Roots of modern botany: The Basel professor Caspar Bauhin (1560–1624) and his botanical network

The study of security, in all its aspects, traditionally faces a number of problems, from terminology and meaning, to definition and the corpus of knowledge. Only when we resolve these problems can we deliver a successful formulation of security science as an independent discipline. The “Security concept” is often subject to more scrutiny than the general ambit of security science, which would interpret this concept within its own framework. There remains a lack of any unique and comprehensive definition of Security concept, which tends to be viewed as an interaction with the security object. We, attempt to define it through two questions: Security for whom? And Security based on which values? The international reality at the beginning of the 21st century presented a challenge to the academic sector to redefine the dominant existing principles of the security concept. This meant the need for the state to move aside as the long-standing predominant security controller and thus for academics to observe security as a general prerequisite for the functioning of any system, be it a state, database, business, environment or citizen, etc. The field of ​​security is still dominantly studied within the context of some other academic discipline, principally social sciences, such as sociology and criminology. However, there is a growing need to study security in the context of technological sciences, bearing in mind the increasing significance of security of information systems, databases and so on. Research has shown that the security field already has sufficient categories (fields) that would constitute its unique “corpus of knowledge”, as an important prerequisite for qualifying security as an independent science. We also suggest that this corpus of knowledge can be extended to other disciplines to make security studies yet more comprehensive, and also demonstrate elasticity to adapt, as an independent scientific discipline, to the demands of change and new times. This need has been particularly pronounced in the decades that followed the Cold War, in the period of dynamic economic, political and technological globalization, where the security of individuals, social groups, business and institutional systems, has become a dominant aspect in the functioning of modern society. In that sense, the establishment of security science as an independent discipline is necessary not only for the development of a theoretical model, but also because of its wide practical application in modern, globalized world.

Caspar Bauhin was born 1560 in Basel as a refugee child from a distinguished Protestant family which escaped persecution of the Huguenots in France. He studied medicine and botany at the University in Basel, in Italy and France and became the first professor for medical Anatomy and Botany in Basel. He is the founder of one of the first Botanical Gardens north of the Alps, and the first to offer regularly botanical excursions and courses in systematics and taxonomy for medical students. In his many publications, C. Bauhin aimed to give a systematic overview of all c. 5600 plant species known at the time, based on meticulous comparison and descriptions by himself, renaming them by distinguishing clearly between genus and species and by adding the synonyms of other authors. Thereby Caspar Bauhin was paving the way for botany as an independent scientific discipline and for Linnaeus, who heavily relied on him for the further development of botanical systematics and nomenclature more than a century later. His herbarium, which today is kept at the University of Basel, served him as working tool and included more than 4000 species, which he collected himself or through exchange with a wide net of correspondents. Not the least of Bauhin’s achievements is the publication in 1622 of one of the first comprehensive local floras, which until today is used as a reference for floristic changes in the surroundings of Basel.

Preprint Version, 2017. Revised version of the paper delivered on 10 October 2015, Northumbria University, (Newcastle), as part of the Project: Worlds and Networks of Higher Learning: Modes of Interaction between Universities, Academies and Schools, 1400-1750, financed by the British Academy and directed by Anja-Silvia Goeing (Northumbria University), Mordechai Feingold (California Institute of Technology) and Glyn Parry (University of Roehampton). To be published in : Early Modern Universities: Networks of Higher Learning, Anja-Silvia Goeing, Mordechai Feingold and Glyn Parry (eds), 2020/2021. Swiss educational structures experienced major transformations during the sixteenth century, transformations which were driven by the cultural movement of humanism and by the Protestant and Catholic Reformations. At the beginning of the sixteenth century, the Swiss Confederacy counted only one institution of higher learning: the University of Basel. In 1560, if we take into account the allied territory of Geneva, Switzerland benefited also from four newly created Protestant academies in Zurich, Bern, Lausanne and Geneva. These academies offered instruction in arts and theology, comparable in level and nature to that in the universities of their time. However, the academies did not have the right to grant academic titles. At that time, this ability was restricted to institutions that had received a privilege from the pope or the emperor, and these Catholic authorities would not give it to institutions in Reformed (Calvinist or Zwinglian) territories. In this chapter, we are going to look at how students were helped financially by the Swiss political and religious authorities in order to travel and study abroad. We will see that the policy regarding student scholarships varied considerably among the different Swiss Protestant cities. I will briefly present these policies, city by city, starting with Basel, and moving chronologically through the newly created academies. We will then be able to answer more precisely questions about the motivations that pushed political and ecclesiastical authorities to send some of their best students abroad. For instance, did they want them to get degrees from foreign universities? Finally, we will observe that religion played a considerable role in the choice of a foreign university or academy. Even within the Protestant camp, the divisions between Calvinists, Zwinglians, Bucerians, and Lutherans played a major part in this choice. [...]

Two main camps have been formed with regard to the philosophical and academic status of lexicography: one considering lexicography an independent scientific discipline, and the other opposing such a scientific status. This article discusses some of the arguments from the second camp and argues that lexicography should be considered an independent scientific discipline. The argumentation is based on the fact that the subject field of lexicography is different from the subject fields of any other discipline, including linguistics. In this sense, the concept of a lexicographical work is broader than the more reduced concept of a dictionary. Lexicographical works, including dictionaries, are considered cultural artefacts and utility tools produced in order to meet punctual information needs detected in society. In this way, they have during the millenniums covered almost all spheres of human activity and knowledge. The theory and science of lexicography should not focus on the differences regarding the specific content of all these works, but on aspects that unite them and are common to all of them. In this regard, some of the core characteristics of lexicography as an independent discipline are discussed together with its complex relation to other disciplines. Lexicographical theory is understood as a systematic set of statements about its subject field. Finally, the article argues that the fact that this theory may seem too abstract and difficult to some working lexicographers does not in itself invalidate its independent scientific status, although a close relation between theory and practice is recommended. Keywords: Lexicography, Lexicographical Theory, Function Theory, Academic Status Of Lexicography, Independent Status Of Lexicography, Interdisciplinary Vocation Of Lexicography, Dictionaries, Lexicographical Works, Utility Tools

Two main camps have been formed with regard to the philosophical and academic status of lexicography: one considering lexicography an independent scientific discipline, and the other opposing such a scientific status. This article discusses some of the arguments from the sec- ond camp and argues that lexicography should be considered an independent scientific discipline. The argumentation is based on the fact that the subject field of lexicography is different from the subject fields of any other discipline, including linguistics. In this sense, the concept of a lexico- graphical work is broader than the more reduced concept of a dictionary. Lexicographical works, including dictionaries, are considered cultural artefacts and utility tools produced in order to meet punctual information needs detected in society. In this way, they have during the millenniums cov- ered almost all spheres of human activity and knowledge. The theory and science of lexicography should not focus on the differences regarding the specific content of all these works, but on aspects that unite them and are common to all of them. In this regard, some of the core characteristics of lexicography as an independent discipline are discussed together with its complex relation to other disciplines. Lexicographical theory is understood as a systematic set of statements about its subject field. Finally, the article argues that the fact that this theory may seem too abstract and difficult to some working lexicographers does not in itself invalidate its independent scientific status, although a close relation between theory and practice is recommended.

<p>The focus of this paper is on the issue of maqasid sharia from the historical aspect and the paradigm shift in thinking from scientific disciplines that still belong to Ushul Fiqh to become independent disciplines. Maqasid sharia is an attempt to harmonize commands and prohibitions to produce a moderate attitude in capturing messages from religious texts born 14 centuries ago. Maqasid sharia was established as a new independent scientific discipline after the appearance of as-Syatibi, which was later developed by scientists after a change of approach (which was previously only a fiqh approach in the modern approach to maqasid science with multiple disciplines including medical, social and any other sciences which support to take legal conclusion). Maqasid sharia is wisdom from what Allah revealed about law to be made a universal value.</p>

Software modeling started as a paradigm to help developers build better software faster by enabling them to specify, reason and manipulate software systems at a higher-abstraction level while ignoring irrelevant low-level technical details. But this same principle manifests in any other domain that has to deal with complex systems, software-based or not. We argue that bringing to other engineering and scientific fields, our modeling expertise is a win–win opportunity where we can all learn from each other as we all model, but in complementary ways. Nevertheless, to fully unleash the benefits of this collaboration, we must go beyond individual efforts trying to adapt single techniques from one field to another. It requires a deeper reformulation of modeling as a whole. It is time for modeling to become an independent discipline where all fields of knowledge can contribute and benefit from.

The article deals with issues related to the development of radioecology as an independent scientific discipline. The achievements of the past years, the studies that are currently being carried out, as well as promising areas of development in this area are analyzed. A corrected periodization of the stages of development of radioecology is proposed, taking into account the experience accumulated to date in the field of this discipline. At the initial stage (1895-1929:), empirical material was collected; at the first stage (1930-1960), the theoretical foundation was laid and radioecology was formed as an independent discipline; at the second stage (1961-1990), intensive development of radioecology was noted, and at the third stage (1991-2010) - progressive development of radioecology; the forth modern stage of radioecology development falls at the beginning of the twentieth century (2011 - present). For each stage the main scientific achievements and evolution of ideas in the field of radioecology are considered. It is postulated that at present the development of this discipline is associated with the further improvement of world nuclear technologies, the elimination of the consequences of a number of radiation incidents (the accident at the Fukushima nuclear power plant, 2011), the revision of the concept of radiation protection of the environment and a number of other provisions. Particular attention is paid to forest radioecology, one of the most important main directions of this science.

The article analyzes the little-studied documents on the history of the Moscow Institute of Social Psychology, founded on the initiative of Veniamin Mikhailovich Khvostov (1868–1920), a professor of Moscow University, a neo-Kantian philosopher, a doctor of Roman law, a sociologist; the paper also discusses his role in the development of sociology, the most important direction in the field of social sciences. The article was written on the basis of the documents that were retained by his collaborators Leonty Alekseevich Byzov (1886–1942) and his wife, Natalia Nikolaevna Fadeeva-Byzova (1892–1985). Currently, the records are kept in the Archives of the European University in St. Petersburg. After having ostentatiously left Moscow University in 1911 (the “Kasso Case”), just like many of his colleagues had done, he taught at Moscow Women’s Higher Courses and at Shanyavsky Moscow People’s University. In May 1917, during the rule of the Provisional Government, V.M.Khvostov managed to create the Moscow Institute of Social Psychology as part of the future Institute of Sociology, the main task of which was to carry out research on social processes and gradually turn sociology into an independent scientific discipline. The Institute existed for five years only (1917–1922), and the last two years – without V.M. Khvostov, who passed away at the beginning of 1920. V.M. Khvostov realized that without sociology, the science of social processes, the sprouts of which had just begun to appear in Russia, not only the social sciences, but the entire scientific community of the early twentieth century would lose out. He hoped that with the coming to power of the Provisional Government, the social life in all its manifestations would become an important phenomenon, including scientific research, free from ideological dogmas. Instead in October 1917, the country plunged into a different reality – the revolution and the victory of the Bolsheviks who gradually destroyed all illusions about the freedom of scientific choice. And nevertheless, the Institute continued to carry out a tremendous amount of research concerning the socio-psychological processes and phenomena in public life. The scope of that work could be perceived through many hours of meetings, questionnaires and survey forms, abstracts and reports, scientific disputes, practical work with the representatives of various social groups. However, gradually, the conditions imposed by the Soviet government turned out to become such a powerful irritant for V.M. Khvostov that the dream of forming sociology as an independent scientific discipline appeared to be unrealizable. And yet, the documents on the activities of the Moscow Institute of Social Psychology are of great historical and scientific value, their study and publication can contribute to the adding of the new pages in the history of Russian and Soviet science at the beginning of the 20th century.

Analytical chemistry has been an important independent scientific discipline in Austria for many years. This is clearly highlighted by the long existence of dedicated institutes/ departments at Austrian universities (Graz, Linz, Innsbruck and Vienna) providing high-level education as well as engagement in various curricula and research. Furthermore, this is underlined by the existence of an independent Austrian scientific society dedicated to the promotion of analytical sciences, namely the Austrian Society of Analytical Chemistry (ASAC), which was founded in 1948. One of the society’s major aims was to further activities in the area of microchemistry and microanalysis, in which significant progress had been achieved by Fritz Pregl. Pregl was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1923 for his work in microanalysis, work that was carried out at the University of Graz. In the decades following the foundation of ASAC, its focus has shifted from microchemistry to analytical chemistry in a very broad sense, which reflects the huge changes that have taken place in analytical sciences over the years. The title of the journal Microchimica Acta still reminds us of the origins of modern analytical chemistry in Austria. Scientific research in analytical sciences is a privilege of universities, but attitudes towards analytical chemistry as an independent scientific discipline differ from country to country. There is (unfortunately) not full agreement that every chemistry department should have a full professor in analytical chemistry. Universities in Austria have always been aware of the importance of analytical sciences and that experts in this area are vital for progress in chemistry and related fields; therefore, analytical chemistry is well established at Austrian universities. The development of analytical chemistry in Austria and also in the European context has been substantially supported by ASAC. ASAC played a leading role in the Working Party for Analytical Chemistry of the Federation of European Chemical Societies in the 1970s and 1980s (now the Division of Analytical Chemistry of EuCheMS) and it has always been a driving force to make analytical chemistry sufficiently visible for the scientific community. Achievements in Austrian analytical chemistry and of ASAC are internationally recognized. Therefore, it is not surprising that ASAC is continually involved in the organization of international conferences, including meetings dedicated to specific topics in the analytical sciences, as well as broad-ranging conferences such as Euroanalysis (held in Austria in 1990 and in 2009). Looking for hot spots of analytical chemistry in Austria, one should consider the activities of not only universities, but also a range of government laboratories involved in food analysis, environmental analysis, health and related areas. These labs do perform professional routine analytical work, but they are also involved in the validation of new analytical methods in cooperation with international partners. Last but not least, Austria is an attractive location for international chemical and instrument companies that run production plants as well as research facilities, where highly qualified analytical chemists are employed. The idea to prepare a special issue on the progress of analytical sciences in Austria was immediately welcomed Published in the special issue Analytical Sciences in Austria with Guest Editors G. Allmaier, W. Buchberger and K. Francesconi.

The paper presents the results of the study on the importance of the historiographical component in the Russian science of universal history at the beginning of the second half of the XIX century. Special attention is paid to the study by Russian historians of the European science of universal history, which had a significant impact on the formation of the Russian science of universal history, starting with the university lecture courses by T.N. Granovsky and P.N. Kudryavtsev in the middle of the XIX – the beginning of the XX century. Special attention is paid to the first historiographical works by Mikhail Nazarovich Petrov (“The Latest National Historiography in Germany, England and France”) and Vladimir Ivanovich Guerrier (“Essay on the Development of Historical Science”), due to whom the European historiography of universal history turned into a research field. These two works, one of which was published in Kharkov in 1861, and the other – in 1865 in Moscow, laid the “beginnings” of historiography per se, i.e. historiography as an independent scientific discipline with its own research subject, methods, methodology, etc. In fact, there was rethinking of historiography as a historical phenomenon, and consequently, there was a need to find the “point” where knowledge about the history of science acquired its internal logic and thus turned from historiographical experience into systematized knowledge. The essence of this “point” (or moment) is that a system or organized knowledge (in other words, a concept) appeared in historiography, which turned knowledge about the history of science into a scientific discipline. The questions when and how this happened remain open. In any case, M.N. Petrov and V.I. Guerrier were the first Russian historians who sought to turn the “beginnings” of historiography into a scientific discipline. The question of the priority of the first Russian professional historiographer is still unresolved. V.E. Illeritsky expressed an opinion that it belongs to S.M. Solovyov, according to R.A. Kireeva – to M.O. Koyalovich.

The author states, that the theory of economic security of the state as a scientific discipline today is at the beginning of its new stage of development. A marked surge of interest in this topic is expected in the nearest future, that will intensify research activity in this scientific field. To meet these expectations scientific community needs a strong methodological platform, which should be based on universal and coherent categorical apparatus. However, a set of essential methodological problems may deteriorate a rise of the economic security of the state. One of the key problems is a significant number of scientific schools within the discipline. Most of them has developed their own categorical-conceptual apparatus. The author draws attention, that terminological chaos in the theory of economic security of the state as one of a serious problem for its institutionalization and development as an independent scientific discipline. It makes impossible to create a common methodological framework for discipline and undermines constructive scientific discussion between representatives of different scientific schools in this field. The huge differences between scientific schools are observed already at the stage of defining the basic definition of this scientific discipline - “economic security of the state”. A plenty of various approaches can be identified withing this scientific community. The differences between defining concept of “economic security of the state” are very deep indeed. This is a significant obstacle to create a common platform for numerous groups of scientists, who are working on various aspects of this topic. To resolve this problem and find common solution the author has analysed a majority of approaches of various scientific schools and individual scientists regarding the definition of the concept of “economic security of the state”. Their advantages and disadvantages have been identified. Based on knowledge obtained the author has proposed his own definition. According to it, “economic security of the state” should be treated as a state of the economy, that is intentionally and purposefully adjusted by public authorities in order to ensures the state's resilience to external and internal systemic threats and aggressive actions undertaken by other states. The author has justified the practicability of using this definition in the scientific research as well as policy-making.

This chapter gives an overview of the state of empirical research in the Federal Republic of Germany during the past 20 years. A trend toward psychological and movement-analytical studies in the area of sport became evident during the 1920s and 1930s (in summary, Feige, 1977). However, an independent scientific discipline could only develop after the establishment of sport scientific courses of study and of professorships for sport psychology at the universities. On the other hand, sport-related empirical research has been more or less neglected in psychological departments, despite the existence of serious arguments, which pointed toward the fact that the subject of sport could be useful for genuine psychological research problems (Heckhausen, 1979).

1. Is biochemical engineering a new, independent hybrid and integrated scientific discipline, i.e. a branch with its own theoretical basis, or is it only an agglomeration of other disciplines, especially of their practical applications? 2. If we accept that biochemical engineering can be regarded as an independent scientific discipline, there arises the question, whether it really represents a new discipline or a discipline of long standing whose importance has emerged only recently. If it is accepted as a new discipline what is the essence of its novel character? In particular does this lie in the theoretical background or in the practical applications? 3. If it is a new discipline, what are its roots and perspectives? 4. What is the relation of this branch to other related disciplines, as e.g. bioengineering (in the broad sense), biotechnology and microbial or chemical engineering? 5. And finally: What kinds of perspectives for further development appear in relation to its theoretical background in economic and social needs and finally in the education of experts and scientific specialists?

Geoarchaeology, as a scientific discipline, took its first steps in the last quarter of the twentieth century. However, its background lies in the very origins of prehistoric archaeology, from 1860 onwards. In Spain the evolution of Geoarchaeology and the studies that preceded it has kept pace with the rest of Europe. Spain was the third country in the world, after France and Britain, in which the international scientific community recognized the existence of prehistoric industry; similarly, when Geoarchaeology, as an independent scientific discipline, began to be institutionalized in Europe, Spain was not left behind. In this study we will examine the development of prehistoric studies in Spain from the mid-nineteenth century to the late twentieth, showing the effects that geological studies have had on them.