exams in this subject at long last!” There is a realistic background to what sounds
just like an anecdote: Staudinger’s return to botany illuminated the origins of his
macromolecule theory, while it also opened up a new area of research – molecular
biology – to him at the same time. This interface makes it clear just how stimulating
Staudinger must have found his encounter with the botanist Dr. phil. Mag. rer. nat.
Magda Woit, who became his wife when he married for the second time in 1928, at
the scientific level too. Staudinger got to know the daughter of the Latvian ambassador, who came from Riga, on Helgoland in August 1927. Magda Staudinger ([40],
pp. 17–18) remembers this as follows:
I studied [. . .] in Berlin, because my father was the first ambassador of the state of Latvia in
Berlin in the 20s after the country became independent. I obtained my doctorate there in
1925 with the plant physiologist Gottfried Haberlandt (1854–1945, editor’s note); I then
returned to Riga, took the state examination at Riga University and became an assistant to
Nicolai Malta in the botanical laboratory. I was particularly interested in marine algae and I
was delighted when I was given a job as a guest at the biological institute on Helgoland in
the summer of 1927. I was interested in the cell membrane of the algae and I tackled my
experiments with the equipment and know-how about colloidal substances that were
available at the time. The Freiburg botanist Friedrich Oltmanns (1860–1945, editor’s
note), who was an algae specialist, came to Helgoland in August too. I had got to know
him by taking two algae courses with him while I was still a student. One day, he was
standing on the jetty in Helgoland with another gentleman and spoke to me as I walked
by. He introduced the other gentleman to me: ‘My colleague from the chemistry department, Hermann Staudinger’ and, turning to Staudinger, he mentioned that I was working on
cell membranes of algae at the biological institute. Hermann Staudinger was interested to
hear this and asked if he could take a look at my experiments: he had just published a paper
about a model for cellulose, the main component of plant cell membrane. That in turn
interested me and we arranged that he would visit the laboratory. He came on 24 August,
took a look at my experiments and had me explain them. Suddenly, he then said to my
amazement: ‘It is all completely different’, sat down on a laboratory stool and started to
talk: ‘There are macromolecules and they will be tremendously important to biology in
future, because living cells can only be constructed with such large molecules. Thanks to
their size, they have different shapes; the different structures that the living cell needs are
possible as a result. Thanks to their size, they can – in turn – accommodate very different
reactive groups.’ He talked about these things for quite a while and explained phenomena
that were in some cases only demonstrated at the experimental level many years later. On
the basis of his cellulose model and stimulated in his thinking by my experiments, the role
played by macromolecules in biological processes occurred to him there and then at this
time on 24 August 1927. It was like a vision to him. Molecular biology now exists today
and is very successful. The name does not come from us; it was used first by the English
chemist (William Thomas, editor’s note) Astbury (1898–1961, editor’s note) around 1945.
The first conversation about these ideas took place back then on Helgoland, however. In my
opinion, this is therefore when molecular biology first began.
In view of this, Jaenicke ([35], p. 604), was accurate in describing Magda
Staudinger as “the Moira who helped to spin the macromolecular threads”. The
couple did not carry out systematic “experimental trials on living cell substances”
until after 1945, however, due – among other things – “to the destruction of the
institute during the war” [40, p. 18]. The direction was clear, however, the vision
stayed alive and there was also tremendous general interest outside the scientific
community, as the reports in the daily press in the context of the presentation of the
130
M. Weber and G. Deussing
just like an anecdote: Staudinger’s return to botany illuminated the origins of his
macromolecule theory, while it also opened up a new area of research – molecular
biology – to him at the same time. This interface makes it clear just how stimulating
Staudinger must have found his encounter with the botanist Dr. phil. Mag. rer. nat.
Magda Woit, who became his wife when he married for the second time in 1928, at
the scientific level too. Staudinger got to know the daughter of the Latvian ambassador, who came from Riga, on Helgoland in August 1927. Magda Staudinger ([40],
pp. 17–18) remembers this as follows:
I studied [. . .] in Berlin, because my father was the first ambassador of the state of Latvia in
Berlin in the 20s after the country became independent. I obtained my doctorate there in
1925 with the plant physiologist Gottfried Haberlandt (1854–1945, editor’s note); I then
returned to Riga, took the state examination at Riga University and became an assistant to
Nicolai Malta in the botanical laboratory. I was particularly interested in marine algae and I
was delighted when I was given a job as a guest at the biological institute on Helgoland in
the summer of 1927. I was interested in the cell membrane of the algae and I tackled my
experiments with the equipment and know-how about colloidal substances that were
available at the time. The Freiburg botanist Friedrich Oltmanns (1860–1945, editor’s
note), who was an algae specialist, came to Helgoland in August too. I had got to know
him by taking two algae courses with him while I was still a student. One day, he was
standing on the jetty in Helgoland with another gentleman and spoke to me as I walked
by. He introduced the other gentleman to me: ‘My colleague from the chemistry department, Hermann Staudinger’ and, turning to Staudinger, he mentioned that I was working on
cell membranes of algae at the biological institute. Hermann Staudinger was interested to
hear this and asked if he could take a look at my experiments: he had just published a paper
about a model for cellulose, the main component of plant cell membrane. That in turn
interested me and we arranged that he would visit the laboratory. He came on 24 August,
took a look at my experiments and had me explain them. Suddenly, he then said to my
amazement: ‘It is all completely different’, sat down on a laboratory stool and started to
talk: ‘There are macromolecules and they will be tremendously important to biology in
future, because living cells can only be constructed with such large molecules. Thanks to
their size, they have different shapes; the different structures that the living cell needs are
possible as a result. Thanks to their size, they can – in turn – accommodate very different
reactive groups.’ He talked about these things for quite a while and explained phenomena
that were in some cases only demonstrated at the experimental level many years later. On
the basis of his cellulose model and stimulated in his thinking by my experiments, the role
played by macromolecules in biological processes occurred to him there and then at this
time on 24 August 1927. It was like a vision to him. Molecular biology now exists today
and is very successful. The name does not come from us; it was used first by the English
chemist (William Thomas, editor’s note) Astbury (1898–1961, editor’s note) around 1945.
The first conversation about these ideas took place back then on Helgoland, however. In my
opinion, this is therefore when molecular biology first began.
In view of this, Jaenicke ([35], p. 604), was accurate in describing Magda
Staudinger as “the Moira who helped to spin the macromolecular threads”. The
couple did not carry out systematic “experimental trials on living cell substances”
until after 1945, however, due – among other things – “to the destruction of the
institute during the war” [40, p. 18]. The direction was clear, however, the vision
stayed alive and there was also tremendous general interest outside the scientific
community, as the reports in the daily press in the context of the presentation of the
130
M. Weber and G. Deussing