Search

Background: Nazi Germany surrendered to the Allies on May 8, 1945. Six months later, the Allies tried the surviving leaders of Nazi Germany at the first Nuremberg trial. Later, the United States conducted 12 additional trials. The first one, The Unites States of America versus Karl Brandt et al., has been dubbed the Doctors' Trial. During the trial, the prosecution relied on the testimony of Dr. Andrew Ivy and Dr. Leo Alexander. At the end of the trial, Judge Sebring enunciated 10 principles needed to conduct human subject research-the Nuremberg Code. Authorship of the Code has been the subject of dispute, with both Ivy and Alexander claiming sole authorship.Methods: In the summer of 2017, I visited Duke University Medical Center's Archives and surveyed the contents of boxes labeled "Alexander's papers." I also explored online databases with information on the Doctors' Trial. Pertinent documents were compared across collections, and against scholarly works on the topic.Results: Box 3 of Alexander's papers at Duke University Medical Center's Archives contains a three-page document with six principles that, nearly word for word, were included in what is known as the Nuremberg Code. Alexander's name and appointment are typed at the end of the document.Conclusions: Although the Nuremberg Code is likely to have been an unplanned collaboration among members of the prosecuting team and the judges, I present evidence suggesting that Alexander drafted the blueprint and was the main contributor to the final version of the Code. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective. To sort out the literature related to conjunctival bacteria and summarize research hotspots and trends of this field. Materials and Methods. The relevant literature data from 1900 to 2019 was retrieved from the Web of Science Core Collection database. After manual selection, each document record includes title, author, keywords, abstract, year, organization, and citation. We imported the downloaded data into CiteSpace V (version 5.5R2) to draw the knowledge map and conduct cooperative network analysis, discipline and journal analysis, cluster analysis, and burst keyword analysis. Results. After manual screening, there were 285 relevant papers published in the last 28 years (from 1991 to 2019), and the number is increasing year by year. The publications of conjunctival bacteria were dedicated by 1381 authors of 451 institutions in 56 countries/regions. The United States dominates this field (82 literatures), followed by Germany (23 literatures) and Japan (23 literatures). Overall, most cited papers were published with a focus on molecular biology, genetics, nursing, and toxicology. Most papers fall into the category of ophthalmology, veterinary sciences, and pharmacology and pharmacy. The only organized cluster is the "postantibiotic effect," and the top 5 keywords with the strongest citation bursts include "postoperative endophthalmiti(s)," "infectious keratoconjunctiviti(s)," "conjunctiviti(s)," "resistance," and "diversity". Conclusion. The global field of conjunctival bacteria has expanded in the last 28 years. The United States contributes most. However, there are little cooperation among authors and institutions. Overall, this bibliometric study organized one cluster, "postantibiotic effect", and identified the top 5 hotspots in conjunctival bacteria research: "postoperative endophthalmiti(s)," "infectious keratoconjunctiviti(s)," "conjunctiviti(s)," "resistance," and "diversity". Thus, further research focuses on these topics that may be more helpful to prevent ocular infection and improve prophylaxis strategies to bring a benefit to patients in the near future. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

After 1945, Western medicine was influenced mostly by investigations from Britain and the USA. This paper deals with the presentation of German medicine in the German weekly «Der Spiegel» between 1947 and 1955, when German society changed from a postwar community focussed on survival to a modern western society. The paper will particularly focus on medicine as a service, dealing not with diagnostic and therapeutic innovations, but with troublesome every-day problems of body and soul at the border of health and disease. The paper argues that »service medicine« was an important tool for German medicine to achieve social acceptance and to integrate itself into the new German democratic society with its private market economy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]