This paper reassesses Robert Koch’s work on tropical infections of humans and cattle as being inspired by an underlying interest in epidemiology. Such an interest was developed from the early 1890s when it became clear that an exclusive focus on pathogens was insufficient as an approach to explain the genesis and dynamics of epidemics. Koch, who had failed to do so before, now highlighted differences between infection and disease and described the role of various sub-clinical states of disease in the (...) propagation and—consequently—in the control of epidemics. Studying pathologies of men and cattle in tropical countries eventually facilitated the application of such measures in Europe through the screening of healthy carriers of typhoid, which was carried out in 1902. The concept of the carrier state can be understood as a spin-off from tropical medicine into the study and control of infectious disease in Europe. With it travelled assumptions that were typical for colonial and veterinary medicine where the health of indigenous individuals or cattle would be a secondary objective compared to the control of diseases in populations. (shrink)

ArgumentThis article uses four historical case studies to address epistemological issues related to the animal model of human diseases and its use in medical research on human diseases. The knowledge derived from animal models is widely assumed to be highly valid and predictive of reactions by human organisms. In this contribution, I use three significant historical cases of failure (ca. 1890, 1960, 2006), and a closer look at the emergence of the concept around 1860/70, to elucidate core assumptions related to (...) the specific practices of animal-human knowledge transfer, and to analyze the explanations provided by historical actors after each of the failures. Based on these examples, I argue that the epistemological status of the animal model changed from that of a helpful methodological tool for addressing specific questions, but with precarious validity, to an obligatory method for the production of strong knowledge on human diseases. As a result, there now exists a culture of biomedical research in human disease that, for more than a century, has taken the value of this methodological tool as self-evident, and more or less beyond question. (shrink)

“To be the first one.” – On the first Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine awarded to Emil von Behring in 1901. The German immunologist Emil von Behring is the first Nobel Prize laureate in physiology or medicine. Behring received the award in 1901 “for his work on serum therapy, especially its application against diphtheria”. Behring's name was strongly connected with progress in the field of diphtheria research through various publications. This study contextualizes the awarding of Behring and shows that (...) not only significant scientific and practical results made him primus inter pares in the eyes of the Nobel committee, but also factors like Behring's representation in the daily press and the broad public interest in diphtheria research. After the beginning of the industrial serum production in 1894, Behring was not only a “visible scientist”, he was also portrayed as the “savior of the children” and so ranked among the “great men” of his era. The paper argues that his public visibility and the popularity of “Behring's Diphtherie-Heilmittel” became a strong argument in favor of Behring during the selection process of the first Nobel laureate. The first part of the paper discusses the Nobel Prize nomination procedure from the views of the scientific community. Drawing on personal papers of the extended Behring Archives, the second part focusses on Behring from a private perspective and sheds light on the meaning and importance of the award for Behring and his family. (shrink)

The present article examines the material, epistemological, and social dimensions of late nineteenth-century anti-cholera serum controversies that unfolded in Tokyo and Berlin. It seeks to shed light on the conflicting values embedded in the construction of scientific evidence during the transnational exploration of bacteriology as an effective response to controlling epidemics. Driven by Japanese health authorities’ initiatives, Japanese bacteriologist Kitasato Shibasaburo participated in the elaboration of bacteriological research oriented toward therapeutic application during his stay in Berlin. This work coincided with (...) the rise of a controversy over anti-cholera serum in relation to the animal experiments conducted by Richard Pfeiffer, a German bacteriologist. After presenting a series of animal experiments and certain clinical cases conducted in Germany, France, and Egypt in the context of the controversies, the article analyzes a therapeutic trial conducted by Kitasato in Japan during an 1895 cholera epidemic. His strategy, bringing new data to the transnational debate through an intensive investment of resources in the trial, provoked criticism from his Japanese and German colleagues. These critics questioned Kitasato’s method and pointed out the low social value of this experimental serum therapy, performed in highly equipped conditions. Through this case study, the present article highlights: a) a strong tension between transnational research interactions among bacteriologists and local medical practices during public health campaigns against epidemics at the turn of the twentieth century; b) the importance of analyzing the interconnected effects of local, national and transnational frameworks of medical science when examining the increasingly intertwined relationships between laboratory science and clinical medicine. (shrink)