During the past several decades, historians of science, technology, and medicine have started to investigate developments in the global world, primarily focusing on the world outside Europe and North America. Historians of early modern science have analyzed the intimate connections between, on the one hand, exploration, colonialism, and imperialism and, on the other, the scientific revolution in Europe. Scientific expeditions in Asia, Africa, and the Americas not only required significant local assistance but incorporated local techniques and insights as well (Roberts, 2009;Schaffer, Roberts, Raj, & Delbourgo, 2010). Botanical and medical research always relied on local intermediaries; as a consequence, local wisdom ended up in scientific treatises unacknowledged (Cook, 2007;Grove, 1995;Schiebinger, 2004;Schiebinger & Swan, 2004). Historians of science have started to investigate science from a global perspective, analyzing how science has been shaped through various alliances, trade connections, global political arrangements, and confrontations on a global scale (Secord, 2010;Sivasundaram, 2010). Today, historians of modern science argue that scientific research in Singapore, Japan, and China rivals that conducted in the Western world and can no longer be viewed as derivative or secondary (see, e.g., Clancey, Graham, Bishop, & Fischer, 2013;Waldby, 2009; Wittner & Brown, 2016). Advocates of new approaches to the history of early modern science and those focusing on modern science have argued that research should focus on the circulation of knowledge, technologies, pharmaceutical preparations, instruments, techniques, and theories in the global world and relinquish distinctions between metropolis and periphery, East and West, and modern and traditional (Anderson, 2002;Seth, 2017).Over the past three decades, historians of psychiatry have paid ample attention to the history of asylum care, mental hospitals, and psychiatric theories outside the Western world (see, e.