Search

This paper focuses on the structural development of institution-based interest in genetics in Anglo-North American medicine after 1930 concomitantly with an analysis of the changes through which ideas about heredity and the hereditary transmission of diseases in families have passed. It maintains that the unfolding relationship between medicine and genetics can best be understood against the background of the shift in emphasis in conceptualisations of recurring patterns of disease in families from ‘biological relatedness’ to ‘related to chromosomes and genes’. The paper begins with brief considerations of the historical confluences of, first, heredity and medicine and, second, genetics and medicine which, in a third section, leads to a discussion about a uniquely ‘genetics-based approach’ to medicine in the second half of the twentieth century. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: Following the announcement in 1949 in the USA that cortisone offered rheumatoid arthritis sufferers effective treatment for their crippling disease, the Ministry of Health came under considerable pressure from the medical profession and the public to make cortisone available in Britain. The Ministry, therefore, urged British companies to start manufacturing cortisone. Among the several pharmaceutical firms responding to the Ministry’s request, Glaxo’s expertise in the field of vitamins gave them a head start. This paper describes the varied and flexible strategy that enabled Glaxo to maintain this head start, and the scientific and technical capabilities which the company subsequently built up, enabling them to dominate the market for corticosteroids in Britain. Among the drugs to emerge out of the Glaxo project to manufacture cortisone, which began in 1950 and later became a wider R&D programme on steroids, was the topical steroid Betnovate, launched in 1963, which remains a best-seller today. However, although it led to successful new products, Glaxo’s programme had limitations. The paper identifies a missed opportunity, in the shape of the biosynthetic route to steroid drugs, often considered as a milestone in the development of the new biotechnology. Whether or not this missed opportunity proved costly to the company is uncertain. However, it illustrates the role of technological path-dependence, and the importance of the integration between different scientific disciplines, in this case chemistry and biology, in pharmaceutical innovation. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: This paper attempts to bring new insights to a long-standing historical debate over medical specialization by analyzing the formation of medical mycology, a somewhat marginal biomedical discipline that emerged in the mid-twentieth century around studies of fungal disease in humans. The study of fungi predates that of bacteria and viruses, but from the 1880s it became eclipsed by bacteriology. However, in the postwar period, there were moves to establish medical mycology as an independent speciality. I trace the processes that led to the launch of professional societies in the United States, Britain and Japan, three major players in medical mycology, and more broadly in biomedicine. The analysis of the three different national contexts illustrates how geographical, medico-technological, epidemiological, political and social conditions gave the specialty a distinctive character in each country; this was further complicated by the different and changing medical fields in which fungal diseases were studied and treated. The three case studies show medical specialization as a process that is not simply cumulative but responds to specific historical events and developments. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: This paper provides a brief comparative overview of the development of the reproductive sciences especially in agriculture in the UK and the US. It begins with the establishment by F. H. A. Marshall in 1910 of the boundaries that framed the reproductive sciences as distinct from genetics and embryology. It then examines how and where the reproductive sciences were taken up in agricultural research settings, focusing on the differential development of US and UK institutions. The reproductive sciences were also pursued in medical and biological settings, and I discuss how the intersections among all three allowed the circulation of both ideas and scientists’ careers. Across the twentieth century, scientific leadership in the reproductive sciences alternated between the UK and US, and these patterns are elucidated. I conclude with thoughts on future research that might emphasize the elaboration of industrialization processes in agriculture and new capacities to transform both reproductive processes and their products—life itself—as biopower comes to be more ambitiously understood as extending across all species. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]