Nobel Prize to Staudinger show: “Macromolecular chemistry is [. . .] likely to be of
the greatest importance to biology and medicine. It is definite that life processes are
associated inseparably with macromolecules. Chemically speaking, life consists of
the formation, conversion, dissolution and also reproduction of macromolecules
that follow the laws of life” – this is how the Lindauer Zeitung put it ([44]; cf. [10],
pp. 24, 25, 29 as well as [1], pp. 302, 306–307, 333–334). “All our modern plastics
are [. . .] large molecules. But all living substances are macromolecular too.
Staudinger’s theory will therefore be celebrating its greatest triumphs in the biological field”, wrote Die Welt [45]. Expectations that have been met: “Current
thinking in the molecular biology field is inconceivable without the macromolecular concept. Genetic science, which is developing rapidly today, is also based on
the macromolecular principles proposed by Hermann Staudinger” ([43], p. 7;
cf. [46], pp. 135–136).
Staudinger already had an excellent international reputation too, even before he
won the Nobel Prize, and he was also in demand as a speaker outside Germany. In
November 1950, for example, he was invited to Rome to speak at the Centro
Romano di Studi. The Staudingers took this opportunity to attend a private audience
with Pope Pius XII at St. Peter’s Basilica [40, p. 23].
However, it was no longer possible to ignore the fact that Staudinger, who once
led the avant-garde in the organic chemistry field, now held mainstream positions
that were no longer in tune with the times in all cases. Staudinger was in danger of
being overtaken by scientific progress or even of being left behind. Where new
findings conflicted with his own views, he classified them as improper attacks,
ignored them or fought a losing battle against them. He did not accept the
physical-chemical proof of the flexibility of linear macromolecules, for example,
and stubbornly maintained his concept of macromolecules as rigid, rod-like structures. He was just as unwilling to accept modifications to his law about the relationship between molecule size and viscosity:
On the basis of the assumption that linear macromolecules can also exist as clusters,
Hermann Mark (1895–1992, editor’s note) co-operated with the Dutch physical chemist
Roelof Houwink (1899–1987, editor’s note) in Vienna to continue empirical development
of Staudinger’s viscosity equation (Mark–Houwink equation). [. . .] The corrections/additions to Staudinger’s viscosity law made by Mark and Houwink proved to be correct, but
they were still being rejected by Staudinger in the 1950s. ([19], p. 410)
Staudinger lagged behind polymer science in the USA in particular. Here, at the
Polytechnic Institute of New York in Brooklyn, was where Hermann Mark worked,
the man with whom Staudinger had held a fierce dispute from 1926 onwards (see
Sect. 2: “1920–1932”). Mark fled to the USA in 1938 to get away from the Nazis,
after he lost his licence to teach at Vienna University because he was a Jew and was
put in prison for a while. Helmut Ringsdorf (born in 1929, editor’s note), one of
Staudinger’s undergraduate and doctoral students, worked at Mark’s institute in
Brooklyn from the end of the 1950s onwards as a post-doctoral student. Staudinger
did not do well in a comparison of the “two worlds”.
According to Ringsdorf:
Courageous Questioning of Established Thinking: The Life and Work of Hermann. . .
131
the greatest importance to biology and medicine. It is definite that life processes are
associated inseparably with macromolecules. Chemically speaking, life consists of
the formation, conversion, dissolution and also reproduction of macromolecules
that follow the laws of life” – this is how the Lindauer Zeitung put it ([44]; cf. [10],
pp. 24, 25, 29 as well as [1], pp. 302, 306–307, 333–334). “All our modern plastics
are [. . .] large molecules. But all living substances are macromolecular too.
Staudinger’s theory will therefore be celebrating its greatest triumphs in the biological field”, wrote Die Welt [45]. Expectations that have been met: “Current
thinking in the molecular biology field is inconceivable without the macromolecular concept. Genetic science, which is developing rapidly today, is also based on
the macromolecular principles proposed by Hermann Staudinger” ([43], p. 7;
cf. [46], pp. 135–136).
Staudinger already had an excellent international reputation too, even before he
won the Nobel Prize, and he was also in demand as a speaker outside Germany. In
November 1950, for example, he was invited to Rome to speak at the Centro
Romano di Studi. The Staudingers took this opportunity to attend a private audience
with Pope Pius XII at St. Peter’s Basilica [40, p. 23].
However, it was no longer possible to ignore the fact that Staudinger, who once
led the avant-garde in the organic chemistry field, now held mainstream positions
that were no longer in tune with the times in all cases. Staudinger was in danger of
being overtaken by scientific progress or even of being left behind. Where new
findings conflicted with his own views, he classified them as improper attacks,
ignored them or fought a losing battle against them. He did not accept the
physical-chemical proof of the flexibility of linear macromolecules, for example,
and stubbornly maintained his concept of macromolecules as rigid, rod-like structures. He was just as unwilling to accept modifications to his law about the relationship between molecule size and viscosity:
On the basis of the assumption that linear macromolecules can also exist as clusters,
Hermann Mark (1895–1992, editor’s note) co-operated with the Dutch physical chemist
Roelof Houwink (1899–1987, editor’s note) in Vienna to continue empirical development
of Staudinger’s viscosity equation (Mark–Houwink equation). [. . .] The corrections/additions to Staudinger’s viscosity law made by Mark and Houwink proved to be correct, but
they were still being rejected by Staudinger in the 1950s. ([19], p. 410)
Staudinger lagged behind polymer science in the USA in particular. Here, at the
Polytechnic Institute of New York in Brooklyn, was where Hermann Mark worked,
the man with whom Staudinger had held a fierce dispute from 1926 onwards (see
Sect. 2: “1920–1932”). Mark fled to the USA in 1938 to get away from the Nazis,
after he lost his licence to teach at Vienna University because he was a Jew and was
put in prison for a while. Helmut Ringsdorf (born in 1929, editor’s note), one of
Staudinger’s undergraduate and doctoral students, worked at Mark’s institute in
Brooklyn from the end of the 1950s onwards as a post-doctoral student. Staudinger
did not do well in a comparison of the “two worlds”.
According to Ringsdorf:
Courageous Questioning of Established Thinking: The Life and Work of Hermann. . .
131