differences between our personal views that are in my opinion minor; if we did, the
high-polymer community could easily make the mistake that is only too familiar
from politics; that a major issue was not given close enough attention and was not
presented clearly enough because of minor differences between opinions that were
not far apart.” (letter to Staudinger of 2 November 1928; quoted in [15], p. 94; see
Appendix 4 for the complete letter)
Staudinger, however, dug his heels in even more and contradicted himself into
the bargain. Priesner [15], p. 350 reveals the paradox “that Staudinger claimed he
was being copied by Mark and Meyer, while stating at the same time that their
theory was wrong. The only way for anyone to get into such a situation was if he
thought that any activities by other people in the high-polymer chemistry field were
[. . .] a violation of scientific rights he claimed for himself, if the person in question
also advocated the existence of large molecules.” Staudinger’s contemporary,
Wallace Hume Carothers (1896–1937), the inventor of nylon, drew conclusions
about him that were just as embarrassing. In a discussion held in 1932, Carothers
started by paying tribute to Staudinger’s tremendous importance as a scientist,
before outlining his personal weaknesses: “Opinions abandoned by former opponents are presented and refuted again; apart from this, the contributions made by
other research scientists are not acknowledged to a sufficient extent” ([31]; quoted
in [19], p. 255). As late as 1936, Meyer still criticised “Staudinger’s practice of
repeatedly misquoting other research scientists and accusing them of holding the
opposite of their true views” (quoted in [15], p. 197).
2.18 The Macromolecule Has Several Fathers
In view of this, the final question that the scientific historian still has to answer is the
extent to which Staudinger’s uncompromisingly formulated claim to priority is
justified, not only with respect to Meyer and Mark (synchronic angle) but also with
respect to possible predecessors from earlier days (diachronic angle). In other
words: was the macromolecular concept the major discovery of a pioneer or did
Staudinger benefit from the work of others before him and more or less tacitly
uncover something that had already been discovered but then forgotten? The
answer is complex:
• Priesner [15, pp. 350–351] writes: Staudinger’s first announcement about highpolymer compounds [12] “indisputably contained all the fundamental principles
of macromolecular chemistry, but these principles were not exclusively original
creations by Staudinger”, because “a large proportion of them had already been
thought and expressed before him. It goes without saying that Staudinger was
more than a compiler, but he was that as well” (cf. [15], p. 336).
• Meyer [29] says: “It is not correct that ‘the publications by K.H. Meyer essentially reproduce opinions that Staudinger has been expressing in numerous
publications and lectures for years’”. Together with Mark, he, Meyer, built
106
M. Weber and G. Deussing
high-polymer community could easily make the mistake that is only too familiar
from politics; that a major issue was not given close enough attention and was not
presented clearly enough because of minor differences between opinions that were
not far apart.” (letter to Staudinger of 2 November 1928; quoted in [15], p. 94; see
Appendix 4 for the complete letter)
Staudinger, however, dug his heels in even more and contradicted himself into
the bargain. Priesner [15], p. 350 reveals the paradox “that Staudinger claimed he
was being copied by Mark and Meyer, while stating at the same time that their
theory was wrong. The only way for anyone to get into such a situation was if he
thought that any activities by other people in the high-polymer chemistry field were
[. . .] a violation of scientific rights he claimed for himself, if the person in question
also advocated the existence of large molecules.” Staudinger’s contemporary,
Wallace Hume Carothers (1896–1937), the inventor of nylon, drew conclusions
about him that were just as embarrassing. In a discussion held in 1932, Carothers
started by paying tribute to Staudinger’s tremendous importance as a scientist,
before outlining his personal weaknesses: “Opinions abandoned by former opponents are presented and refuted again; apart from this, the contributions made by
other research scientists are not acknowledged to a sufficient extent” ([31]; quoted
in [19], p. 255). As late as 1936, Meyer still criticised “Staudinger’s practice of
repeatedly misquoting other research scientists and accusing them of holding the
opposite of their true views” (quoted in [15], p. 197).
2.18 The Macromolecule Has Several Fathers
In view of this, the final question that the scientific historian still has to answer is the
extent to which Staudinger’s uncompromisingly formulated claim to priority is
justified, not only with respect to Meyer and Mark (synchronic angle) but also with
respect to possible predecessors from earlier days (diachronic angle). In other
words: was the macromolecular concept the major discovery of a pioneer or did
Staudinger benefit from the work of others before him and more or less tacitly
uncover something that had already been discovered but then forgotten? The
answer is complex:
• Priesner [15, pp. 350–351] writes: Staudinger’s first announcement about highpolymer compounds [12] “indisputably contained all the fundamental principles
of macromolecular chemistry, but these principles were not exclusively original
creations by Staudinger”, because “a large proportion of them had already been
thought and expressed before him. It goes without saying that Staudinger was
more than a compiler, but he was that as well” (cf. [15], p. 336).
• Meyer [29] says: “It is not correct that ‘the publications by K.H. Meyer essentially reproduce opinions that Staudinger has been expressing in numerous
publications and lectures for years’”. Together with Mark, he, Meyer, built
106
M. Weber and G. Deussing