Müller’s Lab: A Depressed Scientist and His Unruly …...Müller’s Lab: A Depressed Scientist...

3
18 I would like to thank The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation and the Max Planck Institute for the History of Science for supporting the research described in this article. H ow do human interactions affect sci- entific ideas? To answer this ques- tion, I have been studying the relation- ships among renowned physiologist Johannes Müller and his students during 1833 -1858, when the modern laborato- ry was first starting to develop. What I have been learning about Müller and his students has supported my growing idea that there can be no sharp division between life and work. The experiments that Müller’s group performed and the discoveries that they made are insepara- bly linked to their everyday experiences in 19th-century Berlin. What makes Müller and his group an especially interesting lab to investi- gate? First, Müller’s own life reflects the shifts of 19th-century politics as a seis- mograph represents the earth’s motions (Haberling, Koller). A shoemaker’s son, Müller began studying medicine at the University of Bonn just three years after the Prussians reopened it following the withdrawal of Napoleon. During Müller’s second year as a medical stu- dent at the University of Bonn, his father died, and he survived financially only with the help of powerful patrons, including the Prussian minister of cul- ture. As a researcher, Müller worked at a frenetic pace, studying the sensory, nervous, lymphatic, circulatory and reproductive systems, sometimes simul- taneously. In 1828, just after he married the musically gifted Nanny Zeiler, he collapsed from overwork, suffering a long, depressive episode from which many feared he would never recover. But Müller did, going on to make his greatest contribution to physiology: the concept of specific sense energies. This theory dictated that the nerves of our sensory organs are designed to respond to only one kind of stimulus, with the consequence that our experiences and knowledge are shaped by the capacities of our sensory organs. Müller also pro- vided strong evidence that sensory and motor nerves branched off from the spinal cord along different pathways. In 1833, when the most prestigious German chair of anatomy and physiolo- gy became available — a professorship at the University of Berlin — Müller made an all-out effort to win it. He suc- ceeded, and from 1833 onward he became the center of a dynamic group of researchers, investigators who shaped the modern sciences of biology, bacteri- ology, neurophysiology, psychophysics, pathology and embryology. Between 1833 and 1840 Müller published several editions of his Handbook of Physiology, which would become the standard text- book on the subject for much of the 19th century. Yet strangely, despite his success as a physiologist, Müller devot- ed himself increasingly to anatomy, per- forming almost no physiological experi- ments after 1840. In 1847-48, in addition to his regu- lar duties, Müller served as rector (pres- ident) of Berlin University. In the spring of 1848, street fighting broke out between government troops and work- ers demanding political rights and better living conditions, and hundreds of peo- ple were shot. At the university, some of the students and faculty sided with the workers, including Müller’s former stu- dent Rudolf Virchow, who fought at the barricades. The struggle was complicat- ed by right-wing student factions calling for a united German empire. At the time, Germany consisted of many loose- ly affiliated states, only some of which were ruled by the Prussian king. In ret- rospect, Müller’s students agreed that their conservative professor was no politician, the worst possible negotiator between rebellious students and reac- tionary officials. As a result of this stress, Müller suffered another mental breakdown and could not resume his experiments until the spring of 1849. Historian of medicine Johannes Steudel believes that Müller was a cyclic manic depressive, but this kind of categoriza- tion imposes 20th-century medicine on a 19th-century condition (Steudel, 115). Almost all of Müller’s troubles can be explained by stress and overwork. During the last 10 years of his life, Müller became famous for his studies of marine biology, dedicating most of his energy to his greatest love, the universi- ty’s Anatomical Museum. In 1855, returning from a research trip to Sweden, he survived a shipwreck but was again paralyzed by depression because a young student who had accompanied him drowned. Two years later, Müller began taking large doses of opium to combat abdominal pain and the insomnia that had plagued him all his life. In the spring of 1858, one of these doses may have killed him, either by accident or as a result of his own will. As to whether their teacher took his own life, his students disagree, as they did in the lab. A second reason Müller’s group is so interesting to explore is the variety of his students’ achievements. Jakob Henle, Müller’s first and favorite assis- tant, anticipated Louis Pasteur in sug- gesting that diseases were caused by liv- ing organisms. Theodor Schwann demonstrated that all animals consisted of cells. Emil Du Bois-Reymond pro- posed the first experimentally supported mechanism for nerve impulse conduc- tion and collaborated with instrument Müller’s Lab: A Depressed Scientist and His Unruly Students in 19th-Century Berlin Laura C. Otis Associate Professor Department of English A “rococo” sea urchin embryo drawn by Müller in 1848.

Transcript of Müller’s Lab: A Depressed Scientist and His Unruly …...Müller’s Lab: A Depressed Scientist...

Page 1: Müller’s Lab: A Depressed Scientist and His Unruly …...Müller’s Lab: A Depressed Scientist and His Unruly Students in 19th-Century Berlin Laura C. Otis Associate Professor

18

I would like to thank The John D. andCatherine T. MacArthur Foundationand the Max Planck Institute for theHistory of Science for supporting theresearch described in this article.

How do human interactions affect sci-entific ideas? To answer this ques-

tion, I have been studying the relation-ships among renowned physiologistJohannes Müller and his students during1833 -1858, when the modern laborato-ry was first starting to develop. What Ihave been learning about Müller and hisstudents has supported my growing ideathat there can be no sharp divisionbetween life and work. The experimentsthat Müller’s group performed and thediscoveries that they made are insepara-bly linked to their everyday experiencesin 19th-century Berlin.

What makes Müller and his groupan especially interesting lab to investi-gate? First, Müller’s own life reflects theshifts of 19th-century politics as a seis-mograph represents the earth’s motions(Haberling, Koller). A shoemaker’s son,Müller began studying medicine at theUniversity of Bonn just three years afterthe Prussians reopened it following thewithdrawal of Napoleon. DuringMüller’s second year as a medical stu-dent at the University of Bonn, his fatherdied, and he survived financially onlywith the help of powerful patrons,including the Prussian minister of cul-ture. As a researcher, Müller worked ata frenetic pace, studying the sensory,nervous, lymphatic, circulatory andreproductive systems, sometimes simul-taneously. In 1828, just after he marriedthe musically gifted Nanny Zeiler, hecollapsed from overwork, suffering along, depressive episode from whichmany feared he would never recover.But Müller did, going on to make hisgreatest contribution to physiology: theconcept of specific sense energies. Thistheory dictated that the nerves of oursensory organs are designed to respondto only one kind of stimulus, with the

consequence that our experiences andknowledge are shaped by the capacitiesof our sensory organs. Müller also pro-vided strong evidence that sensory andmotor nerves branched off from thespinal cord along different pathways.

In 1833, when the most prestigiousGerman chair of anatomy and physiolo-gy became available — a professorshipat the University of Berlin — Müllermade an all-out effort to win it. He suc-ceeded, and from 1833 onward hebecame the center of a dynamic group ofresearchers, investigators who shapedthe modern sciences of biology, bacteri-ology, neurophysiology, psychophysics,pathology and embryology. Between1833 and 1840 Müller published severaleditions of his Handbook of Physiology,which would become the standard text-book on the subject for much of the19th century. Yet strangely, despite hissuccess as a physiologist, Müller devot-ed himself increasingly to anatomy, per-forming almost no physiological experi-ments after 1840.

In 1847-48, in addition to his regu-lar duties, Müller served as rector (pres-ident) of Berlin University. In the springof 1848, street fighting broke outbetween government troops and work-ers demanding political rights and betterliving conditions, and hundreds of peo-ple were shot. At the university, some ofthe students and faculty sided with theworkers, including Müller’s former stu-dent Rudolf Virchow, who fought at thebarricades. The struggle was complicat-ed by right-wing student factions callingfor a united German empire. At thetime, Germany consisted of many loose-ly affiliated states, only some of whichwere ruled by the Prussian king. In ret-rospect, Müller’s students agreed thattheir conservative professor was nopolitician, the worst possible negotiatorbetween rebellious students and reac-tionary officials. As a result of thisstress, Müller suffered another mentalbreakdown and could not resume hisexperiments until the spring of 1849.Historian of medicine Johannes Steudelbelieves that Müller was a cyclic manicdepressive, but this kind of categoriza-tion imposes 20th-century medicine ona 19th-century condition (Steudel, 115).Almost all of Müller’s troubles can beexplained by stress and overwork.

During the last 10 years of his life,Müller became famous for his studies ofmarine biology, dedicating most of hisenergy to his greatest love, the universi-ty’s Anatomical Museum. In 1855,returning from a research trip toSweden, he survived a shipwreck butwas again paralyzed by depressionbecause a young student who hadaccompanied him drowned. Two yearslater, Müller began taking large doses ofopium to combat abdominal pain andthe insomnia that had plagued him allhis life. In the spring of 1858, one ofthese doses may have killed him, eitherby accident or as a result of his own will.As to whether their teacher took hisown life, his students disagree, as theydid in the lab.

A second reason Müller’s group is sointeresting to explore is the variety ofhis students’ achievements. JakobHenle, Müller’s first and favorite assis-tant, anticipated Louis Pasteur in sug-gesting that diseases were caused by liv-ing organisms. Theodor Schwanndemonstrated that all animals consistedof cells. Emil Du Bois-Reymond pro-posed the first experimentally supportedmechanism for nerve impulse conduc-tion and collaborated with instrument

Müller’s Lab: A Depressed Scientist and His Unruly Students in 19th-Century BerlinLaura C. OtisAssociate ProfessorDepartment of English

A “rococo” sea urchin embryo drawn by Müller in 1848.

Page 2: Müller’s Lab: A Depressed Scientist and His Unruly …...Müller’s Lab: A Depressed Scientist and His Unruly Students in 19th-Century Berlin Laura C. Otis Associate Professor

19

makers to design more efficient physio-logical set-ups (Dierig, Finkelstein).Hermann von Helmholtz measured thevelocity of nerve impulses and proposedour currently accepted model of colorvision. Rudolf Virchow, who tookMüller’s courses but was never part of hisresearch group, convinced physicians tothink about disease at the cellular level.In his political career, Virchow drovethrough legislation that vastly improvedpublic health, including the funding ofthe Berlin sewer system in the 1870s.Robert Remak, the first Jew to beappointed professor at the University ofBerlin, discovered the three layers fromwhich human embryos develop. ErnstHaeckel, a philosopher as well as anembryologist, became famous for thecontroversial theory that ontogeny (indi-vidual development) recapitulates phy-logeny (the development of a species orrace). Like Müller, these students hopedto learn how nerves and muscles workedand how animals grew and developed;however, with their different personali-ties, they approached these questions inextremely different ways.

Certainly the interactions amongMüller’s group raise intriguing questionsfor historians of science, but for a thirdreason, they are particularly interestingto an English professor. Each of Müller’sstudents describes him in a differentway, creating his own version of whattheir depressed, sleepless leader waslike. Literary critic Harold Bloom hascoined the phrase “the anxiety of influ-ence” to describe poets’ needs to definethemselves in opposition to previousgenerations (Bloom). This conceptapplies equally well to scientists. We canlearn about Müller only by comparinghis surviving texts (especially his let-ters) to those of his students. But indescribing Müller, each student creates adifferent character, one who makes thestudent and his own scientific decisionslook good (Holmes, Jardine). In readingtheir works, we have to keep in mindMadame de Merteuil’s warning inChoderlos de LaClos’ Les LiaisonsDangereuses: “you must see that whenyou write to someone, it is for him andnot for you: you must therefore try totell him less what you think, than whatwill please him most” (LaClos, mytranslation). The letters of Müller’sgroup reveal only the thoughts theywanted their readers to attribute tothem. Their texts do not offer directaccess to the writers’ minds, and one canimagine the truth only by hearing about

Müller’s lab from every possible perspec-tive. One must read them as one reads anovel by William Faulkner, makingjudgments about the situation only afterhearing from every individual character.

Müller’s students are not alwayskind in their assessments of their men-tor. In the history of psychology, Müllerhas become known as the man whochanged the study of the nervous systemfrom philosophical speculation intoexperimental science. But if we believehis students, they accomplished thistask almost in spite of him rather thanbecause of him. While they all agree thatMüller encouraged them to performexperiments, they complain that Müllerknew and wanted to know little about

math, physics, chemistry and new tech-nological developments. While he per-formed crucial physiological experi-ments in the 1820s and early 1830s, hisreal goal was an 18th-century one: tounderstand the “grand plan” of life bycollecting specimens of every knownliving animal and arranging them in hisAnatomical Museum. Theodor Schwannwrote that “the physical approach,which I beat into physiology and whichmeans pursuing real explanations forthe phenomena of life . . . was some-thing Joh. Müller never had” (Du Bois-Reymond, 222). In Schwann’s estimate,Müller had little or nothing to do withhis discovery of animal cells. Du Bois-Reymond agreed that “what we call theaesthetics of experimentation was for-eign to him” (Du Bois-Reymond, 158).As the deliverer of Müller’s memorialaddress and the inheritor of the Berlin

physiology chair, Du Bois-Reymond hasbecome the most cited source on what itwas like to work with Müller. He is alsothe source who must be read most care-fully. From 1839 until 1858, Du Bois-Reymond struggled to study the electri-cal activity of nerves and muscles,depending on Müller for economic andacademic survival. While he became anassociate professor in the early 1850s,this often meant performing dissectionsfor Müller’s museum collection insteadof his own experiments, and beggingMüller to order equipment he neededfor his physiological work. Comingfrom an elite, artistic family, Du Bois-Reymond found the subserviencehumiliating and expressed his annoy-ance in sarcastic letters to his friends. In1849 he wrote to physiologist CarlLudwig, “Müller has kept me occupiedat the museum, carrying out what is inhis opinion the highest activity of thehuman intellect, namely, classifying fos-sil vermin” (Du Bois-Reymond andLudwig, 44, 7 August, 1849).

Du Bois-Reymond’s memorial addressto Müller buries his mentor rather thanpraising him. Halfway through the 160-page text, which could not possibly havebeen read in one sitting, he turnssharply critical, presenting Müller as ascientist who encouraged physiologicalexperimentation in others but couldnever free himself from the misguidedideas that animals were controlled by anundefinable “life force” and that life wasorganized in a grand scheme. As DuBois-Reymond tells the story, Müllerbecomes a failed predecessor whose bestwork the younger scientist successfullyresumed. Most interestingly, Du Bois-Reymond shows his awareness that hisspeech will shape historians’ images ofMüller. When the Academy publishedhis speech in 1860, he wrote in a foot-note that “as a primary source on the lifeand work of a man like Johannes Müller,[my account] may perhaps claim a valu-able place in the history of science” (DuBois-Reymond, 299). The most widelycited primary source of information onMüller’s lab was keenly aware that hewas one.

Ernst Haeckel, 17 years youngerthan Du Bois-Reymond, created a differ-ent picture of Müller but likewise depict-ed him as a master who failed to solveproblems Haeckel would address in hisown work. According to Haeckel, thetroubled professor would spend Sundayafternoons in his Anatomical Museum,“pacing for hours through the expansive

Johannes Müller as drawn by a British artist (circa 1837).

Page 3: Müller’s Lab: A Depressed Scientist and His Unruly …...Müller’s Lab: A Depressed Scientist and His Unruly Students in 19th-Century Berlin Laura C. Otis Associate Professor

rooms, his hands folded behind his back,busily contemplating the secret affinitiesof vertebrates, whose ‘holy mystery(Rätsel)’ the aligned skeletons werepreaching in such a powerful way.”Once, recalls Haeckel, he “shyly” askedMüller whether all of these vertebratescould have descended from a commonancestor. “Ah, if we only knew!” criedMüller. “If you could ever solve this puz-zle (Rätsel), you would achieve the high-est possible goal!” (Haeckel, 23-25;Kornmilch, 862; Krausse, 224). In 1899Haeckel titled his best-selling bookabout evolution and society DieWelträtsel (The Riddle of the Universe).Like Du Bois-Reymond, Haeckel is agood story-teller, and like the senior stu-dent, he presents Müller as the man whoarticulated questions he went on toanswer. Recalling his conversation withMüller 50 years after the fact, Haeckelconstructs Müller as a character in hismemory: an aging scientist fascinatedand tormented by an elusive order.

In the “science wars” of the 1990s,social historians argued with scientistsabout how much truth science actuallycontains. Scholars studying language andculture insisted that science holds trueonly in the context of the society that cre-ated it. Scientists protested that gravityand menstruation are real, not constructsof language. My exploration of Müller’srelationship with his students has shownme that literary analyses of science neednot deny any of the physical reality of theexperiments performed. Since the workin question was carried out more than150 years ago, our access to it comes onlythrough articles, letters and laboratorynotebooks that can be analyzed withsome of the techniques used to study lit-erary texts. Studying Müller’s students’motivations for writing, their sense ofaudience, their narrative strategies, andtheir creations of personae can help us tounderstand their science. By applying lit-erary techniques to the history of science,I would like to show how interpretivestrategies from different fields can worktogether to produce knowledge. Theknowledge I am after is how scientificideas arise: how personal relationships,everyday annoyances, and working con-ditions influence the questions that sci-entists decide to ask. And I do believethere is knowledge to be found. Humanconflicts and unreliable equipment donot contaminate the truth. They arealways a part of the story.

ReferencesBloom, Harold. The Anxiety of Influence.

New York; Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress, 1997.

Cahan, David. Introduction. Letters ofHermann Helmholtz to His Parents: TheMedical Education of a German Scientist1837-1846. Edited by David Cahan.Stuttgart: Franz Steiner, 1993.

Dierig, Sven. “Apollo’s Tragedy: Philhellenismand Experiment in Emil Du Bois-Reymond’s Laboratory.” Unpublished man-uscript, Oct. 2001.

Du Bois-Reymond, Emil. “Gedächtnisredeauf Johannes Müller.” In Reden. 2 vols.Leipzig: Veit, 1887.

— and Carl Ludwig. Two Great Scientists ofthe Nineteenth Century: Correspondence ofEmil Du Bois-Reymond and Carl Ludwig.Translated by Sabine Lichtner-Ayed.Edited by Paul F. Cranefield. Baltimore:Johns Hopkins University Press, 1982.

Finkelstein, Gabriel. Emil Du Bois-Reymond:The Making of a Liberal German Scientist(1818-1851). Ph.D. diss. PrincetonUniversity, 1996.

Haberling, Wilhelm. Johannes Müller: DasLeben des Rheinischen Naturforschers.Leipzig: Akademische Verlagsgesellschaft,1924.

Haeckel, Ernst. Der Kampf um denEntwickelungsgedanken. Berlin: Reimer, 1905.

Holmes, Frederic L. “The Role of JohannesMüller in the Formation of Helmholtz’sPhysiological Career.” In UniversalgenieHelmholtz: Rückblick nach 100 Jahren.Edited by Lorenz Krüger. Berlin:Akademie Verlag, 1994.

Jardine, Nicholas. “The Mantle of Müllerand the Ghost of Goethe: InteractionsBetween the Sciences and TheirHistories.” In History and the Disciplines:The Reclassification of Knowledge in EarlyModern Europe. Edited by Donald R.Kelley. Rochester: The University ofRochester Press, 1997.

Koller, Gottfried. Das Leben des BiologenJohannes Müller 1801-58. Stuttgart:Wissenschaftsverlaggesellschaft, 1958.

Kornmilch, Ernst Ekkehard. “JohannesMüller und Ernst Haeckel.” Zeitschrift fürärztliche Vorbildung 81 (1987): 861-63.

Krausse, Erika. “Johannes Müller und ErnstHaeckel: Erfahrung und Erkenntnis.” InJohannes Müller und die Philosophie.Edited by Michael Hagner and BettinaWahrig-Schmidt. Berlin: AkademieVerlag, 1992.

LaClos, Choderlos de. Les LiaisonsDangereuses. [1782]. Paris: LibrairieGénérale Française, 1987.

Steudel, Johannes. “Wissenschaftslehre undForschungsmethodik Johannes Müllers.”Deutsche medizinsche Wochenschrift 77(1952): 115-18.

Laura Otis earned a B.S. cum laude in molecu-lar biophysics and biochemistry from YaleUniversity and was certain she wanted to studythe chemistry of the brain. While enrolled in aneuroscience Ph.D. program at the University ofCalifornia, San Francisco, she conductedresearch attempting to learn how nerve cellsexchange signals. She earned an M.A. in neu-roscience, but she also discovered an affinityfor literature and philosophy.

As a result, Professor Otis shifted her focus fromneuroscience to comparative literature. Sheearned both an M.A. and Ph.D. in comparativeliterature from Cornell University. Her disserta-tion received the Messenger Chalmers Prize forthe best dissertation in the humanities fromCornell in 1991.

Professor Otis attempts to open new channelsof communication between people studying lit-erature and science. She compares the meth-ods with which scientific and creative writersapproach common issues. In the classroom,Professor Otis encourages students of literatureand science to appreciate each other’s goalsand methods. Her objective is to discouragenotions of “literature and science types” by ini-tiating dialogues among students from differentfields.

Professor Otis has written extensively on thissubject matter. Her first book, Organic Memory:History and the Body in the Late Nineteenth andEarly Twentieth Centuries (University ofNebraska Press, 1994), explores a misleadingidea that people can inherit their ancestors’memories. Her second book, Membranes:Metaphors of Invasion in Nineteenth-CenturyLiterature, Science, and Politics (Johns HopkinsUniversity Press, 1998), examines people’sneed for boundaries, or “membranes,” in con-structing their notions of identity. Her latestbook, Networking: Communicating with Bodiesand Machines (University of Michigan Press,2001) is an interdisciplinary study that tracescontemporary notions of “the Web” to their ori-gins long before the Internet came into being.In addition, she has recently translated Spanishneurobiologist Santiago Ramón y Cajal’sVacation Stories into English.

Professor Otis has received numerous fellow-ships and awards based on her research. In2000 she was awarded a MacArthurFellowship for her interdisciplinary studies ofthe nervous system.-SK

20