Alexander Gurwitsch

Volodyaev and Beloussov (2015) revisit the mitogenetic effect and cite Gurwitsch's 1932 book, a later 1968 work, and a 1948 paper with a co-author of the same surname. They report that the distance over which induction worked was not fixed. It depended on the inductor, on how long induction lasted, and on special conditions such as interrupted induction³. The review presents these as reported findings from the original school and returns to the topic in light of ultra-weak photon emission.

The same review says a large share of the mitogenetic work dealt with neural excitation and brain tissue. The authors reported that the effect travelled along an excited nerve fibre at the rate of an electric impulse⁴. They also reported that the spectra of nerves depended on the nature of the exciting agent⁵. Other experiments found flashes called degradational radiation right after stressful agents were applied⁶. Volodyaev and Beloussov summarise these results only in broad outline.

Bayliss (1915) discusses kidney tubules. He suggests that the vacuoles Gurwitsch described in 1902, which discharge into the tubule lumen, may be connected with urea secretion, though he notes that direct proof is hard¹. Child (1924) cites Gurwitsch's 1905 statement, alongside Conklin, that centrifuged eggs tend to regain their normal visible structure. Child reads this as the work of a persisting axial differential, not as autonomous rearrangement of the displaced granules².