Stud. Hist. Phil. Biol. & Biomed. Sci.

33 (2002) 733750
www.elsevier.com/locate/shpsc

Discussion

Ludwik Fleck and the causative agent of

syphilis: sociology or pathology of science? A
rejoinder to Jean Lindenmann
Henk van den Belt
Wageningen University, Hollandseweg 1, 6706 KN Wageningen, The Netherlands
Received 19 September 2001; received in revised form 10 April 2002

Abstract
In 1905 two different microbes were proposed to fill the vacant role of etiologic agent for
syphilis, one, the Cytorrhyctes luis, by John Siegel, the other, Spirochaeta pallida, by Fritz
Schaudinn. After gathering and reviewing the evidence the majority of medical scientists
decided in favor of Schaudinns candidate. In a previous issue Jean Lindenmann challenged
Ludwik Flecks suggestion that under suitable social conditions Siegels candidate could just
as well have won acceptance by the scientific community (Lindenmann, 2001). To refute this
counterfactual thesis, Lindenmann presented an asymmetric account of the dispute over the
etiology of syphilis. He adopted the view of the proponents that Schaudinns spirochete had
already been there in syphilitic lesions for centuries, only awaiting the discovery of an appropriate staining technique to be revealed. Here a more symmetric analysis of the episode will
be attempted, paying serious attention to the arguments put forward by the spirochetes
opponents, who expatiated on the many possibilities of inadvertently creating artifacts through
microscopic preparation and staining. The symmetric account that is presented in this rejoinder
thus aims to trace the simultaneous construction of facts and artifacts. It will not, however,
resurrect Flecks counterfactual thesis.
2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Treponema pallidum; Cytorrhyctes luis; Symmetry; Artifacts

Ludwik Fleck is widely recognized nowadays as an important forerunner of the

constructivist trend in the history, sociology and philosophy of science. The reception
E-mail address: henk.vandenbelt@alg.tf.wag-ur.nl (H. van den Belt).
1369-8486/02/$ - see front matter 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 1 3 6 9 - 8 4 8 6 ( 0 2 ) 0 0 0 2 0 - 1

734

H. van den Belt / Stud. Hist. Phil. Biol. & Biomed. Sci. 33 (2002) 733750

of his book Entstehung und Entwicklung einer wissenschaftlichen Tatsache (Fleck,

1980) has been somewhat one-sided, however. Most commentators have fastened on
the conceptual and theoretical issues raised by this pioneering monograph. Only a
few have actually taken the trouble to examine the empirical adequacy of Flecks
case studies on syphilis and the Wassermann reaction which he used to demonstrate
his precocious constructivist approach (for a rare example, see Lo wy, 1993). It is
more than welcome, therefore, that in a recent issue of this journal Jean Lindenmann
subjects Flecks use of the dispute over the etiologic agent of syphilis to a detailed
critical scrutiny (Lindenmann, 2001). Admittedly, Flecks discussion of this particular episode is rather brief compared with his more extensive treatment of the development of the Wassermann reaction; but what he has to say about it is indeed remarkable and intriguing. Fleck suggests that under suitable social conditions John Siegels
Cytorrhyctes luis could have won acceptance by the scientific community as the
causative agent of syphilis instead of the real agent, Fritz Schaudinns Spirochaeta
pallida (now called Treponema pallidum). Both microbes had been proposed in 1905
to fill the vacancy for the etiology of syphilis. Lindenmann considers Flecks suggestion startling, if not outrageous. He also argues that the generally recognized etiologic
role of Treponema pallidum comes much closer to what is commonly understood
by a scientific fact than the rather muddled relationship between the Wassermann
reaction and syphilis which Fleck chose as his prime subject. So if we want to do
a serious study of the genesis and development of a scientific fact, we should choose
the etiology rather than the serology of syphilis as our object of inquiry.

1. Lindenmanns asymmetric account

A detailed examination of the dispute over the etiology of syphilis, however, does
not corroborate Flecks view that it was social forces that decided the issue between
the adherents of John Siegel and Fritz Schaudinn and tipped the balance in favor of
the latters Spirochaeta pallida. Or so Lindenmann maintains. He reviews a whole
set of social factors and concludes that each of them fails to discriminate between
the two competing groups. Lindenmann notably emphasizes that Siegel and Schaudinn had the same training (even with the same professor in protozoology, Franz
Eilhard Schulze), belonged to the same thought collective, shared the same thought
style1 and had full access to both material and financial resources. He reads a crucial
passage in Flecks monograph as suggesting that Schaudinns spirochete won the
day due to rather minor social influences such as simple public relations measures

Lindenmann is rather emphatic in claiming that Siegel and Schaudinn belonged to the same thought
collective and shared the same thought style, but it is very doubtful whether Fleck would have agreed.
Lindenmann defines the allegedly relevant social forces in terms of pre-existing factors that already
pertained to Siegel and Schaudinn before the controversy started. In Flecks writings, however, a thought
collective and a thought style are often depicted as taking shape simultaneously with the new scientific
fact that is being developed. Fleck also would have considered it too individualistic to define the relevant
social factors as attributes pertaining to concrete persons.

H. van den Belt / Stud. Hist. Phil. Biol. & Biomed. Sci. 33 (2002) 733750

735

(or propagandistic gimmicks): If his [Siegels] findings had had the appropriate
influence [suggestive Wirkung] and received a proper measure of publicity throughout the thought collective [denkkollektive Verbreitung], the concept of syphilis would
be different today . . . (Fleck, 1979, p. 39: cf. Fleck, 1980, p. 55).2 But in the given
situation, Lindenmann claims, such weak social forces could not possibly have
brought victory to Siegels microbe. For by mid-1906, at the time of Schaudinns
untimely death (June 22, 1906), medical scientists, at least those outside Germany,
were totally convinced that Schaudinns spirochete had already been there in syphilitic lesions for centuries, that it had simply awaited being revealed for all to see by
a reliable description based on an appropriate technique (Lindenmann, 2001, p. 449).
Nothing short of the exercise of brute force, of the order of Stalins notorious intervention to compel Soviet geneticists into line with Lysenko, could have overwhelmed
this conviction.
In his eagerness to refute Flecks views, Lindenmann thus ends up with presenting
a blatantly asymmetric account of the dispute over the etiology of syphilisnotwithstanding occasional but inconsequential qualifications. His historical reconstruction is colored by the present insight that Schaudinns pale spirochete, or Treponema
pallidum, is indeed the etiologic agent of syphilis. This retrospective wisdom allows
him to draw on the so-called empiricist repertoire (Gilbert & Mulkay, 1984) to
account for the actions of the non-German scientists who checked Schaudinns findings. Ignoring German academic quarrels and pecking orders, they simply got hold
of a good microscope and looked for themselves (Lindenmann, 2001, p. 448), naturally confirming Schaudinns findings. (It is a little strange, though, that Lindenmann disenfranchises the entire German scientific community: The decision in
favor of Schaudinn was reached by the scientific community at large, outside Berlin,
outside Germanyibid., p. 448). To account for the actions of Siegels group, and
especially of Siegel himself, Lindenmann draws on the contrary contingent repertoire
(Gilbert & Mulkay, 1984), emphasizing irrational social and psychological factors:
the cytorrhyctes was born of delusion, ambition and incompetence (Lindenmann,
2001, p. 449). Although Lindenmann does not say so explicitly, Siegels teacher
Franz Eilhard Schulze presumably sided with his former pupil out of the lifelong
loyalties forged in a student fraternity (Lindenmann, 2001, p. 438, n. 5). In his later
career Siegel is said to have exhibited all the telltale signs of a scientific crank
(ibid., p. 443). Thus his contributions are held up as a clinical case study in pathological science, a moral lesson for historians of science to ponder (ibid., p. 450).

2
The English translation seems not fully adequate to me. In the German original the sentence reads:
Wa re seiner Erkenntnis entsprechende suggestive Wirkung und denkkollektive Verbreitung zu Teil
worden, so besa en wir heute einen anderen Syphilisbegriff. The notion of denkkollektive Verbreitung
refers to how much extension an idea or finding receives within a thought collective, or to the size of
the thought collective that occupies itself with this idea or finding. This is not simply a matter of publicity
in the usual sense, let alone of public relations measures. Nor is denkkollektive Verbreitung a minor
issue for Fleck; on the contrary, it is of central importance in his theory that lays so much stress on the
role of intellectual interaction (Gedankenverkehr) in the formation of scientific facts!

736

H. van den Belt / Stud. Hist. Phil. Biol. & Biomed. Sci. 33 (2002) 733750

For Lindenmann, the sociology and history of science has become the pathology
of science.
The principle of symmetry, which is constitutive of modern constructivism, was
precisely formulated to counter the once widespread conviction among philosophers
and historians that only pathological episodes in the history of science (such as
the Lysenko affair in Soviet Russia or the Piltdown forgery in Britain) are amenable
to sociological analysis. As long as scientists followed the rules of the scientific
method, their behavior was held to be self-explanatory and there was considered to
be nothing to be explained by the sociologist; they would only become objects for
sociological investigation if they deviated from those rules. The philosopher NewtonSmith encapsulated this dominant approach in a nice formula: sociology is for deviants (Newton-Smith, 1981). The purpose of the principle of symmetry was to cut
through this prevalent asymmetry. Part of the interest of Flecks pioneering work
resides in the fact that he can be seen as tentatively groping towards the modern
symmetry postulate. One anticipation is cited by Lindenmann: the social mechanism of the origination of an error is the same as that of the origination of true
knowledge (Fleck, 1986c, p. 123). Lindenmann concludes from this, too quickly I
think, that social mechanisms cannot decide an issue (Lindenmann, 2001, p. 449).3
Flecks criticism of the Durkheimian school in the sociology of knowledge, to the
effect that it failed to extricate itself from the belief that modern scientific thought
is beyond social conditioning (Fleck, 1986b, p. 80), anticipates similar criticisms by
modern constructivists.4 His insistent advocacy of a non-egocentric, comparative
epistemology (Fleck, 1979, p. 22) also points in the direction of the modern symmetry principle.
The dispute over the etiology of syphilis seems a pre-eminent case calling for a

3
Lindenmann assumes without further argument that the resolution of an issue depends on unambiguously establishing truth and error. Moreover, with a little charity we could grant that the same types
of social mechanisms play a role in the origination of truth and error.
4
In a footnote Lindenmann gives a rather special explication of the modern postulate of symmetry,
to the effect that different forms of knowledge (for example, western medicine and sorcery) should be
considered equivalent, and then concludes that there is no indication that Fleck, who drew all his examples
from an observational and experimental tradition, would have endorsed this view (Lindenmann, 2001,
p. 445, n. 14). We have an imbroglio of several misunderstandings here. It is simply not true that Fleck
only drew examples from the tradition of western experimental science, one objective of his theory being
to compare primitive, archaic, naive, and psychotic types of thinking and to investigate them uniformly
(Fleck, 1979, p. 51). However, the modern postulate of symmetry is not a thesis about the substantive
equivalence of all the various forms of knowledge, but a methodological principle that enjoins the analyst
to treat the claims of the various parties to a scientific controversy in an impartial way. Depending on
the controversy under consideration, this postulate may on occasion necessitate the treatment of more
outlandish views as equivalent in principle to more orthodox views, without regard to the personal
convictions of the analyst. In the main body of his text Lindenmann criticizes Fleck for limiting his
discussion to the two candidate microbes as possible causes of syphilis, without considering other conceivable explanations such as masturbation, celestial punishment or sorcery (Lindenmann, 2001, p. 445). I
fail to see why this limitation should be considered a violation of the postulate of symmetry, as these
other conceivable explanations were not put forward by any of the parties to the controversy. Around
1900 the greater part of the medical community simply accepted the germ theory of contagious diseases.

H. van den Belt / Stud. Hist. Phil. Biol. & Biomed. Sci. 33 (2002) 733750

737

symmetric treatment in the modern constructivist sense. Flecks discussion of this

episode is indeed symmetric in intent. The problem is that his treatment is just a
little too brief, only a cursory speculation and not a sustained symmetric analysis:
If his [Siegels] findings had had the appropriate influence and received a proper
measure of publicity throughout the thought collective, the concept of syphilis would
be different today. Some syphilis cases according to present-day nomenclature would
then perhaps be regarded as related to variola and other diseases caused by inclusion
bodies (Fleck, 1979, p. 39).5 Fleck abruptly ends his thought experiment, however,
by noting that [a]lthough such a possibility could be envisioned logically and objectively, it can never be construed as a historical possibility (pp. 3940). It thus
seems that Fleck only flirted with this idea, without taking it too seriously (at least
not as seriously as Lindenmann takes it). The reason why the counterfactual possibility could not have become a real historical possibility, Fleck holds, is that by the
turn of the century the concept of syphilis had already become too rigid for Siegels
microbe to be accepted as the causative agent (Fleck, 1979, p. 40). It is remarkable
that Lindenmann pays no attention to this argument by which Fleck largely retracts
his counterfactual speculation.
Flecks argument is not very plausible, however. It is doubtful whether the existing
syphilis concept really constituted the decisive obstacle for the acceptance of Siegels
microbe. Whereas Siegel postulated family relationships between his agent of syphilis and the purported causative agents of variola, cowpox, foot-and-mouth disease
and scarlet fever, Schaudinn in his turn construed a kinship relation between Spirochaeta pallida and the causative agent of relapsing fever, to say nothing of the controversial connection with the trypanosomes (agents of tropical diseases such as
sleeping sickness) which he also suggested. To many medical doctors the array of
analogous diseases proposed by Siegel was actually more acceptable than Schaudinns list (for the pertinent judgement of an experienced dermatologist, see Lassar,
1905). So it is hardly likely that the existing concept of syphilis constituted the real
stumbling block for Cytorrhyctes luis.
Having removed this obstacle for the execution of a sustained symmetric analysis,
we are faced with a more fundamental difficulty. It is arguable that Fleck, by simply
assuming in his thought experiment that Siegels findings had received the proper
measure of publicity throughout the thought collective, just begs the question and
evades the main point, namely, to explain why Siegels microbe came nowhere near
the measure of publicity (denkkollektive Verbreitung) that was achieved by Schaudinns agent. Why had the pale spirochete, only six months after its discovery, already
been found by more than a hundred investigators in various syphilitic lesions,
whereas Siegels findings had been confirmed by only a few collaborators of the
Zoological Institute in Berlin, led by Professor Schulze? It would appear that such
preponderance in sheer numberswhich was bound to increase in subsequent

Siegel claimed that his alleged agent of syphilis, Cytorrhyctes luis, was related to what he considered
to be the agent of smallpox, Cytorrhyctes variolae, and to the purported agents of foot-and-mouth disease
and scarlet fever.

738

H. van den Belt / Stud. Hist. Phil. Biol. & Biomed. Sci. 33 (2002) 733750

months and yearsconstitutes a real challenge for a symmetric, constructivist explanation. Would it not be natural to conclude that Schaudinns findings got so much
more confirmation because Treponema pallidum really is the agent of syphilis? In
other words, can we avoid lapsing into an asymmetric manner of accounting a` la Lindenmann?

2. Colored observation or the construction of facts and artifacts

Lindenmann suggests that medical investigators simply had to get hold of a good
microscope and look for themselves to be able to verify Schaudinns findings. But
microbiological observation is never that simple. You must already know more or
less what to expect in order to recognize something. This depends partly on the
availability of reliable descriptions in which the distinctive characteristics of the thing
to be seen are clearly set out. It also depends on the experience and competence of
the investigator, that is, on qualities that are notoriously difficult to define. Moreover,
in microbiology specimens are normally prepared in various ways to ensure or augment their visibility. They are cut into slices, fixed, stained, and so forth. This raises
additional problems. Does what we see through the microscope teach us something
about the living cell or the living microorganism, or only about the mutilations we
brought about by subjecting them to such a drastic preparation (to say nothing of
the possibility that the visible properties may also be caused by the microscopic
apparatus itself)? Due to the widespread use of staining, microscopic observation is
quite literally colored observation, that is, colored in our own favor (Derksen, 1992,
p. 165). Microbiologists thus have to decide time and again whether or not they are
dealing with a so-called artifact or spurious phenomenon. Some philosophers hold
that science disposes of readily applicable methods and criteria to tell fact from
artifact (Hacking, 1986; Franklin, 1989), but constructivists subscribe to the view
that the application of general standards in concrete cases always leaves room for
negotiation and contention. It would thus be possible, in conformity with the symmetry principle, to study simultaneously the construction of a fact and the
(de)construction of an artifact from a uniform perspective. For purposes of analysis,
then, facts and artifacts are to be put on a par and treated symmetrically.
In the dispute over the etiology of syphilis the problem of colored observation,
and the possibility of creating artifacts through staining and other procedures, loomed
particularly large. Lindenmann only broaches such issues when he briefly mentions
the objections of Siegels friends to the staining and impregnation methods used to
make the pale spirochete (more) visible; but he does not follow up their arguments
and the ensuing debates in any detail (Lindenmann, 2001, p. 442, 443). I will take
up this task here in order to arrive at a more symmetric analysis of the dispute over
the etiology of syphilis.6 Despite Lindenmanns claim that this dispute was decided

6
The following account is based in large part on Chapter IV of my unpublished thesis (Van den
Belt, 1997).

H. van den Belt / Stud. Hist. Phil. Biol. & Biomed. Sci. 33 (2002) 733750

739

by the scientific community outside Germany, I will concentrate on the discussion

within Germany. It was here, especially before the forum of the Berlin Medical
Society, that the two partiesthe adherents and the opponents of Schaudinns spirochetewent to great lengths to argue out their differences, each supporting their
claims with microphotographs and demonstrations of stained and impregnated preparations. Although they did not succeed in resolving any of the outstanding issues
that divided them (at least not to their mutual satisfaction), we may still note that
the German debate reached a closure of sorts by the end of March 1907. From
that time on, the majority of the German medical community also accepted Spirochaeta pallida as the true etiologic agent of syphilis.
Our account has to start, of course, at an earlier date. On 3 March 1905 Schaudinn
first discerned in a syphilitic papule freshly excised by his clinical collaborator, Erich
Hoffmann, a corkscrew-like microorganism of extreme transparence, which he recognized as a spirochete. In the next weeks similar spirochetes were found in new pathological material. Schaudinn and Hoffmann attempted to stain the spirochetes in fixed
preparations to improve their low visibility, and finally succeeded to some extent
with a so-called Giemsa solution (an eosin-azure mixture developed by G. Giemsa),
but only after staining for 24 hours. Because of this difficulty in staining, the microbe
received the baptismal name of Spirochaeta pallida or pale spirochete. Schaudinn
also thought that this species could be readily distinguished from other kinds of
spirochetes, in particular from a coarser type found in papillomas and balanitis, which
was dubbed Spirochaeta refringens. On 17 and 24 May 1905 Schaudinn and
Hoffmann presented their findings to the Berlin Medical Society, where they met
with the skeptical response described by Lindenmann. By that time they had already
received confirmation from Elie Metchnikoff in Paris, who, on Schaudinns request,
had searched for pale spirochetes in the syphilitic lesions of artificially infected apes
and monkeys (see Schaudinns letters to Metchnikoff, 2 and 8 May 1905, reprinted
in Zeiss, 1932, p. 173). Two German investigators, A. Buschke and W. Fischer, had
also found spirochetes in the liver and spleen of a stillborn syphilitic child. They
had their find authenticated by Schaudinn and Hoffmann: A preparation was
immediately submitted for assessment to Messrs. Schaudinn and Hoffmann, who
declared that the spirochetes we found resemble those they found in morphological
and tinctorial respects (Buschke & Fischer, 1905, p. 792). At this stage replication
still depended too much on personal contacts to be counted as truly independent confirmation.
About this time Schaudinn and Hoffmann were still very reticent to pronounce
on the etiologic status of the pale spirochete: also today we are still far from passing
already a definitive judgement on the etiologic significance of this particular hitherto
unknown microbe (Schaudinn & Hoffmann, 1905, p. 675). Some have suggested
that this caution had been imposed by Schaudinns boss, the President of the Imperial
Health Office (Schuberg & Schlossberger, 1930, p. 583). However that may be, if
even Schaudinn and Hoffmann themselves were so cautious in their public claims,
the initial skepticism exhibited by their medical audience is hardly surprising. This
skepticism was further enhanced by the active opposition from two staff members
of Professor Franz Eilhard Schulzes Zoological Institute, Curt Thesing and Walter

740

H. van den Belt / Stud. Hist. Phil. Biol. & Biomed. Sci. 33 (2002) 733750

Schulze, who as supporters of the rival candidate for the etiology of syphilis did
everything they could to question the credentials of the pale spirochete. According
to Lindenmann, as already reported, Thesing suggested that the spirochetes might
originate from the Giemsa stain used (Lindenmann, 2001, p. 442). At the first Berlin
meeting of 17 May, he showed photographs of object-glasses treated only with
Giemsa stain (without preparations from pathological material!), which exhibited
a certain resemblance to Schaudinns photographs of pale spirochetes. The latters
preparations, Thesing implied, might thus be no more than artifacts, representing an
instance of colored (or stained) observation. He also objected to the alleged protozoal
nature of the pale spirochete; in his view, the preparations and photographs submitted
by Schaudinn would rather militate for its classification among the bacteria. In the
further course of the debate, the latter view would also come to be shared by several
proponents of the pale spirochete and thus no longer discriminate between the two
camps.7 A more serious matter was that the opponents also questioned the differentiation between the pale spirochete and other species of spirochetes. Schaudinn had
pointed at the small size and delicacy, the number, steepness and rigidity of coils,
and the difficulty of staining as specific characteristics of Spirochaeta pallida distinguishing it from other spirochetes. He had even proclaimed: If one has imprinted
the characteristic image of this spiral in ones mind, then, in my opinion, one will
always easily recognize this form again (Schaudinn & Hoffmann, 1905). His
opponents called into question the very idea that there was a constant and characteristic form of this putative species.
After the meetings of the Berlin Medical Society in May 1905, the credibility of
the pale spirochete as a candidate etiologic agent of syphilis was rather low. It would
not take long, however, before the tables were turned in its favor. First, Thesings
charge that Schaudinns spirochete might be no more than an artifact deriving from
the Giemsa stain used was effectively defused. In June 1905, this accusation aroused
an angry reaction from G. Giemsa, who claimed that Thesing must have handled
his stain in a very incompetent way. He expressed his conviction that the so-called
likes of Schaudinns spirochetes shown by Thesing at the Berlin meeting were
7
The precise position occupied by the spirochetes within the system of nature has been a highly
contentious question. From a historical point of view, it is much more complicated than Lindenmann
allows when he notes the irony that the quintessential protozoologist Schaudinn is best remembered
for his description of Treponema pallidum, a bacterium (Lindenmann, 2001, p. 444). For a long time,
protozoologists and bacteriologists have both claimed the group of spirochetes (Davis, 1948). According
to some, spirochetes represent[ed] a kind of no mans land between the true bacteria and protozoa
(Geiman, 1952). Modern textbooks tend to class the spirochetes (or the order of Spirochaetales) among
the Schizomycetes (bacteria in the broadest sense), but also to stress their special characteristics which
set them apart from the true bacteria (for example, Cruickshank et al., 1973). Schaudinns classification
of spirochetes among the protozoa (protists) was also linked to his rather idiosyncratic view that malaria
parasites, trypanosomes and spirochetes were merely different forms in the development of one single
type of organism. In his presentation before the Berlin Medical Society, Schaudinn was rather reticent
about this peculiar theory, stressing that more research needed to be done. His theory, whatever its worth,
induced Paul Ehrlich, who attended the discussions before the Berlin Medical Society, to redirect his
chemotherapeutic research program from trypanosomal diseases to syphilis, which would ultimately lead
to the discovery of the magic bullet.

H. van den Belt / Stud. Hist. Phil. Biol. & Biomed. Sci. 33 (2002) 733750

741

nothing else than tiny crystals of methylene blue and methylene azure which had
precipitated during the drying of the Giemsa solution: These [crystals] may, as anyone can convince himself most easily, falsely suggest the most beautiful bacterial
flora, but they will be immediately resolved when the preparation is washed off with
water in the usual manner (Giemsa, 1905, p. 1027). Ironically, now it was Thesings
imitation spirochetes, designed to prove the artifactual nature of Schaudinns spirochetes, which were to be exposed as artifacts!
During the next months, confirmations of Schaudinns and Hoffmanns findings
continued to flow in. In the fall of 1905, Spirochaeta pallida clearly had the edge
over its rival, Cytorrhyctes luis. By October, spirochetes had already been found by
more than a hundred authors in the most diverse products of syphilis (Fleck, 1979,
p. 16; Lindenmann, 2001, p. 442). Such a large number carried weight and could
not fail to tip the balance in favor of the pale spirochete. Still the opposition,
organized from the Zoological Institute in Berlin, did not give in. The adherents of
Cytorrhyctes luis seized upon what seemed Spirochaeta pallidas heel of Achilles:
its low visibility and, consequently, its dependence on artificial means of coloration.
When in late 1905 Giemsa staining was supplemented by the more powerful silver
impregnation method, the opponents of the pale spirochete did not hesitate to again
denounce the results obtained with the new method as artifacts. They thus opened
a second round in the debate on colored observation and artifacts. As Lindenmann
says, Siegels friends . . . fought some valiant rearguard battles, concentrating on
demolishing the spirochaete, particularly when demonstrated by silver impregnation,
a notoriously tricky technique . . . (Lindenmann, 2001, p. 443). For the sake of a
symmetric analysis, however, I believe that much more can and should be said about
these valiant battles, whether rearguard or not. Moreover, if Lindenmann agrees with
the spirochetes critics that silver impregnation is a notoriously tricky technique,
then why does he not attach more weight to their arguments and objections?

3. Round two: the silver spirochete

So confirmatory findings came in from all sides. In October 1905 Schaudinn confidently expressed his expectation that [t]he findings will steadily increase even
further when all investigators acquire the necessary experience in finding and staining
these delicate forms (Schaudinn, 1905, p. 1665). Although he reiterated his view
that Spirochaeta pallida possessed a characteristic shape of its own which allowed
it to be clearly distinguished from other spirochetes, he also admitted that the recognition of this characteristic form required a certain feeling for the typical (ein
gewisses Gefu hl fu r das Typische). Moreover, staining with Giemsa solution also
demanded experience and skill to avoid the occurrence of all kinds of artifacts
(Kunstprodukte). Schaudinn referred in particular to the hazard of insufficient staining, which would make other spirochetes appear just as pale as the pale spirochete
would be under normal staining conditions. This had already happened to a few
unlucky authors.
It was at about this time that two investigators, the Italian E. Bertarelli and the

742

H. van den Belt / Stud. Hist. Phil. Biol. & Biomed. Sci. 33 (2002) 733750

French-Romanian microbiologist Constantin Levaditi, independently of each other

developed a new method of staining (or rather impregnation) by means of silver
nitrate. Levaditi had been inspired by the silver impregnation method used by Santiago Ramo n y Caja l to demonstrate nervous tissue. The advantage of the silver
impregnation method was its capacity to show pale spirochetes regularly as black
spirals in tissue sections, whereas Giemsa staining was largely limited to the demonstration of those microbes in smears.
On 7 December 1905, at a meeting of physicians of the Charite hospital, Hoffmann
demonstrated several preparations of pale spirochetes obtained with the aid of the
new methods of Bertarelli and Levaditi. He made an important statement: Finally,
I would like to emphasize on this occasion, that now, after so many authors have
furnished evidence for the specific nature of Spirochaeta pallida and the demonstration in tissue sections [Schnitten] also has succeeded, there can be no longer any
doubt about the etiologic significance of this organism (Gesellschaft der Charite Aerzte, 1905). Thus, by this time, Hoffmann was willing to drop all provisos and
reservations with regard to the etiologic status of the pale spirochete.
Thanks to the silver impregnation method, the stream of new finds of pale spirochetes, in particular in tissue sections of internal organs, continued to flow during the
next year. Many medical authorities, such as Flu gge, Gaffky and Loeffler, abandoned
their former skepticism with regard to the probable etiologic status of Spirochaeta
pallida. The pathological anatomist C. Benda later declared that the results of the
new method had made him completely change his mind in the period between March
and June 1906: from a doubter (Zweifler) he had turned into a confessor
(Bekenner) (Benda, 1907).
After Schaudinns early death on 22 June 1906, the adherents of Cytorrhyctes luis
launched a full-scale attack on what they derisively called the silver spirochete, in
a last effort to stem the tide. They propounded the view that the preparations obtained
by silver impregnation were mere artifacts. Those black spirals made visible through
silver nitrate were not spirochetes at all, they maintained, but nerve endings, connective tissue fibers, elastic fibers or other tissue constituents which had disintegrated
through tissue degeneration and subsequently taken on a spiral form as a consequence
of the alcoholic preservation and fixation treatment required by the silver impregnation method. In September 1906, Walter Schulze reported about his attempts to
demonstrate silver spirochetes, using Levaditis method, in the cornea of rabbits
inoculated only with street refuse. His article contained photographs showing the
silver pseudo-spirochetes thus obtained, which were said to closely resemble the
silver spirochetes obtained by Bertarelli and other investigators (Schulze, 1906).
In the same issue of the Berliner klinische Wochenschrift, Schulzes colleague Hans
Friedenthal presented photographs of silver precipitations in carcinoma tissue which
bear a deceptive resemblance to the silver spirals described as Spirochaeta pallida
(Friedenthal, 1906, p. 1217). Likewise, a third member of the Zoological Institute
in Berlin, Theodor Saling, also contributed to what was apparently a concerted action
(Benda spoke about a Feldzug or campaign) to destroy the credibility of the silver
spirochete. It is not difficult to imagine why they chose this as the strategic target
for their attacks, for as Saling concluded from the alleged exposure of this artifact:

H. van den Belt / Stud. Hist. Phil. Biol. & Biomed. Sci. 33 (2002) 733750

743

Therefore all those hundreds of confirmations, which allegedly prove the presence of
the so-called lues spirochete in the internal organs, have been dissolved (Berliner
medizinische Gesellschaft, 1907, p. 258).
The question of the silver spirochete was put on the agenda of the Berlin Medical
Society during four successive meetings on 20 and 27 February and 6 and 13 March
1907. In this long debate between friends and opponents of the spirocheteas
it was called by one of the participants, Alfred Blaschko (Berliner medizinische
Gesellschaft, 1907, p. 355)almost all the issues which divided the two parties were
extensively discussed.8 The opposition party, represented by Saling, (Walter)
Schulze, Friedenthal and Jancke,9 presented a coherent and tightly reasoned case. The
pale spirochetes that were mostly found in skin lesions and could be demonstrated in
smears through Giemsa stain had to be considered as harmless saprophytes, just like
some other spirochetes such as Spirochaeta refringens. Indeed, there was no set of
characteristics by which Spirochaeta pallida could be clearly distinguished from
other spirochetes and which would justify considering it as a separate species. The
fact that pale spirochetes were also occasionally found in syphilitic lesions revealed
nothing about their etiologic significance. As such the pale spirochetes stained with
Giemsa solution had nothing to do with the so-called silver spirochetes demonstrated in tissue sections by means of the silver impregnation method. The latter
represented nerve fibrils, elastic fibers or other normal tissue constituents which had
disintegrated through processes of tissue necrosis or maceration.
The adherents of Cytorrhyctes luis had several arguments to back up their assertion
about the non-identity of Giemsa spirochetes and silver spirochetes. First, the two
clearly differed in appearance. The silver spirochetes looked much shorter and
thicker. They did not accept Hoffmanns explanation that the apparent shrinkage was
simply the combined effect of fixation and paraffin preservation and the precipitation
of a coating of silver grains around the spirochete (Berliner medizinische Gesellschaft, 1907, p. 256). Secondly, Saling also pointed to the enormous disproportion
which is manifested in the fact that in the same piece of tissue myriads of so-called
spirochetes are present after silver impregnation on sections, but that not a single
spirochete appears after staining with a true dyestuff! (Berliner medizinische Gesellschaft, 1907, p. 355). Such disproportion, he maintained, was not known of any other
bacterium or protozoon which could be stained both with dyes and with silver. He
formulated a methodological requirement which the adherents of Spirochaeta pallida
had to fulfil:
The identity of the Giemsa spirochete with the so-called silver spirochete can
only be made plausible if in sections of material treated in accordance with all
the rules of the histological art, precisely on the analogous sites where in the
sections impregnated with silver the so-called silver spirochetes are located in

It is remarkable that Lindenmann does not pay attention to this particular debate.
Franz Eilhard Schulze and John Siegel were conspicuously absent on both occasions (May 1905 and
FebruaryMarch, 1907) when the Berlin Medical Society discussed the question of the spirochete.
9

744

H. van den Belt / Stud. Hist. Phil. Biol. & Biomed. Sci. 33 (2002) 733750

myriads, the same spiral fibers would also be demonstrated in equivalent quantities
by using a dyestuff. (Berliner medizinische Gesellschaft, 1907, p. 353)
This requirement of quantitative congruence is indeed rather demanding.
During the meetings of the Berlin Medical Society in February and March 1907,
the friends of the spirochete attempted to counter the criticisms put forward by the
opponents. They pointed out that silver spirochetes had not only been demonstrated
in tissues but also in the lumen of blood and lymph vessels. Such findings, they
held, could not be explained by the tissue decay theory of the opponents.10 The latter
answered that on occasion fibers and other tissue constituents might be inadvertently
displaced from the tissue by the microtome knife (Berliner medizinische Gesellschaft,
1907, p. 350).
The pathological anatomist Orth was not impressed by the artificial silver spirochetes produced by the adherents of Cytorrhyctes luis. He could not hide his irritation
about their ways of arguing:
Hearing the opponents and reading their publications, one could believe that they
were dealing with scientific novices whom they had to teach the first principles
of microscopic observation. For my part, I have to protest when Mr Friedenthal,
for example, pretends that those black things which he showed in his pictures in
the Berliner klinische Wochenschrift . . ., are taken, or could be taken, for spirochetes by competent investigators. No one would have hit on that idea. This is a
struggle against windmills. (Berliner medizinische Gesellschaft, 1907, p. 319)
Surely, not all the things that are stained black by Levaditis method are spirochetes,
Orth implied, but it could safely be entrusted to the critical judgement of the competent investigators to distinguish artifacts from the real thing.
Two investigators, Hans Bab and Peter Mu hlens, attempted to triangulate the etiology with the emerging serology of syphilis. They pointed out that the findings of
silver spirochetes in the livers of syphilitic fetuses were confirmed by the outcomes
of the recently developed Wassermann reaction used for antigen determination of
liver extracts (Berliner medizinische Gesellschaft, 1907, pp. 259, 293). Saling
replied that the originators of this serological test themselves had declared that it
was not ready for practical use, as it did not yet furnish reliable results in every
case (Berliner medizinische Gesellschaft, 1907, p. 354). As we know from Flecks
monograph, antigen determination (Antigennachweis) would later be abandoned
as spurious; antibody determination would become the only reliable part of the
Wassermann test (Fleck, 1979, pp. 7071).
To support the identity of the silver spirochete and the Giemsa spirochete, the
pathological anatomist Benda showed photographs and preparations from the livers

10
This argument had already been used by Levaditi in a first reaction to Walter Schulzes accusations
(Levaditi, 1906).

H. van den Belt / Stud. Hist. Phil. Biol. & Biomed. Sci. 33 (2002) 733750

745

of syphilitic children. Smears taken from the same material which in silver-impregnated tissue sections exhibited the presence of silver spirochetes showed pale spirochetes after staining with a Giemsa solution (Berliner medizinische Gesellschaft,
1907, pp. 293, 357). This was obviously intended to answer the methodological
demand for congruence. The opposite party, in the person of Saling, reacted by
denying that the spirochetes stained with Giemsa belonged to the species Spirochaeta
pallida; they were said to exhibit the species characteristics of Spirochaeta refringens
(Berliner medizinische Wochenschrift, 1907, pp. 293, 356). To Benda this assertion
was completely at odds with the fact (durchaus der Tatsache widersprechend). The
venereologist Alfred Blaschko commented on this disagreement: In my view, the
preparations of Mr Benda are not conclusive to a malevolent judge, but only to those
who have any inkling of the extreme difficulty with which these organisms can be
stained with Giemsa (Berliner medizinische Gesellschaft, 1907, p. 356; emphasis
added). Blaschko also argued that the methodological requirement of a complete
congruence, even in quantitative terms, between the results of silver impregnation
and Giemsa staining was highly unreasonable. Given its delicacy and its special
tinctorial properties, it was no more than to be expected that Spirochaeta pallida
could not be made visible with the normal dyes in the relatively thick tissue sections.
During the long discussions within the Berlin Medical Society, many friends of
the spirochete must have had the feeling that in dealing with their opponents from
the Zoological Institute they were rapidly reaching the limits of reasonable debate.
Their exasperating experience was that they could not force their opponents into
line by what they considered rational and convincing arguments. Their determined
opponents acted much like Awkward Student or the obstinate dissenter in modern
sociology of science textbooks (Collins, 1985; Latour, 1987). No wonder that the
friends of the spirochete sometimes resorted to authority arguments. Both
Hoffmann and Orth, for example, disputed the competence of non-medical scientists
to speak about medical subjects such as necrosis and maceration. Hoffmann also
emphasized that virtually all syphilologists and almost all pathological anatomists
supported the etiologic status of Spirochaeta pallida (Berliner medizinische Gesellschaft, 1907, p. 256).
As will probably be clear by now, the controversy about the silver spirochete
was not settled. In his final word Saling reaffirmed his position: All those hundreds
of confirmers (Besta tiger) have fallen victim to a severe delusion; and Mssrs.
Bertarelli, Hoffmann, Benda and their likes may not take it ill of me that I have some
doubts about their critical judgement and their capacity of observation. Blaschko, in
his final speech, noted that all rational arguments had been idle and impotent: Who
does not want to be convinced by what Mr Benda and I, and by what Mssrs. Mu hlens,
Hoffmann, Bab and others have expounded in truly sufficient extension, such a person cannot be convinced in any possible way (Berliner medizinische Gesellschaft,
1907, pp. 355, 356). Blaschko concluded that it was time to close the debate and to
continue the work on the Spirochaeta pallida without regard for the views of the
obstinate opponents. And this is indeed what would happen: from then on, the
opponents criticisms would be simply ignored.

746

H. van den Belt / Stud. Hist. Phil. Biol. & Biomed. Sci. 33 (2002) 733750

4. Discussion and conclusions

In the dispute over the etiology of syphilis, the construction of a fact (i.e. the
fact that Treponema pallidum is the etiologic agent of syphilis) was intimately connected with the question of the possible creation of artifacts. Seen from the perspective of the minority group of opponents of the pale spirochete the same episode
should rather be described as the failed deconstruction of an artifactfailed in the
sense that the opponents were unable to persuade the larger medical community of
their views. According to realist philosophers such as Ian Hacking or Allan Franklin,
science has available several ready-made methodological criteria by which to distinguish genuine results from mere artifacts. One possibility is to use the argument
from coincidence by obtaining the same result using different experimental apparatus or procedures. Hacking gives the example of seeing dense bodies in cells by
the use of both electron and light microscopes: I say that if you can see the same
fundamental features of structure using several different physical systems, you have
excellent reason for saying, thats real rather than, thats an artifact (Hacking,
1986, p. 204). In this article we have seen that two different staining methods,
Giemsa staining and silver impregnation, were deployed to visualize the pale spirochete. This could not, however, resolve the issue at stake.
For the friends of the spirochete the matter was clear: silver impregnation confirmed the results obtained by Giemsa staining and substantially enlarged the field
of visibility of the microbe. The opponents, however, saw things differently. They
stressed the dissimilar appearances of the Giemsa spirochete and the silver spirochete, discounting the explanation given by the other side for this difference. They
also pointed to the great discrepancy in numbers of spirochetes detected in similar
tissues by using the two staining methods, thus arguing that there was no congruence
in quantitative terms between the results of both methods. Of course, for the friends
such lack of exact quantitative correspondence was precisely what was to be
expected, given the character of the spirochete (its difficult stainability with Giemsa
dye). In the present case, then, the issue at stakegenuine result or artifact?could
not be settled to the satisfaction of the opposing parties by the deployment of different staining methods, because there was no agreement on what constituted comparable outcomes or sufficient congruence. The situation is similar to what Harry Collins
has described as the experimenters regress (Collins, 1985).
Nor could an appeal to the large number of independent confirmations of Schaudinns and Hoffmanns findings settle the matter. The charge that the silver spirochete was a mere artifact was aimed precisely at destroying the credibility of the
greater part of those confirmations. In the end the controversy over the etiology of
syphilis was closed by ignoring rather than painstakingly refuting the detailed
objections of the minority group of opponents. As this group was able to invent
new criticisms after each attempt of refutation, it appears that this was the only way
to achieve closure. In Collins terms: some way to break the circle of the experimenters regress had to be found.
A notable fact about the entire episode is that Schaudinns spirochete was eventually accepted in medical circles as the causative agent of syphilis even if Kochs

H. van den Belt / Stud. Hist. Phil. Biol. & Biomed. Sci. 33 (2002) 733750

747

postulates (which require that a pure culture of the suspected microbe has to be
inoculated in a susceptible animal to see if it causes the disease) remained unfulfilled.
The pale spirochete stubbornly resisted every attempt at cultivation in nutrient media.
It is interesting to note that initially many medical specialists suspended a definitive
judgement until Kochs rules would be met. Lindenmann refers to the outcome of
a sort of poll among European dermatologists in the fall of 1905: all were in favor
of the spirochaete, although most insisted that definitive proof along the principles
laid out by Koch was still lacking (Lindenmann, 2001, p. 442). The definitive
proof would never be produced, but eventually the etiologic role of the pale spirochete would be accepted even in the absence of this crowning piece of evidence. The
etiology of syphilis is not the only exception in the history of medical microbiology.
So it appears that even such basic rules of the game as Kochs postulates are negotiable after all, as constructivists would have expected all along (cf. Bloor, 1999,
pp. 102103).
Another salient feature of the debate on which I may have put too little emphasis
was the wide variability of the descriptions. Particularly in the initial stages, the
series of characteristics attributed to the pale spirochete varied almost from one publication to the next. Critics did not hesitate to capitalize on these apparent inconsistencies to throw doubt on the very existence of the microorganism (for some strongly
sarcastic comments, see Friedenthal, 1906). Fleck was well aware of this phenomenon in a different area of microbiology, as his analysis of the changing descriptions
of diphtheria bacilli in successive bacteriological textbooks testifies (Fleck, 1986a).
Elsewhere, he describes the emergence of a common Gestalt or standard pattern as
arising out of the oscillating pictures and fantastic images proposed by individual
investigators: [T]he collective life produces among these oscillating possibilities a
novel prescribed form, which is then fixed and pressed upon the individual. The
collective experience and custom determine which feature is fundamental and what
can be variable, and how far this variability can extend (Fleck, 1986d, p. 140).
Something similar has happened in the collective process of learning about the
characteristics of the etiologic agent of syphilis. Flecks views on human perception
and scientific observation are still pertinent and useful for historians of science.
In this article, answering the challenge posed by Lindenmanns asymmetric
account of the dispute over the etiology of syphilis (Lindenmann, 2001), I have tried
to present a more symmetric analysis of the same episode. Following the symmetry
principle, however, does not imply endorsement of the rather implausible counterfactual thesis that Siegels Cytorrhyctus luis could just as well have won acceptance
as the causative agent of syphilis as Schaudinns Spirochaeta pallida. If Siegels
allies were able to mount an impressive array of objections against the etiologic
status of the pale spirochete, thus undermining the latters credibility, they did not
succeed in bringing their own favored candidate back into the race as a serious
contender. One might speculate to attribute this different success to differences in
the two thought collectives involved. While the (non-medical) Zoological Institute
in Berlin acted as Siegels bulwark, from the very outset the Schaudinn-Hoffmann
group had better access to the official medical world through Hoffmanns principal,
Professor Edmund Lesser at the Dermatological Clinic of the Charite Hospital in

748

H. van den Belt / Stud. Hist. Phil. Biol. & Biomed. Sci. 33 (2002) 733750

Berlin. Although this may have been an important asset in their attempts to convince
the German medical community, I also think that we should not make too much of
this difference. An explanation in terms of such straightforward structural differences
between thought collectives does not take us very far in this particular case. I have
therefore chosen to follow the debate on the etiology of syphilis as it unfolded,
paying symmetric attention to the arguments of both the friends and the
opponents of the pale spirochete. This allowed me to perform a simultaneous analysis of the construction of facts and artifacts during the same episode.
But what about the standard accusation that constructivist analyses do not allow
the drawing of a distinction between facts and artifacts, or even worse, that they
effectively degrade all facts to artifacts (Bunge, 1992; Nola, 1994)? If facts are mere
(social) constructions, then in what respect do they differ from artifacts? My personal
reply to this charge is to concede that there is indeed a meaningful distinction to be
drawn between facts and artifacts. However, I reject the claim that it is the duty of
the analyst of science to tell fact from artifact in concrete cases (that is the job of
the scientists themselves) or even to provide general standards and criteria by which
this distinction can be made in actual scientific practice. It is true that some philosophers of science (for example, Allan Franklin) have proposed such standards and
criteria, but I already pointed out that the application of these standards usually
leaves considerable scope for indeterminacy. In addition to the present case study
on the etiology of syphilis I can also refer to Nicolas Rasmussens excellent historical
study of the so-called mesosomes for a telling example (Rasmussen, 1993). It took
about 15 years before these purported cell structures, identified during the 1950s
with the aid of the new electron microscope, were called into question as being mere
artifacts (although even now there are still researchers who are convinced of their
factual status!). This long period militates against the idea that science disposes of
readily applicable criteria for telling fact from artifact. Rasmussen also shows in
detail that researchers often disagreed about the relative importance of the various
criteria that could be brought to bear on the issue; and even where they agreed on
the principles to be applied, they disagreed about their concrete application! It would
thus seem that there is indeed wide scope for a constructivist analysis to handle the
construction of facts and the (de)construction of artifacts in an evenhanded way using
a single analytical framework. This is precisely what I attempted to do in this article.
The possibility of such an analysis is a direct corollary of the symmetry principle.
For purposes of analysis, facts and artifacts are put on a par and treated symmetrically, but this does not mean that the former are transformed into the latter.

References
Benda, C. (1907). Zur Levaditifa rbung der Spirochaeta pallida. Berliner klinische Wochenschrift, 44,
480484.
Berliner medizinische Gesellschaft (1907). Verhandlungen a rztlicher Gesellschaften. Berliner medizinische Gesellschaft. Sitzungen vom 20. Februar, 27. Februar, 6. Ma rz, 13. Ma rz. Berliner klinische
Wochenschrift, 44, 254259, 291295, 318320, 350358.
Bloor, D. (1999). Anti-Latour. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 30(1), 81112.

H. van den Belt / Stud. Hist. Phil. Biol. & Biomed. Sci. 33 (2002) 733750

749

Bunge, M. (1992). A critical examination of the new sociology of science, Part 2. Philosophy of the
Social Sciences, 22, 4676.
Buschke, A., & Fischer, W. (1905). Ueber das Vorkommen von Spirochaeten in inneren Organen eines
syphilitischen Kindes. Deutsche medizinische Wochenschrift, 42, 791792.
Collins, H. (1985). Changing order: Replication and induction in scientific practice. London: Sage.
Cruickshank, R. et al. (1973). Medical microbiology (12th ed). Edinburgh & London: Churchill Livingstone.
Davis, G. E. (1948). The Spirochetes. Annual review of microbiology, 2, 305333.
Derksen, A. A. (1992). Wetenschap of Willekeur. Muiderberg: Coutinho.
Fleck, L. (1979). Genesis and development of a scientific fact. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Fleck, L. (1980). Entstehung und Entwicklung einer wissenschaftlichen Tatsache. Frankfurt am Main:
Suhrkamp. First published 1935, Basel: Benno Schwabe.
Fleck, L. (1986a). Scientific observation and perception in general. In R. S. Cohen, & T. Schnelle (Eds.),
Cognition and fact. Materials on Ludwik Fleck (pp. 5978). Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company.
First published 1935.
Fleck, L. (1986b). The problem of epistemology. In R. S. Cohen, & T. Schnelle (Eds.), Cognition and
fact. Materials on Ludwik Fleck (pp. 79112). Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company. First published 1936.
Fleck, L. (1986c). Problems of the science of science. In R. S. Cohen, & T. Schnelle (Eds.), Cognition
and fact. Materials on Ludwik Fleck (pp. 113127). Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company. First
published 1946.
Fleck, L. (1986d). To look, to see, to know. In R. S. Cohen, & T. Schnelle (Eds.), Cognition and fact.
Materials on Ludwik Fleck (pp. 129151). Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company. First published 1947.
Franklin, A. (1989). The epistemology of experiment. In D. Gooding, T. Pinch, & S. Schaffer (Eds.),
The uses of experiment (pp. 437460). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Friedenthal, H. (1906). Ueber Spirochaetenbefunde bei Carcinom und bei Syphilis. Berliner klinische
Wochenschrift, 43, 12171218.
Geiman, Q. M. (1952). Metabolism of spirochetes. Annual review of microbiology, 6, 299316.
Gesellschaft der Charite -Aerzte (1905). Gesellschaft der Charite -Aerzte. Sitzung vom 7. Dezember 1905.
Berliner klinische Wochenschrift, 43, 175176.
Giemsa, G. (1905). Bemerkungen zur Fa rbung der Spirochaeta pallida (Schaudinn). Deutsche medizinische
Wochenschrift, 31, 10261027.
Gilbert, G. N., & Mulkay, M. (1984). Opening Pandoras box: A sociological analysis of scientists
discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hacking, I. (1986). Representing and intervening. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Latour, B. (1987). Science in action. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
Lassar, O. (1905). Ueber neuere Protozoe n-Befunde. Berliner klinische Wochenschrift, 42, 728730.
Levaditi, C. (1906). Bemerkungen zu dem Aufsatz die Silberspirochaete von W. Schulze in No 37 dieser
Wochenschrift. Berliner klinische Wochenschrift, 43, 13681369.
Lindenmann, J. (2001). Siegel, Schaudinn, Fleck and the etiology of syphilis. Studies in History and
Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical sciences, 32(3), 435455.
Lo wy, I. (1993). Testing for a sexually transmissible disease, 1907-1970: the history of the Wassermann
reaction. In V. Berridge, & P. Strong (Eds.), AIDS and contemporary history (pp. 7492). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Newton-Smith, W. H. (1981). The rationality of science. Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Nola, R. (1994). There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy: A dialogue on realism and constructivism. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 25,
689727.
Rasmussen, N. (1993). Facts, artifacts, and mesosomes: Practising epistemology with the electron microscope. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 24, 227265.
Schaudinn, F. (1905). Zur Kenntnis der Spirochaeta pallida: Vorla ufige Mitteilung. Deutsche medizinische
Wochenschrift, 31, 16651667.

750

H. van den Belt / Stud. Hist. Phil. Biol. & Biomed. Sci. 33 (2002) 733750

Schaudinn, F., & Hoffmann, E. (1905). Ueber Spirochaeta pallida bei Syphilis und die Unterschiede dieser
Form gegenu ber anderen Arten dieser Gattung. Berliner klinische Wochenschrift, 42, 673675.
Schuberg, A., & Schlossberger, H. (1930). Zum 25. Jahrestag der Spirochaeta pallida. Klinische Wochenschrift, 9, 582586.
Schulze, W. (1906). Die Silberspirochaete. Berliner klinische Wochenschrift, 43, 12131216.
Van den Belt, H. (1997). Spirochaetes, serology, and Salvarsan: Ludwik Fleck and the construction of
medical knowledge about syphilis. Unpublished thesis, Wageningen.
Zeiss, H. (1932). Elias Metchnikow: Leben und Werk. Jena: Gustav Fischer.