SummaryThe elements of ‐research are essentinlly the same for all branches of knowing. Their analysis leads immediately to the fundamental conceptions of human comprehension. As speculation of all peoples has discovered early, the most important ones are opposed in pairs to one another in a dialectic tension. Each pair affords a double aspect of phenomena. Although unity lies a t the base of duality no complete amalgamation occurs. So all rational knowledge develops on an irrational background.

ZusammenfassungBeim Versuch, ein natürliches System der Wirklichkeit zu entwerfen, wird von der Vorstellung eines Schichtenbaus und von der kategorialen Erkenntnisweise im Sinne Nicolai Hartmanns ausgegangen. Dabei erweist sich einmal mehr die grundlegende Bedeutung der Gegensätzlichkeit in ihren verschiedenen Erscheinungsweisen. Insbesondere ist die Erfassung der Gesamtwirklichkeit nur unter einem Doppelaspekt möglich. Der diskursiv‐luminose Aspekt einer vierfach geschichteten, vieldimensionalen und raumzeitlich aufgespaltenen Wirklichkeit steht dem intuitiv‐numinosen Aspekt mit seiner schöpferischen, dem Raumzeitlichen entrückten Einheitsschau komplementär gegenüber. Erst beide Aspekte umfassen gemeinsam das Ganze (...) der Wirklichkeit.Der Schichtenbau der Wirklichkeit führt gleichzeitig, in Weiterentwicklung älterer Ideen, zu einer « natürlichen » Systematik der Wissenschaften, die einer jeden ihr Gebièt, aber auch ihre Schranken zuweist.RésuméPour essayer d'ébauchcr un système naturel de la réalité on part de la notion d'une structure stratifiée et d'une conception catégoriale de la connaissance telle que la conçolt Nicolai Hartmann. A ce propos se manifeste une fois de plus l'importance primordiale de l'opposition des contraires dans ses diverses manifestations. On ne peut en particulier comprendre la réalité dans sa totalité que sous un double aspect. A l'aspect discursif‐lumineux d'une réalité à quatre couches, multidimensionnelle divisée dans l'espacetemps, s'oppose de façon complémentaire l'aspect intuitif‐numineux avec sa vue créatrice d'un tout qui échappe à l'espace‐temps. Seule la conjonction de ces deux aspects embrasse la réalité tout entière.La structure stratifiée de la réalité aboutit tout en élargissant d'anciennes idées, à une systématique des sciences qui assigne à chacune à la fois son domaine et ses limites. (shrink)

In 1869, Johann Friedrich Miescher discovered a new substance in the nucleus of living cells. The substance, which he called nuclein, is now known as DNA, yet both Miescher’s name and his theoretical ideas about nuclein are all but forgotten. This paper traces the trajectory of Miescher’s reception in the historiography of genetics. To his critics, Miescher was a “contaminator,” whose preparations were impure. Modern historians portrayed him as a “confuser,” whose misunderstandings delayed the development of (...) molecular biology. Each of these portrayals reflects the disciplinary context in which Miescher’s work was evaluated. Using archival sources to unearth Miescher’s unpublished speculations—including an analogy between the hereditary material and language, and a speculation that a series of asymmetric carbon atoms could account for hereditary variation—this paper clarifies the ways in which the past was judged through the lens of contemporary concerns. It also shows how organization, structure, function, and information were already being considered when nuclein was first discovered nearly 150 years ago. (shrink)

In 1871, the Swiss physiological chemist Friedrich Miescher published the results of a detailed chemical analysis of pus cells, in which he showed that the nuclei of these cells contained a hitherto unknown phosphorus-rich chemical which he named ‘nuclein’ for its specific localisation. Published in German, ‘Ueber Die Chemische Zusammensetzung Der Eiterzellen’, [On the Chemical Composition of Pus Cells]Medicinisch-Chemische Untersuchungen(1871) 4: 441–60, was the first publication to describe DNA, and yet remains relatively obscure. We therefore undertook a translation of (...) the paper into English, which, together with the original article, can be accessed via the following linkhttps://doi.org/10.1017/S000708742000062X. In this paper, we offer some intellectual context for its publication and immediate reception. (shrink)

This paper presents the manner in which the DNA, the molecule of life, was discovered. Unlike what many people, even biologists, believe, it was Johannes Friedrich Miescher who originally discovered and isolated nuclein, currently known as DNA, in 1869, 75 years before Watson and Crick unveiled its structure. Also, in this paper we show, and above all demonstrate, the serendipity of this major discovery. Like many of his contemporaries, Miescher set out to discover how cells worked by means (...) of studying and analysing their proteins. During this arduous task, he detected an unexpected substance of unpredicted properties. This new substance precipitated when he added acid to the solution and it dissolved again when adding alkali. Unexpectedly and by a mere fluke, Miescher was the first person to obtain a DNA precipitate. The paper then presents the term serendipity and discusses how it has influenced the discovery of other important scientific milestones. Finally, we address the question of whether serendipitous discoveries can be nurtured and what role the computer could play in this process. (shrink)

One hundred and fifty years ago, a hopeful young researcher reported a recent discovery he had made. Working in the bowels of a medieval castle in the German city of Tübingen, he had isolated a then entirely new type of molecule. This was the birth of a field that would fundamentally change the course of biology, medicine, and beyond. His discovery: DNA. His name: Friedrich Miescher. In this article, the authors try to find answers to the question why—despite the (...) fact that virtually everyone nowadays knows DNA—hardly anyone remembers the man who discovered it. In the history of science, the discovery of DNA was a seminal moment. Why then did it not enter into public memory? Ground‐breaking discoveries can occur in a historical context that is not ready to appreciate them. But that's not all that decides who is remembered and who is forgotten. Scientific pioneers sometimes fail to publicize their findings in a way that ensures that they receive the attention they merit. As discussed here, their personalities and habits may cause discoveries to be “overwritten” by more recent researchers, resulting in distorted cultural memories no longer reflecting the initial event. (shrink)