Abstract
This year we recognize the 60th anniversary of the 25th Cold Spring Harbor Symposium, “Biological Clocks,” when 150 participants kindled the birth of modern circadian biology. Among the organizing committee members was Erwin Bünning, whose experimental subjects spanned the plant and animal kingdoms. He delivered the Opening Address, highlighting the slow 230-year progress in the field by such pioneers as De Mairan, De Candolle, Pfeffer, Kleinhoonte, and others; and set the charge for the meeting as “. . .The hardest question in our Symposium will undoubtedly be that of the clockwork itself. . .”, at one point lamenting that “. . .genetical approaches to the problem of endodiurnal oscillations have been but few.” While cautiously optimistic that the problem could be solved, he concluded his address with De Mairan’s admonition from 1729 (in French, here translated) that “the course of true Physics, which is Experimental, can only ever be exceedingly slow.” Yet, progress then proceeded so rapidly that in less than 50 years the 72nd Cold Spring Harbor Symposium, “Clocks and Rhythms” (2007), with 316 attending, included three who had participated in 1960 (Mike Menaker, Pat DeCoursey, and the late Woody Hastings); ten years later, circadian biology was recognized with the 2017 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine awarded to Jeff Hall, Michael Rosbash, and Mike Young.
Among the “fathers” of modern chronobiology – Bünning, Pittendrigh, and Aschoff – perhaps Bünning is the less well-known among North American researchers, even though he demonstrated that the “clock” was endogenous and innate, showed that its variation in period was heritable, and argued that its adaptive value included the responsiveness of organisms to photoperiod. To commemorate the 60th anniversary of “Biological Clocks,” this issue of JBR includes a Special Feature, “Bünning Remembered,” an eyewitness account of the professional and private Bünning by four of his former Ph.D. students. After a simple invitation from Carl Johnson and me, it took no further encouragement for Wolfgang Engelmann, Vera Hemleben, Willi Honegger, and Walter Mayer to compose a wonderful tribute to a founder of our field. I thank them for this invaluable gift to us all.
On the subject of generational change, with this first JBR issue of 2020, I have the pleasure of introducing our new (now 5th) Editor in Chief, Mary Harrington, Ph.D., Tippit Professor in the Life Sciences and Director of the Neuroscience Program at Smith College, Northampton, Massachusetts (I recently learned that Smith is the largest liberal arts women’s college in the United States). As I’m certain almost everyone knows, Mary has expertly elucidated aspects of the neuroanatomical and neurophysiological substrates for circadian clock entrainment, the effects of aging on circadian rhythmicity, and the health implications of circadian disruption, among other noted contributions; she is also a renowned educator providing courses and experiences in student-initiated discovery-based science. And especially fitting is that Mary earned her Ph.D. at Dalhousie University under the supervision of Ben Rusak, JBR’s inaugural (1986 – 1994) Editor in Chief.
It has been a privilege to serve the Society for Research on Biological Rhythms as JBR’s Editor in Chief over the past 6 years. I am indebted to Dave Weaver, Deputy Editor, for his good cheer, encyclopedic knowledge, and wisdom; JBR’s expert Advisory and Editorial Board members; and the host of article authors and ad hoc referees who have filled our pages with great science. And it is clear that JBR will continue to serve our future scientific community (and the public) with authoritative content. Consider this: the number of full-text downloads averaged 64,309 (± 2,900, S.E.M.) per year from 2014 – 2018; last year, that number nearly tripled, to 184,376, fueled largely by activity from China, India, Japan, and Brazil. So the next (international) generation of chronobiologists is already here!