John B Wallingford is a professor at the University of Texas at Austin. John has also written various pieces on the history and philosophy of developmental biology. We caught up with him to discuss his essay ‘Aristotle, Buddhist scripture and embryology in ancient Mexico: building inclusion by re-thinking what counts as the history of developmental biology’. You can read the essay here.
What made you look beyond the commonly acknowledged Western perspective in the history of developmental biology? What initially sparked your interest?
Science history has been a hobby of mine since high school, and this grew into a deep interest in the history of developmental biology as my career advanced. My curiosity about non-Western history grew from my “philosophical” considerations of the state of the field, which I laid out in a piece called “We are All Developmental Biologists.” (Dev. Cell, 2019).
My contention in that piece was that there is a fundamental wonder around the embryo that is both ancient and universal. An obvious example is the talk of embryos in Western Scriptures. Another is that anyone who has worried about a pregnant friend has wondered about an embryo. Then, I realized, if that contention is true, that developmental biology is universal, then of course I had to wonder: Where is the non-European Dev. Biol. history? It had to be there! So, I just went looking. And I found some.
It is pretty fascinating to think that religious textbooks of the time offered a much more accurate depiction of embryology than scientific literature. How do you think these religious and philosophical texts managed to convey such detailed biological insights?
I think the important thing here isn’t what was happening at the time, but what has happened since then. When these texts were written, there was no such thing as “science,” at least not as anything that was distinct from what we today call philosophy or religion. So, all these writers were of a piece, curious folks wondering about embryos. But in the ensuing centuries, it’s mostly been scholars of religion that have found and examined these texts.
And, do you think these ancient Asian texts might not have received much attention among the academicians of the time because of their association with religious thought than scientific inquiry?
That’s possible of course, but honestly, I have no idea! And it’s critical that people understand that I am not a trained historian or any other kind of related expert. I feel pretty comfortable with explaining the “what” on these topics because I’m simply relaying what I’ve read, either translations of the works or -more often- other scholars’ interpretations. But I am not really able to speak to the “why.
The article is extensively researched, and it is clear that you have put in a lot of effort to dig up the history of embryological thinking. I can’t help but wonder— how did you manage to provide such an in-depth look into this topic while being a full-time scientist?
Well, like I said, the history stuff has been a hobby for a long time, so it’s something I pursue for fun. I also think it’s really important, so I make time to do it.
As for actually getting it done, it’s no different from any other project among the many a scientist juggles. I manage my time very carefully and I try to be realistic about my expectations. I think that article took shape over something like three years.
And I’ve written a good deal about my thoughts on being an effective writer in a series of blog posts on The Node under the hashtag #devbiolwriteclub (https://thenode.biologists.com/developmental-biology-write-club-post-1/discussion/). It’s all about making an effort to become a writer, not just writing when you have to. Once you see writing as a craft that you need to master, then you just have to put in the work, intentionally, day in and day out. I’ve done this for decades, so I write very quickly now.
Finally, it helps that I’m a well-established PI! I’ve got a great lab full of talented people, including some very senior scientists, so I no longer need to be absolutely on top of every detail in the lab every day. And those folks put up with my obsession, I think, because it keeps me out of the lab so I can’t bother them!
I also read some of your other popular science articles—first, brilliant and witty writing! Second, what motivates you to explore and write about broader topics in developmental biology, especially those with cultural and social implications?
Thanks! I’m lucky in that my dad is a master storyteller and my mom was a scholar. Writing has been a passion of mine since I was very young. So, I come by the story part and the writing part quite naturally. And I’ve always been kind of squishy for a scientist. I hate math, I’ve never built anything. It’s the bigger-picture thinking part of science that always made more sense to me. It helps, too, that my mother was also an Episcopal priest!
While many are beginning to recognize the relevance of history and philosophy of science, these perspectives still aren’t emphasized much in general scientific discussions. Do you think it’s time we start seeing science from these lenses as well? And how does one go about this, really? Perhaps, these topics could be introduced in the curricula?
Yes. I am frankly terrified that as STEM education has evolved, it’s begun to exclude essentially all of the humanities. I meet students now who have never read a play or a poem in their university classes. I think this is terrible. Without the humanities, there’s no humanity. It’s that simple. I have no idea how to change this, but I can do my small part: I make my graduate cell biology course read philosophy and history, and we go on an art walk every year. They love it.
Your article points out many non-eurocentric contributions to scientific thinking in the ancient times. How can the history of science become more inclusive of these perspectives?
That, of course, is a huge question. And, of course, I don’t have the answer. But I think it helps when everyone is willing and able to tell their story, and everyone is willing and able to listen.
