在过程。

Acta historica Leopoldina Pub Date : 2016-01-01
Kiirin Nickelsen
{"title":"在过程。","authors":"Kiirin Nickelsen","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Whoever turns to the history of photosynthesis research in the twentieth century is soon confronted with the fact that one of its most exciting periods, the years from 1938 to 1955 (and even beyond), was in large part overshadowed by a bitter controversy in which many of the leading scientists in the field were involved: the dispute on the minimal quantum requirement - or, its inverse: the maximum quantum yield - of photosynthesis. On the one side was Otto H. WARBURG (1883 -1970), who, in 1923, had found that 4-5 light quanta were required for one molecule of oxygen; and who would never accept any other value. On the other side were a number of highly renowned American photosynthesis researchers, among others Robert EMERSON (1903-1959), James FRANCK (1882-1964) and Hans GAFFRON (1902-1979), who contested this value and argued, instead, that 8-12 light quanta were required for one molecule oxygen. This value is still accepted today. In this paper, the course of the controversy is reconstructed on the basis of numerous documents and correspondences that so far have not received much attention. The historically contingent factors will be analyzed that made this controversy so atrocious; however, I will argue that the dispute was not primarily about reputation and glory but in large parts driven by the keen interest of the scientific community to solve a difficult research question - notwiith standing the fact that WARBURG failed to comply with scientific conventions of methodical transparency and mutual.</p>","PeriodicalId":7006,"journal":{"name":"Acta historica Leopoldina","volume":" 65","pages":"37-63"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"[In process.]\",\"authors\":\"Kiirin Nickelsen\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Whoever turns to the history of photosynthesis research in the twentieth century is soon confronted with the fact that one of its most exciting periods, the years from 1938 to 1955 (and even beyond), was in large part overshadowed by a bitter controversy in which many of the leading scientists in the field were involved: the dispute on the minimal quantum requirement - or, its inverse: the maximum quantum yield - of photosynthesis. On the one side was Otto H. WARBURG (1883 -1970), who, in 1923, had found that 4-5 light quanta were required for one molecule of oxygen; and who would never accept any other value. On the other side were a number of highly renowned American photosynthesis researchers, among others Robert EMERSON (1903-1959), James FRANCK (1882-1964) and Hans GAFFRON (1902-1979), who contested this value and argued, instead, that 8-12 light quanta were required for one molecule oxygen. This value is still accepted today. In this paper, the course of the controversy is reconstructed on the basis of numerous documents and correspondences that so far have not received much attention. The historically contingent factors will be analyzed that made this controversy so atrocious; however, I will argue that the dispute was not primarily about reputation and glory but in large parts driven by the keen interest of the scientific community to solve a difficult research question - notwiith standing the fact that WARBURG failed to comply with scientific conventions of methodical transparency and mutual.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":7006,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Acta historica Leopoldina\",\"volume\":\" 65\",\"pages\":\"37-63\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2016-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Acta historica Leopoldina\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Acta historica Leopoldina","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

无论谁翻开20世纪光合作用研究的历史,很快就会面对这样一个事实:从1938年到1955年(甚至更久)这段最激动人心的时期之一,在很大程度上被一场激烈的争论蒙上了阴影,该领域的许多顶尖科学家都参与了这场争论:关于光合作用的最小量子需求——或者,它的反面:最大量子产量——的争论。一方面是奥托·华宝(1883 -1970),他在1923年发现一个氧分子需要4-5个光量子;她永远不会接受任何其他价值。另一方是一些非常著名的美国光合作用研究人员,其中包括罗伯特·爱默生(1903-1959)、詹姆斯·弗兰克(1882-1964)和汉斯·加夫隆(1902-1979),他们对这一价值提出异议,并认为一个氧分子需要8-12个光量子。这个值今天仍然被接受。在本文中,根据大量迄今为止尚未受到重视的文件和信件,重构了争议的过程。本文将分析使这场争论如此激烈的历史偶然因素;然而,我认为这场争论主要不是关于名誉和荣誉,而是在很大程度上是由科学界解决一个困难的研究问题的强烈兴趣所驱动的——尽管华宝没有遵守有条理的透明和相互的科学惯例。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
[In process.]

Whoever turns to the history of photosynthesis research in the twentieth century is soon confronted with the fact that one of its most exciting periods, the years from 1938 to 1955 (and even beyond), was in large part overshadowed by a bitter controversy in which many of the leading scientists in the field were involved: the dispute on the minimal quantum requirement - or, its inverse: the maximum quantum yield - of photosynthesis. On the one side was Otto H. WARBURG (1883 -1970), who, in 1923, had found that 4-5 light quanta were required for one molecule of oxygen; and who would never accept any other value. On the other side were a number of highly renowned American photosynthesis researchers, among others Robert EMERSON (1903-1959), James FRANCK (1882-1964) and Hans GAFFRON (1902-1979), who contested this value and argued, instead, that 8-12 light quanta were required for one molecule oxygen. This value is still accepted today. In this paper, the course of the controversy is reconstructed on the basis of numerous documents and correspondences that so far have not received much attention. The historically contingent factors will be analyzed that made this controversy so atrocious; however, I will argue that the dispute was not primarily about reputation and glory but in large parts driven by the keen interest of the scientific community to solve a difficult research question - notwiith standing the fact that WARBURG failed to comply with scientific conventions of methodical transparency and mutual.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信