Paul Kammerer conducted experiments on amphibians and marine animals at the Vivarium, a research institute in Vienna, Austria, in the early twentieth century. Kammerer bred organisms in captivity, and he induced them to develop particular adaptations, which Kammerer claimed the organismss offspring would inherit. Kammerer argued that his results demonstrated the inheritance of acquired characteristics, or Lamarckian inheritance. The Lamarckian theory of inheritance posits that individuals transmit acquired traits to their offspring. Kammerer worked during a period in which scientists debated how variation between organisms and within species was caused, and how organisms could inherit that variation from their parents. Kammerer contended that the inheritance of acquired characteristics occurs during embryological development, but several scientists argued that he provided poor evidence for his claims.

Experiments conducted by Elizabeth Blackburn, Carol Greider, and Jack Szostak from 1982 to 1989 provided theories of how the ends of chromosomes, called telomeres, and the enzyme that repairs telomeres, called telomerase, worked. The experiments took place at the Sidney Farber Cancer Institute and at Harvard Medical School in Boston, Massachusetts, and at the University of California in Berkeley, California. For their research on telomeres and telomerase, Blackburn, Greider, and Szostak received the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 2009. Telomeres and telomerase affect the lifespan of mammalian cells and ensure that cells rapidly develop within developing embryos.

James William Kitching collected and studied fossils of dinosaurs and early humans in the twentieth century. He worked at the Bernard Price Institute for Paleontological Research in South Africa. During the fifty-three years he worked at the institute, Kitching spent eighteen of those in the field uncovering fossils. Kitching recovered fossils of early human ancestors, later called Australopithecines, as well as fossils of dinosaurs and ancient mammals. When he died in 2003, the Bernard Price Institute housed one of the largest fossil collections in the southern hemisphere. Kitching and his team had collected most of those fossils. Additionally, he helped discover Massospondylus embryos, the first dinosaur embryos ever recovered, which enabled scientists to examine dinosaurs before birth.

The Assisted Human Reproduction Act (AHR Act) is a piece of federal legislation passed by the Parliament of Canada. The Act came into force on 29 March 2004. Many sections of the Act were struck down following a 2010 Supreme Court of Canada ruling on its constitutionality. The AHR Act sets a legislative and regulatory framework for the use of reproductive technologies such as in vitro fertilization and related services including surrogacy and gamete donation. The Act also regulates research in Canada involving in vitro embryos. The AHR Act was the first law in Canada to regulate the use of reproductive technologies and related research. Most other Canadian policies on AHR rely on the Act and its provisions. By 2015, Canada was one of only a few countries worldwide to comprehensively address assisted human reproduction through policy.

In 2006, Kazutoshi Takahashi and Shinya Yamanaka reprogrammed mice fibroblast cells, which can produce only other fibroblast cells, to become pluripotent stem cells, which have the capacity to produce many different types of cells. Takahashi and Yamanaka also experimented with human cell cultures in 2007. Each worked at Kyoto University in Kyoto, Japan. They called the pluripotent stem cells that they produced induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) because they had induced the adult cells, called differentiated cells, to become pluripotent stem cells through genetic manipulation. Yamanaka received the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 2012, along with John Gurdon, as their work showed scientists how to reprogram mature cells to become pluripotent. Takahashi and Yamanaka's 2006 and 2007 experiments showed that scientists can prompt adult body cells to dedifferentiate, or lose specialized characteristics, and behave similarly to embryonic stem cells (ESCs).

Calls for changes in science education over the last several decades have contributed to a changing landscape of undergraduate life science education. As opposed to simply lecturing at students and expecting them to recite science facts, there has been a strong push to make systemic changes so that students not only know pertinent science content, but also walk away with critical science process skills. There have been suggestions to create environments that focus on goals such as evaluating scientific evidence and explanations, understanding the development of scientific knowledge, and participating in scientific practice and discourse. As a part of the call for increases in student participation in science practice, we’ve seen suggestions to increase student exposure to the tools, techniques, and published research within various science fields. The use of primary scientific literature in the classroom is documented as being a tool to introduce students to the nature of scientific reasoning, experimental design, and knowledge creation and transformation. Many of the current studies on primary scientific literature in undergraduate courses report on intensive course designs in which students interact with the material with very specific goals, as outlined by the authors and researchers. We know less about the practices that take place in typical undergraduate settings. This exploratory study looks at information provided by a national sample of faculty that alludes to what sort of practices are taking place and the reasoning for doing so. Through analysis of both closed-ended and open-ended survey questions we have found that faculty are engaging students with primary scientific literature for many reasons and in a variety of ways. We have also attempted to characterize the way in which faculty view the body of scientific literature, as members of the research community. We discuss the implications of faculty views on the utility and value of the body of scientific literature. We also argue that those perceptions inform how the material is used in the undergraduate classroom.