Jones E G
Center for Neuroscience, University of California, Davis, USA.
J Hist Neurosci. 1999 Aug;8(2):170-8. doi: 10.1076/jhin.8.2.170.1838.
Camillo Golgi and Santiago Ramon y Cajal shared the Nobel Prize in 1906 for their work on the histology of the nerve cell, but both held diametrically opposed views about the Neuron Doctrine which emphasizes the structural, functional and developmental singularity of the nerve cell. Golgi's reticularist views remained entrenched and his work on the nervous system did not venture greatly into new territories after its original flowering, which had greater impact than is now commonly credited. Cajal, by contrast, by the time he was awarded the Nobel Prize, was already breaking new ground with a new staining technique in the field of peripheral nerve regeneration, seeing the reconstruction of a severed nerve by sprouting from the proximal stump as another manifestation of the Neuron Doctrine. Paradoxically, identical studies were going on simultaneously in Golgi's laboratory in the hands of Aldo Perroncito, but the findings did not seem to influence Golgi's thinking on the Neuron Doctrine.
卡米洛·高尔基和圣地亚哥·拉蒙·伊·卡哈尔因在神经细胞组织学方面的工作于1906年共同获得诺贝尔奖,但两人对于强调神经细胞结构、功能和发育单一性的神经元学说持有截然相反的观点。高尔基的网状学说观点根深蒂固,他在神经系统方面的工作在最初取得辉煌成就后并未大胆涉足新领域,其影响力比现在普遍认为的要大。相比之下,卡哈尔在获得诺贝尔奖时,已经在外周神经再生领域用一种新的染色技术开辟了新天地,将从近端残端长出新芽来重建切断的神经视为神经元学说的另一种表现形式。矛盾的是,在高尔基的实验室里,阿尔多·佩龙奇托同时也在进行相同的研究,但这些发现似乎并未影响高尔基对神经元学说的看法。