首页 > 最新文献

Journal of the History of the Neurosciences最新文献

英文 中文
The neurosciences at the Max Planck Institute for Biophysical Chemistry in Göttingen. 马克斯·普朗克生物物理化学研究所的神经科学研究,网址:Göttingen。
IF 0.5 3区 哲学 Q3 HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE Pub Date : 2023-04-01 DOI: 10.1080/0964704X.2021.2021704
Heinz Wässle, Sascha Topp

The Max Planck Institute (MPI) for Biophysical Chemistry (Karl-Friedrich Bonhoeffer Institute) was founded in 1971 in Göttingen. Two of the 11 departments at the institute had a neuroscientific focus. Otto D. Creutzfeldt (1927-1992) and Victor P. Whittaker (1919-2016) were directors of the Neurobiological and Neurochemical Departments, respectively. Creutzfeldt's department researched the structure and function of the cerebral cortex, and Whittaker's department concentrated on the biochemical analysis of synapses and synaptic vesicles. Creutzfeldt and Whittaker were already internationally respected scientists when they were appointed to Göttingen. The next generation of departmental directors, Erwin Neher and Bert Sakmann, were "home-grown" researchers from the institute and, during their time as junior group leaders, they developed the so-called patch clamp technique, with which they were able to measure single ion channels in nerve cells. This technique revolutionized neurophysiology, and Neher and Sakmann were awarded the 1991 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for their work in this area. Neher was appointed director of the Membrane Biophysics Department in 1983 and, since then, his department has mainly examined the role of Ca2+ in the release of neurotransmitters at synapses and in the secretion of catecholamines from chromaffin cells. From 1985, Sakmann was director of the Cell Physiology Department, and his laboratory concentrated on the molecular and physiological characterization of transmitter receptors in postsynaptic membranes. In 1989, he was appointed to the MPI for Medical Research in Heidelberg. Reinhard Jahn became director of the Neurobiology Department in 1997, researching the molecular mechanisms of the release of neurotransmitters from the presynaptic terminals, and he discovered several proteins associated with the synaptic vesicles. With their work, Neher, Sakmann, and Jahn have made the MPI for Biophysical Chemistry one of the world's leading research centers for the transmission of signals at synapses.

马克斯普朗克生物物理化学研究所(Karl-Friedrich Bonhoeffer研究所)成立于1971年,网址为Göttingen。该研究所的11个系中有两个以神经科学为重点。Otto D. Creutzfeldt(1927-1992)和Victor P. Whittaker(1919-2016)分别担任神经生物学和神经化学系主任。Creutzfeldt的部门研究大脑皮层的结构和功能,Whittaker的部门专注于突触和突触囊泡的生化分析。当克鲁茨菲尔德和惠特克被任命为Göttingen时,他们已经是国际上受尊敬的科学家。下一代部门主管Erwin Neher和Bert Sakmann是该研究所“土生土长”的研究人员,在担任初级小组领导期间,他们开发了所谓的膜片钳技术,通过这种技术,他们能够测量神经细胞中的单个离子通道。这项技术彻底改变了神经生理学,Neher和Sakmann因在这一领域的工作而获得1991年诺贝尔生理学或医学奖。Neher于1983年被任命为膜生物物理系主任,从那时起,他的部门主要研究Ca2+在突触释放神经递质和从嗜铬细胞分泌儿茶酚胺中的作用。从1985年起,Sakmann担任细胞生理学系主任,他的实验室专注于突触后膜中传递受体的分子和生理特性。1989年,他被任命为海德堡MPI医学研究人员。Reinhard Jahn于1997年成为神经生物系主任,研究神经递质从突触前末端释放的分子机制,他发现了几种与突触囊泡相关的蛋白质。通过他们的工作,Neher、Sakmann和Jahn使MPI生物物理化学研究所成为世界领先的突触信号传输研究中心之一。
{"title":"The neurosciences at the Max Planck Institute for Biophysical Chemistry in Göttingen.","authors":"Heinz Wässle,&nbsp;Sascha Topp","doi":"10.1080/0964704X.2021.2021704","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0964704X.2021.2021704","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The Max Planck Institute (MPI) for Biophysical Chemistry (Karl-Friedrich Bonhoeffer Institute) was founded in 1971 in Göttingen. Two of the 11 departments at the institute had a neuroscientific focus. Otto D. Creutzfeldt (1927-1992) and Victor P. Whittaker (1919-2016) were directors of the Neurobiological and Neurochemical Departments, respectively. Creutzfeldt's department researched the structure and function of the cerebral cortex, and Whittaker's department concentrated on the biochemical analysis of synapses and synaptic vesicles. Creutzfeldt and Whittaker were already internationally respected scientists when they were appointed to Göttingen. The next generation of departmental directors, Erwin Neher and Bert Sakmann, were \"home-grown\" researchers from the institute and, during their time as junior group leaders, they developed the so-called patch clamp technique, with which they were able to measure single ion channels in nerve cells. This technique revolutionized neurophysiology, and Neher and Sakmann were awarded the 1991 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for their work in this area. Neher was appointed director of the Membrane Biophysics Department in 1983 and, since then, his department has mainly examined the role of Ca<sup>2+</sup> in the release of neurotransmitters at synapses and in the secretion of catecholamines from chromaffin cells. From 1985, Sakmann was director of the Cell Physiology Department, and his laboratory concentrated on the molecular and physiological characterization of transmitter receptors in postsynaptic membranes. In 1989, he was appointed to the MPI for Medical Research in Heidelberg. Reinhard Jahn became director of the Neurobiology Department in 1997, researching the molecular mechanisms of the release of neurotransmitters from the presynaptic terminals, and he discovered several proteins associated with the synaptic vesicles. With their work, Neher, Sakmann, and Jahn have made the MPI for Biophysical Chemistry one of the world's leading research centers for the transmission of signals at synapses.</p>","PeriodicalId":49997,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the History of the Neurosciences","volume":"32 2","pages":"173-197"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2023-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"9794727","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1
Brain research on Nazi "euthanasia" victims: Legal conflicts surrounding Scientology's instrumentalization of the Kaiser Wilhelm Society's history against the Max Planck Society. 纳粹“安乐死”受害者的大脑研究:围绕山达基将威廉皇帝学会的历史工具化与马克斯·普朗克学会的法律冲突。
IF 0.5 3区 哲学 Q3 HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE Pub Date : 2023-04-01 DOI: 10.1080/0964704X.2021.2019553
Florian Schmaltz

In 1985, historian Götz Aly published an article showing that the director of the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Brain Research, neuropathologist Julius Hallervorden (1882-1965), had acquired brains of Nazi "euthanasia" victims and brain specimens of at least 33 children gassed at the Brandenburg killing center on October 28, 1940, which were still kept by the Max Planck Institute for Brain Research. Aly criticized that the Max Planck Society had suppressed articles by journalist Hermann Brendel in the 1970s claiming that institutes of the Kaiser Wilhelm Society had conducted brain research within the framework of "euthanasia." New sources show that these articles, which were the subject of a lawsuit, were published in a newspaper called Freiheit run by the German branch of Scientology, of which Brendel was editor-in-chief. The articles were part of Scientology's antipsychiatry campaign. They mixed historical facts about racial hygiene and "euthanasia" in Nazi Germany with ludicrous and unfounded accusations alleging that violent, racist, and dehumanizing research methods typical in Nazi research were still carried out at the Max Planck Institute for Psychiatry. The legal conflict between the Max-Planck-Gesellschaft (MPG) and Scientology about the role of brain researchers in the Nazi era is analyzed here through combining perspectives from the history of neuroscience and socio-legal history. In contrast to trials of Nazi war crimes against "euthanasia" perpetrators, the civil law case of the MPG against Scientology from 1972 until 1975 instead concerned the instrumentalization of the Nazi past of psychiatry and brain research for ideological and commercial motives. The Scientology case caused social and legal ripples, and its after effects extended to 1986, when the MPG considered taking legal steps against Aly's publication.

1985年,历史学家Götz Aly发表了一篇文章,指出威廉皇帝脑研究所所长、神经病理学家Julius Hallervorden(1882-1965)获得了纳粹“安乐死”受害者的大脑,以及1940年10月28日在勃兰登堡屠杀中心被毒气毒死的至少33名儿童的大脑样本,这些样本至今仍保存在马克斯·普朗克脑研究所。阿利批评马克斯·普朗克学会在20世纪70年代压制了记者赫尔曼·布伦德尔的文章,这些文章声称凯撒·威廉学会的研究所在“安乐死”的框架内进行了大脑研究。新的消息来源显示,这些被起诉的文章发表在一份名为《Freiheit》的报纸上,该报纸由山达基德国分支经营,布伦德尔担任主编。这些文章是山达基反精神病学运动的一部分。他们将纳粹德国的种族卫生和“安乐死”的历史事实与荒谬而毫无根据的指控混合在一起,指控马克斯普朗克精神病学研究所仍在使用纳粹研究中典型的暴力、种族主义和非人性化的研究方法。马克思-普朗克协会(MPG)与山达基关于纳粹时期大脑研究人员角色的法律冲突,本文通过结合神经科学史和社会法律史的视角进行分析。与纳粹对“安乐死”罪犯的战争罪审判相反,MPG在1972年至1975年间对山达基的民事法律案件涉及的是纳粹过去的精神病学和大脑研究的工具化,以实现意识形态和商业动机。山达基案引起了社会和法律上的涟漪,其影响一直延续到1986年,当时MPG考虑对阿里的出版采取法律措施。
{"title":"Brain research on Nazi \"euthanasia\" victims: Legal conflicts surrounding Scientology's instrumentalization of the Kaiser Wilhelm Society's history against the Max Planck Society.","authors":"Florian Schmaltz","doi":"10.1080/0964704X.2021.2019553","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0964704X.2021.2019553","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In 1985, historian Götz Aly published an article showing that the director of the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Brain Research, neuropathologist Julius Hallervorden (1882-1965), had acquired brains of Nazi \"euthanasia\" victims and brain specimens of at least 33 children gassed at the Brandenburg killing center on October 28, 1940, which were still kept by the Max Planck Institute for Brain Research. Aly criticized that the Max Planck Society had suppressed articles by journalist Hermann Brendel in the 1970s claiming that institutes of the Kaiser Wilhelm Society had conducted brain research within the framework of \"euthanasia.\" New sources show that these articles, which were the subject of a lawsuit, were published in a newspaper called <i>Freiheit</i> run by the German branch of Scientology, of which Brendel was editor-in-chief. The articles were part of Scientology's antipsychiatry campaign. They mixed historical facts about racial hygiene and \"euthanasia\" in Nazi Germany with ludicrous and unfounded accusations alleging that violent, racist, and dehumanizing research methods typical in Nazi research were still carried out at the Max Planck Institute for Psychiatry. The legal conflict between the Max-Planck-Gesellschaft (MPG) and Scientology about the role of brain researchers in the Nazi era is analyzed here through combining perspectives from the history of neuroscience and socio-legal history. In contrast to trials of Nazi war crimes against \"euthanasia\" perpetrators, the civil law case of the MPG against Scientology from 1972 until 1975 instead concerned the instrumentalization of the Nazi past of psychiatry and brain research for ideological and commercial motives. The Scientology case caused social and legal ripples, and its after effects extended to 1986, when the MPG considered taking legal steps against Aly's publication.</p>","PeriodicalId":49997,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the History of the Neurosciences","volume":"32 2","pages":"240-264"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2023-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"9426074","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2
Neuroscience history interview with Professor Bert Sakmann, Nobel Laureate in Physiology or Medicine (1991), Max Planck Society, Germany. 与德国马克斯普朗克学会诺贝尔生理学或医学奖得主Bert Sakmann教授的神经科学历史访谈(1991)。
IF 0.5 3区 哲学 Q3 HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE Pub Date : 2023-04-01 DOI: 10.1080/0964704X.2021.1898903
Bert Sakmann, Frank W Stahnisch

Dr. Bert Sakmann (b. 1942) studied at the Universities of Tuebingen, Freiburg, Berlin, Paris, and Munich, graduating in 1967. Much of his professional life has been spent in various institutes of the Max Planck Society. In 1971, a British Council Fellowship took him to the Department of Biophysics of University College London to work with Bernard Katz (1911-2003). In 1974, he obtained his Ph.D. from the University of Goettingen and, with Erwin Neher (b. 1944) at the Max Planck Institute for Biophysical Chemistry, began work that would transform cellular biology and neuroscience, resulting in the 1991 Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine. In 2008, Dr. Sakmann returned to Munich, where he headed the research group "Cortical Columns in Silico" at the Max Planck Institute of Neurobiology in Martinsried. Here, their group discovered the cell-type specific sensory activation patterns in different layers of a column in the vibrissal area of rodents' somatosensory cortices.

Bert Sakmann博士(生于1942年)曾在图宾根大学、弗莱堡大学、柏林大学、巴黎大学和慕尼黑大学学习,1967年毕业。他的大部分职业生涯都是在马克斯·普朗克学会的各个研究所度过的。1971年,他获得英国文化协会奖学金,前往伦敦大学学院生物物理系与伯纳德·卡茨(Bernard Katz, 1911-2003)共事。1974年,他在哥廷根大学获得博士学位,并在马克斯普朗克生物物理化学研究所与Erwin Neher(1944年出生)一起开始了细胞生物学和神经科学的研究,并获得了1991年诺贝尔生理学或医学奖。2008年,萨克曼博士回到慕尼黑,在马丁斯里德的马克斯·普朗克神经生物学研究所(Max Planck Institute of Neurobiology)领导“硅皮质柱”(Cortical Columns In silicon)研究小组。在这里,他们的研究小组发现了啮齿动物体感觉皮层振动区柱的不同层中细胞类型特定的感觉激活模式。
{"title":"Neuroscience history interview with Professor Bert Sakmann, Nobel Laureate in Physiology or Medicine (1991), Max Planck Society, Germany.","authors":"Bert Sakmann,&nbsp;Frank W Stahnisch","doi":"10.1080/0964704X.2021.1898903","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0964704X.2021.1898903","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Dr. Bert Sakmann (b. 1942) studied at the Universities of Tuebingen, Freiburg, Berlin, Paris, and Munich, graduating in 1967. Much of his professional life has been spent in various institutes of the Max Planck Society. In 1971, a British Council Fellowship took him to the Department of Biophysics of University College London to work with Bernard Katz (1911-2003). In 1974, he obtained his Ph.D. from the University of Goettingen and, with Erwin Neher (b. 1944) at the Max Planck Institute for Biophysical Chemistry, began work that would transform cellular biology and neuroscience, resulting in the 1991 Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine. In 2008, Dr. Sakmann returned to Munich, where he headed the research group \"Cortical Columns in Silico\" at the Max Planck Institute of Neurobiology in Martinsried. Here, their group discovered the cell-type specific sensory activation patterns in different layers of a column in the vibrissal area of rodents' somatosensory cortices.</p>","PeriodicalId":49997,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the History of the Neurosciences","volume":"32 2","pages":"198-217"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2023-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/0964704X.2021.1898903","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"9430863","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1
Neuroscience research in the Max Planck Society and a broken relationship to the past: Some legacies of the Kaiser Wilhelm Society after 1948. 马克斯·普朗克学会的神经科学研究和与过去的破碎关系:1948年后威廉皇帝学会的一些遗产。
IF 0.5 3区 哲学 Q3 HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE Pub Date : 2023-04-01 DOI: 10.1080/0964704X.2023.2182090
Frank W Stahnisch

The development of the brain sciences (Hirnforschung) in the Max Planck Society (MPG) during the early decades of the Federal Republic of Germany (FRG) was influenced by the legacy of its precursor institution, the Kaiser Wilhelm Society for the Advancement of Science (KWG). The KWG's brain science institutes, along with their intramural psychiatry and neurology research programs, were of considerable interest to the Western Allies and former administrators of the German science and education systems in their plans to rebuild the extra-university research society-first in the British Occupation Zone and later in the American and French Occupation Zones. This formation process occurred under the physicist Max Planck (1858-1947) as acting president, and the MPG was named in his honor when it was formally established in 1948. In comparison to other international developments in the brain sciences, it was neuropathology as well as neurohistology that initially dominated postwar brain research activities in West Germany. In regard to its KWG past, at least four historical factors can be identified that explain the dislocated structural and social features of the MPG during the postwar period: first, the disruption of previously existing interactions between German brain scientists and international colleagues; second, the German educational structures that countered interdisciplinary developments through their structural focus on medical research disciplines during the postwar period; third, the moral misconduct of earlier KWG scientists and scholars during the National Socialism period; and, fourth, the deep rupture that appeared through the forced migration of many Jewish and oppositional neuroscientists who sought to find exile after 1933 in countries where they had already held active collaborations since the 1910s and 1920s. This article examines several trends in the MPG's disrupted relational processes as it sought to grapple with its broken past, beginning with the period of reinauguration of relevant Max Planck Institutes in brain science and culminating with the establishment of the Presidential Research Program on the History of the Kaiser Wilhelm Society in National Socialism in 1997.

德意志联邦共和国(FRG)成立初期,马克斯·普朗克学会(MPG)脑科学(Hirnforschung)的发展受到其前身德皇威廉科学促进会(KWG)遗产的影响。KWG的脑科学研究所,以及他们的校内精神病学和神经学研究项目,引起了西方盟国和前德国科学和教育系统管理者的极大兴趣,他们计划重建大学外的研究社会——首先在英国占领区,后来在美国和法国占领区。这一形成过程是在物理学家马克斯·普朗克(1858-1947)担任代理主席的情况下进行的,MPG在1948年正式成立时以他的名字命名。与脑科学的其他国际发展相比,神经病理学和神经组织学最初主导了战后西德的大脑研究活动。关于KWG的过去,至少可以确定四个历史因素来解释战后MPG的错位结构和社会特征:首先,德国脑科学家和国际同事之间先前存在的互动中断;第二,战后德国的教育结构以医学研究学科为结构重点,阻碍了跨学科的发展;第三,国家社会主义时期早期KWG科学家和学者的道德失范;第四,由于1933年后许多犹太和反对派神经科学家被迫迁移到他们自20世纪10年代和20年代以来一直积极合作的国家寻求流亡,出现了深刻的破裂。本文考察了MPG在试图与其破碎的过去作斗争时中断的关系过程中的几个趋势,从相关的马克斯·普朗克脑科学研究所的复辟时期开始,到1997年建立凯撒·威廉社会主义国家社会主义历史总统研究计划的高潮。
{"title":"Neuroscience research in the Max Planck Society and a broken relationship to the past: Some legacies of the Kaiser Wilhelm Society after 1948.","authors":"Frank W Stahnisch","doi":"10.1080/0964704X.2023.2182090","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0964704X.2023.2182090","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The development of the brain sciences (<i>Hirnforschung</i>) in the Max Planck Society (MPG) during the early decades of the Federal Republic of Germany (FRG) was influenced by the legacy of its precursor institution, the Kaiser Wilhelm Society for the Advancement of Science (KWG). The KWG's brain science institutes, along with their intramural psychiatry and neurology research programs, were of considerable interest to the Western Allies and former administrators of the German science and education systems in their plans to rebuild the extra-university research society-first in the British Occupation Zone and later in the American and French Occupation Zones. This formation process occurred under the physicist Max Planck (1858-1947) as acting president, and the MPG was named in his honor when it was formally established in 1948. In comparison to other international developments in the brain sciences, it was neuropathology as well as neurohistology that initially dominated postwar brain research activities in West Germany. In regard to its KWG past, at least four historical factors can be identified that explain the dislocated structural and social features of the MPG during the postwar period: first, the disruption of previously existing interactions between German brain scientists and international colleagues; second, the German educational structures that countered interdisciplinary developments through their structural focus on medical research disciplines during the postwar period; third, the moral misconduct of earlier KWG scientists and scholars during the National Socialism period; and, fourth, the deep rupture that appeared through the forced migration of many Jewish and oppositional neuroscientists who sought to find exile after 1933 in countries where they had already held active collaborations since the 1910s and 1920s. This article examines several trends in the MPG's disrupted relational processes as it sought to grapple with its broken past, beginning with the period of reinauguration of relevant Max Planck Institutes in brain science and culminating with the establishment of the Presidential Research Program on the History of the Kaiser Wilhelm Society in National Socialism in 1997.</p>","PeriodicalId":49997,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the History of the Neurosciences","volume":"32 2","pages":"81-122"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2023-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"9420886","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1
On the history of neuroscience research in the Max Planck Society, 1948-2002-German, European, and transatlantic perspectives: Introduction. 马克斯·普朗克学会的神经科学研究历史,1948-2002-德国、欧洲和跨大西洋的观点:导言。
IF 0.5 3区 哲学 Q3 HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE Pub Date : 2023-04-01 DOI: 10.1080/0964704X.2023.2179779
Florian Schmaltz, Frank W Stahnisch, Sascha Topp

To further our understanding of the transformations of the modern, globalized world, historical research concerning the twentieth century must acknowledge the tremendous impact that science and technology exerted and continue to exert on political, economic, military, and social developments. To better comprehend a global history of science, it is also crucial to include Germany's most prominent research organization: The Max Planck Society for the Advancement of Science (MPG). Despite the existence of numerous institute chronicles and selected anniversary editions, the overall development of the MPG-historically situated in more than 80 institutes with more than 250 research service departments (of which approximately 50 have reached into the wider field of neuroscience, behavioral science, and cognitive science)-it remains largely terra incognita from a scholarly perspective. From June 2014 to December 2022, the Research Program on the History of the Max Planck Society (GMPG) opened previously neglected vistas on contemporary history, academic politics, and economic developments of the Federal Republic of Germany and its international relations by raising questions such as these: Who were the key scientific actors? In what networks did they work? In what fields had the MPG paved the way for cutting-edge innovations? What were its successes and where did it fail? In what ways were its institutional structures connected to its scientific achievements and its historical legacies? What is specific about the MPG in comparison to other national institutions in and outside of Germany? These questions relate to the emerging interdisciplinary field of the neurosciences. They refer in part to the MPG's founding years-from the late 1940s to the mid-1960s-which faced significant challenges for a "normalization process" in biomedical research and the burgeoning field of neuroscience. This special issue of the Journal of the History of the Neurosciences is composed of an introduction, five articles, and two neuroscience history interviews. It reflects on the multifold dimensions of behavioral psychology, brain research, and cognitive science developments at the MPG since its beginning through the reopening of several former Kaiser Wilhelm Institutes. After World War II, the extra-university research society-named in honor of physicist Max Planck (1858-1947)-was eventually established in the British Occupation Zone in 1946, in the American Zone in 1948, and in 1949 in the French Zone, unifying the MPG as the successor umbrella organization of the Kaiser Wilhelm Institutes (KWIs), now transformed into Max Planck Institutes. Chronologically, the research period covered in this special issue ranges from 1948 to 2002.

为了进一步理解现代全球化世界的变化,关于20世纪的历史研究必须承认科学技术对政治、经济、军事和社会发展的巨大影响。为了更好地理解全球科学史,将德国最著名的研究机构——马克斯·普朗克科学促进会(MPG)纳入其中也至关重要。尽管存在许多研究所编年史和精选的周年纪念版,mpg的整体发展历史上位于80多个研究所,250多个研究服务部门(其中大约50个已经进入神经科学,行为科学和认知科学的更广泛领域)-从学术角度来看,它仍然是一个很大的未知领域。从2014年6月到2022年12月,马克斯·普朗克学会历史研究项目(GMPG)通过提出以下问题,打开了以前被忽视的关于德意志联邦共和国当代史、学术政治和经济发展及其国际关系的前景:谁是关键的科学参与者?它们在什么网络中起作用?MPG在哪些领域为前沿创新铺平了道路?它的成功是什么,失败在哪里?它的制度结构以何种方式与其科学成就和历史遗产联系在一起?与德国内外的其他国家机构相比,MPG有什么特别之处?这些问题与新兴的神经科学跨学科领域有关。他们部分提到了MPG成立的年代——从20世纪40年代末到60年代中期——在生物医学研究和新兴的神经科学领域面临着“正常化进程”的重大挑战。本期《神经科学史杂志》特刊由导言、五篇文章和两篇神经科学史访谈组成。它反映了行为心理学、大脑研究和认知科学发展的多维度,自MPG开始以来,通过几个前凯撒威廉研究所的重新开放。第二次世界大战后,这个以物理学家马克斯·普朗克(1858-1947)命名的大学外研究协会最终于1946年在英国占领区成立,1948年在美国占领区成立,1949年在法国占领区成立,统一了MPG作为凯撒威廉研究所(KWIs)的继承组织,现在转变为马克斯·普朗克研究所。按时间顺序,本期特刊所涵盖的研究时期为1948年至2002年。
{"title":"On the history of neuroscience research in the Max Planck Society, 1948-2002-German, European, and transatlantic perspectives: Introduction.","authors":"Florian Schmaltz,&nbsp;Frank W Stahnisch,&nbsp;Sascha Topp","doi":"10.1080/0964704X.2023.2179779","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0964704X.2023.2179779","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>To further our understanding of the transformations of the modern, globalized world, historical research concerning the twentieth century must acknowledge the tremendous impact that science and technology exerted and continue to exert on political, economic, military, and social developments. To better comprehend a global history of science, it is also crucial to include Germany's most prominent research organization: The Max Planck Society for the Advancement of Science (MPG). Despite the existence of numerous institute chronicles and selected anniversary editions, the overall development of the MPG-historically situated in more than 80 institutes with more than 250 research service departments (of which approximately 50 have reached into the wider field of neuroscience, behavioral science, and cognitive science)-it remains largely <i>terra incognita</i> from a scholarly perspective. From June 2014 to December 2022, the Research Program on the History of the Max Planck Society (GMPG) opened previously neglected vistas on contemporary history, academic politics, and economic developments of the Federal Republic of Germany and its international relations by raising questions such as these: Who were the key scientific actors? In what networks did they work? In what fields had the MPG paved the way for cutting-edge innovations? What were its successes and where did it fail? In what ways were its institutional structures connected to its scientific achievements and its historical legacies? What is specific about the MPG in comparison to other national institutions in and outside of Germany? These questions relate to the emerging interdisciplinary field of the neurosciences. They refer in part to the MPG's founding years-from the late 1940s to the mid-1960s-which faced significant challenges for a \"normalization process\" in biomedical research and the burgeoning field of neuroscience. This special issue of the <i>Journal of the History of the Neurosciences</i> is composed of an introduction, five articles, and two neuroscience history interviews. It reflects on the multifold dimensions of behavioral psychology, brain research, and cognitive science developments at the MPG since its beginning through the reopening of several former Kaiser Wilhelm Institutes. After World War II, the extra-university research society-named in honor of physicist Max Planck (1858-1947)-was eventually established in the British Occupation Zone in 1946, in the American Zone in 1948, and in 1949 in the French Zone, unifying the MPG as the successor umbrella organization of the Kaiser Wilhelm Institutes (KWIs), now transformed into Max Planck Institutes. Chronologically, the research period covered in this special issue ranges from 1948 to 2002.</p>","PeriodicalId":49997,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the History of the Neurosciences","volume":"32 2","pages":"71-80"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2023-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"9427674","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1
Neuroscience history interview with Professor Wolf Singer, emeritus director at the Department of Neurophysiology, Max Planck Institute for Brain Research in Frankfurt am Main. 神经科学历史采访沃尔夫·辛格教授,神经生理学系名誉主任,马克斯·普朗克脑研究所在法兰克福美因河畔。
IF 0.5 3区 哲学 Q3 HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE Pub Date : 2023-04-01 DOI: 10.1080/0964704X.2021.1904714
Wolf Singer, Sascha Topp

Dr. Wolf Singer (b. 1943) is one of Germany's most renowned brain researchers and neurophysiologists. His accomplishments in the creation of new research centers for neuroscience as well as his commitment to European scientific organizations for integrative brain research are highly valued as significant moments of advancement in the neurosciences. Before his appointment as a scientific member of the Max Planck Society and director at the Frankfurt Max Planck Institute for Brain Research, he gained deep insight into the chances and pitfalls of translational initiatives at the Max Planck Institute of Psychiatry in Munich. From the late 1950s onward, the institute adapted to emerging international trends and successfully integrated neurochemistry, neurophysiology, and neuroanatomy into the fledgling interdisciplinary field of neuroscience. This agenda of reorientation was an undertaking of Otto Detlev Creutzfeldt, Detlev Ploog, Gerd Peters, and Horst Jatzkewitz, among others. In the 1970s, Munich's laboratories attracted scientists from several countries in Europe and abroad. This article examines whether specific styles of conducting (neuro)science research existed in the Max Planck Society.

沃尔夫·辛格博士(生于1943年)是德国最著名的脑研究者和神经生理学家之一。他在创建新的神经科学研究中心方面的成就,以及他对欧洲科学组织进行整合脑研究的承诺,被高度评价为神经科学进步的重要时刻。在他被任命为马克斯普朗克学会的科学成员和法兰克福马克斯普朗克脑研究所所长之前,他在慕尼黑马克斯普朗克精神病学研究所对转化倡议的机会和陷阱有了深刻的见解。从20世纪50年代末开始,该研究所适应了新兴的国际趋势,成功地将神经化学、神经生理学和神经解剖学整合到新兴的跨学科神经科学领域。这一重新定位议程是奥托·德特勒夫·克依茨菲尔德、德特勒夫·普洛格、格尔德·彼得斯和霍斯特·贾茨凯维茨等人的事业。在20世纪70年代,慕尼黑的实验室吸引了来自欧洲和国外几个国家的科学家。本文考察了马克斯·普朗克学会是否存在特定的进行(神经)科学研究的风格。
{"title":"Neuroscience history interview with Professor Wolf Singer, emeritus director at the Department of Neurophysiology, Max Planck Institute for Brain Research in Frankfurt am Main.","authors":"Wolf Singer,&nbsp;Sascha Topp","doi":"10.1080/0964704X.2021.1904714","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0964704X.2021.1904714","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Dr. Wolf Singer (b. 1943) is one of Germany's most renowned brain researchers and neurophysiologists. His accomplishments in the creation of new research centers for neuroscience as well as his commitment to European scientific organizations for integrative brain research are highly valued as significant moments of advancement in the neurosciences. Before his appointment as a scientific member of the Max Planck Society and director at the Frankfurt Max Planck Institute for Brain Research, he gained deep insight into the chances and pitfalls of translational initiatives at the Max Planck Institute of Psychiatry in Munich. From the late 1950s onward, the institute adapted to emerging international trends and successfully integrated neurochemistry, neurophysiology, and neuroanatomy into the fledgling interdisciplinary field of neuroscience. This agenda of reorientation was an undertaking of Otto Detlev Creutzfeldt, Detlev Ploog, Gerd Peters, and Horst Jatzkewitz, among others. In the 1970s, Munich's laboratories attracted scientists from several countries in Europe and abroad. This article examines whether specific styles of conducting (neuro)science research existed in the Max Planck Society.</p>","PeriodicalId":49997,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the History of the Neurosciences","volume":"32 2","pages":"148-172"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2023-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/0964704X.2021.1904714","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"9425207","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3
Drug dependence as a split object: Trajectories of neuroscientification and behavioralization at the Max Planck Institute of Psychiatry. 作为分裂对象的药物依赖:马克斯·普朗克精神病学研究所的神经科学化和行为化轨迹。
IF 0.5 3区 哲学 Q3 HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE Pub Date : 2023-04-01 DOI: 10.1080/0964704X.2021.2001267
Lisa Malich

Today, drug dependence is often understood as a "brain disease" and as an indication for behavioral therapy. In this article, I trace the historical development of the notions of drug dependence as a neuronal and behavioral problem in the local research context of the Max Planck Institute of Psychiatry in Munich, Germany. Focusing on the period from the 1950s to the 1980s, I argue that the neuroscientific and behaviorist understanding of "dependence" had two different trajectories that were yoked together under the same institution of self-proclaimed basic research: (a) the neuroscientific notion derived from an older toxicological approach to drug effects that was then accompanied by biochemical methods from the 1950s onwards, and neurochemical approaches from the 1960s and 1970s; and (b) the behaviorist notion had predecessors in psychotherapeutic approaches to addiction that emerged in the 1950s and took a psychodynamic orientation at the Institute. When the Institute positioned itself as a basic research establishment and developed a unified structure during the 1960s, these psychodynamic approaches were excluded for being "too applied." Soon afterward, behaviorist psychotherapeutic approaches to drug dependence emerged in the 1970s, emphasizing their foundation in basic research. Even though neuroscientific and behaviorist notions had some overlaps through the use of animal experimentation and by referring to basic research, researchers using the two approaches remained separate in their respective units during the time period under analysis. When conceptualizing the local scientific occupation with "drug dependence," I apply here the history of science concept of a "split object." Like the "boundary object," the split object is plastic enough to adapt to local conditions and robust enough to maintain its genuine identity. Compared with the boundary object, however, the split object does not invite scientific collaboration. It does, nonetheless, enable epistemic coexistence under a common institutional goal.

今天,药物依赖通常被理解为一种“脑部疾病”,并作为行为治疗的指征。在这篇文章中,我在德国慕尼黑的马克斯·普朗克精神病学研究所的当地研究背景下,追溯了药物依赖概念作为神经元和行为问题的历史发展。聚焦于20世纪50年代至80年代,我认为神经科学和行为主义对“依赖”的理解有两种不同的轨迹,它们在自称为基础研究的同一机构下捆绑在一起:(a)神经科学概念源于一种较旧的毒理学方法来研究药物效应,然后从20世纪50年代开始伴随着生化方法,以及20世纪60年代和70年代的神经化学方法;(b)行为主义概念在20世纪50年代出现的成瘾心理治疗方法中有其前身,并在研究所采取了心理动力学取向。当该研究所在20世纪60年代将自己定位为基础研究机构并开发了统一的结构时,这些心理动力学方法因“过于应用”而被排除在外。不久之后,20世纪70年代出现了针对药物依赖的行为主义心理治疗方法,强调了它们在基础研究中的基础。尽管通过使用动物实验和参考基础研究,神经科学和行为主义的概念有一些重叠,但在分析的时间段内,使用这两种方法的研究人员在各自的单位中保持独立。当用“药物依赖”概念化当地的科学职业时,我在这里应用了科学史上“分裂对象”的概念。就像“边界物体”一样,分裂的物体具有足够的可塑性以适应当地的条件,并且足够坚固以保持其真实的身份。然而,与边界对象相比,分裂对象不需要科学协作。尽管如此,它确实在一个共同的制度目标下实现了认知的共存。
{"title":"Drug dependence as a split object: Trajectories of neuroscientification and behavioralization at the Max Planck Institute of Psychiatry.","authors":"Lisa Malich","doi":"10.1080/0964704X.2021.2001267","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0964704X.2021.2001267","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Today, drug dependence is often understood as a \"brain disease\" and as an indication for behavioral therapy. In this article, I trace the historical development of the notions of drug dependence as a neuronal and behavioral problem in the local research context of the Max Planck Institute of Psychiatry in Munich, Germany. Focusing on the period from the 1950s to the 1980s, I argue that the neuroscientific and behaviorist understanding of \"dependence\" had two different trajectories that were yoked together under the same institution of self-proclaimed basic research: (a) the neuroscientific notion derived from an older toxicological approach to drug effects that was then accompanied by biochemical methods from the 1950s onwards, and neurochemical approaches from the 1960s and 1970s; and (b) the behaviorist notion had predecessors in psychotherapeutic approaches to addiction that emerged in the 1950s and took a psychodynamic orientation at the Institute. When the Institute positioned itself as a basic research establishment and developed a unified structure during the 1960s, these psychodynamic approaches were excluded for being \"too applied.\" Soon afterward, behaviorist psychotherapeutic approaches to drug dependence emerged in the 1970s, emphasizing their foundation in basic research. Even though neuroscientific and behaviorist notions had some overlaps through the use of animal experimentation and by referring to basic research, researchers using the two approaches remained separate in their respective units during the time period under analysis. When conceptualizing the local scientific occupation with \"drug dependence,\" I apply here the history of science concept of a \"split object.\" Like the \"boundary object,\" the split object is plastic enough to adapt to local conditions and robust enough to maintain its genuine identity. Compared with the boundary object, however, the split object does not invite scientific collaboration. It does, nonetheless, enable epistemic coexistence under a common institutional goal.</p>","PeriodicalId":49997,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the History of the Neurosciences","volume":"32 2","pages":"123-147"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2023-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"9778640","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2
The problematic legacy of victim specimens from the Nazi era: Identifying the persons behind the specimens at the Max Planck Institutes for Brain Research and of Psychiatry. 纳粹时代受害者标本的遗留问题:马克斯·普朗克脑研究和精神病学研究所标本背后的人的身份。
IF 0.5 3区 哲学 Q3 HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE Pub Date : 2023-04-01 DOI: 10.1080/0964704X.2021.1959185
Paul Weindling, Gerrit Hohendorf, Axel C Hüntelmann, Jasmin Kindel, Annemarie Kinzelbach, Aleksandra Loewenau, Stephanie Neuner, Michał Adam Palacz, Marion Zingler, Herwig Czech

Although 75 years have passed since the end of World War II, the Max Planck Society (Max-Planck Gesellschaft, MPG), successor to the Kaiser Wilhelm Society (Kaiser-Wilhelm-Gesellschaft, KWG), still must grapple with how two of its foremost institutes-the KWI of Psychiatry in Munich and the KWI for Brain Research in Berlin-Buch-amassed collections of brains from victims of Nazi crimes, and how these human remains were retained for postwar research. Initial efforts to deal with victim specimens during the 1980s met with denial and, subsequently, rapid disposal in 1989/1990. Despite the decision of the MPG's president to retain documentation for historical purposes, there are gaps in the available sources. This article provides preliminary results of a research program initiated in 2017 (to be completed by October 2023) to provide victim identifications and the circumstances of deaths.

尽管第二次世界大战结束已经过去了75年,但作为威廉皇帝学会(Kaiser-Wilhelm-Gesellschaft, KWG)的继承者,马克斯·普朗克学会(Max-Planck Gesellschaft, MPG)仍然必须努力解决它的两个最重要的研究所——慕尼黑的精神病学研究所和柏林-布赫的脑研究研究所——是如何收集纳粹罪行受害者的大脑的,以及这些人类遗骸是如何被保留下来用于战后研究的。1980年代处理受害者标本的初步努力遭到拒绝,随后在1989/1990年迅速处理。尽管MPG主席决定为历史目的保留文件,但可用的来源存在空白。本文提供了2017年启动的一项研究计划(将于2023年10月完成)的初步结果,该计划旨在提供受害者身份和死亡情况。
{"title":"The problematic legacy of victim specimens from the Nazi era: Identifying the persons behind the specimens at the Max Planck Institutes for Brain Research and of Psychiatry.","authors":"Paul Weindling,&nbsp;Gerrit Hohendorf,&nbsp;Axel C Hüntelmann,&nbsp;Jasmin Kindel,&nbsp;Annemarie Kinzelbach,&nbsp;Aleksandra Loewenau,&nbsp;Stephanie Neuner,&nbsp;Michał Adam Palacz,&nbsp;Marion Zingler,&nbsp;Herwig Czech","doi":"10.1080/0964704X.2021.1959185","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0964704X.2021.1959185","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Although 75 years have passed since the end of World War II, the Max Planck Society (Max-Planck Gesellschaft, MPG), successor to the Kaiser Wilhelm Society (Kaiser-Wilhelm-Gesellschaft, KWG), still must grapple with how two of its foremost institutes-the KWI of Psychiatry in Munich and the KWI for Brain Research in Berlin-Buch-amassed collections of brains from victims of Nazi crimes, and how these human remains were retained for postwar research. Initial efforts to deal with victim specimens during the 1980s met with denial and, subsequently, rapid disposal in 1989/1990. Despite the decision of the MPG's president to retain documentation for historical purposes, there are gaps in the available sources. This article provides preliminary results of a research program initiated in 2017 (to be completed by October 2023) to provide victim identifications and the circumstances of deaths.</p>","PeriodicalId":49997,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the History of the Neurosciences","volume":"32 2","pages":"218-239"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2023-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"9425584","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5
A New Field in Mind: A History of Interdisciplinarity in the Early Brain Sciences 思维的新领域:早期脑科学的跨学科史
IF 0.5 3区 哲学 Q3 HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE Pub Date : 2023-03-03 DOI: 10.1080/0964704x.2023.2178230
L. Zeidman
Austro-Prussian dualism in 1866 and achieving German unification in 1870–1871, he emphasizes that the Iron Chancellor viewed the idea of the nation as “nothingmore than an instrument in his tool casewithwhich hewould restructure the European order” (178). That this rebuildingwas successful was “not least” due to an “excess” of the fortunes of war (216). In the end, Jahrwants us to understand thatmore reasons led to the founding of the Kaiserreich than just nationalism and thewill of Bismarck. He seeks to address the modern and general antipathy for the founding of the German nation-state 150 years ago. His goal is to bring the complex series of events that led to the emergence of the empire closer to an audience that knows little about these events because “the memory of them has long been overlaid by the subsequent world wars and rests deeply sedimented at the bottom of the collective memory” (291). However, as is often the case when chronicling diplomacy and war, Jahr’s presentation follows the military events of 1864, 1866, and 1870 that made possible the imperial proclamation in 1871. Although Jahr shifts the focus of his narrative away from Bismarck, Moltke, and Roon, he sometimes gets bogged down in the details of the Wars of Unification without providing proper context, which raises the question of why he decided to include such details. Jahr discloses the wars’ causes, the diplomatic environment, the strategies and operations, and the experiences of both the military and civilian population. As much as possible, he allows the contemporaries to speak by utilizing a variety of published sources, in particular letters, diaries, and journals. As for original contributions, the book’s final chapter examines the contrary images of the history of the Kaiserreich created both contemporaneously and subsequently. Its title, “The Spirit of Violence” summarizes the book’s main argument: that the creation of the empire established violence as a norm in German history that prevailed until 1945. In addition, Jahr examines the event of the founding of the empire over the longer term by looking at the very different cultures of commemoration and remembrance in the states involved in the Wars of Unification. Lastly, Jahr’s emphasis on Bismarck’s economic policy, the success of the Prussians in developing their economy faster than their rivals, and the views of the economy by Marx and Engels are presented in the short but important chapter “Armaments and Politics.” Jahr quotes Rudolf Löwenstein, who had prophesied in 1862 that German unity would be established “not through ‘iron and blood,’ but rather through iron and coal” (94). Blut und Eisen is a multifaceted, thought-provoking book. Jahr connects the dramatic events of the 1860s with the great trends of the time and the perspective from above with experiences from below. The description of the military events remains tight and clear. Jahr covers much ground in a well-written, handsome book.
{"title":"A New Field in Mind: A History of Interdisciplinarity in the Early Brain Sciences","authors":"L. Zeidman","doi":"10.1080/0964704x.2023.2178230","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0964704x.2023.2178230","url":null,"abstract":"Austro-Prussian dualism in 1866 and achieving German unification in 1870–1871, he emphasizes that the Iron Chancellor viewed the idea of the nation as “nothingmore than an instrument in his tool casewithwhich hewould restructure the European order” (178). That this rebuildingwas successful was “not least” due to an “excess” of the fortunes of war (216). In the end, Jahrwants us to understand thatmore reasons led to the founding of the Kaiserreich than just nationalism and thewill of Bismarck. He seeks to address the modern and general antipathy for the founding of the German nation-state 150 years ago. His goal is to bring the complex series of events that led to the emergence of the empire closer to an audience that knows little about these events because “the memory of them has long been overlaid by the subsequent world wars and rests deeply sedimented at the bottom of the collective memory” (291). However, as is often the case when chronicling diplomacy and war, Jahr’s presentation follows the military events of 1864, 1866, and 1870 that made possible the imperial proclamation in 1871. Although Jahr shifts the focus of his narrative away from Bismarck, Moltke, and Roon, he sometimes gets bogged down in the details of the Wars of Unification without providing proper context, which raises the question of why he decided to include such details. Jahr discloses the wars’ causes, the diplomatic environment, the strategies and operations, and the experiences of both the military and civilian population. As much as possible, he allows the contemporaries to speak by utilizing a variety of published sources, in particular letters, diaries, and journals. As for original contributions, the book’s final chapter examines the contrary images of the history of the Kaiserreich created both contemporaneously and subsequently. Its title, “The Spirit of Violence” summarizes the book’s main argument: that the creation of the empire established violence as a norm in German history that prevailed until 1945. In addition, Jahr examines the event of the founding of the empire over the longer term by looking at the very different cultures of commemoration and remembrance in the states involved in the Wars of Unification. Lastly, Jahr’s emphasis on Bismarck’s economic policy, the success of the Prussians in developing their economy faster than their rivals, and the views of the economy by Marx and Engels are presented in the short but important chapter “Armaments and Politics.” Jahr quotes Rudolf Löwenstein, who had prophesied in 1862 that German unity would be established “not through ‘iron and blood,’ but rather through iron and coal” (94). Blut und Eisen is a multifaceted, thought-provoking book. Jahr connects the dramatic events of the 1860s with the great trends of the time and the perspective from above with experiences from below. The description of the military events remains tight and clear. Jahr covers much ground in a well-written, handsome book.","PeriodicalId":49997,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the History of the Neurosciences","volume":"32 1","pages":"392 - 398"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2023-03-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49571189","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3
The Brain in Search of Itself: Santiago Ramón y Cajal and the Story of the Neuron 寻找自我的大脑:Santiago Ramón y Cajal与神经元的故事
IF 0.5 3区 哲学 Q3 HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE Pub Date : 2023-03-02 DOI: 10.1080/0964704X.2023.2178228
D. Lanska
{"title":"The Brain in Search of Itself: Santiago Ramón y Cajal and the Story of the Neuron","authors":"D. Lanska","doi":"10.1080/0964704X.2023.2178228","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0964704X.2023.2178228","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":49997,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the History of the Neurosciences","volume":"25 11","pages":"506 - 511"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2023-03-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41244854","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2
期刊
Journal of the History of the Neurosciences
全部 Acc. Chem. Res. ACS Applied Bio Materials ACS Appl. Electron. Mater. ACS Appl. Energy Mater. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces ACS Appl. Nano Mater. ACS Appl. Polym. Mater. ACS BIOMATER-SCI ENG ACS Catal. ACS Cent. Sci. ACS Chem. Biol. ACS Chemical Health & Safety ACS Chem. Neurosci. ACS Comb. Sci. ACS Earth Space Chem. ACS Energy Lett. ACS Infect. Dis. ACS Macro Lett. ACS Mater. Lett. ACS Med. Chem. Lett. ACS Nano ACS Omega ACS Photonics ACS Sens. ACS Sustainable Chem. Eng. ACS Synth. Biol. Anal. Chem. BIOCHEMISTRY-US Bioconjugate Chem. BIOMACROMOLECULES Chem. Res. Toxicol. Chem. Rev. Chem. Mater. CRYST GROWTH DES ENERG FUEL Environ. Sci. Technol. Environ. Sci. Technol. Lett. Eur. J. Inorg. Chem. IND ENG CHEM RES Inorg. Chem. J. Agric. Food. Chem. J. Chem. Eng. Data J. Chem. Educ. J. Chem. Inf. Model. J. Chem. Theory Comput. J. Med. Chem. J. Nat. Prod. J PROTEOME RES J. Am. Chem. Soc. LANGMUIR MACROMOLECULES Mol. Pharmaceutics Nano Lett. Org. Lett. ORG PROCESS RES DEV ORGANOMETALLICS J. Org. Chem. J. Phys. Chem. J. Phys. Chem. A J. Phys. Chem. B J. Phys. Chem. C J. Phys. Chem. Lett. Analyst Anal. Methods Biomater. Sci. Catal. Sci. Technol. Chem. Commun. Chem. Soc. Rev. CHEM EDUC RES PRACT CRYSTENGCOMM Dalton Trans. Energy Environ. Sci. ENVIRON SCI-NANO ENVIRON SCI-PROC IMP ENVIRON SCI-WAT RES Faraday Discuss. Food Funct. Green Chem. Inorg. Chem. Front. Integr. Biol. J. Anal. At. Spectrom. J. Mater. Chem. A J. Mater. Chem. B J. Mater. Chem. C Lab Chip Mater. Chem. Front. Mater. Horiz. MEDCHEMCOMM Metallomics Mol. Biosyst. Mol. Syst. Des. Eng. Nanoscale Nanoscale Horiz. Nat. Prod. Rep. New J. Chem. Org. Biomol. Chem. Org. Chem. Front. PHOTOCH PHOTOBIO SCI PCCP Polym. Chem.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1