Der Bruch mit der humanitären Tradition: die Biologisierung der Ethik bei Ernst Haeckel und anderen Darwinisten seiner Zeit

techniques. Instead he emphasizes theoretical aspects of diverse views of the cell, and provides an exposition of the views of major contributors to the debate on structural units following Dutrochet. There are accounts of the ideas of Raspail, Muller, Schwann, Remak, and Kolliker as well as Virchow. Duchesneau traces a shift from an anti-vitalistic programme to Muller's emphasis on the living organism. A welcome feature of the book is the attempt to relate French and German cell biology, so correcting the distortions of earlier German accounts of the history of cell biology as a German national achievement. Yet in relying on a textual exposition, no attempt is made to assess the transmission and influence of the various theories, to locate cellular research in the various institutional settings, or to consider the interaction between observational techniques and theories. Archival sources and editions of letters have not been used. Scientific innovations seem to have taken place in a cultural and social vacuum with no reference being made to how, for example, Raspail and Virchow related their political radicalism to their scientific endeavours. The neglect of these broader dimensions means that, despite the author's erudition, a definitive history of the origins and early years of cell theory has yet to be written. The Nazis (and certain historians of Nazism) claimed that the German Darwinist Ernst Haeckel (1834-1919) was a precursor of their belief in racial struggle, the unity of man and nature, and a eugenically-based morality. Others have pointed out that Haeckel was a popular inspiration for liberals, socialists, feminists, and pacifists. In this conflict, Haeckel's substantial scientific achievements in embryology have been overlooked. A balanced scholarly reconstruction of the development of Haeckel's opinions on social and ethical issues is also long overdue. In an attractively-produced monograph, Sandmann has attempted to analyse Haeckel's voluminous publications. The results are not wholly convincing. Sandmann claims that from his youth Haeckel was a mechanistic materialist, who by 1870 had formulated an inhumane creed of Social Darwinism; for example, he advocated euthanasia of babies with birth defects and socio-biological rationales for executing murderers. Haeckel is seen as elaborating an anti-Christian and naturalistic code of scientific ethics in his writings. Unfortunately, Sandmann's grasp of historical methodology is poor. His account is a highly selective "scissors and paste" compilation of quotations suiting his thesis. No attempt is made to consider other strands of Haeckel's thinking, or his great changes …