Firenze University Press www.fupress.com/substantia Historical Article Science is Not a Totally Transparent Structure: Ştefania Mărăcineanu and the Presumed Citation: M. Fontani, M.V. Orna, M. Costa, S. Vater (2017) Science is not a Discovery of Artificial Radioactivity Totally Transparent Structure: Ştefania Mărăcineanu and the Presumed Dis- covery of Artificial Radioactivity. Sub- stantia 1(1): 77-96. doi: 10.13128/Sub- Marco Fontani1*, Mary Virginia Orna2, Mariagrazia Costa1 and stantia-14 Sabine Vater1,3 Copyright: © 2017 M. Fontani, M.V. 1 Dipartimento di Chimica “Ugo Schiff”, Università degli Studi di Firenze, via della La- Orna, M.a Costa, S. Vater.This is an struccia 13, Sesto Fiorentino (FI) Italy. E-mail: [email protected] open access, peer-reviewed article 2 The College of New Rochelle, New York, USA. E-mail: [email protected] published by Firenze University Press 3 Freiberg University of Mining and Technology, Faculty of Chemistry and Physics, Leip- (http://www.fupress.com/substan- tia) and distribuited under distributed ziger Straße 29, Freiberg, Germany. E-mail: [email protected] under the terms of the Creative Com- mons Attribution License, which per- Abstract. A not very recent, but widely documented, event whose echo still resounds, mits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the discovery of artificial radioactivity, might still cause some historians to lose a lit- the original author and source are tle sleep. The topic of this article recounts a noble attempt by historians of science to credited. make known to the general public a woman who managed - in a backward country like România Mare1 - to ascend the ranks of the university hierarchy and enter the Data Availability Statement: All rel- hallowed halls of Academe. We could talk about a Romanian Madame Curie, similar evant data are within the paper and its to Lise Meitner (1878-1968), who embodied the same figure for the German world; but Supporting Information files. Romanian historians add other ideas. Competing Interests: The authors Stephanie (Ştefania) Mărăcineanu (1882-1944) - the correct spelling of her name is declare no competing interests. in brackets - according to some would be nothing less than the discoverer of artifi- cial radioactivity as well as the chemical transmutation of lead into gold and mercury, and of artificial rain. The discovery of induced or artificial radioactivity is universally attributed to the daughter and the son-in-law of Marie (1867-1934) and Pierre Curie (1859-1906). Furthermore, Irène Joliot-Curie (1897-1956) and her husband, Frédéric Joliot (1900-1958) were awarded the Nobel Prize in chemistry 1935 for this work. This study is divided into both an historic framing of the real and presumptive discoveries and in an analysis of the original data in light of our current knowledge of physics. An initial historic study, albeit partial, and with the aim of shedding light on the female personalities in the field of radioactivity, has already been done.2 Other scholars have examined Ştefania Mărăcineanu's work focusing on its social, political, cultural and ideological aspects.3 But no matter how much scientists try to be objective, they must always struggle between their beliefs and their human prejudices, including all of their habits of thought more or less imposed, and often inadvertently, by the society and the country in which they are formed.4 It will therefore be our task to take account of the difficulties hitherto reported, and for that it will be absolutely necessary to exercise judicial restraint. Keywords. Mărăcineanu, Artificial Radioactivity, History of Chemistry, Substantia. An International Journal of the History of Chemistry 1(1): 77-96, 2017 DOI: 10.13128/Substantia-14 78 Marco Fontani, Mary Virginia Orna, Mariagrazia Costa and Sabine Vater SCIENCE WHISPERED ABOUT IN THE HALLWAYS venience. Furthermore, none of the authors were able to produce any new documentation8 or got themselves lost At the beginning of the 1920s, when the phenom- in a useless speculative extrapolation of phrases taken out enon of radioactivity had finally been clarified as spon- of context, passing over the most controversial and falla- taneous nuclear fragmentation, a series of controversial cious aspects.9 publications - initially given to the press with the full In a post-ideological period such as the first dec- support of respected professors - appeared in minor jour- ade of the 21st century, freed from certain cultural nals, as well as in prestigious ones such as Comptes Ren- constraints, greater objectivity is not only possible but dus of the French Academy of Sciences. required. This is a new task laid upon the shoulders One example is the controversial case of Marie of those who “do” history of science: to be vigilant and Curie’s not-so-young student, Ştefania Mărăcineanu, who never regard certain discoveries as unassailable, and obtained a Ph.D. at the Institut du Radium at the age of to uncritically accept a new revisionism that might be 42, and within five years, she published some articles vaguely nationalistic.10 containing her scientific results. With a nonchalance at Regarding scientific knowledge: we do not know the limit of scientific orthodoxy, she announced four whether it can and whether it should be considered a different (false or incomplete) findings: artificial radio- cumulative cognitive process and, above all, axiomatic activity induced by alpha bombardment, the transmu- and immutable, but the events related to this episode tation of lead into mercury and gold, the discovery of have in themselves some aspects so conflicting, embed- artificial rain, and an alleged link between earthquakes ded in an aura of alchemy and xenophobia as to create and radioactivity.5 Only one of these discoveries, if true, doubts that “Science” can be advanced as a symbol of could assure a Nobel Prize; they were of such magnitude progress and civilization. that three of them would have placed her in the panthe- on of scientists in all of history. On the contrary, if one, or more, of these presumed breakthroughs, so hastily ARTIFICIAL RADIOACTIVITY announced, should prove a huge blunder, it would have severely compromised her career.We will set aside for Ştefania Mărăcineanu had begun to work in Marie the epilogue of this story a duplicate turn of events: two Curie’s laboratory in the early 1920s when she was about of the four announcements were immediately branded 40 years old. In 1923, her Paris address was rue Cassette, as examples of “pathological science,”6 but at the same 11. It is known that Nicolae Iorga11 (1871-1940) had time Ştefania Mărăcineanu could be found in her home founded the „Şcoala Română din Paris”12 in 1920 and country with a university professorship and member- probably Ştefania Mărăcineanu was one of the first schol- ship in the Romanian Academy of Sciences.7 After her arship recipients to go to the French capital. At that time, first article on artificial radioactivity, there was no talk of she was busy working on her PhD that she received two this except as a springboard for her subsequent discovery. years later. In this case we can speak of scientific “matu- Critics attacked her on this second far trickier topic: the rity,” in which a scientist, over the years, has probed and transmutation of the elements. tilled different (scientific) fields and has come to full con- On the one hand, Mărăcineanu did not seem to sciousness of himself/herself and has already given signs be aware of the possible scope of her first discovery, of his or her genius. and would persist in dwelling on a subject much more We have to start by saying that we are basically intriguing as the transmutation of lead, but this was not opposed to using the birth certificate as a yardstick, but it acceptable to the scientific community. is undeniable that in scientific disciplines such as physics Despite the fact that her work on chemical transmu- or physical chemistry - unlike love or literature - age is tation induced by solar radiation was immediately refut- not simply a bourgeois convention, but an objective fact. ed, on the contrary, decades after her death, in her native Her PhD research was supposed to focus on a more Romania, a historiographic approach to her work on accurate measurement of polonium’s decay constant. This artificial radioactivity smacking of a lively, colorful, even element, highly radioactive but with a relatively short half aggressive, revisionism had reached a crescendo. Unfor- life,13 was concentrated as much as possible and electrolyt- tunately many of these enthusiastic interpretations are ically purified. It was the 10th anniversary of the outbreak not supported by the same scientific rigor and the data of World War I: Marie Curie commissioned the no longer reported counting on a posthumous rehabilitation are young Romanian PhD student to determine this element’s either very weak or ontologically unacceptable because decay constant with a level of precision and accuracy the authors seem to rewrite history for their own con- unimaginable in 1914, before Europe was falling to pieces. Science is Not a Totally Transparent Structure: Ştefania Mărăcineanu and the Presumed Discovery of Artificial Radioactivity 79 Table 1. The Naturally Occurring Isotopes of Polonium. Daughter Isotope Old Name Z N Isotopic Mass (u) Half Life Type of Decay Isotope 210Po Radium F 84 126 209.9828737(13) 138.376(2) d α 206Pb 211Po Actinium C’ 84 127 210.9866532(14) 0.516(3) s α 207Pb 212Po Thorium C’ 84 128 211.9888680(13) 299(2) ns α 208Pb 214Po Radium C’ 84 130 213.9952014(16) 164.3(20) ms α 210Pb α (99.99%) 211Pb 215Po Actinium A 84 131 214.9994200(27) 1.781(4) ms β− (2.3×10−4%) 215At As is now well known, radioactivity may either be for medical purposes.