No abstract

This article analyses interpretations of the causes of children's behavioural problems in early child psychiatry in Finland from the 1920s until the 1950s. The era was prepsychodynamic, and psychiatrists stressed biological explanations, which were based on hereditary factors. The source material consists of patient records of children diagnosed with psychopathy in Pitkäniemi Hospital, which operated as one of the state mental hospitals. The focus is on the ways in which the causes of behavioural problems were described, paying special attention to mentions of socioeconomic factors, and adopting a present-centred perspective on analysing the past. Although psychiatrists described details like family background and parental occupations, they did not necessarily use them to point out connections between socioeconomic factors and behavioural problems. On the contrary, in many cases, there was no indicated correlation. This is not to say that socioeconomic factors did not exist or were not acknowledged, but rather that they were discussed in a different light. The assumption of biologically oriented psychiatry, namely that behavioural problems were primarily hereditary, is prevalent in the case records. Some children improved while in hospital and subsequently returned home, or were placed with other families, or in children's homes. Those who were perceived to be permanently antisocial were placed in reform schools. The change in a child's behaviour seems to have been crucial in forming a prognosis, which implies that there was a clear belief in the curative atmosphere of the hospital, providing that the child's character was corrigible. The focus on socioeconomic factors contrasts with the ways in which psychiatrists at that time perceived and documented the causes of behavioural problems, and helps explain why something, which seems evident in retrospect, was not apparent at the time.

No abstract

From early 2020, epidemiological research has been in the public eye like never before, thanks to the COVID-19 pandemic. Epidemiology has been instrumental in recognizing and framing the pandemic, assessing its scale, and shaping the global response. Much to their surprise, epidemiologists have also been drawn into the highly politicized disputes around the pandemic response. But both pandemics and epidemiologists have been around for centuries or, depending on definitions, even for millenia. Apart from shortly outlining the contents of the book, the introductory chapter charts the boundaries of epidemiology with reference to adjacent fields of inquiry, reviews the widely varied views on its emergence as a disipline, and discusses the historiography of epidemiology—which, much like its subject, is extensive but somewhat nebulous.

The chapter analyzes how the ethical guidelines and prescriptions guiding cohort studies have changed from the mid-1960s to the present and asks how a cohort research community has adjusted to these changes. Birth cohort studies, due to their extensive use of human subjects and their usually extended length, are particularly well suited for investigating the issue. The case through which the issue is tackled is the Northern Finland Birth Cohorts 1966 and 1986 (NFBC). Launched in 1965, the NFBC initially comprised 12,231 children and their mothers. The second birth cohort was started in 1985. It consisted of 9,479 children and their mothers. The main finding of the chapter is that the NFBC scientists share a similar understanding of research ethics, an understanding that acknowledges past circumstances in epidemiological knowledge-production but also constantly seeks to adjust to changes in research ethics. Their understanding of ethical research is thus temporally multi-layered. The history of research ethics in birth cohort studies offers a way to examine how epidemiological knowledge-production has been governed and affected by temporality.