Siegel, schaudinn, Fleck and the etiology of syphilis

In 1905 two different etiologic agents for syphilis were proposed in Berlin, one, the Cytorrhyctes luis, by John Siegel, the other, Spirochaete pallida, by Fritz Schaudinn. Both scientists were pupils of Franz Eilhard Schulze, and were outsiders to the Berlin medical establishment. Both belonged to the same thought collective, used the same thought style, and started from the same supposition that the etiologic agent of syphilis must be a protist. Both used the same morphological approach, the same microscopes and the same stains. Both presented their findings in the same societies, used the same rhetoric, published in the same journals, used the same arguments to criticise each other's shortcomings. Both were backed by powerful institutions and enlisted the support of prestigious patrons. Within half a year, the scientific community at large had in its overwhelming majority accepted Schaudinn's results and rejected those of Siegel. Social forces thus cannot be shown to have played any role in deciding the issue. Ludwik Fleck's suggestion that 'appropriate influence' and a 'proper measure of publicity throughout the thought collective' would have been sufficient for Siegel's ideas to win the day is untenable.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1016/S1369-8486(01)00014-0
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Revision history
Request removal from index
Download options
Our Archive

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 26,702
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library
References found in this work BETA

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA
The Reading of Ludwik Fleck: Questions of Sources and Impetus.Eva Hedfors - 2006 - Social Epistemology 20 (2):131 – 161.
Fleck in Context.Eva Hedfors - 2007 - Perspectives on Science 15 (1):49-86.
Was There a Bacteriological Revolution in Late Nineteenth-Century Medicine?Michael Worboys - 2007 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C 38 (1):20-42.
Siegel, Schaudinn, Fleck and the Etiology of Syphilis: A Response to Henk Van den Belt.J. Lindenmann - 2002 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C 33 (4):751-752.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles
Siegel on the Rationality of Science.Brian S. Baigrie - 1988 - Philosophy of Science 55 (3):435-441.
Ludwik Fleck and the Concept of Style in the Natural Sciences.Claus Zittel - 2012 - Studies in East European Thought 64 (1-2):53-79.
Thought Styles and Paradigms—a Comparative Study of Ludwik Fleck and Thomas S. Kuhn.Nicola Mößner - 2011 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 42 (2):362–371.
The Role of Skill in Experimentation: Reading Ludwik Fleck's Study of the Wasserman Reaction as an Example of Ian Hacking's Experimental Realism.David Stump - 1988 - PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1988:302 - 308.
Ludwik Fleck on Proto-Ideas in Medicine.Stig Brorson - 2000 - Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 3 (2):147-152.
Genesis and Development of a Scientific Fact.Ludwik Fleck - 1979 - University of Chicago Press.
Siegel, Schaudinn, Fleck and the Etiology of Syphilis: A Response to Henk Van den Belt.J. Lindenmann - 2002 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C 33 (4):751-752.

Monthly downloads

Added to index


Total downloads

13 ( #350,205 of 2,158,461 )

Recent downloads (6 months)

3 ( #132,912 of 2,158,461 )

How can I increase my downloads?

My notes
Sign in to use this feature

There  are no threads in this forum
Nothing in this forum yet.

Other forums