polemic as the years went by. Priesner [15, p. 211] concludes that Staudinger and
Meyer/Mark had “no reason” at all “to compete with each other, because the former
was at home in the preparative organic chemistry field, while the latter focussed on
physical chemistry”. Both sides were committed to different angles and issues,
which complemented each other rather than ruling each other out. In spite of “two
different starting points”, the results were “very similar conclusions” [15, p. 58].
Priesner therefore wondered what might have prompted the rivals to fight each
other ruthlessly, instead of forming a coalition to combat established low-molecular
thinking – the real opponent: “The opportunity of benefitting mutually from the
skills of the other via close co-operation and of helping the macromolecular theory
to make a breakthrough against the resistance of the strong group of the proponents
of the low-molecular ‘aggregation theory’ [. . .] was squandered” [15, p. 58; cf. p. 349].
Priesner found out the reason for the feud specifically once he analysed the
correspondence between Staudinger and Mark/Meyer, which forms part of the
Staudinger estate that is kept at the Deutsches Museum in Munich: “What this
controversy involved was not [. . .] a theoretical dispute [. . .], but the question of to
whom priority was due with respect to a position that was maintained by both
parties in a similar way” [15, p. 349; cf. p. 351]. There never was a quarrel between
Staudinger and Mark/Meyer in the sense of a dispute of fundamental significance
about scientific theory, because Staudinger’s attacks to all intents and purposes
ignored Mark’s and Meyer’s “actual Achilles’ heel”, the relatively small size of the
primary valence chains [15, p. 93]. Psychology and not logic was therefore required
to understand what fuelled the controversy [cf. 15, p. 350].
2.17 “Academic Claustrophobia”
Because Staudinger considered himself to be the “intellectual father of macromolecular chemistry” [15, p. 250] and had the necessary self-confidence to claim that
he alone was “responsible for determining the composition of high polymers” [15,
p. 184], he understood “any assessment of his work that was not unreservedly
positive to be an attack” [15, p. 240]. For this reason, it could be said that he
suffered from over-sensitivity [15, p. 240] or even a “kind of academic claustrophobia” [15, p. 330]. And that is not all: in his determination to smother any
perceived attempt to dispute his claim to priority at the earliest possible stage,
Staudinger opted to go on the offensive before he needed to defend himself at all:
“Staudinger initiated the controversy at the start and as it went on, there are no
examples of Mark or Meyer attacking Staudinger themselves either” [15, p. 351].
It was Mark in particular who tried repeatedly to calm things down. He explicitly
took sides with Staudinger, because “we essentially think the same, i.e. that the
high-molecular substances consist of long chains that are held together by primary
valences, and are only unclear about the most appropriate term for this” (letter to
Staudinger of 11 December 1928; quoted in [15], p. 99). On another occasion, Mark
pointed out: “I think that we [. . .] should proceed together and should not emphasise
Courageous Questioning of Established Thinking: The Life and Work of Hermann. . .
105
Meyer/Mark had “no reason” at all “to compete with each other, because the former
was at home in the preparative organic chemistry field, while the latter focussed on
physical chemistry”. Both sides were committed to different angles and issues,
which complemented each other rather than ruling each other out. In spite of “two
different starting points”, the results were “very similar conclusions” [15, p. 58].
Priesner therefore wondered what might have prompted the rivals to fight each
other ruthlessly, instead of forming a coalition to combat established low-molecular
thinking – the real opponent: “The opportunity of benefitting mutually from the
skills of the other via close co-operation and of helping the macromolecular theory
to make a breakthrough against the resistance of the strong group of the proponents
of the low-molecular ‘aggregation theory’ [. . .] was squandered” [15, p. 58; cf. p. 349].
Priesner found out the reason for the feud specifically once he analysed the
correspondence between Staudinger and Mark/Meyer, which forms part of the
Staudinger estate that is kept at the Deutsches Museum in Munich: “What this
controversy involved was not [. . .] a theoretical dispute [. . .], but the question of to
whom priority was due with respect to a position that was maintained by both
parties in a similar way” [15, p. 349; cf. p. 351]. There never was a quarrel between
Staudinger and Mark/Meyer in the sense of a dispute of fundamental significance
about scientific theory, because Staudinger’s attacks to all intents and purposes
ignored Mark’s and Meyer’s “actual Achilles’ heel”, the relatively small size of the
primary valence chains [15, p. 93]. Psychology and not logic was therefore required
to understand what fuelled the controversy [cf. 15, p. 350].
2.17 “Academic Claustrophobia”
Because Staudinger considered himself to be the “intellectual father of macromolecular chemistry” [15, p. 250] and had the necessary self-confidence to claim that
he alone was “responsible for determining the composition of high polymers” [15,
p. 184], he understood “any assessment of his work that was not unreservedly
positive to be an attack” [15, p. 240]. For this reason, it could be said that he
suffered from over-sensitivity [15, p. 240] or even a “kind of academic claustrophobia” [15, p. 330]. And that is not all: in his determination to smother any
perceived attempt to dispute his claim to priority at the earliest possible stage,
Staudinger opted to go on the offensive before he needed to defend himself at all:
“Staudinger initiated the controversy at the start and as it went on, there are no
examples of Mark or Meyer attacking Staudinger themselves either” [15, p. 351].
It was Mark in particular who tried repeatedly to calm things down. He explicitly
took sides with Staudinger, because “we essentially think the same, i.e. that the
high-molecular substances consist of long chains that are held together by primary
valences, and are only unclear about the most appropriate term for this” (letter to
Staudinger of 11 December 1928; quoted in [15], p. 99). On another occasion, Mark
pointed out: “I think that we [. . .] should proceed together and should not emphasise
Courageous Questioning of Established Thinking: The Life and Work of Hermann. . .
105