On the occasion of the centennial of the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine, 1923: Nicolae C. Paulescu-between scientific creativity and political fanatism

AIMS

Since the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine was awarded in 1923 to FG Banting and JJR Macleod, many voices have been raised against this decision. The bitterest protest was that of the Romanian scientist Nicolae C. Paulescu. In 2002, The Romanian Academy of Sciences, the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) and the International Diabetes Federation (IDF) planned to hold a series of academic events the following year in Paris to acknowledge Paulescu's scientific merits in the discovery of the antidiabetic hormone. However, the initiative was cancelled in August 2003, when the European Center of the Simon Wiesenthal Foundation (SWC) accused Paulescu of being antisemitic. The authors of this manuscript have decided to approach "the Paulescu case" from its double aspect, scientific and sociopolitical, to analyze the circumstances surrounding the discovery of the antidiabetic hormone, and Paulescu's alleged antisemitic past in the historical context of the Romanian nation in the interwar period.

METHODS

We contacted the SWC and people related to the 2003 events in Paris. We performed a comparative review of the documents published by the Toronto group and by Paulescu and analyzed the correspondence and articles generated by international experts from the scientific community interested in the controversy. We carried out an exhaustive bibliographic search through several online catalogs (INDEXCAT, NLM Gateway, EUREKA, MEDHIST). We travelled to Bucharest, where we visited Paulescu's house-museum, interviewed a former student of the Romanian professor, and a prominent medical historian who was knowledgeable about Paulescu's scientific and political biography. Dan Angelescu†, son of Dr. Constantin Angelescu (1904-1990), Paulescu's nephew and collaborator, provided us with a copy of all the available documentation from Paulescu's personal archive. It constitutes an essential source for understanding Paulescu's personal, political and academic biography. Archives consulted: Românǎ Academy (Bucharest). Personal Archive of Paulescu, House -Museum (Bucharest)*. Romanian Jewish Heritage (Bucharest). http://romanianjewish.org/ **. Simon Wiesenthal Center (Los Angeles, CA) http://www.wiesenthal.com **. Romanian Patent Office. Oficiul de Stat pentru Invenții şi Mǎrci (OSIM) (Bucharest)***. Nobel Archives (Stockholm) https://www.nobelprize.org . Internet Archive (San Francisco, CA) https://archive.org **. Wellcome Library (London) https://wellcomelibrary.org **. The European Library https://www.theeuropeanlibrary.org/ **. US National Library of Medicine, NLM historical collections http://www.nlm.nih.gov/hmd/index.html **. US. Holocaust Memorial Museum http://www.ushmm.org/ (*: archive consulted on site; **: material found in the online catalog of the archive; ***: archivists sent us digitized copies of archival material). Books consulted for information on the history of Romania and antisemitism: "Nationalist ideology and antisemitism. The case of Romanian intellectuals in the 1930s", by Leon Volovici; "The mystique of ultranationalism: History of the Iron Guard, Romania, 1919-1941" by Francisco Vega; "Romania 1866-1947", by Keith Hitchins; "History of Romania. Compendium", by Ioan-Aurel Pop and Joan Bolovan; "The Holocaust in Romania. The destruction of Jews and Gypsies under the Antonescu regime, 1940-1944", by Radu Ioanid; "The Jews of East Central Europe between the World Wars", by Ezra Mendelson; "Cultural Politics in Greater Romania. Regionalism, Nation Building and Ethnic Struggle, 1918-1930", by Irina Livezeanu, and "Judeophobia. How and when it is born, where and why it survives", by Gustavo Daniel Perednik. Articles are referenced in the bibliography section at the end of the manuscript.

RESULTS

A-Nicolae Paulescu developed an intense long-term research activity, which included complete pancreatectomy and preparation of a pancreatic extract (PE) containing the antidiabetic hormone he called pancreina. Parenteral administration of the PE achieved excellent results in the treatment of experimental diabetes in dogs and induction of hypoglycemia in the healthy animal. This work was initiated before 1916 and published at least eight months antedating the publication of the first article by Banting and Best (February 1922), who were acquainted with Paulescu's results, but misinterpreted them. The pancreatic extract of the two Canadian researchers, -iletin/insulin-, only achieved similar results to that of the Romanian scientist once they abandoned the use of the "degenerated pancreas" extract (ligation of the ductal system), replacing it with the pancreas of adult or fetal bovine. Pancreina and insulin were very similar. The award of the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine to FG Banting and JJR Macleod in October 1923 honored the successful clinical use of insulin in patients with diabetes mellitus. Paulescu's achievements were ignored. B-Nicolae Paulescu publicly manifested his Judeophobic ideology on multiple occasions in academic and political interventions and in publications and participated with other figures from the Romanian intellectual sphere in the founding of the Uniunea Național Crestinǎ (UNC, National Christian Union) in 1922 and of the Liga Apǎrǎrii Național Cresține (LANC, League for Christian National Defense) in 1923, antisemitic far-right political parties, associated with an irrational Christian orthodoxy and hatred of Jews. Paulescu played a pivotal role in the spread of antisemitism.

CONCLUSIONS

A-The Romanian scientist NC Paulescu started an intense research program aimed at the isolation of the antidiabetic hormone before 1916, including an original procedure of pancreatectomy in the dog and the elaboration of a pancreatic extract that achieved excellent results in the treatment of experimental diabetes, demonstrating its beneficial effects on the metabolism of carbohydrates, proteins and fats and reducing both glycosuria and glycemia and the urinary excretion of ketone bodies of depancreatized dogs toward normality. The results of these investigations were published in 1920 and 1921, predating the first report published by FG ​​Banting and CH Best in February 1922. It has been sufficiently demonstrated that Canadian researchers were aware of Paulescu's excellent results, mentioning them only in passing, albeit erroneously misrepresenting key results of the Romanian scientist's publication in the aforementioned seminal Canadian article. Expert historians and international scientists have recognized that the pancreatic extract that Paulescu called pancreina and that obtained by Banting and Best, insulin, were very similar. The October 1923 award of the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine to FG Banting and JJR Macleod ignored Paulescu's scientific achievements in the treatment of experimental diabetes and rewarded the extraordinary advance of insulin treatment in human diabetes. B-At the end of August 2003, a few days before the date of the celebration at the Hôtel Dieu in Paris of the scheduled program of tribute to the scientific merits of NC Paulescu and his important contribution to the discovery of the antidiabetic hormone, convened by the Romanian Academy and the International Diabetes Federation, the Wiesenthal Foundation publicly accused the Romanian scientist of being an antisemite, an act that determined the cancellation of the announced events. The exhaustive investigation of the personal convictions and antisemitic behavior of Nicolae C. Paulescu has undoubtedly documented the Judeophobic ideology of the Romanian scientist, linked to his orthodox religious radicalism, manifested in multiple documents (mostly pamphlets) and interventions in collaboration with other relevant personalities of the Romanian intelligentsia of his time. Furthermore, Paulescu participated in the creation of political organizations of the most radical extreme right that played a fundamental role in the spread of antisemitism amongst the Romanian population and the university community.

"The rulers are the causes of the war […] They are the reason there is no bread in our town:" women's food riots in the Hungarian countryside, 1917-1918

The essay discusses women's food riots in the Hungarian territories of the Habsburg Empire during World War I between spring 1917 and summer 1918. While the existing literature has primarily focused on urban contexts in a variety of European countries, this essay analyses the Hungarian countryside with a focus on small towns and villages where and around which inhabitants were mostly agrarian workers. The agrarian population was especially hard hit by the increasingly coercive wartime economic measures, and especially by the high cost of living and the break-down in food supply. Using archival sources and news reports, the article approaches food riots as a form of labour activism signalling (agrarian) women's efforts to improve their desperate living and working conditions and, thus, as a local political response to the international and national political and economic crisis that unfolded in the Dual Monarchy shortly before its disintegration during the second phase of the Great War. It pays particular attention to participants' social/ethnic background, agendas, and repertoires of action, including the antisemitic character of some of the riots and authorities' reaction to these uprisings. The essay, thus, also examines the interactions between members of local-level (un)organized activism and regional and national governance.

George Montandon, the Ainu and the theory of hologenesis

In 1909, Italian zoologist Daniele Rosa (1857-1944) proposed a radical new evolutionary theory: hologenesis, or simultaneous, pan-terrestrial creation and evolution driven primarily by internal factors. Hologenesis was widely ignored or rejected outside Italy, but Swiss-French anthropologist George Montandon (1879-1944) eagerly embraced and developed the theory. An ambitious careerist, Montandon's deep investment in an obscure and unpopular theory is puzzling. Today, Montandon is best known for his virulent antisemitism and active collaboration with the Nazi occupation of France at the end of his career. By that point, however, he had quietly moved away from hologenesis. This shift has gone unnoticed or been left unexplained in existing research. This article reexamines Montandon's theoretical outlook and reasons for championing Rosa's forgotten theory. It argues that while Montandon's adoption of hologenesis arose from a complex blend of scientific and personal factors, his previously overlooked early fieldwork with the Ainu played a key role. In contrast, hologenesis did not inform Montandon's later public antisemitism.

Whittaker, Einstein, and the History of the Aether: Alternative interpretation, blunder, or bigotry?

Edmund T. Whittaker's second edition of his A History of the Theories of Aether and Electricity is famous for his treatment of Einstein as an almost irrelevant character in the emergence of what he called "the relativity theory of Poincaré and Lorentz." Historians of science have given a number of explanations, which include Whittaker's scientific conservatism as an old classical physicist, his commitment to the ether, the pre-eminent role he attributed to mathematics over physics, and foundational philosophical disagreements, to name a few. And in the background, often more implicit than forthright, the accusation of antisemitism looms over Whittaker. In this paper I intend to shed new light on this controversy by taking into consideration the abundant correspondence between Whittaker and his son preserved in the archives of the Fisher Library, University of Toronto. With it, we will get a more complex and personal view of the context in which his attempt at dethroning Einstein took place. Together with the abovementioned reasons, this correspondence shows that the problematic status quo of general relativity in the early 1950s, a period that has been described as the low-mark of general relativity, was very influential in the historical treatment he gave to Einstein. This is an aspect hardly mentioned in the historical work on this controversy and, from this correspondence, it appears to be central to understanding Whittaker at the time of drafting the new History. His possible antisemitic bias will also be addressed, though with the insufficient information on this subject the matter cannot be settled.

The dialectics of universality: The heterodox critical social theory of Robert Fine

Robert Fine was among the most original social theorists in Britain of the past 30 years, and the aim of this paper is to offer a first systematic assessment of his intellectual contribution. There are sound intellectual reasons to explore Fine's scholarship. He maintained a problematic relation with mainstream sociology and, against the reduction of sociology to questions of method, culture, or class, he argued that sociologists must continue to ask difficult normative questions as part of the social world they ought to explain. And there are also pressing political concerns that justify a reconsideration of his writings. Global politics is currently marked by a populist wave that decries the very ideas and values that were central to Fine's social theory: the need to uphold the rule of law at home and abroad, the politics of cosmopolitan solidarity, and the significance of antisemitism and its relationships with different forms of authoritarian politics. My main argument is that there is a dialectics of universality that drives forward Fine's intellectual project. By this, I mean that a universalistic idea of humanity-an all-inclusive conception of all human beings-is the most important normative intuition of modern times. This idea of humanity moves forward in history through a dual process of emancipation and domination: successful forms of social, legal, and political inclusion help make visible previous dynamics of exclusion but may also create or recreate discriminatory practices. Building on the work of French historian Michael Löwy on heterodox Jewish thinkers, I explain the three main tenets of Fine's work: (a) his reconstruction of critical social theory; (b) the notion of cosmopolitan solidarity; and (c) the significance and main features of modern antisemitism.

Campus diversity, Jewishness, and antisemitism

To explore current attitudes among Jewish students, faculty, and leaders of Jewish campus organizations regarding the putative exclusion of Jewish concerns from campus dialogs around diversity, we recruited 40 such individuals to engage in a semi-structured interview. The consensus among our interviewees was that there is a significant, ongoing, and too-often overlooked problem with virulent anti-Israel activity on many campuses that often seeps into antisemitism; that many, though not all, Jewish students are disturbed by this phenomena; that the consequences of anti-Israel hostility on some campuses are felt most significantly by self-identified progressive Jewish students who feel emotionally attacked for pro-Israel sentiments and ostracized in their attempts to join with seemingly progressive and/or intersectional campus movements; that college diversity officers and courses have, for the most part, failed to include issues of concern to Jewish students; and that psychotherapists, especially those on college campuses, maybe unprepared to deal with concerns specific to Jewish students. We believe that the failure to recognize and deal with campus antisemitism is both dangerous and morally disingenuous.