Talk:Otto Heinrich Warburg
Biography Start‑class | |||||||
|
Germany Start‑class Mid‑importance | ||||||||||
|
This article is pretty POV. I'm gonna remove POV comments pending citation. Turly-burly 09:48, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Otto Heinrich Warburg was an extremely interesting scientist, whose work, I am convinced, is not yet properly appreciated. As I have been able to, I've been adding to this article.
Eventually, I see his page as consisting of the following sections, or some variant thereof:
- 1 His origins
- 2 His education & service in the First World War
- 3 His scientific endeavors (with subsections)
- in cell physiology
- in cancer research
- scientists he mentored
- scientists with whom he collaborated
- scientists who enlarged on his discoveries
- 4 Warburg as a person
- 5 The honors he received.
- 6 An overall evaluation of his work
- 7 Works by Warburg and their import
- 8 Works about Warburg and perhaps critiques of them.
How long this will take, I do not know; other wikipedians are most welcome to add their input.$ --Alterrabe 16:21, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- I'm with you there...I've been slowly adding to this page (mostly anonymously before I created an account) since it was in infancy. I was so surprised/disappointed upon checking this article for a bit more info after reading about Warburg...it was so small...If I remember correctly, the first time I checked there wasn't even an article. Glad to see it's gotten to where it is and I hope (and will do what I can to make sure) it gets to the complexity you're talking about. Warburg really has done some great work that everyone should be aware of. Thanks to everyone who's contributed. --JohnDoe0007 09:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Was he right?
Warburg is regarded as some sort of a hero by the alternative cancer treatment lobby (e.g. Ralph Moss). Oddly, there is actually fairly little controversy about his experimental finding that cancer cells are highly metabolically active and absorb glucose preferentially. What is controversial is whether this is the cause of cancer. Like other outspoken early 20th century scientists, he may have been wrong. JFW | T@lk 09:14, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
- My understanding of Warburg's work is not that he claimed that anaerobic respiration was the ultimate cause of cancer, but rather that he claimed that the cure to cancer lay in finding the ultimate causes of cancer's anerobic respiration, and reversing them. He was adamantly against the theory that viruses cause cancer.--Alterrabe (talk) 14:38, 9 December 2007 (UTC)