Search

Artificial insemination (AI) was the first conceptive technology to be widely used in agriculture. Whereas at the beginning of the twentieth century all cows in England and Wales were mated to bulls, by the end of the 1950s 60% conceived through artificial insemination. By then a national network of 'cattle breeding centres' brought AI within the reach of every farmer. In this paper I explore how artificial insemination, which had few supporters in the 1920s and 1930s, was transformed into an 'indispensable' method for reproducing cattle. I discuss the factors that made organised AI possible (but still negotiable and controversial), including changes in cultures of cattle breeding, novel State involvement in bovine reproduction, the rise of new 'animal breeding research' centres at Cambridge, Edinburgh and Reading universities, war preparations and central planning by the Milk Marketing Board (from 1933). I go on to show that the unprecedented focus on bovine reproduction set in motion by the AI centres effectively generated new networks of reproductive research, through these the 'biopower' of the farm was incorporated into the clinic. The example of AI shows that by combining the history of reproductive technology in agriculture and medicine we can give a richer account of modern reproduction.

Three scientific societies devoted to the study of reproduction were established in Britain, France and USA in the middle of the twentieth century by clinical, veterinary and agricultural scientists. The principal motivation for their establishment had been the study of sterility and fertility of people and livestock. There was also a wider perspective embracing other biologists interested in reproduction more generally. Knowledge disseminated through the societies' scientific meetings and publications would bear upon human and animal population problems as well as basic reproductive physiology and its applications. New journals dealing with reproductive physiology, having worldwide appeal, were established in Britain and USA. The financial resources of at least one of the societies and its journal are directed towards charitable functions, including financial support for travel to scientific meetings, for visits to particular laboratories, and for research in the short term, including that of undergraduates. Perhaps the example of the British society has given rise to others having a more specialised focus, as well as to the formation of the European Society for the Study of Human Reproduction and Embryology.

While cloning, stem cells, and regenerative medicine are often imagined in a futurial idiom--as expectations, hype, hope and promises--this article approaches the remaking of genealogy in such contexts from a historical route. Through a series of somewhat disparate historical connections linking Australian sheep to the development of clinical IVF and the cloning of Dolly at the Roslin Institute in Scotland in 1996, this article explores the linkages through which agriculture, embryology, and reproductive biomedicine are thickly intertwined. Key to this examination is not only the history of experimental sheep breeding, and its somewhat unexpectedly genealogical connections to (Australian) national identity ('wool in the veins'), but also the re-emergence of a distinctive frontier ethos in the context of assisted conception, and later human embryonic stem cell derivation. I have set this scene of genealogical interconnection against the criss-crossing traffic between Britain and Australia, and the wool trade, to emphasise the importance of global, as well as local, connections in the bloodlines of animals such as Dolly. In sum, this article examines the idea of the 'biological frontier' by exploring its histories as a means to offset the assumption that this frequently encountered idiom describes a future that is, or must be, by definition, unknown and unknowable.

In May 1912, reports on successful attempts at artificial insemination hit the German papers. Over the following months, the topic was taken up in medical lectures, in the debates of medical associations, and in medical journals. The technique--which had not much changed since the days of James Marion Sims--apparently triggered the imagination of scientists, medical doctors, journalists and authors. That artificial insemination met such interest, however, was not primarily due to its medical usefulness or proven success. Given that insemination with donor sperm was out of the question for most doctors and that ideas about the fertile period within the menstrual cycle were erroneous, contemporary attempts at insemination in humans hardly ever worked. Public interest in this topic rather reflects the desires and expectations which contemporaries associated with artificial insemination and with modern, scientific medicine. What appears to be a comparatively straight forward, low-tech operation today was imagined as a way or creating life artificially. Thus the topic was able to mobilise fears and expectations. The debate not only reflected contemporary beliefs about the possibilities and dangers of modern medicine, it also addressed the meaning of reproduction and infertility and the future of gender relations.

This paper provides a brief comparative overview of the development of the reproductive sciences especially in agriculture in the UK and the US. It begins with the establishment by F. H. A. Marshall in 1910 of the boundaries that framed the reproductive sciences as distinct from genetics and embryology. It then examines how and where the reproductive sciences were taken up in agricultural research settings, focusing on the differential development of US and UK institutions. The reproductive sciences were also pursued in medical and biological settings, and I discuss how the intersections among all three allowed the circulation of both ideas and scientists' careers. Across the twentieth century, scientific leadership in the reproductive sciences alternated between the UK and US, and these patterns are elucidated. I conclude with thoughts on future research that might emphasize the elaboration of industrialization processes in agriculture and new capacities to transform both reproductive processes and their products--life itself--as biopower comes to be more ambitiously understood as extending across all species.