- 期刊
- OpenAccess
在思想淵源與倫理規範之間：申佩爾剽竊瓦爾明案
Between intellectual backgrounds and ethical norms: did Andreas Schimper plagiarize Eugenius Warming?
摘要
瓦爾明（Eugenius Warming）和申佩爾（Andreas Schimper）是生態學界廣為認可的現代植物生態學奠基人。然而，申佩爾由於其代表作《基於生理學的植物地理學》（1898）與稍早的瓦爾明巨著《植物群落：生態植物地理學發凡》（1895）頗多相似之處，落入剽竊的嫌疑，引發科學史界的長期爭議。本文首先撮述兩人著作的主要思想和內容作為理解此案的背景，進而追溯此案的緣起與演進。通過重新勘對兩書文本，本文證實申佩爾並無剿襲瓦爾明之事；並借助已有的生態學史研究成果，尤其是奇塔迪諾（Eugene Cittadino）《以自然為實驗室》一書，闡明兩書相似性之由來乃在共同的思想淵源——19世紀末植物地理學領域興起的功能形態-生理學研究綱領，同時分梳了兩人微妙而關鍵的差異，以展現早期生態學思想的精微結構。申佩爾汙名之來源即在於上述共同淵源和精細差異被忽視。本研究廓清了早期生態學史的重大關節，有助於允當理解瓦爾明和申佩爾之於生態學的意義，並為廣義的科學史如何合理評估創造性提供了一個適切而有趣的案例。
並列摘要
Eugenius Warming and Andreas Schimper are widely recognized as the founding fathers of modern plant ecology in the ecologist community. However, Schimper's major work Pflanzen-geographie auf Physiologischer Grundlage (1898) appears similar to a precedingly published Magnum opus Plantesamfund - Grundtræ k af den økologiske Plantegeografi (1895) authored by Warming, in terms of both outline and materials. The similarity has made Schimper a suspect of plagiarism, which gives rise to a controversial subject among historians of ecology. This paper presented a summary of the core ideas and subjects of the two works as a background for understanding the controversy, and accordingly traced its origin and development. By scrutinizing and comparing the texts of the two books, this paper illustrated in detail Schimper's explicit references to Warming. Based on some insightful works from historians of ecology, especially Nature as the Laboratory authored by E. Cittadino, this paper elucidated the source of the similarity between Schimper and Warming, that is, both were involved in a functional morph-physiological research program in plant geography in late 19th century. Furthermore, this paper identified some subtle but important differences between the two figures to show the intricacy of early ecological ideas. The mistaken disgrace of Schimper could be attributed to a neglect of the common background and nuanced differences. The present study clarifies some important clues in the early history of ecology for pertinently understanding the significance of both Schimper and Warming, and provides a relevant and interesting case for the assessment of creativity in the history of science in general.