Metadata biographiesGender distribution and degree programmes

An analysis of the gender distribution of the persecuted pharmacologists revealed that the vast majority were men, who made up 93% of the group, while women accounted for only 7% (Table 1 and Fig. 1) (6, 16, 29, 39, 65 in Table 1). We identified the study programmes of the pharmacologists included in our study using the short biographies from the book ‘Verfolgte deutschsprachige Pharmakologen 1933–1945’ by Löffelholz and Trendelenburg (Löffelholz and Trendelenburg 2008) (see Fig. 2). Most pharmacologists studied human medicine (61%), followed by chemistry (28%). 3% of the pharmacologists studied pharmacy and/or biochemistry and 2% biology. Veterinary medicine and political science were the least represented fields of study, with 1% each. 32% of the persecuted pharmacologists completed two degree programmes, highlighting the excellent academic education of this group.

Fig. 1

Gender distribution of persecuted pharmacologists

Fig. 2

Degree programmes of the persecuted pharmacologists. *The ‘Political Science’ degree programme was an additional qualification to the ‘Human Medicine’ degree programme (see 57 in Table 1)

Emigration and fate

The majority (83%) of persecuted pharmacologists emigrated abroad. A smaller proportion (10%) remained in Germany, 4% of the pharmacologists committed suicide, and 3% were murdered in concentration camps. Table 1 summarizes the emigration status of all the 71 persecuted pharmacologists. The suicide rate of 4% among the pharmacologists analysed here roughly agrees with the range of the general suicide rate of Jews during the National Socialist era in Germany, which was 1–4%, even if the corresponding data could only be approximated (Kwiet 1984). The suicide rate increased dramatically in the years after the Nazis came to power, and waves of suicides could be correlated with historical events such as the ‘Boycott of Jewish Businesses’ of April 1933, the Kristallnacht of 1938, and the deportations of 1942/43 (Kwiet 1984; Duckwitz and Groß, 2021).

Of the 10% of pharmacologists who emigrated, only a small number returned to Germany after emigration and the end of the Second World War (see Fig. 3). The low rate of returnees to Germany after emigration shows the strong break that the scientists experienced with their former home country as a result of persecution, defamation and expulsion. The break with the country in which they had previously played an important and significant role in the previously highly successful German scientific community was radical (Medawar and Pyke 2001; Rall 2017). Some of the scientists also found the ‘less authoritarian, more informal intellectual atmosphere in Great Britain and the United States much more congenial and receptive to new ideas’ (Medawar and Pyke 2001, p. 47).

Fig. 3

Fate of persecuted pharmacologists

Years of emigration

We analysed the years in which pharmacologists left Germany. Two peaks emerge: 33% of pharmacologists emigrated in 1933 and 25% in 1938 (see Fig. 4). A very similar pattern emerged in a study investigating the persecution of pathologists during the Nazi Era (Sziranyi et al. 2019). However, when looking at the emigration patterns of all Jews in Germany, it becomes clear that the majority of Jews did not emigrate until 1939 (Buggle et al. 2023)—a time when most of the pharmacologists analysed here had already emigrated (Löffelholz and Trendelenburg 2008). The reason for the difference between the persecuted pharmacologists and the Jews in Germany as a whole can be found in specific political measures.

Fig. 4

Waves of emigration of persecuted pharmacologists between 1930 and 1945

On 1 April 1933 there was a so-called ‘Boycott of Jewish Businesses’, in which the Nazis called for the avoidance of Jewish-owned businesses (Medawar and Pyke 2001; Kröner 1989). Jewish lawyers and doctors were the main targets of this anti-Semitic campaign (Beddies et al. 2014). A week later, the ‘Law for the Restoration of the Professional Civil Service’ came into force, leading to a ban on Jewish civil servants and those critical of the regime (Gesetz zur Wiederherstellung des Berufsbeamtentums vom 7. April 1933, Reichsgesetzblatt 1933, Teil I, 51). This was followed by a wave of dismissals of ‘non-Aryan’ doctors from state health institutions, universities and, shortly afterwards, non-civil servants and workers (Beddies et al. 2014; Sziranyi et al. 2019; Gerstengarbe 1994). On 22 April 1933, the licence to practise as a statutory health insurance doctor was withdrawn from 'non-Aryan' and registered doctors and those critical of the regime (Beddies et al. 2014; Kröner 1989).

Finally, in 1938, the licences of Jewish doctors were revoked, leading to the ‘[…] end of the Jewish medical profession’ (Beddies et al. 2014, p. 53). The continued intensification of anti-Semitic measures by the Nazis led to a further wave of emigration of Jewish doctors in that year, including the pharmacologists analysed here (see Fig. 4) (Sziranyi et al. 2019; Kröner 1989; Beddies et al. 2014).

Countries of emigration

We analysed the countries of emigration. The most common destination was the USA, where 43% of the persecuted pharmacologists emigrated (see Fig. 5) (Löffelholz and Trendelenburg 2008). A study analysing the persecution of pathologists in Nazi era found a similar percentage distribution of destination countries of emigration (Sziranyi et al. 2019). The USA was also the most common destination for persecuted dermatologists who emigrated (Eppinger et al. 2003). However, most pharmacologists who emigrated to the USA could not continue their academic careers as hoped (Löffelholz and Trendelenburg 2008; Löffelholz 2011). One notable exception was Otto Krayer (33 in Table 1), who went on to become Director of the Department of Pharmacology at Harvard Medical School. At the end of his time there, the department ranked high on the American Council on Education’s list of pharmacology departments in the US, and his name is still well known today (Rubin 2014).

Fig. 5

Destination countries of emigrated pharmacologists

The second most popular country for emigrating pharmacologists was Great Britain. There, 28% of persecuted pharmacologists emigrated and were able to continue their scientific achievements at a similar level as before in Germany (Löffelholz and Trendelenburg 2008). In 1933, in response to the dismissal of ‘non-Aryan’ academics from German universities, the charity Academic Assistance Council (AAC) was set up in Great Britain to support discriminated and expelled scientists (Rall 2017). In the 1930s and 1940s, they supported around two thousand outstanding expelled scientists, 20 of whom went on to win Nobel Prizes and 54 of whom were elected Fellows of the Royal Society—including Marthe Vogt (65 in Table 1), one of the persecuted pharmacologists analysed here (Medawar and Pyke 2001; Rall 2017). 29% of the pharmacologists analysed in this study who emigrated to Great Britain were elected to the British Pharmacological Society’s Pharmacology Hall of Fame (https://www.bps.ac.uk/about/about-pharmacology/pharmacology-hall-of-fame) (see Table 2). These developments underscore, on the one hand, the great losses suffered by German science due to the emigration of outstanding scientists and, on the other hand, the enormous gain for British science (Medawar and Pyke 2001; Kohn 2011).

Table 2 Persecuted Pharmacologists analysed in this study who are Members of the British Pharmacological Society's Pharmacology Hall of Fame (https://www.bps.ac.uk/about/about-pharmacology/pharmacology-hall-of-fame)

Other destination countries were Switzerland and the Netherlands with 5% each, and Turkey, Brazil and Palestine with 3% each. Canada, Burma/Myanmar, Slovenia, Venezuela, New Zealand and Belgium each accounted for 2% of persecuted pharmacologists who emigrated (see Fig. 5).

The extent to which pharmacologists have enriched the sciences in the countries to which they emigrated is evident from their biographies, awards and honours. Or as Walter Cook, director of the Institute of Fine Arts at New York University, joked: ‘Hitler is my best friend. He shakes the tree and I collect the apples’ (Walter Cook, quoted in Panofsky 1954, S. 332).

Metadata on publications—Naunyn–Schmiedeberg’s Archives of Pharmacology

To analyse how the dynamics of pharmacologists' publication behaviour changed under persecution, we looked at the total number of publications in Naunyn–Schmiedeberg's Archives of Pharmacology and made comparisons with those of the 71 persecuted pharmacologists.

From the mid-1920s, after the end of the First World War, Naunyn–Schmiedeberg's Archives of Pharmacology experienced a rise in the total number of publications (all types of papers), and in the following years this rate stabilized at an average of more than 250 publications per year (see Fig. 6). A strong downward trend can be observed from 1937 onwards, and in 1945/46 there was no publication at all due to the war (publication pause) (Starke 1998). From 1949 onwards, the number of publications increased significantly and remained relatively stable with 200-250 items per year (see Fig. 6).

Fig. 6

Number of publications (all types of papers) in Naunyn–Schmiedeberg’s Archives of Pharmacology (NSAP) per year (absolute numbers)

Looking at the publications of persecuted pharmacologists, we found that at the beginning of the twentieth century they accounted for an average of 6% of the total publications in Naunyn–Schmiedeberg’s Archives of Pharmacology. This proportion doubled in the following two decades, reaching a peak of 13% in the decade from 1910 to 1919 and 12% in the decade from 1920 to 1929. Thus, just 71 pharmacologists contributed to 12% of the research papers published in Naunyn–Schmiedeberg’s Archives of Pharmacology in the decade prior to the Nazi era. In the period from 1930 to 1939, which includes the rise to power of the National Socialists and the beginning of the Second World War, there is a sharp decline in their share of total publications. This negative trend was not reversed in the post-war decades; on the contrary, a low of just under 2% was reached in the decade from 1940 to 1949. In the following decades, from 1950 to 1979, the proportion of publications by persecuted pharmacologists in Naunyn–Schmiedeberg’s Archives of Pharmacology continued to stagnate between 0–4% (see Figs. 7 and 8). This development is in clear contrast to the development of the overall publications in Naunyn–Schmiedeberg’s Archives of Pharmacology (Figs. 9 and 6). After the drastic decline in publications during and in the first years after the Second World War, the journal experienced an upswing due to the introduction of English as the obligatory publication language in the 1970s (Starke 1998).

Fig. 7

Percentage of papers by persecuted pharmacologists in the total number of papers in Naunyn–Schmiedeberg’s Archives of Pharmacology (NSAP) in the respective year

Fig. 8

Percentage of papers by persecuted pharmacologists in total number of papers in Naunyn–Schmiedeberg’s Archives of Pharmacology (NSAP) in the respective decade

Fig. 9

Total numbers of publications in Naunyn–Schmiedeberg’s Archives of Pharmacology (NSAP)

It should be noted that pharmacology is an interdisciplinary field receiving input from pathology, physiology, microbiology, physiology and biochemistry. This interdisciplinary nature of pharmacology is very well reflected in the first decades of the history of Naunyn–Schmiedeberg’s Archives of Pharmacology (Starke 1998). Thus, it is very likely that persecuted scientists from other scientific fields than pharmacology contributed substantially to Naunyn–Schmiedeberg’s Archives of Pharmacology as well, but in this study, we did not research these individuals. A systematic analysis of all persecuted scientists who contributed to Naunyn–Schmiedeberg’s Archives of Pharmacology will be the subject of future studies. It is very likely that the percentage contribution of persecuted scientists to the journal will increase significantly. But it is also likely that in such analysis, not all persecuted scientists will be covered due to a lack of biographical data.

Metadata on publications—Naunyn–Schmiedeberg’s Archives of Pharmacology, Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics and the British Journal of Pharmacology

After analysing the declining number of publications of the persecuted pharmacologists in Naunyn–Schmiedeberg’s Archives of Pharmacology, we asked whether the pharmacologists continued their scientific research in their new locations and published their findings in other pharmacological journals.

43% of the persecuted pharmacologists emigrated to the USA (see Fig. 5). Therefore, we looked at their publications in the Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics, the leading American pharmacological journal. Its entire archive is accessible online via the website https://jpet.aspetjournals.org (last accessed October 6th, 2024). The Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics was founded in 1909 by the American Society for Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics (ASPET) and continues to be published monthly.

Apart from a few isolated publications before 1936, a strong increase in publications by persecuted pharmacologists in the Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics can be observed from 1936 onwards. Although the proportion of publications by persecuted pharmacologists from Germany is in the low percentage range, the number of publications increased significantly until 1944, so that their proportion of publications in the Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics more than quintupled in the decade from 1930 to 1940 (see Figs. 10 and 11). This corresponds to the period when the majority of pharmacologists persecuted in Germany emigrated (see Fig. 4). Thus, in the journal chosen here, the number of publications by persecuted pharmacologists increased significantly after they emigrated (Figs. 10 and 11), while the number of publications by these pharmacologists in the German journal Naunyn–Schmiedeberg's Archives of Pharmacology declined (see Fig. 12).

Fig. 10 

Percentage of papers by persecuted pharmacologists in of the total number of papers in the Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics (JPET) in the respective decade

Fig. 11 

Percentage of papers by persecuted pharmacologists in the total number of papers in the Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics (JPET) in the respective year

Fig. 12

Papers by persecuted pharmacologists in Naunyn–Schmiedeberg’s Archives of Pharmacology and Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics

The next most common destination was Great Britain (see Fig. 5). 28% of the persecuted pharmacologists analysed here emigrated to Great Britain, where they were able to continue and develop their scientific careers (Löffelholz and Trendelenburg 2008). Until the establishment of a British pharmacological journal, the American Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics was an important publication venue for British pharmacologists ‘[…] but the anticipated expansion in pharmacological research following the war [World War II] now justified the founding of a new journal devoted to pharmacology’ (Birmingham 1996). The British Society of Pharmacology published the first issue of the British Journal of Pharmacology in 1946 (Birmingham 1996; Cuthbert 2006).

We examined the scientific contributions of the pharmacologists followed in this journal and compared them with the two previously analysed journals, Naunyn–Schmiedeberg’s Archive of Pharmacology and the Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics. The full archive of the British Journal of Pharmacology is available online at https://bpspubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/14765381 (last accessed 11 November 2024).

Already in the second year after the foundation of the British Journal of Pharmacology, the proportion of publications by persecuted pharmacologists in the British Journal of Pharmacology amounted to approximately 20% of the total publications (see Fig. 13). Thus, a comparatively small group of pharmacologists who were persecuted in Germany and emigrated to Great Britain had a considerable influence on the successful development of the new journal. The total number of publications in the British Journal of Pharmacology increased steadily after its foundation in 1946 (see Fig. 14). The increase in publication frequency from quarterly to twice monthly since 1995 reflects this development (Birmingham 1996). The increase in the total number of publications led to a decrease in the percentage of publications by the persecuted pharmacologists studied, although their absolute number remained fairly constant over the period analysed (see Fig. 14).

Fig. 13

Percentage of papers by persecuted pharmacologists in the total number of papers in the British Journal of Pharmacology (BJP) in the respective year

Fig. 14

Number of publications in the British Journal of Pharmacology (BJP) per year (absolute numbers)

Figure 15 directly compares Naunyn–Schmiedeberg’s Archives of Pharmacology, American Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics and British Journal of Pharmacology. It impressively reveals that the persecuted German pharmacologists largely abandoned Naunyn–Schmiedeberg’s Archives of Pharmacology as primary target journal after emigration in favour of the Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics and (after World War II) the British Journal of Pharmacology. Among the pharmacologists who emigrated were eminent scientists such as Otto Krayer, Marthe Louise Vogt, Otto Loewi (Nobel Laureate) and Wilhelm Siegmund Feldberg (see 33, 65, 38 and 11 in Table 1), whose important contributions to the German journal were thus lost. Figure 15 also impressively documents that after the disruption of the scientific work because of the persecution, leading to a low in publications between 1936–1940, the persecuted pharmacologists strongly recovered in productivity and made important scientific contributions to pharmacology for the next decades. This extraordinary achievement of the persecuted pharmacologists under most difficult personal and political conditions documents their enormous talent, stamina and dedication to pharmacology. The impressive number of publications shown in Fig. 15 must also be seen under the aspect that numerous persecuted pharmacologists had no or very little professional opportunities for publications after 1933. In other words, Fig. 15 does not simply reflect a switch of target journals but also a huge loss of research that could not be conducted and papers that could not be published.

Fig. 15

Papers by persecuted pharmacologists in Naunyn–Schmiedeberg’s Archives of Pharmacology, Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics and British Journal of Pharmacology

The damage to the impact, reputation and international standing of Naunyn–Schmiedeberg’s Archives of Pharmacology inflicted by the Nazi regime was long-lasting and was reverted only decades later (Starke 1998; Dats et al. 2023).

Since pharmacology is interdisciplinary, it is very likely that persecuted pharmacologists also published in physiology, microbiology, biochemistry and clinical journals. These additional target journals were not covered here for the sake of focus. A systematic analysis of all journals in which persecuted pharmacologists published, will be the focus of future studies.

Metadata topics

We assigned the publications of persecuted pharmacologists from 1900 to 1980 to one chapter each of the textbook ‘Basic Knowledge of Pharmacology’ (Seifert 2019) and added the topics ‘Poisons and Intoxication’ and ‘Hypothalamic–Pituitary–Adrenal-Axis’. The most common topic was ‘Cholinergic and Adrenergic System’ (22%), followed by ‘Poisons and Intoxications’ (11%). 8% of the papers could be assigned to the topic ‘Pharmacology of the Kidney’, while the topics ‘Hypothalamic–Pituitary–Adrenal Axis’ and ‘Drugs for Treatment of Diabetes Mellitus’ accounted for 6%. 5% of the papers were on ‘Drugs for Treatment of Chronic Heart Failure and Coronary Heart Disease’ and 4% of the papers were on ‘Drugs for Treatment of Thyroid Gland Diseases’. All other main topics in the textbook could be assigned to ≤ 3% of the papers (Fig. 16).

Fig. 16