Interestingly enough I'd argue that you can't (or shouldn't) learn[0] biology[1] without learning its history, or at least its modern history[2]. To learn that

Interestingly enough I'd argue that you can't (or shouldn't) learn[0] biology[1] without learning its history, or at least its modern history[2]. To learn that Pasteur proved germ theory is irrelevant, but the who's and what's and why's of CRISPR and pre-CRISPR DNA modification would be hugely informative to the researcher. In psuedo-math terms the history adds a rough direction vector to the state-variable that is the 'state-of-the-art', which probably points in the direction what will become the 'state-of-the-art' tomorrow. [0]To an expert level, i.e. to create and advance new knowledge in the field. [1]Insert science here. [2]Roughly a decade or two worth of papers, by my entirely unscientific estimation