Kapronczay Károly szerk.: Orvostörténeti közlemények 226-229. (Budapest, 1914)
TANULMÁNYOK - Elek Gábor: 2013-ban volt Bauer Ervin halálának 75. évfordulója
ELEK, Gábor: In 2013 was the 75th anniversary of Ervin Bauer’s death 221 impression will be gained that the static electricity of Bauer’s ‘living matter’ is nothing else than the improved and more closely reasoned variant of Keller’s idea (see rows from 1 - to 6 of Table). Bauer’s model differs from the Keller’s one first of all in using electric dipoles instead of electric points, which allows him the seminal final conclusion about permanent non-equilibrium of living (see 4th row of Table). With the passing of 17 years the knowledge of the vital staining increased - it was documented that not only electric attraction but phagocytosis of the dye as well might produce the colour {Höher 1927 441-455.). Meanwhile x-ray diffraction of some proteins (fibres, crystalline enzymes) revealed their bipolar and micellar (crystal like) organisation (see Buzágh 1931 40-60.). Bauer probably came across Keller’s book only in Prague. From this time onward he invoked however electric dipoles in all his life in the maintenance of the permanent nonequilibrium state. He explained all biological phenomena on molecular level by the modification of the extent of electric dipoles. The supposition is obvious that the static electricity was the influence of ‘School of Prague’ on Bauer’s intellectual horizon at the beginning. This supposition is however hard to prove because Bauer newer quoted Keller. In general Bauer used quotations only sparsely. It is also possible it had not been welcome to quote Keller in Rűzicka’s team. Keller’s theory had officially not been considered acceptable by most of his contemporaries (see Keller 1918 76-77.). There are however indirect evidences. Bauer referred to Fiirth’s article (Bauer 1923). We read on the first page of Fiirth’s article: „My experiments were carried out on Rudof Keller s initiative... The examined materials had ben selected by Rudolf Keller according to biological point of view... “ (Fürth 1923). Reinhold Fürth was the second prominent person in the ‘School of Prague’, assistant and later docent in the Physical Institute of the University. Bauer probably became acquainted with the ideas of the ‘School of Prague’ only after having been finished the Fundamentals (Bauer 1920), for neither bioelectrical nor colloid chemical ideas were even mentioned in this earlier booklet. The Fundamentals was theoretical biology also, though it carried a different title. Bauer (formally) followed Driesch’ more than a decade old example and starting from his own principle derived the fundamental phenomena of biology: the concepts of life, conditions of life, excitability and adaptability, etc. Bauer’s work differs from Driesch’ one in materialistic way of looking. Molecular, supramolecular (and historical) view of biology is missing from the Fundamentals. The little book did not draw much attention to itself. The colloid chemical trend in biology had been a laboratory practice on supramolecular level in Bauer’s days. The practicing biologists of Bauer’s era did not found employable ideas for his daily work among the ‘Fundamentals ’ macroscopic notions. It had been regarded rather a philosophical writing about general knowledge. For this reason had it faded from the scientific consciousness. This is the first part of the answer to the question raised in my introduction. Colloid chemistry became an obstacle for biology in the thirties At the beginning of the twentieth century the protoplasm was regarded as a single ‘living protein’ common to all form of life. Proteins could not exist as real solutions for colloid chemists, but consisted aggregates in water (suspensions) with various degree of association (polymerization) without distinct molecular weight (Buzágh 1931 134-137.). The view
