3.8 Article

Richard Semon (1859-1918): expeditions, engrams and epigenetics

期刊

NEUROPSYCHIATRIE
卷 37, 期 3, 页码 147-155

出版社

SPRINGER WIEN
DOI: 10.1007/s40211-022-00454-9

关键词

Engram; Epigenetics; Ernst Haeckel-memory; Memory loss; Paul Kammerer; Suicide

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Richard Semon, a biologist, studied various animals such as sea urchins, starfish, chicken, and lung fish. He developed the theory of "mneme" and expanded it to the inheritance of acquired characteristics. After being forced to leave Germany, he continued his philosophical research in biology in Munich. In 1918, he tragically took his own life due to various reasons.
Richard Semon (1859-1918) was a student of Ernst Haeckel and began his career as a zoologist with work on sea urchins, starfish, chicken and lung fish, which he collected at the Mediterranean Sea and in Australia. After his return to Germany he was forced to leave Jena and the university due to private reasons, and settled in Munich, where Semon devoted most of his time to the more philosophical aspects of biology, developed the theory of mneme (1904), which he extended towards the inheritance of acquired characteristics (1912). Semon's concept of memory reached far beyond the brain and the individual person. In 1918 he took his life, despondent because of a surmised lack of scientific appreciation, the death of his beloved wife, the political turmoil at the end of WWI, and his-the memory researcher's-suspected loss of memory. Eight years later, the experimental biologist Paul Kammerer (1880-1926) from Vienna, Semon's must trusted source for the inheritance of acquired characteristics, also shot himself. Serious doubts increasingly overshadowed his work on salamanders and midwife toads. Epigenetics, the nature of memory, the fear of cognitive impairment, depression, the impact of private and political matters on scientific work, suspected scientific errors, fraud and a scientists' suicides are condensed in Semon's life and death.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据