3.6 Did Hermann Staudinger Ever Cross the Bridge
of His Dreams, the Bridge to Biology?
“In the 1930s polymer science exploded in many laboratories around the world, the
age of plastics had arrived. Hermann Staudinger looked upon it with joy and pride.
However, he personally could not give up the fight for his macromolecules,
supported rigorously with Baltic patriotism by his second wife Magda (nee ´
Woit). . ..” [7, p. 1066]. The already flourishing protein chemistry in the biomedical
field and the detailed knowledge of one of his former students, Rudolf Signer,
would have been an immensely important bridge to the biosciences and to molecular biology: A bridge that Hermann Staudinger never had the good fortune to
cross. “Thus his vision and desire for the union of his chemistry and his biology
remained for him a dream. Towards the end he was so trapped in the Don Quixotic
battle for his synthetic macromolecules that he could no longer recognize the extent
to which the biosciences and the blossoming field of molecular biology had long
taken on board his macromolecules and used his analytical methods almost routinely as a working basis. This is an example of the ‘human’ nature of science, an
example whereby it is difficult to know what one should admire more: the creativity
of the scientist or the constancy of his adherence to his original idea” [7, p. 1066].
At the end – and just out of curiosity – there is a pretty interesting question for
science and science history: What do you know about the really essential role of
Rudolf Signer (Bern) – once a student of Staudinger – for the Nobel Prize of Watson
and Crick? It was nobody less than Maurice Wilkins who talked about this in his
Nobel lecture of December 1962 [7, therein ref. 20a].
4 Facts and Dreams
At the end of these “Reflections” about Hermann Staudinger – chemistry was his life
and the biology was his dream – I have to apologize for my “yesterday remarks” about
synthetic polymers in the biomedical field as published in the “old” Angewandte
Chemie 2004 paper: Chapter 5.1. “From synthetic macromolecules to biological
structures” and Chapter 5.2. “Polymers as pharmacologically active compounds. the
pharmaceuticals of the future?” [7, p. 1068]. I know that in the meantime the word
“nanomedicine” has become popularized and many new approaches in the drug
delivery field are on the way. As early as 2003 with her article “The dawning era of
polymer therapeutics” Ruth Duncan opened the curtain [21 and 7, p. 1069 and 7,
therein ref. 48]. In the meantime, her essay (with over 1,800 citations) has “highlighted
research at the interface of polymer chemistry and biomedical science that continues
to lead to advances in the application of nanotechnology in medicine” [22].
Nevertheless the gap between synthetic polymers and biomedicine, and especially
the attempt to develop modern drugs, is not yet closed. In contrast to this, the road to
polymer technology and to the development of essential materials seems to be much
easier. One of the reasons might be that in our universities we still teach chemistry
A Moment of Reflection: Sixty Years After the Nobel Prize for Hermann Staudinger
15
of His Dreams, the Bridge to Biology?
“In the 1930s polymer science exploded in many laboratories around the world, the
age of plastics had arrived. Hermann Staudinger looked upon it with joy and pride.
However, he personally could not give up the fight for his macromolecules,
supported rigorously with Baltic patriotism by his second wife Magda (nee ´
Woit). . ..” [7, p. 1066]. The already flourishing protein chemistry in the biomedical
field and the detailed knowledge of one of his former students, Rudolf Signer,
would have been an immensely important bridge to the biosciences and to molecular biology: A bridge that Hermann Staudinger never had the good fortune to
cross. “Thus his vision and desire for the union of his chemistry and his biology
remained for him a dream. Towards the end he was so trapped in the Don Quixotic
battle for his synthetic macromolecules that he could no longer recognize the extent
to which the biosciences and the blossoming field of molecular biology had long
taken on board his macromolecules and used his analytical methods almost routinely as a working basis. This is an example of the ‘human’ nature of science, an
example whereby it is difficult to know what one should admire more: the creativity
of the scientist or the constancy of his adherence to his original idea” [7, p. 1066].
At the end – and just out of curiosity – there is a pretty interesting question for
science and science history: What do you know about the really essential role of
Rudolf Signer (Bern) – once a student of Staudinger – for the Nobel Prize of Watson
and Crick? It was nobody less than Maurice Wilkins who talked about this in his
Nobel lecture of December 1962 [7, therein ref. 20a].
4 Facts and Dreams
At the end of these “Reflections” about Hermann Staudinger – chemistry was his life
and the biology was his dream – I have to apologize for my “yesterday remarks” about
synthetic polymers in the biomedical field as published in the “old” Angewandte
Chemie 2004 paper: Chapter 5.1. “From synthetic macromolecules to biological
structures” and Chapter 5.2. “Polymers as pharmacologically active compounds. the
pharmaceuticals of the future?” [7, p. 1068]. I know that in the meantime the word
“nanomedicine” has become popularized and many new approaches in the drug
delivery field are on the way. As early as 2003 with her article “The dawning era of
polymer therapeutics” Ruth Duncan opened the curtain [21 and 7, p. 1069 and 7,
therein ref. 48]. In the meantime, her essay (with over 1,800 citations) has “highlighted
research at the interface of polymer chemistry and biomedical science that continues
to lead to advances in the application of nanotechnology in medicine” [22].
Nevertheless the gap between synthetic polymers and biomedicine, and especially
the attempt to develop modern drugs, is not yet closed. In contrast to this, the road to
polymer technology and to the development of essential materials seems to be much
easier. One of the reasons might be that in our universities we still teach chemistry
A Moment of Reflection: Sixty Years After the Nobel Prize for Hermann Staudinger
15