director of the chemical laboratory at the university for a quarter of a century, even
though the conditions were anything but favourable at the start. Nationalistic circles
had branded Staudinger a “traitor to his country” because of the dedicated appeals
he had made in 1917 to decide the outcome of the First World War by negotiation
rather than by fighting as Germany was certain to suffer a military defeat due to
“material inferiority” (see Sect. 1: “1881–1919”). Due to this, “serious misgivings
and even open protest were expressed by the (Freiburg, editor’s note) professors”
against Staudinger before his appointment [18, p. 228] – but for political reasons
and not because of his provocative macromolecule hypothesis. The Freiburg “dean
Friedrich Oltmanns (1860–1945, editor’s note) travelled to Zurich specifically to
meet Staudinger and take him to task personally and it took the latter a great deal of
effort to make it clear to Oltmanns and the other Freiburg colleagues that he was not
by any means the detractor of Germany which he was to a large extent considered to
be. Staudinger became a professor at Freiburg University in 1926 and was even
dean of the natural sciences faculty for a time, although not all of his colleagues
succeeded in overcoming their animosity against him” [18, pp. 228–229].
2.10 Reservations About “Gunk Chemistry”
Both Staudinger’s personal and professional reputations remained tarnished at first:
“The rejection of the concept of macromolecules by most organic chemists turned
into disdain at the end of the 1920s” [19, p. 253]. The opponents included the
already mentioned Heinrich Wieland, former holder of the Freiburg chair, a specialist for organic nitrogen compounds and winner of the 1927 Nobel Prize in
Chemistry. It is reported that Wieland gave Staudinger the following piece of
advice at the end of the 1920s: “My dear colleague, abandon the idea of giant
molecules, organic molecules with a molecular weight of more than 5,000 do not
exist. Purify your products, like rubber, and then they will crystallise and prove to
be low-molecular substances” (quoted in [19], p. 253; cf. [1], p. 79 and [11],
pp. 47–48).
This criticism of Staudinger was based on two associated presuppositions that
were themselves questionable:
• Premise A: Substances or substance blends in a non-crystalline state, such as
rubber and other resins, were not chemically pure. Such “gunk” was not something that deserved investigation from the outset, chemists were only supposed
to focus on pure, crystalline compounds – following possible extraction from the
sticky resins. Looked at from this point of view (“chemistry of pure substances”), not only the alleged giant molecules but also their supposed alternative, i.e. clusters (aggregates) of small molecules, disappeared into thin air
because both of them could only be found if the “gunk” in question was
inadequately purified, so that they were, strictly speaking, only pseudomaterials
(cf. [20], p. 12).
98
M. Weber and G. Deussing
though the conditions were anything but favourable at the start. Nationalistic circles
had branded Staudinger a “traitor to his country” because of the dedicated appeals
he had made in 1917 to decide the outcome of the First World War by negotiation
rather than by fighting as Germany was certain to suffer a military defeat due to
“material inferiority” (see Sect. 1: “1881–1919”). Due to this, “serious misgivings
and even open protest were expressed by the (Freiburg, editor’s note) professors”
against Staudinger before his appointment [18, p. 228] – but for political reasons
and not because of his provocative macromolecule hypothesis. The Freiburg “dean
Friedrich Oltmanns (1860–1945, editor’s note) travelled to Zurich specifically to
meet Staudinger and take him to task personally and it took the latter a great deal of
effort to make it clear to Oltmanns and the other Freiburg colleagues that he was not
by any means the detractor of Germany which he was to a large extent considered to
be. Staudinger became a professor at Freiburg University in 1926 and was even
dean of the natural sciences faculty for a time, although not all of his colleagues
succeeded in overcoming their animosity against him” [18, pp. 228–229].
2.10 Reservations About “Gunk Chemistry”
Both Staudinger’s personal and professional reputations remained tarnished at first:
“The rejection of the concept of macromolecules by most organic chemists turned
into disdain at the end of the 1920s” [19, p. 253]. The opponents included the
already mentioned Heinrich Wieland, former holder of the Freiburg chair, a specialist for organic nitrogen compounds and winner of the 1927 Nobel Prize in
Chemistry. It is reported that Wieland gave Staudinger the following piece of
advice at the end of the 1920s: “My dear colleague, abandon the idea of giant
molecules, organic molecules with a molecular weight of more than 5,000 do not
exist. Purify your products, like rubber, and then they will crystallise and prove to
be low-molecular substances” (quoted in [19], p. 253; cf. [1], p. 79 and [11],
pp. 47–48).
This criticism of Staudinger was based on two associated presuppositions that
were themselves questionable:
• Premise A: Substances or substance blends in a non-crystalline state, such as
rubber and other resins, were not chemically pure. Such “gunk” was not something that deserved investigation from the outset, chemists were only supposed
to focus on pure, crystalline compounds – following possible extraction from the
sticky resins. Looked at from this point of view (“chemistry of pure substances”), not only the alleged giant molecules but also their supposed alternative, i.e. clusters (aggregates) of small molecules, disappeared into thin air
because both of them could only be found if the “gunk” in question was
inadequately purified, so that they were, strictly speaking, only pseudomaterials
(cf. [20], p. 12).
98
M. Weber and G. Deussing