Priority dispute

In his scientific life, his behavior and demeanor were far different. Newton was hostile to any criticism and he was capable of ruthless behavior. The priority dispute with the German mathematician Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz over the invention of the calculus is a case in point. In his capacity as President of the Royal Society, Newton appointed a committee of loyal Newtonians to investigate the matter. He then authored the committee s report, the infamous Comrnercium Epistolicmn and submitted it as though it were an utterly impartial report in his own favor. 

Some indication of the differences can be found by analysing some criticisms. .. upon the periodic classification solicited in 1881 by the editor of the Chemical News from Adolphe Wurtz, a celebrated Parisian chemist of the time. (Wurtz s note follows notes from Mendeleev and from Lothar Meyer forming their famous priority dispute.)... 

Lothar Meyer is best remembered for his independent discovery of the periodic system, although more credit is invariably accorded to Mendeleev. The two chemists eventually became engaged in a rather bitter priority dispute, which Mendeleev apparently won, although how much of that was due to Mendeleev s more forceful personality is difficult to ascertain fully. Certainly Mendeleev had a more complete system and went on to make predictions on the basis of his system. He was also to champion the cause of the periodic law to a far greater extent than was Lothar Meyer. But if one asks the question of who arrived at the mature periodic system first, a strong case can be made for saying that in many crucial details the system of Lothar Meyer was not only first but also more correct. 

In 1881, a year after the serialization of Mendeleev s memoir appeared, the famous priority dispute between Mendeleev and Lothar Meyer broke out in the pages of the same journal. Chemical News. A er giving precise detaik as to the publication of his early papers in a note to the journal, Mendeleev adds the following more general remark concerning what he believes to be the essence of the priority question ... 

The inclusion of this rather severe criticism might be viewed as an attempt by the editor of Chemical News to temper his initial enthusiasm for Mendeleev s system, which had led to the 17-part serialization. Why he would otherwise choose to follow the priority dispute with this note is difficult to rmderstand. 

As soon as Moseley had estabhshed the importance of atomic number experimentally, he began to apply this work in settling various questions regarding new elements that had been claimed by various chemists. A total of approximately 70 proposed new elements competed to fill the 16 gaps in Mendeleevs periodic table. Moseley succeeded in showing that many of these were spurious and was able to resolve some priority disputes regarding the discovery of certain elements. 

Although Meyer and Mendeleev appear to have made their discoveries independently, they became involved in an unfortunate priority dispute. In retrospect, it seems clear that both deserve credit for their contributions to the periodic table, as do several of their contemporaries. Newlands and de Chancourtois have already been mentioned. Other, less well known contributors include William Odling and... 

The issue fell on fertile ground, not so much because of the principles of dialectical materialism, but because there had been priority disputes since 1863 about the originators of the theory of chemical structure (Butlerov, Couper and Kekule), in particular between German and Russian historians. That in English publications the name of Kekule dominates, Couper may be mentioned briefly and Butlerov often not at all seems to be an obvious bias. On the other hand, it is equally wrong to claim that Butlerov is the true creator of the theory of chemical structure. Probably it is fair to say that Butlerov, Couper, and Kekule between them made all the important contributions but, because they knew each others work and met one another on their journeys, a ranking in terms of priority doesn t make much sense. It might be added that Butlerov and Kekule were personal friends, and as far as can be known did not quarrel about priority. 

The priority dispute between Mendeleev and Meyer was one of several that Russian chemists had with foreign chemists in the years after the 1860s. These priority disputes stoked Russians feelings of nationalism, which were growing very strong at this time in many other aspects of Russian hfe. Even some Russians who did not particularly like Mendeleev appeared to defend him in this priority dispute. 

In 1866 Meyer moved to Neustadt-Eberswalde, where he became professor at the Forestry Academy. It was there that he worked on anew edition of his book Moderne Theorien and, in 1868, constructed an extended arrangement with fifty-two elements in fifteen vertical rows, leaving the sixteenth row empty (Figure 3.1). This system was not published at that time. Meyer left the draft to his successor, geologist Adolf Remele (1839-1915). It is not clear why Kernels only returned the manuscript to Meyer in 1893, and not in the 1880s during the priority dispute. It is also unknown why Meyer did not ask Kernels for the draft. The system from 1868 was finally published in 1895. Seubert wrote of a system in the headline of his 1895 publication, but there is no evidence that Meyer used this term. 

The Priority Dispute in the Berichte der Deutschen Chemischen Gesellschaft... 

After the Priority Dispute—M eyer and the German Chemical Community... 

The priority dispute took place in the Berichte derDeutschen Chemischen Gesellschaft and could be easily read by the chemical community, which at the time was dominated by organic chemists. How did the chemical community respond to the priority dispute At first, no other papers could be found that explicitly discussed the priority dispute. It cannot be excluded that the correspondences reflected the dispute." But it is obvious that the authors who dealt directly or indirectly with the questions of atomism, elements, and their classification or the determination of atomic weights often mentioned the successful predictions of Mendeleev and showed some reticence concerning Meyer s work. It seems that the success of (some) predictions of new elements influenced the process of forgetting about Meyer s precautionary contribution and overemphasizing the role of the predictions in the process of acceptance. ... 

---