4. “Physician versus Bacteriologist”: The Ideology of Science in Clinical Medicine

“…Also promoting the scientific clinician was the prototype provided by the Hospital of the Rockefeller Institute from its opening in 1910 (Meltzer 1909;Cohn 1924;Corner 1964;Rockefeller Archive Center 1977;Harvey 1977;1978Kohler 1982, 238-9;Kilbourne 1986, 44-7, 49-50;Wheatley 1988, 30-1, 34-6, 40-1). Research was sustained by the development in hospitals of specialized wards and laboratories (Means 1958;Harvey 1977;Maulitz 1979;Petersdorf 1980, 490;Cangi 1982;Finland 1982-83;Berliner 1985;Ludmerer 1985, 207-13;Huddle 1987, ch. 6;Rosenberg 1987, 184-9;Rothstein 1987, chs.…”

Section: Academic Clinical Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Innovation and Public Accountability in Clinical Research

Melhado

1999

Milbank Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

For more than 20 years, clinical researchers have expressed alarm about the decline of their field, but they have failed to achieve a consensus on policies to revitalize and sustain it. Although they have traced the plight of clinical research to profound changes in science, medicine, and public expectations, their conservative vision and preference for short-term measures inhibit effective policy formulation. These trends are the outcome of historical developments, and they seem to mandate a new approach to public policy. A potential source for more viable and socially accountable policies lies in practitioners' notion that clinical research bridges basic and applied science (by translating scientific innovations into practical measures). Exploiting that idea, however, would require a major reorientation of the field toward health services research and the institutions that are struggling to support it.

show abstract

“…24 18 Peller, 1979, p. 56. 19 Warner, 1992Maulitz, 1979;Worboys, 2000, p. 193. 20 Lo¨wy and Gaudillie`re, 1998, p. 218;Latour and Woolgar, 1979, p. 43;re.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Scientific Discovery and Scientific Reputation: The Reception of Peyton Rous’ Discovery of the Chicken Sarcoma Virus

Becsei-Kilborn

2008

J Hist Biol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article concerns itself with the reception of Rous' 1911 discovery of what later came to be known as the Rous Sarcoma Virus (RSV). Rous made his discovery at the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research which had been primarily established to conduct research into infectious diseases. Rous' chance discovery of a chicken tumor led him to a series of conjectures about cancer causation and about whether cancer could have an extrinsic cause. Rous' finding was received with some scepticism by the scientific community that held that cancer was not infectious and favored explanations which located the origins of cancer in the inner mechanism of the cell. After 4 years of unsuccessful effort to isolate and further determine the virus Rous felt compelled to discontinue his work on cancer viruses. When 55 years later, the significance of Rous's discovery was attested by the award of the Nobel Prize, it opened up debates about the issues of delayed recognition and scientific reputation. This article also considers why Rous' hypothesis of a viral origin of cancer could not be incorporated into the existing body of knowledge about cancer before the 1950s.

show abstract

4. “Physician versus Bacteriologist”: The Ideology of Science in Clinical Medicine

Cited by 43 publications

References 0 publications

Looking for Trouble: Medical Science and Clinical Practice in the Historiography of Modern Medicine

Looking for Trouble: Medical Science and Clinical Practice in the Historiography of Modern Medicine

Innovation and Public Accountability in Clinical Research

Scientific Discovery and Scientific Reputation: The Reception of Peyton Rous’ Discovery of the Chicken Sarcoma Virus

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About