“not on Staudinger but on general teaching in the past, which is outlined very
soundly in Emil Fischer’s work about polypeptides and proteins in particular”
(quoted in [15], p. 107; cf. pp. 95–96).
• Deichmann [19, pp. 249–250] uses rubber as an example to talk about different
opinions, traditions and fashions that determined the concept of macromolecules
and alternated up to 1930: “In 1860, the British chemist Charles G. Williams
(1829–1892, editor’s note) expressed the suspicion that rubber could consist of
numerous individual components, while the work done by other research scientists supported the theory that a large molecule was involved. The idea that the
naturally occurring substances rubber, cellulose, starch and protein had a highpolymer structure was a widespread view at the end of the nineteenth century.
Thinking then started to go in the other direction, represented most significantly
by Carl Harries (1866–1923, editor’s note), who was one of the most wellknown rubber chemists of his time in Germany and was convinced that rubber
had a low-molecular structure.” Priesner [15, p. 9] qualifies: “However, Harries
too initially expressed the opinion that ‘rubber’ was ‘a hydrocarbon of very
large, unknown molecular size’” (see also [11], p. 45).
Staudinger’s achievements cannot be overstated in spite of all this: even if the
macromolecule has several “fathers”, it is justifiably identified primarily with
Staudinger. What is certain is that Staudinger is “the first chemist who confirmed
the existence of macromolecules experimentally” [19, p. 254]. Kru ¨ll [18, p. 233]
stresses: “It remains a fact that they (i.e. macromolecules, editor’s note) have
dimensions unsuspected in the past that are the reason for their specific properties
and behavioural patterns which differ completely from molecules of ‘normal’ size.
Credit is due to Staudinger for being the first to have claimed and proved this.
Indirectly, however, we owe the basic theoretical concept behind macromolecular
chemistry – and thus modern plastics chemistry – to Staudinger’s numerous scientific opponents in particular too. Because their constant doubts and counterarguments are what forced Staudinger to keep on looking for new ways and means to
prove his theories.” Priesner, to whom Staudinger is “indisputably one of the most
important polymer chemists ever”, delivers a balanced verdict from a historical
distance: “All in all, the macromolecular concept is not the work of a single person.
Like almost always in scientific history (and not just there), it becomes clear when a
closer look is taken that the development of human insight is to a large extent the
result of the achievements of many different people, co-operation between whom is
the source of but also precondition for scientific development and human society”
[15, pp. 359–360].
Staudinger’s position in Germany was already being considered in a similar way
at the beginning of the 1930s: more and more chemists sheepishly joined the
macromolecular camp, while the number of sceptics and adversaries shrank.
Although this was gratifying for Staudinger, a new challenge was already lying in
store for him in 1933, when the Nazis came into power: would the scientist, who
faced political hostility, be allowed to continue his research unhampered or would
he be unable to enjoy the results of his work?
Courageous Questioning of Established Thinking: The Life and Work of Hermann. . .
107
soundly in Emil Fischer’s work about polypeptides and proteins in particular”
(quoted in [15], p. 107; cf. pp. 95–96).
• Deichmann [19, pp. 249–250] uses rubber as an example to talk about different
opinions, traditions and fashions that determined the concept of macromolecules
and alternated up to 1930: “In 1860, the British chemist Charles G. Williams
(1829–1892, editor’s note) expressed the suspicion that rubber could consist of
numerous individual components, while the work done by other research scientists supported the theory that a large molecule was involved. The idea that the
naturally occurring substances rubber, cellulose, starch and protein had a highpolymer structure was a widespread view at the end of the nineteenth century.
Thinking then started to go in the other direction, represented most significantly
by Carl Harries (1866–1923, editor’s note), who was one of the most wellknown rubber chemists of his time in Germany and was convinced that rubber
had a low-molecular structure.” Priesner [15, p. 9] qualifies: “However, Harries
too initially expressed the opinion that ‘rubber’ was ‘a hydrocarbon of very
large, unknown molecular size’” (see also [11], p. 45).
Staudinger’s achievements cannot be overstated in spite of all this: even if the
macromolecule has several “fathers”, it is justifiably identified primarily with
Staudinger. What is certain is that Staudinger is “the first chemist who confirmed
the existence of macromolecules experimentally” [19, p. 254]. Kru ¨ll [18, p. 233]
stresses: “It remains a fact that they (i.e. macromolecules, editor’s note) have
dimensions unsuspected in the past that are the reason for their specific properties
and behavioural patterns which differ completely from molecules of ‘normal’ size.
Credit is due to Staudinger for being the first to have claimed and proved this.
Indirectly, however, we owe the basic theoretical concept behind macromolecular
chemistry – and thus modern plastics chemistry – to Staudinger’s numerous scientific opponents in particular too. Because their constant doubts and counterarguments are what forced Staudinger to keep on looking for new ways and means to
prove his theories.” Priesner, to whom Staudinger is “indisputably one of the most
important polymer chemists ever”, delivers a balanced verdict from a historical
distance: “All in all, the macromolecular concept is not the work of a single person.
Like almost always in scientific history (and not just there), it becomes clear when a
closer look is taken that the development of human insight is to a large extent the
result of the achievements of many different people, co-operation between whom is
the source of but also precondition for scientific development and human society”
[15, pp. 359–360].
Staudinger’s position in Germany was already being considered in a similar way
at the beginning of the 1930s: more and more chemists sheepishly joined the
macromolecular camp, while the number of sceptics and adversaries shrank.
Although this was gratifying for Staudinger, a new challenge was already lying in
store for him in 1933, when the Nazis came into power: would the scientist, who
faced political hostility, be allowed to continue his research unhampered or would
he be unable to enjoy the results of his work?
Courageous Questioning of Established Thinking: The Life and Work of Hermann. . .
107