Virchow - A strategist of power

Witness no. 2 

Carl Ludwig Schleich (1859-1922) became famous as the inventor of local anesthesia (1894), but only after a witch hunt, which his enraged colleagues organized against him for this reason. In the mid-1980s, he had learned as "sub-assistant" to Rudolf Virchow at the Berlin Charité hospital and therefore knew him from personal experience. Moreover, his father had been a former fellow student of R. Virchow. In his memoirs entitled "Sunny Past", he described vivid scenes of Virchow's behavior, his respect for his life's work, but also his criticism of him. On p. 197 he wrote:

"Admittedly, the fame of the original idea does not belong to him alone, even if the execution alone succeeded to him, Rudolf Virchow, the Schivelbeiner. Firstly, he incomprehensibly fought the old Kölliker in Würzburg for years with very similar thoughts about the cytology as Virchow himself later proclaimed it (as Kölliker recounts in his self-biography), and secondly, a young genius, Karl Reinhard, who was different at the age of 27, according to the testimony of my father, who was intimately acquainted with both, was the originator of the brilliant idea of transferring the Schwann Cell Theory for plants to the human organization. Thus the first work on cells in "Virchow's archive" is not by him, but by Karl Reinhard, while Virchow published only essays on general questions in the first volumes. Yes, in the VI volume of this "Archive" one can not only read between the lines of Virchow's speech at Karl Reinhard's grave that this early, unusual man had the extremely fruitful divination to create a cellular pathology, which Virchow, however, carried out with unheard-of consistency, yes, Virchow also expressed this directly. Nor was the thought his, the deed belonged to him alone."

Unfortunately, nothing can be found in medical history or works on the history of the natural sciences about Karl Reinhard, the person mentioned by Schleich, with whom the older Schleich and Virchow enjoyed many a happy and serious hour of drinking (Schleich, 72).

Witness no. 3 

Friedrich Günsburg (1820-1859), a pathologist who worked as a private lecturer in his hometown of Breslau, about whom I have found no mention in eight works on the history of medicine and only a few with Ackerknecht, had written the following in the second volume of his "Studies on Special Pathology" of 1848, in the thirteenth section:

"The procreation of a new cell from the existing one is based on division or endogenesis... The proliferation of the pathological cell by division of the swollen nuclei, which during development assume a change of position in comparison to the original central position, and the subsequent division of the cell, the actual division of the cell, I have illustrated in 1843 according to the observations made with Bräuer in Meletemata circa evolutionem ac formas cicatricum, Vratisl. 1843 (....) and in pictures. I am obliged to claim this right of priority because of the lack of literary aids or the noble disregard which the annual reporters of certain archives are guilty of" (p. 360 ff).

Elsewhere in this work, he once again proves unequivocally: "the pathological cell thus follows the same laws of reproduction as the normal cell of all organisms. But the variety of the developmental stages is the character of the pathological cell" (p.365).

We must now correct Koelliker's account in so far as R. Virchow cannot claim originality in the formulation of cell formation in pathological processes either! It should be considered impossible that Virchow was not aware of these publications. A register of Virchow's private journal and book holdings, or the Würzburg University Library before 1855, would provide decisive insight here. But since Rudolf Virchow's research activities can at least be assumed to be "normal" scientific research - which in his case is a considerable understatement - his originality and priority with his "cellular pathology" would be off the table!

Witness no. 4 

The name of the physician and researcher Robert Remak (1815-1865) has already been mentioned. He came from a poor Jewish family, but had nevertheless studied medicine at Berlin's Friedrich-Wilhelms-University - probably with the help of privately raised funds from the family - and, as with Virchow, Johannes Müller was one of his teachers. Another influential teacher was the zoologist Christian Gottfried Ehrenberg (1795-1876), with whom he conducted microscopic studies of the nervous system. Already in the second year of his studies, the talented student conducted independent research and discovered, among other things, the axon of the nerve cell. From 1836, Müller regularly published the results of his talented student in his scientific journal and cited them in his "Handbook of Human Physiology". In 1838, Remak completed his medical studies with honors and tried to obtain his habilitation, which, however, was not permitted to Jews in Prussia. When Schoenlein asked Müller for his best man for microscopy, he arranged Remak. But even Schoenlein was not able to position Remak better, so that the prosector position at the Charité was awarded to Virchow or the military medical lobby in 1846. Due to his scientific achievements, which had also caught the attention of Alexander von Humboldt, who recommended him to the Prussian king, he was awarded the Venia legendi in 1847 without a habilitation examination. Only in 1859, after a change in government took place and thus Remak's enemies in the ministry were eliminated, did A. v. Humboldt intervene successfully, so that Remak was appointed extraordinary professor, but without salary.

Remak and Virchow knew each other and were temporarily in direct contact. On the one hand, the politically active Remak had also been a participant in the Berlin barricade fights (three younger brothers fled to America as students because of their political '48 activities) and worked very intensively for reforms in the medical sector. In any case, a letter Remaks wrote to Virchow in April 1848 to recruit him as a member of a political association. Virchow knew of Remak's publications on cell division processes and had previously quoted from them.

Schmiedebach, who in his habilitation thesis on R. Remak also deals with the special aspect of Virchow, proves from his writings that Remak had already in 1845 first observed and described nuclear and cell division processes in the human organism. Secondly, he had proven the improbability of spontaneous cell formation and thirdly, he had observed transformation processes of tissue cells in pathological tissue. Finally, in 1852, Remak stated that pathological tissues are just as little formed as normal ones in an extracellular cytoblast, but are the descendants and products of normal tissues of the organism (c.n. Schmiedebach, 182 f). In 1854, when Virchow still believed in the blastem theory, he... attacked Schwann and Virchow and accused them of deducing the development of pathological tumors from an "amorphous blastem" (ibid., 183). He explained: "I believe I can now formulate my thesis more precisely that the pathological tumors are not a new formation of tissues, but a transformation of normal tissues, with the production of existing healings, which either remain similar to the normal ones in form and mixture (homologous), or remove themselves from the producing tissue in form and mixture by progressive degeneration (heterologous tissues) (c.n. Schmiedebach, 183). A striking terminological correspondence with the later version of Virchow on homologous and heterologous tissue, which was reproduced in the previous chapter!

Schmiedebach pursues the question of why Virchow embezzled the results of Remaks and points out Virchow's appointment procedures from Würzburg to Berlin. Remak was the second largest competitor, supported by such important patrons as A. von Humboldt and J. Schoenlein! Therefore Schmiedebach comes to the conclusion that Virchow, already in view of a later competition with Remak, did not want to emphasize his preliminary work on cellular pathology in his 1855 essay (Schmiedebach, 189 f). This, however, necessarily requires that Virchow had already known in 1855 about a forthcoming appointment to Berlin and the imminent competition with Remak! However, this can be ruled out according to the circumstances that had led to it. 

In any case, Remak reacted very sharply to Virchow's first essay of 1855 on "cellular pathology" (ibid., 190). In a letter, he pointed out Virchow's former supporters of the cytoblastoma theory and drew his attention to his own publication of 1854, where he proved the "pathological cell healing" and continued to accuse Virchow of presenting the sentence: omnis cellula e cellula as yours, without even mentioning my name. The fact that you made yourself ridiculous in front of the initiates (since the necessary embryological experiences are not at your disposal) can be reversed by me and nobody else. But if you wish to avoid a public discussion of this matter, I would ask you to inform me immediately how and when you intend to do so. It goes without saying that I reserve the right to exercise my rights independently if your later declaration is not sufficient in content and form (c.n. Schmiedebach, 190).

Virchow was obliged to face the accusation. But how did he do it? In an article in the January 1857 issue of the Archiv, he conceded that although Remak had the merit of having first pronounced the sentences on the doctrine of nuclear division in its dogmatic form, justice might also demand that he explain that it was not he who first provided the empirical evidence, namely in the pathological field (c.n. Schmiedebach, 190 f). Schmiedebach rightly points out that this was not the object of Remak's accusation, but rather the misappropriation of his name! Virchow obviously tried to keep his nose in front with this diversionary tactic - it was not fair. Is it far-fetched if the letter to the father about his allegedly never questioned honesty mentioned at the beginning has to be called fiction even by his enemies?

Eventually the two came closer, at least in letters.

When Remak with his galvanotherapy applied again to the Ministry of Culture in October 1858 for an appointment as associate professor, one of the two experts was Rudolf Virchow. Both were unfavorable about Remak's form of therapy, but Virchow spoke directly against Remak, who in turn seemed to be denied the path to professorship and clinical research.

As every high school student can know nowadays, organ formation does not occur through continuous cell division processes from the moment of fertilization of egg and sperm, but after a first sequence of cell divisions, a gastrulation takes place, which leads to the formation of the cotyledons. Strictly speaking, the cotyledons are not formed, but from the previous omnipotent germ layer of the blastula, determined cotyledons detach. Only these cotyledons can be considered as organ-forming tissues. The first one who recorded and described the functional importance of the cotyledons was Robert Remak in 1855, who classified them as an upper, outer sensory leaf from which brain, sensory organs and skin develop. Then the inner or lower, trophic leaf, from which the epithelial wall parts of the intestinal tube, liver, pancreas and lungs, possibly kidneys, originate and thirdly the middle, motor-germinative leaf, with the organs of the voluntary musculature, blood vessels, spine, heart extremities, sexual organs. He divided this third leaf in turn into a parietal somatic skin fiber leaf and a visceral splanchnic intestinal fiber leaf.

Remak with his clinical, pathological, in comparative anatomy and embryological knowledge, which led to the first formulation of the functionality of the three cotyledons, combined with his therapeutic impetus, would have been the incomparably better candidate to bring about a "reform of medicine" on a scientific basis! From his own research, he was well aware of the importance of the cotyledons as well as that of cellular pathology and in 1862, he had drawn the attention of embryologists to the as yet unknown role of the cell membrane in cell division processes (Otis, 183). In 1841, Remak still believed in a "parasitic" appearance of cancer, but like him, no one overlooked so much basic research in various fields. Virchow had nowhere near such innovative approaches to offer. But Virchow had repeatedly pushed him into the sidelines and ultimately into oblivion.

After the interviewed "witnesses" to the accusation of a plagiarism of Virchow with his "cellular pathology" their statements have become clear: Koelliker's still moderately held statement that Virchow had left him and other researchers, who long before Virchow had recognized the cell division processes during cell proliferation, unmentioned during the "normal development" of cell formation, and had thus undeservedly gained the reputation of being the discoverer of these processes in biology as well, is only half of the real offence. As is evident from Günsburg's documented results as well as from Remak's self-evidence, Virchow undoubtedly cannot claim priority in the pathological field with the formula on cell formation established in his "Cellular Pathology". Significantly, Ackerknecht mentions, in connection with Virchow's literary statements on the medical reform movement of 1848, that many of his particularly gripping slogans came from friends (Ackerknecht, 13). So he had some practice in the exploitative handling of other people's intellectual property! 

Although it cannot be denied that he has been familiar with the topic and problem of spontaneous cell formation since the earliest times, during his medical studies, and not just sporadically, through his own observations and special investigations in his research activities, he remained a representative of the blastet theory until 1854, despite his observations. The only thing that is agreed is that by adopting this knowledge he then made a consistent and epochal conquest in the medical field. R. Virchow cannot claim originality and genius in this field. When Virchow published his "Cellular Pathology" in 1858, shortly after taking over the Berlin chair, and became so successful, would the further research, which was then also carried out by his students, not have taken long for the ripe fruit to fall into his lap? But for good reason the reality was different. Numerous friends and lively enemies (Virchow, c.n. Ackerknecht, 82) ensured that he had plenty to do and had to change and adapt his statements again and again. During the fifties and early sixties Virchow spent a lot of time and energy defending his new cellular pathology against old opponents such as Henle, Spieß, Wunderlich and Robin. Then he had to adapt his system to the new discoveries of friends and students, such as von Recklinhausen (extracellular fluid circulation in the bidetissue, wandering cells), Cohnheim (diapedesis of white blood cells, vascular inflammation theory, embryonic cancer theory), Weigert (necrotic inflammation theory) and Waldeyer (epithelial origin of carcinoma)... From 1858 until Virchow's death, these more defensive actions were accompanied by a tireless propagation and interpretation of cellular pathology in numerous speeches and essays. Edith Heischkel-Artelt has rightly demonstrated that part of Virchow's success in convincing his contemporaries is based on the propagandistic skill he may have acquired in his early political activity (Ackerknecht, 101). 

Thus, brought into need of explanation by his wrong approach, which he had brutally enforced, he threw himself into a new field, anthropology, about 10 years after his "cellular pathology", in order to be able to earn further merits! After more than twenty years of the most intense creative activity in pathological anatomy... Virchow almost abruptly stopped making new contributions to pathological anatomy in the late sixties of the eighteenth century, before he had completed his fifth decade of life (ibid., 100). How right were the North American publishers Blanchard and Lee in Philadelphia in 1858, who had refused to publish such a speculative German text (Goschler, 197 f) as "Cellular Pathology" as an English translation. Even if Virchow had resisted comparison with the personality of Bismarck with his hands and feet: he, like his political opponent, has won a great victory in his field with a ruthless, "brutal" (Lanka) power politics!

Translated Version - Original here

Telegraph main page with overview of all articles: Link

Visit our Telegram Channel for additional news & information: Link

Chat with like-minded in our Telegram Chat Group: Link

Please support to keep this blog alive: paypal