Journal of the History of Medicine and Allied Sciences最新文献

New medical devices and diagnostic tools dramatically expanded the capabilities of modern medicine in the late twentieth century. Nevertheless, many contemporary commentators argue that American medical devices receive insufficient regulatory scrutiny and often pose significant safety risks. This article probes the foundations of US medical device regulation by analyzing the technoscientific practices of physicians and engineers who designed or regulated medical technologies. Studying this history through the lens of professional power dynamics reveals the medical profession as one of the primary power brokers in device ecosystems. Physicians used their collective status and influence as medical experts to shape the legislation governing medical technology and oppose policies threatening their professional autonomy. Situating conversations about device regulation in the historical and sociological literature on professionalization demonstrates the salience of physicians' professional power in creating the modern regulatory environment.

This article explores the historical uses of two animal medicines that are understood in current biomedicine to have potential endocrine activity: deer musk and whale ambergris, which were prized as aphrodisiacs in the early-modern world. It diverges from the focus in existing scholarship on nineteenth-century gonadal organotherapy as the precursor for the modern discovery of the sex-steroid hormones, looking instead at the older examples of deer musk and whale ambergris that were commonly prescribed both in medieval Islamicate and early-modern European Christianate medical sources. The early-modern Latin, French, German and English description of these substances as fertility, aphrodisiac, and rejuvenative remedies indicates a direct exchange of pharmacological concepts and substances relating to the human sexual and reproductive systems between Europe and the Middle East from the sixteenth to eighteenth centuries. The article explores how musk and ambergris were used in early-modern Western medicine, and how knowledge of them circulated across cultures. I argue that musk and ambergris, which were both thought to have effects on vitality, fertility, and potency in medieval Middle Eastern and early-modern European traditions, trouble the view of the origins of sex-steroid hormone endocrinology as deriving purely from modern European gonadal opotherapy. The valuing of these substances as fertility, vitality, and aphrodisiac remedies in the work of early-modern European physicians was indicative of both the globalization of medical knowledge, and an increased commercial trade in pharmacological material goods, confirming the view of medical globalization as a multi-directional historical process constituted in both conceptual and material terms.

During the late 1930s, Great Lakes fishermen became concerned because of the new occurrence of the sea lamprey (Petromyzon marinus). Originally an Atlantic coastal fish, it was allowed to migrate throughout the Great Lakes due to various canal extensions. By drawing from literature on the sociology of environmental problems and animal invasions, this article traces how the sea lamprey became problematized as a threatening invader between the late 1930s and early 1970s. Throughout this period, a broad coalition of fishery biologists, fishermen, politicians, and journalists were involved in framing the problem. Although sea lamprey research, localized control practices, and environmental discourses considerably changed, the sea lamprey continued to be regarded as an invasive fish that was not allowed to exist in the Great Lakes. The case shows how these shifting ways of understanding the problem in fact led to the continuation of past management directions.

When asked why nearly all doctors refer their breech cases to surgery, despite non-surgical breech birth being permitted throughout the United States, an obstetrician will likely cite the Term Breech Trial (TBT). This study, conducted in 2000, decisively concluded that planned cesarean delivery is safer than vaginal breech delivery. However, a review of the literature suggests that the decline of vaginal breech deliveries was a long time in the making. From the 1950s, once the perceived risks of breech births were accepted as a fact, numerous studies advocated more liberal use of cesarean delivery for breech babies and suggested strategies to limit vaginal breech births. By the late 1970s, as the majority of breech patients underwent surgery, a vicious cycle of collective forgetting began. Hospitals and medical training programs abandoned the non-surgical option, leaving younger generations of unskilled doctors reluctant to perform the complex procedure. As health organizations criticized the overuse of cesarean sections in the ensuing decades, obstetricians faced a growing dilemma in breech management, continuing to perform surgeries even while questioning their benefits. The 2000 study sanctioned this existing state of practice, which had been evolving over decades and in which collective forgetting played a crucial part.

From the 1830s onward, Euro-American medicine began addressing opium addiction among the Chinese population. Drawing upon records from medical missionaries, medical journals, and related Chinese sources, this article examines the transformation of opium addiction treatment in late Qing China (1830-1910). Despite their pioneering efforts, medical missionaries encountered various challenges in gaining cooperation from patients and Chinese authorities. In contrast, Chinese medical practitioners, particularly elite scholar-physicians, enjoyed favor with the Qing government throughout much of the nineteenth century. By the turn of the twentieth century, the scientific knowledge introduced by the missionaries had gained greater acceptance in the country. By creatively translating this knowledge, Chinese medical practitioners began to recognize new theories for addressing the opium problem.

This paper provides a case study of one medical experiment conducted in 1915 by the United States Public Health Service in collaboration with the Mississippi State Penitentiary. The experiment was non-therapeutic and its objective was to induce pellagra (a vitamin deficiency disease) in twelve healthy White male prisoners to confirm its etiology. Extant archival records produced by the convict participants, state politicians, and health researchers underscore that the men selected for the pellagra experiment were unique among incarcerated people in Mississippi at the time: they were White, wealthy, and politically well-connected. This paper contends that the convict participants leveraged a wide range of social and political connections to secure their participation in the pellagra experiment as an expeditious pathway to pre-arranged executive pardon, a phenomenon that I term medical clemency. By situating the 1915 pellagra prison experiment amid the broader landscape of incarceration, public health research, and systems of political patronage in Mississippi, this paper highlights the ways in which penal systems are embedded in broader social and political contexts. Not only did the experiment exacerbate pre-existing social inequalities behind bars, it also had lasting consequences for those involved in prison medical research - namely, the power to determine which kinds of convicts could ultimately re-enter the social order.

In the 1930s, a series of bubonic plague outbreaks among humans cropped up in several villages at the border of Angola and Namibia. These outbreaks provoked deep concern, laying bare social and political tensions amongst neighboring imperial powers and Indigenous people within the region. Despite the appearance of this disease in what was then considered a recondite place, its spread sparked debate in transnational forums, such as the League of Nations and the Office International d'Hygiène Publique. Drawing upon archival records in Namibia, South Africa, Portugal, the United States, and the United Kingdom, this article argues that concerns over the spread of plague across land borders led to the development of a nascent invasive species framework which indicted border-crossing "migrant" South African gerbils for the international spread of the disease. It follows the transnational political and scientific dynamics created by the plague "invasion" and discusses how these, like the gerbils, crossed numerous borders and scales. Ultimately, this article shows how localized inter-species and inter-imperial encounters can provide empirical insights into the feasibilities of a micro-global history of science in which more-than-human actors take on an important role.

While most are aware of the Tuskegee syphilis experiments in which African American syphilis patients went untreated, less is known about experiments with malaria fever therapy conducted upon syphilis patients during the same period by the Unites States Public Health Service at the Williams Laboratory on the grounds of the South Carolina State Hospital (SCSH) in Columbia, SC. Over a twenty-year period, physicians maintained patients as malaria reservoirs for patient-to-patient inoculation and subjected patients to extreme fevers and thousands upon thousands of insect bites as part of a program in which one disease was tested as therapy for another. Using extant administrative files, medical journals from the period, and a database created from SCSH annual reports, this paper considers the ethics of malaria fever therapy experiments while exposing the conditions under which patients suffered the intersecting oppressions of race, class, and mental illness. It illuminates the prevalent scientific racism of the period that enabled pseudo-medical assumptions about African Americans' perceived penchant for poverty, deviant sex, and pain tolerance, which combined to enable a culture of experimentation that influenced events at Stateville Penitentiary and continued long after penicillin became widely available.

This essay uses the unpublished casebook kept by the Tuscan surgeon Giovanbattista Nardi to examine the provision of urgent medical care in sixteenth-century Italian hospitals. Most major hospitals on the peninsula maintained separate therapeutic spaces known as medicherie for this purpose. Written in the 1580s while Nardi worked as a staff surgeon at a Florentine civic hospital, this rare surgical casebook provides insight into the types of institutional resources devoted to acute medical problems; the clientele seeking immediate assistance and the situations that brought them there; the treatments used to achieve short-term "cures"; and the clinical experiences of hospital surgeons who served as frontline healers. A close analysis of the seventy-nine cases recorded sheds new light on everyday surgical treatments for conditions ranging from serious head injuries requiring trephination to syphilitic lesions and genital trauma. Casebook entries also reveal Nardi's deep engagement with the composition and use of topical remedies as both practitioner and experimenter. Intended as a memory aid for future reference, the casebook shows material traces of the author's shifting occupational identity as he matured from hospital surgeon to university-trained physician. Viewed through multiple lenses, this richly layered source expands our understanding of both the practice and profession of early modern surgery.

This article analyses how the French Academy of Sciences assessed Jaime Ferrán's cholera vaccine submitted for the Prix Bréant in the 1880s. Ferrán, a Spanish independent physician, discovered the treatment in 1884 and tried it on thousands of patients during the cholera outbreak in Valencia the following year. His evaluation sparked a controversy in Spain and abroad on the vaccine's efficacy. The Bréant jury did not see any evidence for it in Ferrán's submission, a decision usually interpreted in terms of French scientific nationalism (or simple chauvinism): an outsider from the scientific periphery could not be awarded the Bréant. Drawing on the archival records of the award, we suggest that Ferrán failed instead to provide data that the Academy could consider unbiased, according to the contemporary standards for data presentation. We will illustrate these standards at work in the assessment of another submission from Spain, by Philip Hauser, who received the Bréant for the thoroughness of his statistical endeavour.