Modern Theories of Development

"To observe and record for mankind" has long been the ideal of biologists and physicians. Noble as it may be, it ignores a fundamental requirement of all observation. Observation without knowledge is both futile and sterile; observation with knowledge is the stuff of science. It is clear that no observer then can know too much, yet there are in the field of biology innumerable workers who boast that they seek only facts, that they confine their work to direct observation. Without decrying the value of this, attention should be drawn to the inadequacy of description which does not spring from a rich background and a wide horizon. In the physical sciences this has long been recognized with the result that the development of theory has gone hand in hand with the ascertainment of fact; sometimes even preceding it. In biology, on the other hand, it has not been au fait to consider theory. There has been some justification for this, for much biological theorizing has come not from trained scientists but from a penumbra of "wishful thinkers". Too often biological theory has read into living things the prejudices and wish-fulfillments of minds of limited outlook. However, this not a valid criticism directed at the development of biological theory, but one of the many difficulties to be encountered. In Europe theoretical biology has been slowly attaining a dignity of its own. Many of the great biologists of the last hundred years have contributed important elements. The United States, on the other hand, has b,een a laggard in both the appreciation of and contribution to theoretical biology. Therefore, it is with pleasure that one picks up this introduction to theoretical biology by Ludwig von Bertalanffy, made available to English readers through the translation and adaptation of J. H. Woodger. Let it be said at the outset that this is an excellent critical survey of the methodology of biology and a no less important summary of the principal biological theories. In a section headed "The crisis in biology" the author makes a crucial and devastating criticism of the empirical investigator. "He [the empirical investigator] forgets in the first place, that a collection of facts, be it never so large, no more makes a science than a heap of bricks makes a house." This implies that order must be brought into the mass of accumulated data. To accomplish this then, the modern biologist must …