Technikatörténeti szemle 19. (1992)

KÖNYVISMERTETÉS - Papers of the First „MINERALKONTOR” International Conference on the History of Chemistry and Chemical Industry (Veszprém, 12-16 August, 1991)

A comparison between the cognitive and institutionalized structures demonstrates the correlation between the real cognitive structure and institutional structure with respect to the methods and problems. Theoretical elements have no effect on institutional structure in classical organic chemistry. But it appeared more interesting to compare pairs of structures in chronological order. As a result, we noted some inertia of institutional structure determined by the dominant method or dominant problem, but never by dominant theory. The teaching was more often depended on methods and very seldom on theories. We must say that the creation of new theory does not lead to the creation of a new institutional structure, whereas determination of methods and traditional problems leads to the stabilization of institutional structure. We may cite several examples, for instance the development of institutes of organic chemistry in Russian Universities of the sixties. In years 1859 through 1863 A. M. Butierov at Kazan University founded the ,3utierov's school"of organic chemistry. In September of 1861, he delivered the lecture „Einiges über die chemische Structur der Körper" at Congress in Speyer. In 1868, he became the professor of the Institute of Organic Chemistry at S. Petersbourg's University. Analysis of publications of „Butlerov's school" gives us an example of institutional stabüization on methodical basis. New theoretical advances (the development of the theory of catalytic organic synthesis) can be observed in another institution, i.e. the Department of Chemistry at Academy of Artillery in S. Petersburg. The founder of this theory, professor V. Ipatieff was no student of Butierov. And nothing but hybridization of these two branches ahowed us to overcome both the cognitive and institutional inertia in university institutes of organic chemistry in Russia. The second example is the history of cognitive institutionalization of cytoand histo-chemistry in Russia. The use of chemical methods in the study of cells and tissues in Russia developed within the framework of medical sciences (anatomy, pathology and histology) and in the biological science (cytology and physiology). The first stage of this process (1880-1910) was associated with progress in chemistry (new dyes, new fixing agents, new techniques). But all these methods were auxiliary to physiological methods in case of physiological science. On the contrary, these methods were the leading tools in cytology and medical sciences (anatomy, pathological anatomy and histology). On the verge of the 19th and 20th centuries a particular situation was to be observed in the Russian physiology predominated by the holistic ideology. Study of nervous system won I. P. Pavlov immense prestige. The reductionist ideology facilitating the development of the classical biochemistry was suppressed in aU famous centers of Russian physiology (Kazan, S. Petersbourg, Moscow). Still, the reductionist idea was popular in other university centers (Dorpat, Kiev, Warsaw). The logic of evolution of cognitive structure provided for the establishment of two types of institutional structures. In reality, this did not occure. Institutional structure of biochemistry was formed through the other mechanism. The chemical methods in cytology, physio-