• Premise B: The smallest atomic components of a crystal that could be determined with the help of X-rays were called basic elements or elementary cells,
These three-dimensional structures in the low molecular organic range were all
larger than the molecules of the substance in question. With respect to highpolymer materials, X-ray structural analysis showed that crystalline cellulose,
for example, only had an elementary cell consisting of a few glucose units. In
view of past experience in the low molecular range, it was concluded that
cellulose was not a macromolecule candidate – after all, the cellulose molecule
had to be even smaller than the elementary cell, which was small anyway
(cf. [18], p. 232 and [15], p. 30). It was of course unscientific to generalise this
finding, i.e. to apply it to all supposedly macromolecular substances and solutions of them without carrying out appropriate experiments, but this did not
inhibit the mainstream traditionalists in the low molecular field much at all.
Other natural scientists apart from chemists were also dogmatic in their criticism
of Staudinger’s giant molecules, such as the Swiss mineralogist Paul Niggli
(1888–1953): “When Staudinger gave a lengthy lecture at a scientific conference
in 1925 in which he presented his latest evidence demonstrating the existence of
macromolecules, Niggli exploded right in the middle of it. He stood up and shouted
across the room. ‘Such things do not exist!’” ([11], p. 232; cf. [1], p. 86). Later on,
Niggli was to admit his error openly and laugh about his premature conclusion, in
contrast to “colleagues, who chose to keep quiet about their misinterpretation and
took over Staudinger’s macromolecular concept that they had fought so fiercely at
first – as if it was a matter of course” ([18], p. 240, footnote 44).
2.11 Support Unwelcome
The low-molecular dogma started to be questioned more and more and the antiStaudinger front was far less unified than it appeared on the surface to be. The
physical chemist Kurt Hans Meyer (1883–1952), for example, criticised the widespread inaccurate evaluation and/or interpretation of X-ray spectroscopic results.
The head of the IG Farbenindustrie plant in Ludwigshafen (see [15], p. 77 for
extensive information about Meyer’s life) made it unmistakably clear that the size
of the elementary cell did not dictate maximum molecular size: “It is [. . .]
completely wrong to look for the limitations on organic molecules, i.e. on the
atomic complex held together by primary valences, in the basic element” ([27];
quoted in [16], p. 88). Hermann Mark also conceded that “an organic molecule
could under certain circumstances be larger than the crystallographic basic element” ([26], p. 482; quoted in [16], p. 82). In his summary of the – for Staudinger
frustrating – conference in Du ¨sseldorf, annoyance is expressed too: “The situation
for the representatives of X-ray structural analysis was somewhat disappointing.
Before the conference, it seemed as if the small basic elements were a crucial
Courageous Questioning of Established Thinking: The Life and Work of Hermann. . .
99
These three-dimensional structures in the low molecular organic range were all
larger than the molecules of the substance in question. With respect to highpolymer materials, X-ray structural analysis showed that crystalline cellulose,
for example, only had an elementary cell consisting of a few glucose units. In
view of past experience in the low molecular range, it was concluded that
cellulose was not a macromolecule candidate – after all, the cellulose molecule
had to be even smaller than the elementary cell, which was small anyway
(cf. [18], p. 232 and [15], p. 30). It was of course unscientific to generalise this
finding, i.e. to apply it to all supposedly macromolecular substances and solutions of them without carrying out appropriate experiments, but this did not
inhibit the mainstream traditionalists in the low molecular field much at all.
Other natural scientists apart from chemists were also dogmatic in their criticism
of Staudinger’s giant molecules, such as the Swiss mineralogist Paul Niggli
(1888–1953): “When Staudinger gave a lengthy lecture at a scientific conference
in 1925 in which he presented his latest evidence demonstrating the existence of
macromolecules, Niggli exploded right in the middle of it. He stood up and shouted
across the room. ‘Such things do not exist!’” ([11], p. 232; cf. [1], p. 86). Later on,
Niggli was to admit his error openly and laugh about his premature conclusion, in
contrast to “colleagues, who chose to keep quiet about their misinterpretation and
took over Staudinger’s macromolecular concept that they had fought so fiercely at
first – as if it was a matter of course” ([18], p. 240, footnote 44).
2.11 Support Unwelcome
The low-molecular dogma started to be questioned more and more and the antiStaudinger front was far less unified than it appeared on the surface to be. The
physical chemist Kurt Hans Meyer (1883–1952), for example, criticised the widespread inaccurate evaluation and/or interpretation of X-ray spectroscopic results.
The head of the IG Farbenindustrie plant in Ludwigshafen (see [15], p. 77 for
extensive information about Meyer’s life) made it unmistakably clear that the size
of the elementary cell did not dictate maximum molecular size: “It is [. . .]
completely wrong to look for the limitations on organic molecules, i.e. on the
atomic complex held together by primary valences, in the basic element” ([27];
quoted in [16], p. 88). Hermann Mark also conceded that “an organic molecule
could under certain circumstances be larger than the crystallographic basic element” ([26], p. 482; quoted in [16], p. 82). In his summary of the – for Staudinger
frustrating – conference in Du ¨sseldorf, annoyance is expressed too: “The situation
for the representatives of X-ray structural analysis was somewhat disappointing.
Before the conference, it seemed as if the small basic elements were a crucial
Courageous Questioning of Established Thinking: The Life and Work of Hermann. . .
99