Wednesday, October 9, 2013

Scientific Imagination

Most of you have read about the Higgs boson, or Higgs particle. A elemental particle thought to be pivotal to the standard model of particle physics. How the physical world is put together and works. It was theorized in 1964, but only as a possibility, and not confirmed for nearly 50 years. The theory was based on circumstantial evidence, and were it a criminal trial the defendant would be said to be not guilty. It was also based on scientific imagination......the cumulative result of knowledge from the past and present, then the undefinable "Eureka!".......the "I can't prove it, but it's gotta be...."

There are many other examples of this, but the one that occurred to me was that of Marie Krogh.


Marie Krogh (1874-1943) was a scientist and physiologist living in Europe. Around the turn of the century the theory of how oxygen got to the cellular level to be used in metabolic process was active secretion of oxygen by the lungs, it's adherents were the chief scientists of the day: Bohr and Haldane. To disagree with them about their theory was tantamount to professional suicide, similar to a first year undergraduate telling his Nobel Laureate department chair he was wrong in his work.

Marie Krogh, working with her husband August, published a paper in 1909 in the scientific journal Skand Arch Phiol refuting Bohr's active secretion theory, claiming oxygen actually passed across the alveolar-capillary membrane by passive diffusion; that the partial pressure of oxygen, higher in the alveolus, passed to the lower partial pressure present in the capillary. 

Then she did something that to me was remarkable: she described a test that could test the theory by delivering a small concentration of carbon monoxide to the lung, measuring the percentage inhaled and exhaled, and calculating the amount passed into the blood stream. She also calculated a 'constant', a mathematical factor that would be needed for the calculation of the transfer factor of oxygen. 

The rub was that there was no way at the time to determine if she was correct. There were no mechanical devices or sensors that could perform the test. 

In 1957, a noted pulmonologist, C.M. Ogilvie, read her paper published nearly 50 years earlier, and decided it could be done. Her theory and even the mathematical calculation of the constant turned out to be correct. 

She didn't live long enough to see her theory proven, but I'm sure she had no doubts.   

14 comments:

  1. Replies
    1. Thanks Martha. It occurred to me recently when I was reading about Higgs.

      Delete
  2. Terrific blog! I'll have to google this "alveolar-capillary membrane" but I will as I'm now curious. Of course I won't understand it anymore than I understand Higgs boson but I won't be clueless.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The alveolus, or alveoli, and the end units of your respiratory system.When you breath, the air goes down your main stem broncus, bifurcates left and right to the lungs, sub-divides numerous times until it gets to the tiny alveolar sacs. These are lined with capillaries, with a thin membrane separating them. The membrane is permeable, that is to say gas can pass across it. Since gas moves from areas of high concentration to low, oxygen will diffuse to the capillaries where it reacts chemically with hemoglobin to form oxyhemoglobin, thence the oxygen carrying hemoglovin is taken to the muscle where the Krebs cycle occurs.

      Test at 11.

      Delete
    2. Mike, your explanation is way, way better than what I read wiki. Thanks! Anytime you feel up to it, I'll be happy to read what you have to say about Higgs boson.

      As for the test, I'll try the one on the alveoli. I won't even consider any test on the boson. :)

      Delete
  3. David...re the Higgs boson. Check this little presentation:

    http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/10/08/science/the-higgs-boson.html?hpw&_r=0#/?g=true&higgs2_slide=32

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mike, I skipped the video or whatever was there because of my internet connection and went straight to article the page referenced. It was great. Many thanks!

      Delete
  4. Cool story. And of course, I especially like reading about female scientists.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Me too. Interestingly her husband got a Nobel, she got very few awards, though it was mostly her work.

      Delete
  5. Mike, you probably don't remember me, but I was a resident that came through your department for a month in 1994. In grand rounds you mentioned a finding regarding low DLCO with concurrent low max VO2 in an athlete. I remembered that for years. We talked about it while a CPET was going on in your lab.
    I'm now at UCSF, attending in the PD. If you're ever in San Francisco, give my office a call.
    Lor

    ReplyDelete
  6. Lor (?)....no, sorry I don't remember. I had a lot of residents pass through, nice that you remember though. I'm retired now, living in MT, and don't travel much anymore. If Warren Gold is still there, tell him hello from me.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I'm fascinated by the stories of women in science during eras when women weren't supposed to be in science. Thank you.

    ReplyDelete
  8. In the vein of scientific imagination sixty minutes tonight had a story about a 15 year old who developed a test which may someday prove to the early warning test needed for pancreatic cancer.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. TB---- that would be something, wouldn't it? Pancreatic ca has one of the worst survival rates once it's hit stage 2, around 6% I think. My sister passed from it's effects when she was 52.

      Delete