Department for the History, Philosophy, and Ethics of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany.
Department of Neurobiology, Care Sciences, and Society, Karolinska Institutet, Novum, Huddinge, Sweden.
Urol Int. 2020;104(7-8):501-509. doi: 10.1159/000506235. Epub 2020 Mar 13.
This paper reviews the files in the archive of the Nobel Prize Committee for Physiology or Medicine on the Austrian physiologist and pioneering researcher in the emerging fields of urology and sexual medicine: Eugen Steinach (1861-1944). It reconstructs and analyzes why and by whom Steinach was nominated for the Nobel Prize between 1920 and 1938 and discusses the reasons why he never received the award, although the Nobel Committee judged him as prizeworthy. Steinach's Nobel nominee career is extraordinary - not only because of his strong support by renowned international nominators from different scientific and medical disciplines, but also because of the controversial discussions within the Nobel Committee on his achievements, colored by the debates in the international scientific community. The Nobel Prize story adds a new perspective on how contemporary international scholars evaluated Steinach's research on reproduction, "male-making" females, "female-making" males, homosexuality, and the concept of rejuvenation.
本文查阅了诺贝尔生理学或医学奖委员会档案中的奥地利生理学家、泌尿学和性医学新兴领域的先驱研究者欧根·斯坦纳（Eugen Steinach）的文件。本文重构并分析了斯坦纳为何以及何时被提名诺贝尔奖，讨论了他为何从未获奖的原因，尽管诺贝尔委员会认为他值得获奖。斯坦纳的诺贝尔奖提名生涯是非凡的——不仅因为他得到了来自不同科学和医学领域的知名国际提名者的大力支持，还因为诺贝尔委员会内部对他的成就展开了颇具争议的讨论，这其中夹杂着国际科学界的争论。诺贝尔的故事为我们提供了一个新视角，让我们了解当代国际学者如何评价斯坦纳在生殖、“女性男性化”、“男性女性化”、同性恋以及返老还童等方面的研究。
