Berichte zur Wissenschaftsgeschichte最新文献

This study examines the historical transformations and multifaceted applications of stalactite (shizhong ru) in premodern China (3rd c. BCE–17th c. CE). Initially regarded as an elixir for consumption, stalactite gained popularity due to its perceived medicinal benefits, especially as a safer alternative to the toxic Five-Stone Powder. However, its usage declined due to increasing medical concerns, quality inconsistencies, and regional climatic factors, particularly in southern China. As doubts over safety intensified, stalactite was gradually relegated from “non-toxic” dietary use to cautious prescription and eventually became the subject of debates on its toxic potential. At the same time, its restorative logic extended beyond the human body to agriculture. Over time, its application re-emerged in both medical and agricultural contexts, where it was applied to enhance fertility and vitality. By tracing these shifts through historical and medical texts as well as environmental factors, this study highlights the dynamic relationship between natural resources, medicine, and societal needs, offering new insights into the evolution of mineral-based therapeutics for land as well as humans in premodern China.

Drawing on previously unknown sources, this article documents the physicist Johannes Stark's unsuccessful attempt to publish a declaration by German Nobel laureates in support of the August 1934 referendum. Following the death of Reich President Paul von Hindenburg, this referendum aimed to legitimize the transfer of the two highest state offices—Reich President and Reich Chancellor—to one single person, thereby making Adolf Hitler the head of state and Führer of the German people. At the suggestion of the Propaganda Ministry, Stark sent a telegram to eleven “Aryan German Nobel laureates” in chemistry and physics, and urged them to sign a public appeal to participate in the referendum and support “the great national commitment of the entire German people” to Adolf Hitler as “Führer of the German people.” Responses to Stark's telegram ranged from wholehearted support to rejection. The majority of the laureates declined to lend their signature, and the initiative ultimately failed. The episode reveals that Stark—although at the height of his influence as president of the Physikalisch-Technische Reichsanstalt (Imperial Institute of Physics and Technology) and the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (German Research Foundation)—was largely isolated within the scientific community of the so-called Third Reich.

Edmond Locard's L'enquête criminelle et les méthodes scientifiques marks a pivotal moment in criminology's transformation from a largely unmethodical practice to a scientific discipline. While Locard is best known for advancing laboratory methods of forensic analysis, this article argues that at the heart of his conception of forensics lies the assertion that it is not rationality, but vivid imagination that makes or breaks the criminal investigation. Following Locard's claim that one of the most crucial challenges in teaching forensics is to introduce fellow criminologists to the art of using intuition and creativity for problem-solving, this article examines the concrete ways in which L'enquête criminelle attempts to actively engage the reader's imaginative faculty by presenting problems that can only be solved through “lateral thinking” and “abductive reasoning.” To introduce his speculative methods, I argue, Locard borrows from detective fiction in two ways: Firstly, he counterfactually presents literary case studies by Poe as real-world cases, endorsing Dupin's detective technique as a viable criminological practice. By planting hidden clues and red herrings in semiotic puzzles to be deciphered by the reader, secondly, Locard appropriates narrative techniques to sharpen his reader's hermeneutics instincts.

The article is based on the hitherto unknown correspondence between the Polish scholar and founder of the Slavic-Philological Seminary in Breslau, Władysław Nehring (1830–1909), and the secret Prussian Minister of Culture Friedrich Althoff (1839–1908). The archival material sheds new light on the establishment and early years of the institution and the background to Prussian science policy. Nehring's self-portrayal and the incorrect dating of the founding of the institute, which has so far not been scrutinized by researchers, only provide a very inadequate picture of the circumstances of its origins. Finally, the widespread idea of Althoff as despiser of professors also needs to be reconsidered in this context.

A key difference between collecting life stories and doing research interviews is the role of the interviewer. While training in oral history may focus on using standard scripts to take a life story, research interviews are motivated by specific questions that arise from particular historical projects and are often not primarily focused on the biography of the interviewee. Therefore, the research interview can be seen as being both less personal with regard to the personal life story of the interviewee and more personal with respect to the foregrounding of the specific interests of the interviewer. Soraya de Chadarevian has been one of the first historians of science to systematically reflect on this and other differences between life story interviews and research interviews. In this contribution, Lara Keuck, who has herself made use of interviews in her research, interrogates de Chadarevian on her approach to research interviews in her historical practice. They discuss how de Chadarevian's personal approach has developed and changed over the past three decades and reflect on the methodological implications that can be distilled from this experience.

Wie kann man einen historischen Blick auf das eigene Fach werfen? Diese Frage ist nicht einfach zu beantworten – will man einerseits nicht in einer Nabelschau und Hagiographie enden, andererseits aber auch keinen umfassenden Entwurf einer zukünftigen Historiographie vorlegen. Die hier in loser Folge publizierten Interviews mit bekannten Protagonist:innen der Berliner Wissenschaftsgeschichte von ca. 1970–1990 in West und Ost rücken die Geschichte des Faches deshalb in einem bestimmten Milieu in den Fokus und versuchen, die Historiographie jenseits einer Institutionen- oder Theoriegeschichte voranzutreiben. Welche Motivationen oder Probleme bewegten einzelne Wissenschaftler:innen, sich der Geschichte ihres Faches zu widmen oder sich etwa aus der Soziologie oder Philosophie in die Wissenschaftsgeschichte zu bewegen? Welche Ausbildungspraktiken existierten in diesem heterogenen, zwischen den Disziplinen angesiedelten Feld, welche Anregungen bezog man aus welchen Kontexten? Wie war Lehre strukturiert und welche Netzwerke bildeten sich mit der Zeit? Kurz: Mit welchem Interesse kam man zur Wissenschaftsgeschichte und was wurde daraus?

Die Auswahl der Interviewees erfolgt ohne Anspruch auf Vollständigkeit oder Proporz; der Fragenkatalog der Interviews richtet sich individuell nach den Biographien und dem Werk und entfaltet sich oft spontan im Gespräch. Die Interviews wurden digital aufgezeichnet, transkribiert, der Schriftsprache angepasst, gegebenenfalls gekürzt, annotiert und von den Interviewees authentifiziert.

Wir beabsichtigen mit dieser Serie von Interviews zunächst die Dokumentation rezenter Geschichte durch eine Oral History, die subjektive Wahrnehmungen und persönliche Erlebnisse einschließt. Auf diese Weise werden Segmente einer größtenteils ungeschriebenen Geschichte anhand von Biographien erfahrbar und damit auch einer weiteren kritischen Bearbeitung und Integration in ein Gesamtbild zugänglich. Da uns im Zuge der jeweiligen Vorbereitung und Durchführung, Transkription und Abstimmung der Interviews daran gelegen war, aus Sicht der Akteur:innen wichtige Sammelbände und Aufsätze, Monographien oder auch „graue Literatur“ zu erfassen, wird nebenbei eine kommentierte Bibliographie zur Geschichte der Wissenschaftsgeschichte entstehen. Unsere Hoffnung besteht darin, mittels dieser Sammlung mit Berlin einen fruchtbaren Raum und mit den siebziger und achtziger Jahren eine produktive Zeit des Faches jenseits von Reminiszenz oder Nostalgie zu erkunden – nicht zuletzt auch, um den Blick für gegenwärtige Herausforderungen des Faches zu schärfen.