2 The Birth of a Concept: Motivation, Reception,
and Impact
The landmark book by Morawetz [1] on the origins and growth of polymer science
presented an unbiased, transparent, and historically painstakingly correct picture of
the evolution of polymer science as a branch of general science in its own right. The
book describes in particular the conceptual difficulties that existed at the time when
Staudinger first claimed the existence of large molecules, which he called
Hochpolymere Verbindungen (high polymer compounds) and later Makromoleku ¨le
(macromolecules). Staudinger had to fight against the community of colloidal
chemists, who maintained the position that “macromolecules” were merely
associates (or aggregates) of low molar mass species held together by (unknown)
colloidal forces and not by covalent bonds. This dispute has been described many
times [1–3] and does not need to be repeated here. It suffices to summarize that it
was the lack of theory, combined with a lack of analytical and physical methods and
ill-defined scientific concepts, that fueled the dispute. Once these methods and
concepts were in place, the dispute was settled around the year 1930. Morawetz
gives a full account of the work of the many outstanding scientists who contributed
the methodological, analytical, and theoretical studies to establish the field of
polymers, among them Hermann Mark and Kurt H. Meyer, Wallace H. Carothers,
Paul Flory, G. V. Schulz, and many others. This tableau of an emerging science
gives Staudinger a prominent role but puts it into a balanced historical perspective.
Magda Staudinger was obviously not totally pleased by this perspective and she
made contact with yet another person whom she had learned was ready to write a
history of polymer science: Yasu Furukawa. His work entitled Inventing polymer
science: Staudinger, Carothers and the emergence of macromolecules came out in
1998 [2].
In the foreword, Yasu Furukawa acknowledges intensive interactions and
correspondence with Magda Staudinger. The book is another excellent text based
on thorough research into historical texts and archives, including interviews with
surviving contemporaries of the two key players, Staudinger and Carothers. It tells
the moving story of the ill-fated Wallace H. Carothers [1886–1937] but in the end it
comes to the same conclusions already presented in the foregoing book by
Morawetz [1]: The emergence of polymer science had not one but many ingenious
contributors.
Both books also refer to Staudinger’s activities in societal issues both in World
War I and II. Those who are interested in these issues should also read the book by
Ute Deichmann [4], who gives a well-researched documentation of Staudinger’s
life as a university professor and key representative of German science between
1933 and 1945 (and beyond).
A question that has been rarely treated in the literature considers the motivation
that drove H.S. to leave the safe ground of accepted organic chemistry and turn to
the field of high polymers. We do not have direct evidence but an inspection of the
general situation in the historical context of the 1914–1918 war and the years
44
G. Wegner
and Impact
The landmark book by Morawetz [1] on the origins and growth of polymer science
presented an unbiased, transparent, and historically painstakingly correct picture of
the evolution of polymer science as a branch of general science in its own right. The
book describes in particular the conceptual difficulties that existed at the time when
Staudinger first claimed the existence of large molecules, which he called
Hochpolymere Verbindungen (high polymer compounds) and later Makromoleku ¨le
(macromolecules). Staudinger had to fight against the community of colloidal
chemists, who maintained the position that “macromolecules” were merely
associates (or aggregates) of low molar mass species held together by (unknown)
colloidal forces and not by covalent bonds. This dispute has been described many
times [1–3] and does not need to be repeated here. It suffices to summarize that it
was the lack of theory, combined with a lack of analytical and physical methods and
ill-defined scientific concepts, that fueled the dispute. Once these methods and
concepts were in place, the dispute was settled around the year 1930. Morawetz
gives a full account of the work of the many outstanding scientists who contributed
the methodological, analytical, and theoretical studies to establish the field of
polymers, among them Hermann Mark and Kurt H. Meyer, Wallace H. Carothers,
Paul Flory, G. V. Schulz, and many others. This tableau of an emerging science
gives Staudinger a prominent role but puts it into a balanced historical perspective.
Magda Staudinger was obviously not totally pleased by this perspective and she
made contact with yet another person whom she had learned was ready to write a
history of polymer science: Yasu Furukawa. His work entitled Inventing polymer
science: Staudinger, Carothers and the emergence of macromolecules came out in
1998 [2].
In the foreword, Yasu Furukawa acknowledges intensive interactions and
correspondence with Magda Staudinger. The book is another excellent text based
on thorough research into historical texts and archives, including interviews with
surviving contemporaries of the two key players, Staudinger and Carothers. It tells
the moving story of the ill-fated Wallace H. Carothers [1886–1937] but in the end it
comes to the same conclusions already presented in the foregoing book by
Morawetz [1]: The emergence of polymer science had not one but many ingenious
contributors.
Both books also refer to Staudinger’s activities in societal issues both in World
War I and II. Those who are interested in these issues should also read the book by
Ute Deichmann [4], who gives a well-researched documentation of Staudinger’s
life as a university professor and key representative of German science between
1933 and 1945 (and beyond).
A question that has been rarely treated in the literature considers the motivation
that drove H.S. to leave the safe ground of accepted organic chemistry and turn to
the field of high polymers. We do not have direct evidence but an inspection of the
general situation in the historical context of the 1914–1918 war and the years
44
G. Wegner