↓ Skip to main content

“Enfant Terrible”: Lancelot Hogben’s Life and Work in the 1920s

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of the History of Biology, October 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#11 of 516)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (87th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
4 news outlets
twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
9 Mendeley
Title
“Enfant Terrible”: Lancelot Hogben’s Life and Work in the 1920s
Published in
Journal of the History of Biology, October 2015
DOI 10.1007/s10739-015-9427-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Steindór J. Erlingsson

Abstract

Until recently the British zoologist Lancelot Hogben (1895-1975) has usually appeared as a campaigning socialist, an anti-eugenicist or a popularizer of science in the literature. The focus has mainly been on Hogben after he became a professor of social biology at the London School of Economics in 1930. This paper focuses on Hogben's life in the 1920s. Early in the decade, while based in London, he focused on cytology, but in 1922, after moving to Edinburgh, he turned his focus on experimental zoology, first concentrating on vertebrate endocrinology and later moving over to the comparative physiology of invertebrate muscle. In the early 1920s Hogben played an active role in the development of experimental zoology in Britain. As such he was a fearless critic of evolutionary and metaphysical speculations. But in this period Hogben's career prospects were seriously hampered by his confrontational nature and serious depression. As a result he was forced to leave Britain in 1925. He first accepted a position in Canada and in the period 1927-1930 he was a professor of zoology in South Africa. This paper will also add crucial new material to James Tabery's recent discussion of the history behind Hogben's ideas about the interaction of heredity and environment in individual development. In addition a previously unknown Lamarckian controversy will be discussed.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 9 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 9 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 2 22%
Researcher 2 22%
Student > Master 1 11%
Professor 1 11%
Professor > Associate Professor 1 11%
Other 1 11%
Unknown 1 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Philosophy 1 11%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 11%
Psychology 1 11%
Other 1 11%
Unknown 3 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 35. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 09 January 2021.
All research outputs
#1,101,885
of 24,796,678 outputs
Outputs from Journal of the History of Biology
#11
of 516 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#16,190
of 284,835 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of the History of Biology
#2
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,796,678 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 516 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 284,835 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 6 of them.