Podcast Episode Summary

Podcast: New Books Network
Episode: Jim Endersby, The Arrival of the Fittest: Biology's Imaginary Futures, 1900-1935 (University of Chicago Press, 2025)
Host: Moser Hajizadeh
Guest: Professor Jim Endersby
Release Date: January 7, 2026

Overview

In this episode, host Moser Hajizadeh interviews Professor Jim Endersby about his book The Arrival of the Fittest: Biology’s Imaginary Futures, 1900–1935. The discussion explores how early 20th-century biological theories—especially mutation theory—inspired cultural, political, and literary imaginaries about the future. Endersby offers an interdisciplinary perspective on how scientific ideas escaped the laboratory and ignited debates about technology, utopias, gender, politics, and the very definition of “nature.”

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Jim Endersby's Background and the Genesis of the Book

[03:02–10:00]

• Endersby’s early interest in both science and the humanities, deterred by animal dissection, led him from science to humanities, and eventually to the history and philosophy of science.
• Influences include popular science writers (notably Stephen Jay Gould), and exposure to a diverse academic environment at the University of Sussex, emphasizing "history from the bottom up" and cultural perspectives.
• First book A Guinea Pig’s History of Biology foregrounded “loser organisms”—species central to failed or forgotten scientific theories—and focused on science as collective labor rather than a triumph of lone geniuses.
• The new book originated from researching the evening primrose (Oenothera lamarckiana)—once central to a now-defunct "mutation theory"—and discovering its surprising cultural afterlife via sources like Charlotte Perkins Gilman's 1915 utopian novel Herland.
• Quote:
  "What happens to the science when it escapes from the laboratory, it escapes from the experts... and it becomes part of ordinary public conversations? And then what do people do with it?"
  —Jim Endersby [09:28]

2. Mutation Theory: Excitement and Cultural Impact

[12:30–18:44]

• Mutation theory (espoused by Hugo de Vries) offered an alternative to Darwin’s gradually accruing natural selection, positing that new species could appear suddenly via “mutation periods.”
• Public appeal: suggested evolution could be observed and even experimentally induced, foreshadowing dreams of genetic engineering.
• Promised that evolution could be sped up and controlled, capturing the imagination of the public and speculative writers.
• Quote:
  "New species appearing overnight... means we can start to kind of make new plants and eventually new animals, and maybe people begin to think even new kinds of people sort of to order. So this is the first glimpse of what we would now call genetic engineering."
  —Jim Endersby [15:46]

3. Biotopia: Experimental Evolution and Imagining the Future

[18:44–22:17]

• “Biotopia” coined by Endersby: utopian or dystopian visions where biology and technology transform nature—including human nature.
• Contrasts with traditional utopias: rather than accommodating the limits of unchangeable human nature, biotopias envision fundamentally altering nature itself.
• These utopias/dystopias proliferate in early 20th-century novels (Gilman, Huxley) and often display ambiguity regarding the desirability of such change.
• Quote:
  "Nature itself is deficient. It's not good enough...If we can improve other kinds of creatures through breeding and biological manipulation, maybe we can do the same with ourselves."
  —Jim Endersby [21:23]

4. Science Fiction Fandom and the Democratization of Expertise

[22:17–27:47]

• Growth of early science fiction fandom in the 1920s paralleled the spread of mutation-theory-inspired ideas.
• Readers not only consumed stories but judged their scientific plausibility and contributed their own works, blurring lines between experts and laypeople.
• Science fiction fandom exemplified how scientific ideas were reinterpreted, modified, and popularized outside academia—with “fans” creating new meanings and communities of expertise.
• Quote:
  "They make something of them...the fans decide what the thing means to them. And that seemed to me to capture... the agency of the public in terms of how we make sense of science."
  —Jim Endersby [25:14]

5. Science, Spirituality, and the Public Sphere

[27:47–30:54]

• Mutation and evolution theories were woven into spiritual movements such as Theosophy and “New Thought,” blending scientific concepts with ideas of cosmic/spiritual progress.
• Contrary to the familiar “conflict” narrative, science and spirituality often coexisted, with lay audiences fusing concepts creatively.
• Quote:
  "Actually, there is another story here...the spiritual fans of evolution, they take what they want from that theory, they graft it onto other bits and pieces...and they make something new out of it."
  —Jim Endersby [29:53]

6. The Case of Luther Burbank: Prophet, Scientist, Showman

[30:54–38:05]

• Luther Burbank, famed American plant breeder, was revered as both a scientific innovator and a quasi-mystic “seer.”
• Burbank’s methods—mass hybridization, ruthless culling, and new plant varieties—embodied the hopes and contradictions of biotopian thinking (progress vs. commercialism, altruism vs. profitability).
• His popular status reflected deep American anxieties about population, immigration, and feeding the world—issues still resonant today in debates on biotechnology and food security.
• Quote:
  "He's presented in public as being both a scientific man...but also as this kind of almost mystical figure...He's a mass of contradictions. And one of the things that writing about him made me realize was that he captures a lot of things that...exemplify baritopianism and give it a particularly American flavor."
  —Jim Endersby [31:35]

7. Literature, Optimism, Anxiety, and the Reception of Biological Futures

[38:05–44:45]

• Through writers like H.G. Wells and Edith Wharton, literature provided the main conduit for scientific ideas to reach mass audiences and shape public perceptions of the future.
• Literary visions oscillated from 19th-century pessimism (degeneration) to 20th-century optimism (controllable, perfectible futures through experimental biology).
• The “feedback loop”: writers interpret emerging scientific trends, fictionally elaborate them, and in turn inspire public and scientific imaginations.
• Quote:
  "Wells himself may not have changed. What has changed is biology itself... in the 19th century, heredity was always thought of in terms of a burden...by the 1920s, because of experimental evolution...it's this excitement and this enthusiasm and this optimism about the possibilities of the future."
  —Jim Endersby [41:30]

8. Biology, Socialism, and Revolutionary Change

[44:45–49:47]

• Socialist thinkers embraced mutation theory to justify both gradual and revolutionary change—mutation became a metaphor for swift, transformative social progress (“revolution”) vs. slow evolution (“reform”).
• Marx and Engels promoted “scientific socialism,” and mutation theory’s model of rapid leaps gave new justification for radical political strategies.
• Quote:
  "You can be scientific and revolutionary at the same time...If a plant, why not a society? And that leap from what is true of plants, is true of people, is one that's made over and over again by different thinkers in the 20th century."
  —Jim Endersby [47:33]

9. Feminism, Gender, and the Biotopian Imagination

[49:47–55:49]

• Utopian and early science fiction became favorite genres for feminist writers like Charlotte Perkins Gilman, who used biological ideas to challenge assumptions about “natural” gender roles.
• Herland and similar novels portrayed women mastering plant breeding and constructing societies freed from patriarchal constraints—both a critique and a vision of alternate futures.
• The early science fiction magazines, despite later exclusion, initially provided opportunities for women writers, some of whom addressed the limitations and potentials of science for shaping society.
• Quote:
  “There are a lot of women writing for those very early pulps in the 20s...their stories, I look at a few of them where they deal with biology and they deal with mutations...There’s a kind of skepticism about technology and science in some of their stories that is quite unusual in the early pulps.”
  —Jim Endersby [53:31]

10. Gendered Attitudes in Science and Science Fiction

[55:49–59:51]

• The brief early diversity of women in science fiction gave way to more exclusionary norms in the genre's so-called “Golden Age,” mirroring barriers faced by women in actual science.
• Representation of women in science fiction (as creators and characters) is crucial for inspiring future women scientists and writers, and for challenging gender norms in both fields.
• Quote:
  "It's interesting to track the relationship between the way women, when and how women do get to participate in science and the way they begin to participate in...science fiction. Because...One of the things that makes people want to be scientists is that they like science fiction when they're young."
  —Jim Endersby [57:35]

11. Relevance for Today: Lessons from the History of Science

[59:51–67:29]

• Understanding how scientific ideas leave the lab and circulate in society—subject to reinterpretation, skepticism, and creative adoption—offers useful lessons for modern debates (e.g., vaccine skepticism, climate change, genetic engineering).
• Dismissal of public mistrust as mere ignorance is unproductive; it is vital to listen and understand why communities adopt particular views of science.
• The concept of “nature” is a cultural construct—calls for deference to “the natural” are often incoherent, as all human behavior is shaped by conscious (or unconscious) “gardening” of our environment.
• Biotopian questions about managing biological resources and responsibility remain crucial:
  • “What kind of world do we want to live in and what kinds of responsibilities do we have for creating that world?”
• Quote:
  "We cannot take nature as a guide to a good life or how we should live. We need to decide these things for ourselves. And we need to put human values at the center of those conversations and take responsibility for the world around us."
  —Jim Endersby [63:41]

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On mutation theory’s promise:
  "[Mutation theory] is the first glimpse of what we would now call genetic engineering. At the time they called it experimental evolution." [15:42]

• On 'Biotopia':
  "Biotopia as opposed to bioutopia, because of that ambiguity. And I think...that nature itself is deficient. It's not good enough." [21:00]

• On democratized science and fandom:
  "The fans decide what the thing means to them...they kind of grab hold of it and make it their own." [25:22]

• On science and the public:
  "It is a mistake to just dismiss those people as ignorant and stupid without understanding why they have come to those conclusions..." [61:07]

• On nature as a cultural construction:
  "The idea we just put our faith in nature seems to me not to make any sense at all and actually to be abdicating a responsibility that...we have lumbered ourselves with." [65:40]

Timestamps for Important Segments

• Welcome and introductions: [01:55]
• Endersby’s background and formation of the book: [03:02–10:00]
• Mutation theory explained: [12:30–18:04]
• From mutation theory to 'biotopia': [18:44–22:17]
• Early science fiction fandom's role: [22:17–27:47]
• Science, spirituality, and syncretism: [27:47–30:54]
• Profile of Luther Burbank: [30:54–38:05]
• Literature’s influence and feedback with science: [38:05–44:45]
• Mutation theory and socialist/radical politics: [44:45–49:47]
• Feminist utopias and women's science fiction: [49:47–55:49]
• Gendered representation in science/science fiction: [55:49–59:51]
• Modern relevance, lessons for today: [59:51–67:29]

Closing Thoughts

Professor Endersby’s work is a sweeping exploration of how biology’s early 20th-century theories shaped—and were shaped by—wider cultural hopes and anxieties. From the lab to the pulps to politics, mutation theory and biotopian dreams questioned the limits of both nature and human agency. The book, and this conversation, urge us to consider not only what we hope biology will deliver, but also our responsibilities for imagining and creating futures—scientific and otherwise.