HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by EUGENE COPELAND, D. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by EUGENE COPELAND, D.

Origins of cell biology in the United States

Tulane University, New Orleans, Louisiana, and Marine Biological Laboratory, Woods Hole, Massachusetts, USA

¹Correspondence: 41 Fern Lane, Woods Hole, MA 02543-1111, USA.

	INTRODUCTION

TOP INTRODUCTION INTERNATIONAL ASPECTS TISSUE CULTURE ASSOCIATION NIH STUDY SECTION OPERATION INSTITUTES FOR CELL BIOLOGY JOURNAL FOR CELL BIOLOGY AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR CELL... NSF COUSIN ACTIVITIES

 
THEREIS NOTHING unusually significant or important associated with the words ‘cell’ or ‘biology’. Both have been around for a long time with clearly understood meanings. However, the phrase ‘cell biology’ as used in this discussion relates to the evolution of a discipline that has recently achieved recognition by scientific societies, granting agencies, and biological politics in general. Particular emphasis is given to the influence of Keith Roberts Porter in the following events.

	INTERNATIONAL ASPECTS

TOP INTRODUCTION INTERNATIONAL ASPECTS TISSUE CULTURE ASSOCIATION NIH STUDY SECTION OPERATION INSTITUTES FOR CELL BIOLOGY JOURNAL FOR CELL BIOLOGY AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR CELL... NSF COUSIN ACTIVITIES

 
The origin of the term ‘cell biology’ per se would be difficult or impossible to trace. Its first use as a designation of an identifiable area of biology probably occurred shortly after World War II when Caspersson, Brachet, Runstrom, and others were instrumental in forming the International Society for Cell Biology as part of the International Union of Biological Sciences (IUBS). This society, though it had members from the U.S., did not gain great prominence. There was, however, a U.S. National Committee (USNC) of the IUBS. At its second annual meeting (6 April 1959 at the National Academy of Sciences), the USNC resolved that it "considers highly desirable the establishment of a national society of cell biology to act as a national representative of the International Society for Cell Biology." This resolution was transmitted to the president of the Tissue Culture Association, Morgan Harris, with the feeling that the group might best serve as a base for formation of the new society. A year later, at the third annual meeting of the USNC (3 June 1960), it was recognized that a formal affiliation between a U.S. cell biology society and the IUBS would not be likely. In the interim, under the leadership of Keith Porter, a group of cell biologists met several times in New York and had established a provisional council for the purpose of organizing a society for cell biology. The USNC of the IUBS then graciously passed a resolution commending the action to form a new society. (The resolution passed with one dissenting vote, probably Dr. Thiman, who expressed regret at the formation of a new independent society. He had hoped rather for a federation of existing societies). Montrose Moses, who was an observer at the IUBS meeting, carried the resolution back to the provisional council and recommended that the liaison should be maintained between the two groups.

	TISSUE CULTURE ASSOCIATION

TOP INTRODUCTION INTERNATIONAL ASPECTS TISSUE CULTURE ASSOCIATION NIH STUDY SECTION OPERATION INSTITUTES FOR CELL BIOLOGY JOURNAL FOR CELL BIOLOGY AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR CELL... NSF COUSIN ACTIVITIES

 
The Tissue Culture Association deserves recognition because there was a major overlap of scientists in the two groups. Also, the first electron microscope developments by Claude, Murphy, Porter, Palade, and others were evolved from tissue culture techniques.

In November 1946, at Hershey, Pa., a conference on in vitro problems was organized by Albert Claude for the Physiology Panel of the Committee on Growth of the National Research Council (NRC). (This committee administered the sizeable research funds of the American Cancer Society.) Ross G. Harrison gave the keynote address. By preceding correspondence and conversations during that meeting, Keith Porter collected a splinter group of 34 like-minded scientists to discuss the primary problem of lack of standards for the preparation of media tissue culture. At that time there was no mention of collation of tissue culture techniques. Each laboratory had its own recipe for preparing media (sometimes secret) that were developed empirically by trial and error for their particular needs, sometimes solved by adding a modicum of magic chick embryo extract. Much time was wasted washing glassware, sterilization, etc. At that informal meeting, Dale Coman suggested that Keith Porter be president of a new organization. Porter in turn appointed Dale Coman as vice president. Margaret Murray agreed to be secretary, and Duncan Hetherington became treasurer. Because of the declared need for standardized media, Tissue Culture Commission was chosen as the name, keeping in mind the successful Commission on Biological Stains organized by H. J. Conn. With the adoption of a constitution and increased committee activity, the name was changed to Tissue Culture Association circa 1948.

Things progressed rapidly. During 1948–1950, room was provided for a media testing and standardization laboratory under Porter’s supervision in the close-by Sloan-Kettering Institute by Director C. P. Rhoads (also chairman of the Committee on Growth, NRC). Harry Eagle, director of the National Cancer Institute, provided material and personnel support for the lab. Space in the Rockefeller was refused because the director, Herbert Gasser, did not want to get involved in possible for-profit research. Porter then attracted the interest of two commercial labs, Microbiological Associates and Difco. By 1949, nine media certified by the Tissue Culture Association were available, three from the former and six from the latter. Tremendously beneficial to the science was Margaret Murray’s dedication to the development of a tissue culture bibliography, cross-indexed by subject. Her first two volumes in 1950 contained 86,000 entries.

Another important development was the establishment of summer tissue culture technique courses. The first, in 1948, was held in Raymond Parker’s tissue culture lab in Toronto, with sixteen students including Harry Eagle and Don Fawcett. According to Porter, Parker became somewhat annoyed by possible contaminations brought in by neophytes. The succeeding year the course was moved to Cooperstown into a space provided by the Mary Imogene Bassett Hospital. The hospital had no interest in tissue culture per se but welcomed the excitement. A good working relationship quickly developed. Porter reported many "fabulous meetings."

The above narrative depicts the tremendous explosion of tissue culture science during the period of 1946–1950 with Porter being a prominent instigator. A review of all personalities involved also explains why the USNC of the IUBS saw fit to recommend that the Tissue Culture Association was a logical base for formation of a U.S. Cell Biology Society. The suggestion was received with definite mixed feelings by the association. After considerable discussion and expression of strong opinion, the proposal was declined primarily on the basis that the more broad potentials of cell biology would dilute and subvert the more clearly defined objectives of the Tissue Culture Association. The decision proved beneficial to both groups.

	NIH STUDY SECTION OPERATION

TOP INTRODUCTION INTERNATIONAL ASPECTS TISSUE CULTURE ASSOCIATION NIH STUDY SECTION OPERATION INSTITUTES FOR CELL BIOLOGY JOURNAL FOR CELL BIOLOGY AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR CELL... NSF COUSIN ACTIVITIES

 
During the period 1953–1956, Malcolm Ray and I were working as professional associates in the Medical Sciences Division of the NRC. Our responsibility was the Committee on Growth, which handled the research grant funds of the American Cancer Society. These were sizable, important research funds administered through several panels (Physiology, etc.) Unfortunately, the American Cancer Society dropped its contract with the NRC and moved its granting activities to an in-house group of experts in New York. Both Malcolm and I migrated to NIH. There I became executive secretary of the Morphology and Genetics Study Section in the Division of Research Grants (DRG). The workload became heavy enough in 1958 to force splitting the study section in two. Kay Wilson became executive secretary for Genetics, and I retained Morphology. The latter section lived only a few days. With permission of Ernest Allen, director of DRG, I changed the name to Cell Biology. Operations remained the same. Most of the following relates to the earlier section. Committee membership rotated, but for the period under immediate discussion, the following names can be mentioned: Don Costello, Don Fawcett, Keith Porter, Hans Ris, Stan Bennett, Folk Skoog, Elmer Butler, Ernst Scharrer, Hewson Swift, and Dale Coman (Fig. 1 ). C. P. (Pete) Oliver was chairman during most of this time. At the end of his tenure, he chaired the first meeting of the new Cell Biology Study Section on 27 September 1958. Elmer Butler became chairman for meetings after that.

View larger version (30K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Figure 1. At the meetings of the Cell Biology Study Section, Dale Coman had the habit of sketching wild animals on his notepad. Here is his rendition of a hawk.

It is always interesting to connect names to historical events. The U.S. Public Health Service (USPHS) was originated to care for the health of our U.S. seamen and to guard ports against the influx of possible diseases. The USPH hospitals are called Marine Hospitals. The National Institute of Health (singular) arose later within the USPHS to conduct surveys and study diseases. Gradually, an intramural research program developed. After World War II, the Office of Naval Research closed down its research program (headed by Orr Reynolds). A considerable residual sun was offered to Dr. Parran, surgeon general, USPHS, to be used in some way to promote research. The proposal percolated down through several administrative layers, ending up with Cassius J. Van Slyke, then associate director of NIH (succeeded by James Shannon, director). He circulated an absolutely naive letter to academic institutions asking if they could use some money for research purposes. A deluge of requests descended on him sufficient to attract the attention of Congress. In retrospect, his letter was not so naive because Congress within a few years was awarding almost embarrassingly generous funds that at times far exceeded those recommended by the Administration. Two influential promoters were Senator Hill and Congressman Fogarty.

Ernest M. Allen organized and became the first director of the DRG located in an old World War II temporary building, T-6, on the NIH campus. Ernest was one of a kind, bordering on true genius. He graduated from Emory University and attained a Masters degree in French. This was in the midst of the almost forgotten Depression. He then became involved in one of Franklin D. Roosevelt’s programs, the National Youth Administration. There his flair for administration caught the attention of a friend of FDR and an influential Democrat, Boisfeuillet Jones (called ‘Bo’ Jones by most and ‘Buffalo’ Jones by a few). With Jones as a mentor, Allen ended up at NIH. His intelligence and natural southern charm defused many tense situations. Further, he did not operate in a vacuum. Working closely with him as deputy was Dale Lindsay, M.D., a career USPHS officer and Berwin (Bert) Cole, chief of the Project Review Branch, DRG. This branch had the important task of reviewing all NIH grant applications and assigning them to study sections for evaluation (plus a priority score) and to the councils of appropriate institutes for program funding. By this method, peer review was isolated from the often political program decisions. The councils, in addition to scientists, had lay members such as Mrs. Mary Lasker, who had considerable political clout. Many pressures were involved. Fortunate to his mission, Bert was one of the most ethical persons I have known. He eventually became an associate commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration before reaching retirement.

	INSTITUTES FOR CELL BIOLOGY

TOP INTRODUCTION INTERNATIONAL ASPECTS TISSUE CULTURE ASSOCIATION NIH STUDY SECTION OPERATION INSTITUTES FOR CELL BIOLOGY JOURNAL FOR CELL BIOLOGY AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR CELL... NSF COUSIN ACTIVITIES

 
The primary duty of the study sections was to evaluate each grant application and assign a priority score. In addition to the primary duty, each study section was to be alert to detect new scientific needs that might occur within their purview. For the latter purpose, each study section had a ‘chairman’s grant’, an open-end source of funds doled out by someone in the director’s office as needed. These funds covered project site visits to investigate applications to see if, for example, they had realistic back-up support for the home institution. The funds could also be used for more or less ad hoc meetings of small groups of scientists to discuss a new scientific idea or problem.

In 1957–1958, the Morphology and Genetics Study Section and the new Cell Biology Study Section at their triennial meetings intermittently discussed the desirability of establishing block-type research support for groups of investigators working on the increasingly complex studies of the cell. They hoped to obtain the synergistic effect of interdisciplinary approaches within a group and at the same time decrease the administrative demands of dealing with individual projects. Central to the idea was the sharing of use of major equipment such as electron microscopes. Keith Porter, Don Fawcett, and Dale Coman in particular were strong proponents.

Finally, using money from the chairman’s grant, Porter and I were authorized to visit some of the more active national institutions in order to ask their opinions. The responses were, predictably, positive and included helpful suggestions. Ernest Allen, director of DRG, had kept a sympathetic eye on our efforts. He immediately circulated a long memo (six pages) to all the National Advisory Councils and all study sections, dated 24 October 1958 and entitled "Recommendation of the Cell Biology Study Section for Special Programming in Cell Biology." It contained a recommendation from the study section for the establishment of a specific program, called University Laboratories in Cell Biology, funded and operated within existing NIH grant framework. A first draft of the proposal was prepared by an ad hoc group with Keith Porter (chairman), Clifford Grobstein, Heinz Herrmann, Daniel Mazia, Ernst Scharrer, Van Potter, and Herbert Taylor. The final draft was prepared by a formal study section subcommittee composed of C. P. Oliver (chairman), Elmer Butler, Don Costello, Don Fawcett, Keith Porter, and Ernst Scharrer. The final document was approved at the section meeting on 27 September 1958 and forwarded to Ernst Allen. The proposal created quite a stir at NIH but was eventually talked to a quiet death. It did not neatly fit into the existing granting framework, and, equally important, the concept of large project grants was not yet fully recognized. However, the effort paid big dividends because the term ‘cell biology’ then became well recognized as denoting a discipline.

	JOURNAL FOR CELL BIOLOGY

TOP INTRODUCTION INTERNATIONAL ASPECTS TISSUE CULTURE ASSOCIATION NIH STUDY SECTION OPERATION INSTITUTES FOR CELL BIOLOGY JOURNAL FOR CELL BIOLOGY AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR CELL... NSF COUSIN ACTIVITIES

 
In another step to popularize the name ‘cell biology’, Porter, as editor of the Journal of Biophysical and Biochemical Cytology, published by Rockefeller, changed the name to Journal for Cell Biology. The new president of Rockefeller, Detlev Bronk, objected to usurping the name of an already recognized journal but finally gave permission, and the first issue of the new journal appeared as volume 11, January 1962.

	AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR CELL BIOLOGY

TOP INTRODUCTION INTERNATIONAL ASPECTS TISSUE CULTURE ASSOCIATION NIH STUDY SECTION OPERATION INSTITUTES FOR CELL BIOLOGY JOURNAL FOR CELL BIOLOGY AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR CELL... NSF COUSIN ACTIVITIES

 
Using funds from the chairman’s grant of the Cell Biology Study Section, NIH, a group of interested biologist met at the Rockefeller University in New York on 9 January and again on 28 May 1960 and established themselves as a provisional council for the formation of the American Society for Cell Biology. The council then appointed an executive committee to handle the details. The executive committee consisted of Don Fawcett, Morgan Harris, Montrose Moses (secretary), Keith Porter (chairman), Hans Ris, Hewson Swift, and Herbert Taylor. The committee met at the Rockefeller University 18 July 1960 and agreed that the first meeting of the new society should be at the centrally located city of Chicago. In March 1961, the National Advisory Health Council of the National Institutes of Health awarded funds to Hewson Swift as principal investigator and Keith Porter as coprincipal investigator for project RG-8554, First Meeting of American Society for Cell Biology. The meeting was held 2–4 November 1961 at the Edgewater Beach Hotel, Chicago. Hewson Swift was chairman of the General Program Committee. The program included three symposia: Cell Continuity (Herbert Stern, chair), Cell Diversification (Heinz Herrmann, chair), and Characteristics of Cell Interfaces (A. K. Solomon, chair). Officers elected were Don Fawcett, president; Alex Novikoff, president-elect; Montrose Moses, secretary; and Hans Ris, treasurer.

	NSF COUSIN ACTIVITIES

TOP INTRODUCTION INTERNATIONAL ASPECTS TISSUE CULTURE ASSOCIATION NIH STUDY SECTION OPERATION INSTITUTES FOR CELL BIOLOGY JOURNAL FOR CELL BIOLOGY AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR CELL... NSF COUSIN ACTIVITIES

 
Because of the rapid changes occurring in the biological sciences, it was quite natural that the National Science Foundation would also recognize the need for revised methods of grant support. In 1953 it established a program in molecular biology that flourished quite well. Cell biology was not neglected, however, having a number of advisory groups including panels for developmental biology, genetics, and for human cell biology. In my correspondence with Herman L. Lewis (head, Cellular Biology Section, NSF, 23 November 1971), he stated that the barrier between molecular and cell biology, if indeed a real one, was disappearing. In recent months I have corresponded with Margaret Henkart, director of the Division of Molecular and Cellular Biology, NSF. Many academic departments now use the joint title, so the terms are indeed compatible.

	ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

 
A major share of the above discussion is derived from my own personal knowledge of events amplified by extensive conversations and correspondence with Keith Porter. Details of some of the earlier history of NIH came from Berwin A. Cole. One very memorable moment occurred when the study section, because of scheduling difficulties, was meeting one weekend in a small conference room in the Clinical Center of the NIH campus. Dale Coman happened to be seated next to Don Fawcett, M.D., when Dale collapsed with a heart attack. Fortunately, Luther Terry, director of the Heart Institute (and future surgeon general, USPHS) was in his office at the Clinic. Fast work. Complete success. The indispensable ‘super secretary’ for the study section was Alma Simons, who had already retired from several government positions but still worked because she enjoyed it. She was quite wealthy, and the study section members were delighted to have her meet them at the airport with her Cadillac. Keith Roberts Porter died May 2, 1997, and is interred in his native Nova Scotia with his wife, Elizabeth.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				C.-R. Yang, S.-L. Hsieh, C.-M. Teng, F.-M. Ho, W.-L. Su, and W.-W. Lin Soluble Decoy Receptor 3 Induces Angiogenesis by Neutralization of TL1A, a Cytokine Belonging to Tumor Necrosis Factor Superfamily and Exhibiting Angiostatic Action Cancer Res., February 1, 2004; 64(3): 1122 - 1129. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				Y. Oshima, C. Shukunami, J. Honda, K. Nishida, F. Tashiro, J.-i. Miyazaki, Y. Hiraki, and Y. Tano Expression and Localization of Tenomodulin, a Transmembrane Type Chondromodulin-I-Related Angiogenesis Inhibitor, in Mouse Eyes Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci., May 1, 2003; 44(5): 1814 - 1823. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. Mukhopadhyay, J. Ni, Y. Zhai, G.-L. Yu, and B. B. Aggarwal Identification and Characterization of a Novel Cytokine, THANK, a TNF Homologue That Activates Apoptosis, Nuclear Factor-kappa B, and c-Jun NH2-Terminal Kinase J. Biol. Chem., June 4, 1999; 274(23): 15978 - 15981. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M.-C. Chen, T.-L. Hsu, T.-Y. Luh, and S.-L. Hsieh Overexpression of Bcl-2 Enhances LIGHT- and Interferon-gamma -mediated Apoptosis in Hep3BT2 Cells J. Biol. Chem., December 1, 2000; 275(49): 38794 - 38801. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This Article Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by EUGENE COPELAND, D. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by EUGENE COPELAND, D.