Ambition, 'failure' and the laboratory: Birmingham as a centre of twentieth-century British scientific psychiatry.

IF 0.7 1区 哲学 Q2 HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE British Journal for the History of Science Pub Date : 2021-03-01 DOI:10.1017/S0007087421000017
Rebecca Wynter
{"title":"Ambition, 'failure' and the laboratory: Birmingham as a centre of twentieth-century British scientific psychiatry.","authors":"Rebecca Wynter","doi":"10.1017/S0007087421000017","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This article will reveal how local scientific determination and ambition, in the face of rejection by funders, navigated a path to success and to influence in national policy and international medicine. It will demonstrate that Birmingham, England's 'second city', was the key centre for cutting-edge biological psychiatry in Britain in the 1920s and 1930s. The ambitions of Frederick Mott - doyen of biochemistry, neuropathology and neuropsychiatry, until now celebrated as a London figure - to revolutionize psychiatric treatment through science, chimed with those of the City and University of Birmingham's Joint Board of Research for Mental Diseases. Under Mott's direction, shaped by place and inter-professional working, the board's collaborators included psychiatrist Thomas Chivers Graves and world-renowned physiologist J.S. Haldane. However, starved of external money and therefore fresh ideas, as well as oversight, the 'groupthink' that emerged created the classic UK focal sepsis theory which, it was widely believed, would yield a cure for mental illness - a cure that never materialized. By tracing the venture's growth, accomplishments and contemporary potential for biochemical, bacterial and therapeutic discoveries - as well as its links with scientist and key government adviser Solly Zuckerman - this article illustrates how 'failure' and its ahistorical assessment fundamentally obscure past importance, neglect the early promise offered by later unsuccessful science, and can even hide questionable research.</p>","PeriodicalId":46655,"journal":{"name":"British Journal for the History of Science","volume":"54 1","pages":"19-40"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2021-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1017/S0007087421000017","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British Journal for the History of Science","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007087421000017","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This article will reveal how local scientific determination and ambition, in the face of rejection by funders, navigated a path to success and to influence in national policy and international medicine. It will demonstrate that Birmingham, England's 'second city', was the key centre for cutting-edge biological psychiatry in Britain in the 1920s and 1930s. The ambitions of Frederick Mott - doyen of biochemistry, neuropathology and neuropsychiatry, until now celebrated as a London figure - to revolutionize psychiatric treatment through science, chimed with those of the City and University of Birmingham's Joint Board of Research for Mental Diseases. Under Mott's direction, shaped by place and inter-professional working, the board's collaborators included psychiatrist Thomas Chivers Graves and world-renowned physiologist J.S. Haldane. However, starved of external money and therefore fresh ideas, as well as oversight, the 'groupthink' that emerged created the classic UK focal sepsis theory which, it was widely believed, would yield a cure for mental illness - a cure that never materialized. By tracing the venture's growth, accomplishments and contemporary potential for biochemical, bacterial and therapeutic discoveries - as well as its links with scientist and key government adviser Solly Zuckerman - this article illustrates how 'failure' and its ahistorical assessment fundamentally obscure past importance, neglect the early promise offered by later unsuccessful science, and can even hide questionable research.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
野心,“失败”和实验室:伯明翰作为20世纪英国科学精神病学的中心。
这篇文章将揭示,面对资助者的拒绝,当地的科学决心和雄心是如何走上成功之路,并在国家政策和国际医学中产生影响的。它将证明伯明翰,英格兰的“第二大城市”,在20世纪20年代和30年代是英国尖端生物精神病学的关键中心。弗雷德里克·莫特是生物化学、神经病理学和神经精神病学领域的元老,至今仍被誉为伦敦的名人。他的雄心壮志是通过科学革新精神病学治疗,这与伯明翰市和伯明翰大学精神疾病联合研究委员会的目标不期而合。在莫特的指导下,在地方和跨专业工作的影响下,委员会的合作者包括精神病学家托马斯·奇弗斯·格雷夫斯和世界知名的生理学家J.S.霍尔丹。然而,由于缺乏外部资金和新想法,以及缺乏监督,“群体思维”产生了经典的英国局灶性败血症理论,人们普遍认为,这将产生一种治疗精神疾病的方法,但这种方法从未实现。通过追溯该公司的成长、成就以及在生化、细菌和治疗发现方面的当代潜力,以及它与科学家和政府关键顾问索利·祖克曼的联系,本文说明了“失败”及其非历史评估如何从根本上模糊了过去的重要性,忽视了后来不成功的科学所提供的早期希望,甚至可能隐藏可疑的研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
12.50%
发文量
59
期刊介绍: This leading international journal publishes scholarly papers and review articles on all aspects of the history of science. History of science is interpreted widely to include medicine, technology and social studies of science. BJHS papers make important and lively contributions to scholarship and the journal has been an essential library resource for more than thirty years. It is also used extensively by historians and scholars in related fields. A substantial book review section is a central feature. There are four issues a year, comprising an annual volume of over 600 pages. Published for the British Society for the History of Science
期刊最新文献
How the Glaishers pictured snowflakes. Essay review: technopolitics, development and the residues of the South African state. Proxies and partial connections in an anthropologist's archive. Charting the hybrid architectural style of quantum theory. The politics of medical expertise and substance control: WHO consultants for addiction rehabilitation and pharmacy education in Thailand and India during the Cold War.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1