Article

ISSN 0006-2979, Biochemistry (Moscow), 2025, Vol. 90, Suppl. 2, pp. S401-S402 © Pleiades Publishing, Ltd., 2025.

S401

The Discovery of Magnetic Resonance

in the Context of 20th Century Science:

Biographies and Bibliography. Preface

Vasily V. Ptushenko

1,2

Belozersky Institute of Physico-Chemical Biology, Lomonosov Moscow State University, 119992 Moscow, Russia

Emanuel Institute of Biochemical Physics, Russian Academy of Sciences, 119334 Moscow, Russia

e-mail: ptush@belozersky.msu.ru

Received December 24, 2025

Revised December 24, 2025

Accepted December 24, 2025

DOI: 10.1134/S0006297925604423

In 2019, 75 years had passed since Evgeny K.  Za-

voisky discovered the first of magnetic resonance phe-

nomena in condensed matter– electron paramagnetic

resonance (EPR) or, as it is also referred to, electron

spin resonance (ESR). This discovery opened up oppor-

tunities unseen before for investigating composition

of the matter, physics of interactions, mechanism of

chemical reactions, mysteries of geological processes,

nature of biological processes, and many other ar-

eas of interest in modern science. Early in 2021, it

had been 75 years since Edward M. Purcell and Felix

Bloch, the Nobel Prize winners “for their development

of new methods for nuclear magnetic precision mea-

surements and discoveries in connection therewith”

discovered nuclear magnetic resonance.

Anniversaries of this significance call for thor-

ough retrospective analysis – at the very least, of the

first steps toward the breakthrough and of some ma-

jor milestones further along the way, as it would be

an impossible undertaking to contextualize the whole

journey within a single book. Having neither resourc-

es nor ambition to give a full picture of the evolution

of physics prior to the World War II that led to the

discovery of magnetic resonance, we (A.  V.  Kessenikh

and V.  V.  Ptushenko) focused upon its three pioneers:

Evgeny Konstantinovich Zavoisky, Edward Mills Pur-

cell, and Felix Bloch. Birth of a new field of physics

cannot by any means be narrowed down to the three

scientists alone, even though they were acknowledged

discoverers of this new field. And yet, their scientific

journey, the logic behind and context of their inves-

tigations seem to accurately reflect triumphs and fail-

ures, advancements and limitations that shaped the

history of magnetic resonance.

In this monograph, we were keen to explore per-

sonal motivations that drove the pioneers of magnetic

resonance, as well as historical context and socio-eco-

nomic circumstances their discoveries were made in,

apart from the logic of scientific knowledge.

Sadly, utter disregard for the life and talent of

an outstanding physicist cast its shadow over the

Zavoisky’s breakthrough

. His nuclear magnetic reso-

nance (NMR) experiments were cut short on the verge

of discovery. His experimental genius that could have

been of great benefit for the Soviet army was entirely

neglected during the war. Even after he had succeeded

in observing EPR – for the first time in the history

of science and despite his straitened circumstances –

Zavoisky was not given resources needed to launch

the full-fledged scientific research. From this stand-

point, it was a blessing for both Soviet science and for

Zavoisky himself, that, in 1947, Igor V. Kurchatov took

him under his wing and provided him with support

more adequate for his talent as a physicist, an ex-

perimenter, and an inventor. Over the course of time,

Semen  A.  Altshuler and Boris  M.  Kozyrev, Zavoisky’s

collaborators in Kazan in his search for NMR, estab-

lished their schools that later on contributed great-

ly to investigation of the magnetic resonance phe-

nomena.

Nobel Prize Winners: an H.W. Wilson biographical dictionary (The H. W. Wilson Company), 1987.

For the full story, see V. D. Novikov, N. E. Zavoiskaya (contributing editors): Magician of Experiment: Reminiscences

about Academician E. K. Zavoisky (Nauka, Moscow), 1993.

PTUSHENKOS402

BIOCHEMISTRY (Moscow) Vol. 90 Suppl. 2 2025

Bloch and Purcell, who performed their NMR ex-

periments at Stanford and Harvard Universities, respec-

tively, both seem to have been exceptionally equipped,

in every sense. Even better were they positioned to

study NMR applications and NMR-related phenomena.

Purcell reached the zenith of his career by the time of

his NMR studies and was equally successful in investi-

gating other fields, such as radio astronomy and radio

wave propagation. In his experimental work, he used

the newest methods in radiophysics available at the

time. Bloch, in his research, was supported by Varian

Associates, a manufacturer of scientific instruments,

and therefore, one can say, he laid foundations of the

NMR instrumentation industry. Bloch succeeded to go

through with his original plans to determine magnetic

moment of the neutron and of the simplest nuclei (of

hydrogen isotopes), as he succeeded to suggest one

of the possible approaches to the quantum statistical

theory of behavior of nuclear moments in a sample.

Recognizing the inventors, we felt compelled to

mention other brilliant scientists who shaped the his-

tory of magnetic resonance. To that end, we includ-

ed a brief historical overview of the first decade of

magnetic resonance development in the Soviet Union,

integral to the advancement of magnetic resonance

studies and instrumentation in the rest of the world.

Finally, the book contains an extensive standalone

bibliography and, to some extent, historiography of

magnetic resonance, providing a reference list of more

than 1000 original publications and reviews on the the-

ory, breakthroughs, research, and major applications

of magnetic resonance, as well as biographical mem-

oirs and personal reminiscences. The list is supplied

with detailed description, general and footnote com-

mentary, and is arranged in a thematic and chronolog-

ical order – original work, reviews and monographs,

works on the history of magnetic resonance, and links

to Internet resources, all listed independently. Within

each such group links are sorted by years. In more

detail, the structure is explained in the commentary

section of Chapter  IV. Every chapter includes its own

reference list, each arranged by citation order. For in-

stance, majority of the works by Russian authors are

listed in Chapter  III, and thus are not duplicated in

Chapter  IV. Only some of the sources cited in the first

three chapters are included in the historiographical

reference list in Chapter  IV. No matter how compre-

hensive a bibliography is, it can by no means be com-

plete. Nonetheless, the reference list provided in this

book covers major milestones of magnetic resonance

research in both theory and numerous applications.

We did our best to keep it objective, yet this bibliog-

raphy may still have been influenced by our personal

biases, for which we offer our apology to the reader.

The authors are grateful to Vl. P. Vizgin for ar-

ranging a discussion of some of the materials compris-

ing this book at the Moscow Seminar on the History of

Physics and Mechanics. We would like to acknowledge

N.  E.  Zavoiskaya, K.  A.  Tomilin, and V.  M.  Berezanskaya

who have assisted with writing this monograph, and

Y.  I.  Talanov – for the material he has provided. Re-

search on one of the stories recounted in this book, the

one about the purchase of the Bloch–Hansen patent by

Varian Associates, was inspired by a brief conversa-

tion one of the authors once had with Loren Graham,

a renowned American historian of science (see also

his interview to the Independent Newspaper

Research material collected by N.  E.  Zavoiskaya

was widely used to narrate the lives and work of the

three magnetic resonance inventors, in particular that

of Zavoisky

Sadly, my coauthor, Alexander  V.  Kessenikh, who

put his heart and soul as well as many years of his

life into the backbone of this book – a comprehen-

sive review of the literature, did not live to see the

English translation to be prepared and published.

I thank my lucky stars that I was blessed to work

(although only for a few years) with A.  V.  Kessenikh,

whose aptitude to hard work until his last days I

have always admired. I am grateful to the Editori-

al board of Biochemistry (Moscow) for the decision

to publish this book in English. Personally, I would

like to thank Anna  E.  Evstigneeva for organizing all

the difficult and diverse work on this English edition

of our book. My special thanks to Alena  V.  Silina for

her excellent translation of the text as well as for

correcting mistakes made by the authors in the orig-

inal (Russian) version of the text and inaccuracies in

the references. Her meticulous work has made our

text even much better than it was originally in Rus-

sian. I am grateful to Prof.  Deborah  Charlesworth for

her help in finding an adequate title for the book

in English. I am grateful to everyone who contrib-

uted to the appearance of this publication. I know,

it would have brought a great joy to my coauthor

to see our work translated for the English-speaking

audience. The thought of this gives me inspiration to

go on working both on this publication and on other

scientific projects in our difficult times.

Publisher’s Note. Pleiades Publishing remains neu-

tral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published

maps and institutional affiliations. AI tools may have

been used in the translation or editing of this article.

A. Vaganov (2011) Technologies in the Trap of Ideology. Interview with Loren Graham, Professor Emeritus, Indepen-

dent Newspaper, Moscow, 17, 221.

N. E. Zavoiskaya (2007) The History of One Discovery, Group ITD Ltd., Moscow, p. 208.