Search

This paper deals with the interdependence of medicine and society in a situation of political crisis. The example of the Pathological Institute at the University of Berlin illustrates how non-scientific, political measures exerted an influence on daily scientific work via the Science Ministry as well as the director and the staff of the Institute. Not only did financial problems of the German State and difficulties of the Prussian Science Ministry in keeping the Institute running hamper successful work in Pathology; moreover, the political ambitions of its director, Otto Lubarsch, and the changes in daily life as a result of the general situation of misery had their impact on scientific work. Therefore, an examination of the interdependence between medical science and politics should not be limited to physicians who are enrolled in a political party. Furthermore, research must be undertaken on the level of laboratory communities and everyday-life with the help of archive material.

Textbooks on German medical history are a valuable source when analyzing the discipline's view on the foundation of scientific medicine. This paper deals with descriptions of the history of pathology found in textbooks between 1858 and 1945: In particular, pathological anatomy and Rudolf Virchow's "cellular pathology" were the cornerstones of the foundation of modern medicine in the 19th century. The way textbooks deal with the history of pathology mirrors the development of German history of medicine: Since the turn of the century the latter felt devoted to an ahistoric teleological approach which did not change in the "Third Reich". This situation hampered a critical histoography which would show relations of the history of pathology to cultural, social and political history.

This paper focuses on a prominent figure in medicine, one who had no visible political ambitions in terms of the NS-regime: Ludwig Aschoff (1866-1942), pathologist at the University of Freiburg from 1906 to 1936. The period between 1914 and 1933 is emphasized in order to show the development of his political and scientific ideas, which were intertwined from the beginning: Aschoff admired the Kaiserreich, and in World War I he tried to carry out a socio-political programme in that he examined the constitution of the German Volk by performing autopsies of almost every German soldier who had been killed in action. After 1918 he retained his conservative ideas and his medical programme which meant concentrating mainly on constitutional ideas. Although Aschoff tried to reestablish international cooperation and to support the new Republic, he ultimately did support anti-democratic ideas. This attitude proved to be a handicap with regard to his reaction to National Socialism in 1933: Although he did not become a member of the party and a strong supporter, he welcomed the new regime. Aschoff, without being aware of his role, supported the acceptance of the regime within the medical scientific community. It will be possible to obtain deeper insight into the NS-period by encouraging research on its 'mediators', for example, Ludwig Aschoff.

The rise of scientific medicine in the 19th century had its origins mainly in Rudolf Virchows localistic cellular pathology. As a consequence the organism as a complex system was kept in the background. In recognition of this problem, concepts of pathology, emerging in 20th century, tried in vain to establish organismic theories of illness. Pathology remained deeply indebted to Virchows work. Deficits appeared even in 19th century, when treatment of patients was mainly focussed on practicability of cure, ignoring the social background. Therefore, it is not possible to speak about progress of pathology in general, for diagnostics depends also on individual mentality, the subject, and the situation of the time.