abstract. The aim of this work is to evaluate the role played by Alfonso Luis Herrera and Isaac Ochoterena in the institutionalization of academic biology in Mexico in the early 20th century. As biology became institutionalized in Mexico, Herreras basic approach to biology was displaced by Isaac Ochoterenas professional goals due to the prevailing political conditions at the end of 1929. The conict arose from two different conceptions of biology, because Herrera and Ochoterena had different discourses that were incommensurable, not only linguistically speaking, but also socioprofessionally. They had different links to inuential groups related to education, having distinct political and socioprofessional interests. The conict between Herrrera and Ochoterena determined the way in which professional biology education has developed in Mexico, as well as the advancement in specic research subjects and the neglect of others. Keywords: Alfonso L. Herrera, biology in Mexico, biology in the early 20th century, biology and medicine, institutionalization of biology, Isaac Ochoterena

The aim of this work is to evaluate the role played by Alfonso Luis Herrera and Isaac Ochoterena in the institutionalization of academic biology in Mexico, analyzing their respective contributions, the characteristics of their scientic thought, and the discursive formations they represent in their respective historical contexts. We mean by discursive formation a dened set of discourses, a system involving objects and types of enunciations; it implies

286

ISMAEL LEDESMA-MATEOS AND ANA BARAHONA

an articulated networks of ideas, notions, prejudice and concepts that dene the individual performance as ones self and as a member of a community. As we will see later, Herrera and Ochoterena represented different approaches of seeing and practicing biology.1 Both scientists have been considered leading and prominent gures in the history of biology in Mexico in the 20th century. However, rarely have their 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 a general biology as a unied and independent discipline introducing evolutionary thought.2 That conception of biology had the aim of explaining the whole of lifes phenomena, its origin and evolution. According to that interest, Herrera founded in 1904 the rst Biology chair and after that, a governmental research institution called the Direccin de Estudios Biolgicos (DEB) in 1915 Head Ofce 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 Nacional Autnoma de Mxico (National Autonomous University of Mxico, UNAM) and a researcher in the DEB. Ochoterena focused his interest in botany, histology and other mainly descriptive disciplines. When he became dean of the Biology Institute at UNAM in 1929 he promoted a descriptive and practical biology with emphasis on medical problems.
1 In this article the concepts of discourse and discursive formation are used in accordance with the work of Michel Foucault. Discourse: A combination of enunciations dependent on 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 indenably repeated and which appearance or utilization in history could be appointed (and explained if the case arises); it is composed of a limited number of enunciations by means of which one can dene a set of conditions of existence (ibidem, p. 153). In this way, those who are enrolled in different discourses do not talk about the same thing, their enunciations are different, addressing different audiences in different conditions (ibidem, p. 155). 2 According to Smocovitis it is not possible to talk about an autonomous science of life until this could be unied 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 general biology, autonomous and unied, is the evolutionist approach which permits a demarcation from the aspects of biology linked to medicine. It is not a matter of establishment and opposition between biology and medicine but relates to recognizing that the existence of a Biology independent of the eld of medicine ambit is something different from a fully Medicalized Biology. The radical elimination of the interest in evolution favored the orientation of biology towards aspects rooted in the descriptive tradition of Natural History: botanical and zoological taxonomy and morphology or aspects of medical interest such as histology and parasitology.

THE INSTITUTIONALIZATION OF BIOLOGY IN MEXICO

287

Our basic hypothesis follows: as biology became institutionalized in Mexico, Herreras general and basic approach to biology was displaced by Ochoterenas professional goals. As we will see, a close link was forged with the discursive formation of the medical community. This resulted in both discursive and socioprofessional incommensurabilities. The incommensurability among different discursive formations implies the impossibility of communication among opposite positions and by the replacement of one discourse by another. Moreover, in accordance with Biagioli, we think that incommensurability is related to the socioprofessional identity and relative power and status of those involved in the nondialogue.3 As a consequence, biology in Mexico stressed applied aspects at the expense of a more widelyfocused scientic biology, noticeably forsaking evolutionary thinking. The rst years of the institutionalization process of academic biology in Mexico, thus, will be represented as a conict between two personalities each one having 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 to the botany, zoology, and microscopy courses given at the Escuela Nacional de Altos Estudios (National School of Higher Studies), which in 1911 offered for the rst time the opportunity of becoming an Academic Professor in Natural Sciences. At rst no one took advantage of the opportunity, although some people, especially physicians and teachers, attended selected courses from the program, arguably to widen their views or to enhance their teaching practice. Only in 1922 did two people apply for the entire program, eventually leading 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 professional naturalist career (Professor in Natural Sciences) in Mexico, no one graduated from the program. Instead, pursuers of biological themes came mainly from the medical eld, which had a solid tradition in the study of natural history.

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

288

ISMAEL LEDESMA-MATEOS AND ANA BARAHONA

An additional consideration is that the institutionalization process of biology studied herein includes the impact of the Mexican Revolution, started in 1910, and takes place in the complex sociopolitical context of 1929, which led to social reorganization phenomena and to the settlement of new elites linked to the ascending groups among which former prestigious guilds such as the medical community were aspiring to preserve their status under the new circumstances, although with different actors, as partakers of the new power and social framework in a nation being rebuilt. Ochoterena along with Fernando Ocaranza and Eliseo Ramrez represent these new actors, forming the upward elites while Herrera represents the continuity of a past deeply rooted in the regime of President Porrio Daz.

Mexican Political Background The historical framework represented by the Mexican Revolution must be taken into account. Porrio Dazs dictatorship (18771911) favored higher education and scientic research in accordance with the French model, together with the positivist tradition, introduced to Mexico by Gabino Barreda during the regime of Benito Jurez (18581861; 18651867; 18711872). Under the inuence of Justo Sierra, Secretary of Public Education, the dominating trend shifted towards Spencerian positivism, setting aside Comtes thought. It was during the regime of Daz that the Instituto Mdico Nacional, the Sociedad Cientca Antonio Alzate, and the Sociedad Mexicana de Historia Natural, the organization in which Herrera began his scientic activity, appeared. During the second stage of the Diaz regime there is a turn to the right wing and scientic activities are neglected. Orden y Progreso (Order and Progress) is the slogan of the Government inspired by positivist thought but instilled with the ideas of Spencer and Social Darwinism. According to Leopoldo Zea, the bourgeoisie needed to invalidate the philosophy of the Revolution and to do that, it was necessary to propose a counterrevolutionary philosophy, this is Orden.4 The Revolutionary conict began with Francisco I. Maderos call for universal suffrage and the prohibition of reelection, which gave rise to an armed uprising (November 10, 1910). After Dazs resignation and the interim presidency of Francisco Len de la Barra, Madero assumed the presidency on November 6, 1911, but in February, 1913 was assassinated by Mexican Army General Victoriano Huerta, who remained in power until 1914, as the war against the usurping government continued. This context of political instability prevailed until the twenties. After taking the capital
4 Zea, 1968, p. 40.

THE INSTITUTIONALIZATION OF BIOLOGY IN MEXICO

289

city in 1915, Venustiano Carranza, one of the revolutionary leaders, headed a new government. Carranza promulgated the new political constitution in 1917, but was assassinated in 1920.5 In the tortuous process followed by the Mexican Revolution, there was a return of the conservative forces which, from the days of the regime of Daz, gradually continued inserting themselves in the Government and so became the base for the coup detat in 1913 and for Huertas regime. In spite of the victory by Carranza and the constitutionalist army, these right wing forces, gradually entered each new government that followed in the Revolutions footsteps.6 Plutarco Elas Calles had been president from 1924 to 1928 succeeding General Alvaro Obregn, who governed from 1920 to 1924. Re-elected President in 1928, Obregn was assassinated and the Government was left in the hands of Emilio Portes-Gil, a subordinate to the strong political control of Calles, who continued as the moral leader of the ruling party. In 1928, the revolutionary government was confronted by a religious insurrection, the rebelin cristera (19281932). In response, Calles consolidated his political strength during a period known as El Maximato (19281936). The predominant political conditions in Mexico in 1929 were very complex. First, 1929 was the year when the National Revolutionary Party (or PNR) was founded from a coalition of several political groups that originated during the Mexican Revolution. The formation of this political party established the starting point of a process known as institutionalization of the Revolution, which ended with the foundation of the Institutional Revolutionary Party (or PRI). This was the permanent ruling party until December 2000. Second, it was in 19281929 when, as the historian Jean Meyer said, a close and opportunistic relationship formed out between the Church and the State. Facing a new conict in the university environment with strong conservative inuences, autonomy was given to the National University of Mexico (later UNAM). In that part of the process of (institutionalization) of the Revolution, academic and political groups were looking for a more favourable place 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 when

the chair of Biology was suppressed in 1906, he was appointed Director of the Comisi on de Parasitolog a Agr cola, 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 followed the cause and in 1915 he convinced General Venustiano Carranza of the need to create the Direcci on de Estudios Biol ogicos with the backing of the Secretary Pastor Rouaix. 6 In such a political context, Herrera looks like the representative of a Mexico long gone by, with outdated values which inuenced his exclusion. 7 Meyer, 1973, p. 311.

290

ISMAEL LEDESMA-MATEOS AND ANA BARAHONA

unstable situation, to gain a prominent position inside UNAM, which fell under the control of both physicians and lawyers. In its post revolutionary stage, Mexico was characterized by a different social mobility with the appearance of emerging actors from a new political class and with elites linked to the new governments. Herreras handicap is his continued ascription with the regime of Carranza and his vision, while Ochoterena along with Ocaranza and Ramrez ally themselves to emerging groups linked to the interests of the new institutional order of medicine. 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 program primarily oriented towards the fundamental problems of life science and secondarily, 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 Mexican naturalist, Alfonso Herrera (18381901). He obtained a pharmacy degree in 1889, writing a thesis entitled Chemical dialysis. Uses of lime sulphate. Soon after graduating he was appointed to the zoology and botany chairs at the Escuela Normal para Maestros (Normal College for Teachers) and also as assistant naturalist at the Museo Nacional (National Museum). Upon restructuring of the Instituto Mdico Nacional (National Medical Institute) in June 1890, Herrera was appointed assistant in the Natural History section. Herreras father was a scientist who had enjoyed many privileges under the President Porrio Daz, which enabled the young Herrera to have an early contact with an educational environment and the foremost ideas of the time. Together with his evident genius, all this created a context in which he could promote various personal interests, such as the publishing in 1897 of his Recueil des lois de la Biologie Gnrale (Collection of the Laws of General Biology), printed in French in Mexico considered to be the most important Darwinian work in the nineteenth century in Mexico and still regarded as a synthesis of the evolutionary movement in the country.8 In 1902, Herrera established the rst general biology course in Mexico at the Escuela Normal (Normal College). To accompany the course, Herrera wrote the textbook, Nociones de Biologa (Notions of Biology), which appeared in 1904 and was the rst 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 Beltr an, 1968, p. 38. See also Beltr an, 1972, pp. 319320.

THE INSTITUTIONALIZATION OF BIOLOGY IN MEXICO

291

that Herrera had rsthand information about evolution and a conception of biology that paralleled the elds development in Europe. Even more important, his evolutionary stance is clearly laid out in the book. Indeed, its publication can be considered of as the fundamental moment in the introduction of biology in the country. The rst Mexican textbook on general biology was expanded, translated into French and edited in Berlin two years later under the title Notions Gnrales de Biologie et de Plasmogenie Compares (General Notions of Biology and Comparative Plasmogeny) with a foreword by professor M. Benedikt of Vienna.10 Herreras purpose in the new edition was to link the biology he wanted to establish in Mexico with the disciplines advances in Europe. Additionally, he began to develop his own theory on the origin of life, which was referred to as plasmogeny, the focus of his research later in his 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 deeply ingrained prejudices held by powerful political and religious sectors, so that in 1906 the course was suppressed.11 The course termination happened in the context of a more general reorganization of teaching at the university, which suggests a covered-up ousting in view of the criticisms. Herrera himself claimed in 1921, the government suppressed the whole year where biology and other courses that looked dangerous for the youth and religious beliefs were 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 wasnt studied 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 rst biology course was taught at the Escuela Normal, by 1934 students of the College by then called Escuela Nacional de Maestros (National Teachers School) kept attending the disconnected and poorly-organized courses of Botany; Zoology; Anatomy, Physiology and Hygiene, all of which lacked exposure whatsoever to fundamental 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 of prejudices and superstition that often obscure childrens minds.13
10 Herrera, 1906. 11 Beltr an, 1968, p. 47. See also Beltr an, 1978, p. 51. 12 Herrera, 1921, pp. 27. 13 Beltr an, 1968, p. 55.

292

ISMAEL LEDESMA-MATEOS AND ANA BARAHONA

Thus, the establishment of the rst biology chair (1902), the writing of an appropriate textbook (1904), and changes to these curricular elements create questions begging for clarication, which will reect on the development of biology in Mexico. Herreras Conception of Biology within a University Setting Professor Herrera conceived of biology as an independent science responsible for explaining life phenomena in general. Choosing plasmogeny as a starting point, he created a new science that aimed at studying the origin of protoplasm and, thus, of all life so that an understanding of the processes of organic evolution was possible. In fact, Herrera was one of the main introducers of Darwinism to Mexico, both through the establishment of the rst biology chair in 1902 and through many pages of Nociones de Biologa. Herreras initiatives were strongly attacked because they conicted with the social needs at that moment, which, according to the trend toward enhancing economic development, gave priority to practical studies. In a parallel direction, groups with numerous religious prejudices that had an important social inuence, as well as the clergy as a group, were irritated by both the contents of Herreras biology courses and his ideas. And so, the Biology Chair was cancelled in 1906 because it was considered dangerous to the young people and to beliefs.14 In Mexico, the establishment of biology as a science did not take place the way it did in Europe, due to the delay in the coming to Mexico of the theories that emerged in that continent. The local scientic communities had neither the same degree of consolidation, nor the number of researchers working in the biological sciences. In Mexico, the process of introduction of the main biological concepts and theories took more time. By the very nature of its subject life, its structures, functions, continuity, diversity and evolution biology is laden with potential ideological components that complicated the establishment of biological disciplines, the institutionalization of biology, and the formation of a scientic community of biologists in Mexico. At the same time, this character provides for the importance of studying this period so that light may be shed on the complex developmental conditions of Mexican biology and, perhaps, even on its current status. Herrera joined the Higher Studies National School in 1922 and took the zoology chair from which he imparted a general vision of biological phenomena. However, having only one student severely limited the reach for his teaching. Note that even as a member of the teaching body (as the Academic Professor in Natural Sciences) Herrera did not teach general
14 Herrera, 1921, pp. 27.

THE INSTITUTIONALIZATION OF BIOLOGY IN MEXICO

293

biology, a revealing fact about the dominant trends on institutional organization of science teaching at the time. That is, there was a tendency to keep intact the idea of the descriptive natural sciences (botany, zoology, morphology) and not to consider general biology as an independent and unied science. The Direccin de Estudios Biolgicos (DEB) Herrera carried to his biology career his personal sympathies for the Mexican Revolution, notwithstanding his privileged position during the regime of Porrio Daz. He himself divided the history of Mexican biology into two periods: one pre-Revolutionary (18211909) and one revolutionary (1910 1921). The rst one was characterized by an incoherence in work and an accumulation of materials, although he soon conceded that the revolutionary period actually did not begin until 1915, upon the founding of the Direccin de Estudios Biolgicos (DEB) at the Ministry of Development.15 The founding of DEB was a milestone in the development of Mexican biology for it meant a change of focus in biological research and it widened the gap between Herrera and the medical community. Eventually this division led to DEBs disappearance and Herreras isolation, as a result of the conict with Isaac Ochoterena and the formation of the Institute of Biology at 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 big and complicated body that included the Museo de Historia Natural (Museum of Natural History), the Instituto Mdico Nacional (National Medical Institute), formerly dependent on the Secretara de Educacin Pblica (Ministry of Public Instruction), and the Comisin Geogrco-Exploradora (Geographical Survey) with its museum located in the ancient archbishops palace in Tacubaya To make all this work, Rouaix put it in Herreras hands who, in addition to his scientic merits had sympathized with the revolution since 1910.16 DEB comprised three sections: rst, the Instituto de Biologa General y Mdica (Institute for General and Medical Biology) that, as Herrera noted in his inaugural address, can be seen as a vigorous, unexpected and superb mutation of the National Medical Institute;17 second, the Museum of Natural History that incorporated the Tacubaya Museum collections and operated on Chopo Street 8; and third, a Departamento de Exploracin de la Flora y
15 Ibidem, pp. 27. 16 Beltr an, 1977, p. 21. 17 Herrera, 1915, p. 5.

294

ISMAEL LEDESMA-MATEOS AND ANA BARAHONA

la Fauna (Flora and Fauna Exploration Department), that not only would supply materials for lab research and Museum collections but would also study and map natural resources all over the Republic. The seat of DEB and its Institute for General and Medical Biology was a building located on Balderas Street 94 in Mexico City, where the National Medical Institute had its headquarters since 1902. (In 1927, in order to accommodate the Comisin Nacional de Irrigacin (National Irrigation Commission), DEB was moved to the unsuitable facilities of Casa del Lago in Chapultepec Park.18 This set the stage for the events leading to Herreras dismissal and Ochoterenas 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 prevented him from receiving a baccalaureate, so he applied for an examination at the Ministry of Public Instruction to obtain a teaching permit for primary schools, which he received in 1901.20 Primarily a self-taught teacher, he began working in the state of Puebla and then in Durango where he would become a school principal and later a public instruction inspector in Ciudad Lerdo until 1913. Ochoterenas inspector job enabled him to travel extensively throughout Durangos arid lands and mountain ranges, strengthening his botanical inclinations 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 political future, since this period coincided with the turmoil of the Mexican revolution, in an area particularly involved in the conict and a hostile environment unt for scientic activity.22 In August 1915 Subsecretary Rouaix, responsible at that time for the Ministry of Industry, announced to Ochoterena the existence of a presidential agreement by which he was appointed to classify the plants that were to be used in stabilizing the dunes around the City of Veracruz.23 Subsequently, Ochoterena joined DEB in 1916 being in charge of the Vegetal Biology
18 Beltr an, 1977, pp. 2425. 19 Vald es Gutierrez, 1985, pp. 17. 20 Archivo Hist orico SSA, 1946, File 4646. 21 Vald es, 1985, pp. 17. 22 Vald es, 1985, pp. 17. 23 Archivo Hist orico SSA, 1946, File 4646.

THE INSTITUTIONALIZATION OF BIOLOGY IN MEXICO

295

Section until 1918 when he left the institution. Similarly, Dr. Fernando Ocaranza, later to be associated with Ochoterena, originally worked as Chief of the Experimental Physiology Section.24 During his stay at DEB, Ochoterena developed an interest in biological evolution and the origin of life. This is clear in several papers and a book, Lecciones de Biologa (1922). Likewise, Fernando Ocaranza introduced evolutionary topics in the biology courses he gave at the Medical School, National University. As we will see later, Ochoterena and Ocaranza eventually abandoned such viewpoints as they attempted to denounce Herrera, who they characterized as the father of plasmogeny, a pseudoresearch program.25 Ochoterena and Other Academic Environments Eliseo Ramrez Ulloa, another person who along with Ocaranza, pushed to exclude Herrera from the scientic eld, invited Ochoterena to the Escuela Mdico Militar (Military Medical School) as a teacher in 1917, where he founded and taught histology and embryology courses.26 In 1920 the Sociedad Mexicana de Biologa (Mexican Biology Society) was founded with Fernando Ocaranza, Isaac Ochoterena, and Eliseo Ramrez as prominent members.27 At the same time, between 1920 and 1935, they published the Revista Mexicana de Biologa (Mexican Journal of Biology), a medium independent from the DEB Bulletin, to publish their own research.28 By 1921 Ochoterena was appointed head of the Departamento de Biologa de la Escuela Nacional Preparatoria (Biology Department at the National Preparatory School) and curator of its Cabinetes de Historia Natural (Natural History Cabinets). During this period he pursued his research activities and, being in a university environment, began to cultivate relationships with physicians from several medical colleges and also with professors from other faculties such as Filosofa y Letras (Philosophy and Literature) and Estudios Superiores (Higher Studies) then responsible for higher biological education. From then on, and taking advantage of his new academic position, Ochoterena began to create a core of young disciples (Helia Bravo, Eduardo Caballero y Caballero, and Jos de Lille, among others). This human resource would later prove instrumental in starting the Institute of Biology at UNAM.
24 Beltr an, 1977, pp. 2628. 25 Ram rez Ulloa, 1922, p. 214. 26 El Colegio Nacional, 1946, pp. 5977. See also Vald es, 1985, pp. 17, and: Vega, 1945, pp. 130. 27 Beltr an, 1977, pp. 159160. 28 Ibidem, p. 427.

296

ISMAEL LEDESMA-MATEOS AND ANA BARAHONA

In 1925 the National University of Mexico was reorganized and the Higher Studies Faculty disappeared, its courses being now taught at the Philosophy and 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 lecturing Zoology.29 The conict between Herrera and Ochoterena does not arise from basic theoretical or academic differences only but from a conict of interests stemming 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 discursive orientation opposed to Herreras. These discursive formations are different because they correspond to different socioprofessional interests. This was not a problem based on the rejection of evolutionary theory or the study of the origin 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 viewpoint as a consequence of the integration of an academic and professional core that vindicated the National Medical Institutes Achievements31 and pursued hegemony in the eld by opposing research lines carried at DEB. From 1925 on, Ochoterena, with his close ties to Fernando Ocaranza and Eliseo Ramrez, began to enjoy a notoriety in the decision-making circles at the University, including the Consejo Universitario (University Council). This can be clearly seen through the revision of ofcial records. For instance, in 1927, Ochoterena together with Antonio Caso and others proposed as members of a committee, modication of the biological curriculum then available at the Philosophy and Literature Faculty suggesting that instead of awarding such degrees as Professor in Natural Sciences, the degrees of Bachelor, Master and Doctorate in Sciences should be the ones given.32 In 1929 the National University obtained autonomy and the federal government granted it a very valuable heritage, with libraries, buildings and laboratories, that were before States property including part of DEB that was directed by Herrera, and dependent on the Ministry of Development until that time to start the new Institute of Biology. Ochoterena and UNAMs Institute of Biology On October 16, 1929, Fernando Ocaranza proposed to the board of trustees the slate of three candidates to become director of the newly established Insti29 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.

THE INSTITUTIONALIZATION OF BIOLOGY IN MEXICO

297

tute of Biology. The names were: Eliseo Ramrez, Ignacio Gonzlez Guzmn, and Isaac Ochoterena. The last was ultimately rewarded with the ofce.33 When the Institute of Biology was created, it incorporated most of the areas of DEB except, sadly, the Botanical Garden, the Zoo, and the Aquarium, so painstakingly put together by Herrera. These parts then became part of Chapultepec Park managed by the Departamento del Distrito Federal (City Hall). At the same time, Casa del Lago was granted to the University to house the new Institute, which would also manage the Natural History Museum at Chopo 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 catalogued. One of the Institutes functions was to answer questions raised by governmental departments about plants and animals. Later, a section for such inquiries was opened, but it had a short life span. Zoology had its own section, consisting of several laboratories including general, applied, and medical entomology as well as vertebrates, hydrobiology, helminthology, pharmacology, chemistry and histology. The Natural History Museum proved to be very popular, receiving 5,000 visitors in 1929 and 170,000 in 193435 (a remarkable growth in 5 years). Furthermore a new journal, Annals of the Institute of Biology, appeared in 1934 to report on research carried at the Institute. It would soon become the main medium for Ochoterena and his followers. In addition to directing the Institute, Ochoterena retained the academic reins of biology teaching at the National Preparatory School. When UNAMs Facultad de Ciencias (Sciences Faculty) was founded in 1939, he became head of the Departamento de Biologa (Biology Department), which enabled him to have a powerful inuence on the nature of what a biological career would be. He lectured on histology, biology, and the history of science.36 From 1941 to 1943 the Puebla lawyer, general and Secretary of Public Education, Octavio Vjar Vzquez, appointed Ochoterena General Director in charge of Educacin Superior e Investigacin Cientca (Higher Education and Scientic Research).37 Ochoterena received, among many other distinctions, an honoris causa doctorate from UNAM in 1940 while Dr. Gustavo Baz Prada was rector. Finally, in recognition of his biological service, in 1943 he was named a founding member of the El Colegio Nacional (National College); more than 15 living species have been named after him.38
33 ACESUUNAM, 1929, Box 23, File 147, Doc. 2342 FC3. 34 Beltr an, 1977, p. 59. 35 Vald es, 1990, p. III. 36 Vald es, 1985; El Colegio Nacional, 1946. 37 Beltr an, 1977, p. 178. 38 Vald es, 1985.

298

ISMAEL LEDESMA-MATEOS AND ANA BARAHONA

Ochoterenas Conception of Biology: A Discursive Formation According to Valds, Ochoterenas work and activity constitutes a bridge between encyclopedist cabinet biology tradition and institutionalized eld biology, that is, between the cabinet natural history to biology that links the eld with the laboratory to make morphological and taxonomical descriptions.39 If, instead of focusing on Ochoterenas research reports, we analyze the works in which he expounds his vision of biology and its teaching, it becomes apparent that the underlying discourse and discursive formation in Ochoterenas career represents a breach from Herreras views stressing the problems of origin of life, organic evolution, and the conceptual meaning of the phenomenon of life as fundamental starting points for biological thought. Instead, Ochoterenas version of biology is more practical, and however theoretically signicant, it is much more closely related to medical practice. As a result his notion of biology conveys the importance of histological studies or of parasitic diseases caused by helminthes, studies which he encouraged or took part in as director of the Institute. He indeed abandoned cabinet biology to champion the development of an applied biology closely linked to medicine. In many of his publications, Ochoterena focused on an array of subjects. His focus entailed a conjunction of the histological vision with specic disciplines such as neurology, teratology, embryology, parasitology, pathology, histological techniques in general, and plant and comparative histology. Indeed, it is impressive to classify by subject the items in his publications and have an idea of the wide-ranging topics he treated. General biology was not high in Ochoterenas priorities, although it interested him at an early stage. Nonetheless, as an educator he wrote general texts: 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 an all around applied biologist, enthusiastic for a tight union between medicine and biology, independently from his more general vision laid down in his textbooks. This facet cannot be overstated for it shows Ochoterena as the divulger of an institutionalized knowledge. According to T.S. Kuhn and M. Foucault, textbook writing is critical for the consolidation of certain paradigms and the establishment of intersubjectivity elements within scientic communities and the constitution of discursive formation transmitted by teaching.40 In this example, Ochoterenas discourse required a consideration of the meaning of teaching, not just its contents.
39 Vald es, 1985. 40 Kuhn, 1970, p. 10 and pp. 164168; Foucault, 1969, pp. 3338.

THE INSTITUTIONALIZATION OF BIOLOGY IN MEXICO

299

Ochoterenas climb to prominence can be linked to the fact that the disappearance of the National Medical Institute in favor of DEB in 1915 was severely criticized41 by wide sectors of the powerful medical community. In turn, both the disappearance of the DEB and the establishment of the Institute of Biology vindicated the displaced medical community. In the National Medical Institute, botany research projects were developed with therapeutic goals, for pharmacognosy and for descriptive studies with a kind of medical and naturalist approach. However, the most important point was that biological research was considered typically medical, so to entrust this kind of research to Herrera (who was a pharmacist, but considered himself a biologist) was a terrible opprobrium. Moreover Herrera, besides his evolutionary preoccupations, was concerned with agricultural applications he wrote a book called Agricultural Pests and was the head of the Comisin de Parasitologa Agrcola (Agricultural Parasitology Committee), much to the dislike of certain Agronomists this, together with his revolutionary penchant, his anti-clerical position and his estrangement from the medical profession, contributed to his exclusion at the moment when the government ordered the disappearance of the DEB and transferred all its installations to UNAM for the Institute of Biology. The matter is to be considered in the light of the mission statement for the Institute of Biology proposed by Fernando Ocaranza, along with two other professors, Mariano Moctezuma and Samuel Morones, members of a commission appointed by the Board of Trustees of the UNAM in October 1929. Ocaranza, who at the time was director of the Faculty of Medicine, joined them to write . . . upon being established, the Institute must reach an agreement 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 environment in our country, they must therefore be mainly physiological inasmuch as that implies the relationship between man and environment, and particularly they shall address hygiene and prophylactic matters. With this view, the personnel in charge shall be well versed in both technical and theoretical aspects 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 be seen, since the present demands of national reconstruction do not call for it, no provision is made for a General Biology section that would investigate, in collaboration 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.

300

ISMAEL LEDESMA-MATEOS AND ANA BARAHONA

contrary, all its energies must focus on the solving of national problems in accordance with the collective, syndicated or co-operative organization that has been developing in the country . . .43 As it can be inferred, Ocaranza and Ochoterena promoted a vision of biology radically opposed to that held by Herrera. According to our interpretation, this difference did not follow only from personal reasons or viewpoints, but was related to the persistence of a discourse growing out of the political conditions prevailing in 1929, which linked biology more closely to medicine.44 This was considered to be the more appropriate role for biology as it addressed the needs of the country more than the eminently scientic, but theoretically oriented general biology. With that mindset, we can see the importance of the mission statement for the Institute of Biology where certain topics of general biology and, particularly, the origin of life and biological evolution are proscribed. And yet, four years before, both Ochoterena and Ocaranza introduced those topics in their teaching and their books. It can be seen that the rejection of evolution (and particularly the study of lifes origin) at the time of biologys institutionalization in Mexico was not an academic problem at all but, rather, the construction of a discursive formation in accordance with specic socioprofessional identities.

Two Different Conceptions of the Biological Sciences If Ochoterena had a different conception of biology than the one sustained by Herrera, this is a differentiation that became stronger parallel with his approach to Fernando Ocaranza and Eliseo Ramrez and his withdrawal from the DEB. So the background of the problem is not academic but discursive, meaning that their enunciations are different, addressing different ideas under different conditions. Ochoterena moves in the same direction as his peers, constructing an applied biology oriented towards medicine, and this produces the gap that lead to his estrangement from Herrera and so the setting out of a socioprofessional incommensurability. In agreement with the idea mentioned above, the conict between Herrera and Ochoterena is not a kind of theoretical controversy. In fact it is a disagreement between different discursive formations that can be explained by a socioprofessional 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 to them, in a stage of national reconstruction, as it is asserted in the project of a program for the Institute of Biology submitted to the University Council (see reference 39).

THE INSTITUTIONALIZATION OF BIOLOGY IN MEXICO

301

of the medical community (with whom he shared, for example, a narrow perspective about the world and science). Herrera, on the other hand, sought to begin the development of a new science, plasmogeny, which could pave the way to understand the uniformity of nature and the origin of life from inorganic matter. However, the socioprofessional incommensurability between Ochoterena and Herrera correlated with their clear differences in biological conceptions. For Herrera material phenomena of all organisms, in the past as in the present, had or have as causes known physicochemical forces. Biology is the science of these phenomena45 and since life consists in the activity of protoplasm . . . and the goal of biology is the study of all displays of protoplasm, this science could be named general plasmogeny.46 Shortly thereafter, Herrera extended the concept, claiming plasmogeny not only investigated life forms, but also their relations with geology and the rest of the 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. His notions were guided by his attempt to form a link between biological research and its medical applications. When Ochoterena dened biology, he criticized Auguste Comte: Biology comprehends the knowledge about the whole display of life and, therefore, botany, zoology, pathology, anthropology, sociology, after the progressive spreading of their elds of action, compose, at present, a colossus whose magnitude makes it inaccessible. As a corrective, Ochoterena claimed, together with other authors, that at least for educational goals, the concept should be constrained to the limits that Lamarck and Treviranius established for it . . . looking at biology as a branch of Natural Sciences, which studies common phenomena of living beings and how the latter reply to the actions of the former. Moreover, Ochoterenas pragmatic and empiricist vision claims that biologists have to question nature, and they have to follow the rules that result from knowledge, although these do not agree with the philosophical thought that promotes research . . .48 Ochoterenas style of biology can be described as descriptive, encyclopedic and utilitarian (containing complete information about living beings), which is also closely linked to human health, nutrition, and the use of the national natural resources. A good example could be his research about the use 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.

302

ISMAEL LEDESMA-MATEOS AND ANA BARAHONA

examples include the study of the yeast responsible for the fermentation of pulque, and morphological and taxonomic studies of parasitic organisms of public health concern in Mexico. In contrast, Herreras thoughts ran along the lines of basic biology, closely linked to plasmogeny. He considered many evolutionary ideas, engaged in solving essential phenomena of life and the understanding of its origin, but still worried about pragmatic topics of national import. Herreras work also included studies about agricultural plagues and inventories of the National Museums collections (about which he knew little more than he did about national natural resources). Besides, Herrera had a clear intention to favour the creation of new spaces and jobs for biologists, independent of the medical community. Moreover, because he understood that Mexican biology had to be in communication with worldwide science, Herrera had a continual interest to ensure that his works were translated into French and published in international journals.

Herrera and Ochoterena: Incommensurability Between Both Discourses The conict between Herrrera and Ochoterena determined the way that professional biology education has developed in Mexico ever since, as well as advancement in specic research subjects and the neglect of others. A consequence of this conict, which ended when the Biological Studies Direction was closed, was the beginning of institutionalization of biology in Mexico. This included the determination of the academic orientation followed 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 lifes mysteries and its origins. Moreover, Herrera had a major preoccupation with agriculture, in order to allow biology to help people.49 He considered it important that science could assist in the development of Mexico. Ochoterena thought differently. For him, biology had to be closely related to medical practice, an auxiliary science to medicine. Therefore, fundamental theories (such as evolution, genetics, etc.) were relegated to a secondary level. With this perspective, Ochoterenas thought was compromised because he had a close relationship with people who exerted political control in the country. Thus he displaced Herreras conception and imposed his own conception of biology in Mexico, which is still felt at the present moment.
49 This does not mean that there is a conict or opposition between a Biology oriented towards Agriculture and another biased in favor of medicine. Herreras proclivity to Agriculture arises from his experience as a Director of the Comisi on de Parasitolog a Agr cola (Agriculture Parasitology Commision), same which is another component of his discursive formation.

THE INSTITUTIONALIZATION OF BIOLOGY IN MEXICO

303

The plasmogeny theory has, as a background, Herreras philosophical position related to natures unity as well as the need to understand the appearance of life as a part of his understanding of life itself and a conception of biology as an independent and unied discipline unlike Natural History with its separated disciplines (e.g., taxonomy, zoology, botany, and so on). Ochoterenas refusal to accept Herreras theory of the origin of life is not due to a discrepancy in scientic approach but to the fact that both of them possess different discourses in the foucaultian sense of the term, which involves interests, prejudice and extra scientic appreciations. In a rst stage of his activities as a researcher, Ochoterena sympathized with Herreras ideas; he dedicated several works to him and even translated a text by Jules Felix entitled: Universal Plasmogeny, Biology and Biomechanics.50 However, as soon as he joined the group formed by Fernando Ocaranza and Eliseo Ramrez, he distanced himself from plasmogeny. There are no texts explaining this desertion. Nevertheless, Eliseo Ramrez attacked Herreras work as pseudoscience in 1922.51 When Ocaranza, from his prominent position in university politics, proposed the working program for the new Institute of Biology, he stated that research related to the origin of life would not take place in view of the national priorities that place it low on the list. On the other hand, as far as their scientic conceptions are concerned, it should be taken into account that Ochoterena and Herrera were people with different educational backgrounds and from different eras. Herrera lived in a period when the United States and Europe embraced biology as a new science. In its full constitutional process Herrera was attentive to the arrival of new theories, as can be seen in his work (1904). He received Darwinism directly; he confronted its opponents; he joined C. Bernard in arguing on the cellular theory and on problems posed by heredity. Although Herrera inherited the tradition of Natural History from his father, he soon broke from it (1897), foreshadowing his later position towards a general biology, a fact that can be seen in the transformation of the chair of Natural History at the Normal School into a chair of Biology (1902). With Herrera, there was an attempt to move biology beyond the museum inasmuch as his idea of biology was not seen as a by-product of natural history, but a rupture with it. Towards the end of the 19th century, research elds in the United States developed in embryology, physiology, ecology, animal behavior and genetics, representing several of the specialty areas of biology; these became clearly demarcated by the early 20th century,
50 Felix, 1912 In: Ledesma-Mateos and Lazcano, 2000, pp. 151171. 51 See Ram rez, 1922.

304

ISMAEL LEDESMA-MATEOS AND ANA BARAHONA

while natural history stayed alive.52 The establishment of the Institute of Biology in Mexico could have promoted the return to the museum without the coexistence of the Natural History tradition with an emerging biology. On the contrary, Ochoterena began his activity several years later, as an autodidact, practicing botany from a naturalistic taxonomic perspective. Later on, he became active as a histologist and cytologist, initially under Herrera at the DEB. Ochoterena was quick to assimilate the inuence of a much more consolidated foreign biology, with a higher certitude and to develop research more attached to the morphological and descriptive tradition, contrary to Herrera. When Ochoterena took charge of the Institute of Biology, he also assumed control of biology teaching at the Philosophy and Literature Faculty, and later 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 the teachers. 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 sufces to analyze the list of the topics in the rst theses for Bachelors, Masters and Doctorate degrees carried out at the Philosophy and Literature Faculty, later moved to the new Sciences Faculty, to perceive the direction taken by biological studies. Taking into account the rst years during which the Masters degree in Biology was taught, from 1931 to 1943, 39.28% of the theses completed focused on descriptive zoology, including histological works; 32.14% to systematic botany and plant histology and 14.28% to themes of a medical character (pharmacology, hematology and biostatistics). Later, when Masters degree courses became Bachelors degree courses during the rst ve years of graduation between 1947 and 1951, 35.7% of the theses were written about medical topics (hematology, clinic chemistry, pharmacology and medical ethnozoology); 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, physiology of metamorphosis).53 In UNAM between 1938 and 1943 there were only four doctoral theses in biology. If the titles of each one of the theses are reviewed (Bachelors, Masters and Doctoral) one can perceive the weight of the 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 Insti52 Benson says that Academic biology emerged as a byproduct of the new research objectives and research methods in Natural History, Benson, 1998, p. 77. 53 Ledesma-Mateos et al. (forthcoming).

THE INSTITUTIONALIZATION OF BIOLOGY IN MEXICO

305

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 theses and, thereby, their orientation is the same.

Conclusions In this work we have shown how biology emerged and how it was institutionalized at the beginning of the 20th century in Mexico. We can trace the beginning of biology in Mexico to 1911 where for the rst time, the opportunity of becoming a professor in natural sciences was offered at the Escuela Nacional de Altos Estudios (National School of Higher Studies), although in 15 years nobody graduated from this professional program. Those who wanted 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 beginning of this discipline in Mexico, and thus leading to the formation of a specic discourse. This process, too, was inuenced by the political environment of the time in which the revolutionary conict (19101917) and then, the institutionalization of the Revolution (1929), motivated academic groups to look for better places to develop their activities. Agricultural thought was shifted toward medical thought, and control of biology returned to a community that had been previously consolidated. It was impossible to think of an autonomous biology that shifted away from medical control. The traditions of the National Medical Institute were too strong to wipe away, and with the disappearance of the Biological Studies Direction it recovered its historical place. Thus, a new Biology Institute (UNAM), which had a well-dened research program and was closely linked to the medical community, emerged to assume the demarcations imposed by the Mexicos solid naturalistic tradition. The conict between Herrera and Ochoterena was not only due to the existence of two different conceptions of biology, both as a science and as a practice, but also to the fact that Herrera and Ochoterena had different discourses that were incommensurable, not only linguistically, but also socioprofessionally. In other words, they had different links to inuential groups related to education, having distinct political and socioprofessional interests. A key point was that Ochoterena was not only in contact with the local medical community, but he belonged to it. This community was by far the more consolidated at the time, while Herrera was more interested in maintaining contact with the international scientic community, earning a reputation as the proponent of Plasmogeny. This difference in point of view allowed

306

ISMAEL LEDESMA-MATEOS AND ANA BARAHONA

the shift of biology in Mexico toward medical topics, building a descriptive biology, and abandoning the more general and theoretical underpinnings of biology associated with evolutionary thought. We think the lack of an articulator of paradigms in general biology with any inuence on the national scientic community determined the exclusion of Herreras program, while Ochoterenas discourse was closely related to a well established medical community whos interests were eventually widely adopted.

Acknowledgements An earlier version of this paper was presented at the Annual Meeting of the ISHPSSB, in Seattle, WA. July 1997, and the V Latin American Congress of the history of science and technology in Rio de Janeiro Brazil, July 1998. We would like to thank Fabricio Gonzlez, David Gernandt, Rosaura Ramrez, Anglica Rueda, Edna Surez, the two anonymous reviewers and specially Keith Benson, for their comments on previous manuscripts. We also thank Eduardo Rosado Chauvet for style reading of the manuscript. This work was partially supported by the National University of Mexicos grant DGAPAPAPIIT 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 Histrico de la Secretara de Salalubridad y Asistencia (SSA). 1946. File 4646 of the Secretara de Instruccin Pblica y Bellas Artes, Seccin Universitaria: Hoja de servicios y otros documentos de Isaac Ochoterena. Beltrn, Enrique. 1968. Alfonso L. Herrera (18681968). Primera gura de la Biologa Mexicana. Revista de la Sociedad Mexicana de Historia Natural XXIX: 3792. 1972. Herrera, Alfonso Luis. Charles Coulston Guillispie (ed.), Dictionary of Scientic Biography, XV vols. Vol. VI. New York: Charles Scribners and Sons. 1977. Medio Siglo de Recuerdos de un Bilogo Mexicano. Mxico: Sociedad Mexicana de Historia Natural. 1978. Alfonso L. Herrera: un pionero mexicano en el campo de la biopoyesis. LazcanoAraujo Antonio and Barrera Alfredo. Benson, Keith R. 1998. From Museum Research to Laboratory Research: The Transformation 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.

THE INSTITUTIONALIZATION OF BIOLOGY IN MEXICO

307

Felix, Jules. 1912. La plasmogenia, la biologa y la mecnica universales. Trad. De I. Ochoterena. Boletn de la Alianza Cientca 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. Ocina Tipogrca de la Secretara 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 Scientic 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 conicto entre Alfonso L. Herrera e Isaac Ochoterena y la 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 y ENEP Iztacala, un estudio comparativo. FES Iztacala/UNAM, Mxico (forthcoming). Ledesma-Mateos, Ismael and Antonio Lazcano-Araujo (eds.). 2000. Obra Completa de Isaac Ochoterena, Vol. I. Obra cientca. Mxico: El Colegio Nacional. Mayr, Ernst. 1988. Toward a New Philosophy of Biology. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. 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-bibliograco 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.