de Chadarevian, 1996, Laboratory science versus country-house experiments

This article traces an historical debate between Darwin and botanist Julius Sachs regarding Darwin’s findings in botanical experiments, which were published in his book, The Power of Movement in Plants. The article begins by providing a history of the relationship between the two men, then describes Darwin's experiments, his findings, and Sachs’ heated dismissal of Darwin’s ideas.

It seems that Sachs had much respect for Darwin’s Origin of Species, and spoke well of him until Darwin printed findings from experiments that ran counter to Sachs’ results. The debate between the two was about root growth in plants. Darwin proposed that the tip of the root was sensitive to gravity, which ran counter to Sachs’ position, which was considered authoritative.
While Darwin took much care as he tread on Sachs’ toes, Sachs responded with rancor. Chadarevian focuses on the fact that Sachs did not argue with Darwin’s method or theory, but instead, he attacked Darwin’s skill and ability to carry out experiments.

Chadarevian points out that there are contradicting accounts of Darwin’s abilities as an experimenter. Many, like contemporary botanist Asa Gray admired Darwin’s work. They point to his remarkable powers of observation. Others, however, point out that he was carrying out precise measurements with imprecise measuring devices and seemed unaware of any issues.

The latter argument is fairly close to Sachs, who went on to argue that science could not be carried out in one’s country home, but rather required a formal laboratory. Though ultimately, Darwin’s theory about the tip of the root’s sensitivity to gravity prevailed, it only did so after formal experiments in a lab confirmed his results. In this sense, Chadarevian argues, Sachs ultimately triumphs.

I think what Cadarevian is getting at here is that this marks the transition from science as the business of gentlemen to science as a profession. Darwin was a gentleman scholar: a man of means who had the intelligence and leisure to study science. This tradition was exchanged for one in which a proper laboratory was needed to be a scientist. This professionalization of science was a major shift, but I think it was from one form of elitism to another.