Search

In the history of the neurological relationship between human behavior and brain function in Europe and North America, various perspectives on brain localization and holistic functioning have been addressed. One of the founding figures of modern neuropsychology, Professor Hans-Lukas Teuber (1916-1977) of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, reminded the scholarly community of its negligence of preceding traditions in day-to-day research endeavors. Teuber particularly emphasized that during the development of the aphasiology field (1950s-1960s) even major figures, such as the German-American neurologist Kurt Goldstein (1878-1965), had been neglected in the scientific community's collective memory. This happened despite Goldstein's contributions to cortical blindness, vicarious brain functioning, and neurorehabilitation. The outcome of the debates regarding the neurology of language had to be incompletely relearned in later decades. Neuropsychological concerns regarding the relationship between cortical localizationism and functional holism have made recourse to Goldstein's work necessary for reviving historical answers for current conundrums. It is therefore opportune to review Goldstein's work in the light of the history of aphasiology. Contemporary scholarship has once more drawn research attention to the works of Goldstein along with Norman Geschwind (1926-1984) and his pupils. It has also resurrected the underlying research of Carl Wernicke (1848-1905). This review article explores deep and lasting questions regarding the positioning of Goldstein's holism among the contemporary holistic perspectives. It does so by firstly discussing Wernicke's traditional model of distributed localizationism. Secondly, it describes Goldstein's previous work in the German brain sciences. Thirdly, it examines his aphasiological contributions on both sides of the Atlantic. Fourthly, it addresses the advancement of a dynamic localizational perspective by Geschwind and his pupils. This article intends to render a historical analysis fruitful for those exploring modern-day problems in the neurology of aphasia and clinical speech neuropsychology., Competing Interests: The author declares that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest. The author(s) declared that they were an editorial board member of Frontiers, at the time of submission. This had no impact on the peer review process and the final decision., (Copyright © 2024 Stahnisch.)

Dr. Bert Sakmann (b. 1942) studied at the Universities of Tuebingen, Freiburg, Berlin, Paris, and Munich, graduating in 1967. Much of his professional life has been spent in various institutes of the Max Planck Society. In 1971, a British Council Fellowship took him to the Department of Biophysics of University College London to work with Bernard Katz (1911-2003). In 1974, he obtained his Ph.D. from the University of Goettingen and, with Erwin Neher (b. 1944) at the Max Planck Institute for Biophysical Chemistry, began work that would transform cellular biology and neuroscience, resulting in the 1991 Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine. In 2008, Dr. Sakmann returned to Munich, where he headed the research group "Cortical Columns in Silico" at the Max Planck Institute of Neurobiology in Martinsried. Here, their group discovered the cell-type specific sensory activation patterns in different layers of a column in the vibrissal area of rodents' somatosensory cortices.

The development of the brain sciences ( Hirnforschung ) in the Max Planck Society (MPG) during the early decades of the Federal Republic of Germany (FRG) was influenced by the legacy of its precursor institution, the Kaiser Wilhelm Society for the Advancement of Science (KWG). The KWG's brain science institutes, along with their intramural psychiatry and neurology research programs, were of considerable interest to the Western Allies and former administrators of the German science and education systems in their plans to rebuild the extra-university research society-first in the British Occupation Zone and later in the American and French Occupation Zones. This formation process occurred under the physicist Max Planck (1858-1947) as acting president, and the MPG was named in his honor when it was formally established in 1948. In comparison to other international developments in the brain sciences, it was neuropathology as well as neurohistology that initially dominated postwar brain research activities in West Germany. In regard to its KWG past, at least four historical factors can be identified that explain the dislocated structural and social features of the MPG during the postwar period: first, the disruption of previously existing interactions between German brain scientists and international colleagues; second, the German educational structures that countered interdisciplinary developments through their structural focus on medical research disciplines during the postwar period; third, the moral misconduct of earlier KWG scientists and scholars during the National Socialism period; and, fourth, the deep rupture that appeared through the forced migration of many Jewish and oppositional neuroscientists who sought to find exile after 1933 in countries where they had already held active collaborations since the 1910s and 1920s. This article examines several trends in the MPG's disrupted relational processes as it sought to grapple with its broken past, beginning with the period of reinauguration of relevant Max Planck Institutes in brain science and culminating with the establishment of the Presidential Research Program on the History of the Kaiser Wilhelm Society in National Socialism in 1997.

To further our understanding of the transformations of the modern, globalized world, historical research concerning the twentieth century must acknowledge the tremendous impact that science and technology exerted and continue to exert on political, economic, military, and social developments. To better comprehend a global history of science, it is also crucial to include Germany's most prominent research organization: The Max Planck Society for the Advancement of Science (MPG). Despite the existence of numerous institute chronicles and selected anniversary editions, the overall development of the MPG-historically situated in more than 80 institutes with more than 250 research service departments (of which approximately 50 have reached into the wider field of neuroscience, behavioral science, and cognitive science)-it remains largely terra incognita from a scholarly perspective. From June 2014 to December 2022, the Research Program on the History of the Max Planck Society (GMPG) opened previously neglected vistas on contemporary history, academic politics, and economic developments of the Federal Republic of Germany and its international relations by raising questions such as these: Who were the key scientific actors? In what networks did they work? In what fields had the MPG paved the way for cutting-edge innovations? What were its successes and where did it fail? In what ways were its institutional structures connected to its scientific achievements and its historical legacies? What is specific about the MPG in comparison to other national institutions in and outside of Germany? These questions relate to the emerging interdisciplinary field of the neurosciences. They refer in part to the MPG's founding years-from the late 1940s to the mid-1960s-which faced significant challenges for a "normalization process" in biomedical research and the burgeoning field of neuroscience. This special issue of the Journal of the History of the Neurosciences is composed of an introduction, five articles, and two neuroscience history interviews. It reflects on the multifold dimensions of behavioral psychology, brain research, and cognitive science developments at the MPG since its beginning through the reopening of several former Kaiser Wilhelm Institutes. After World War II, the extra-university research society-named in honor of physicist Max Planck (1858-1947)-was eventually established in the British Occupation Zone in 1946, in the American Zone in 1948, and in 1949 in the French Zone, unifying the MPG as the successor umbrella organization of the Kaiser Wilhelm Institutes (KWIs), now transformed into Max Planck Institutes. Chronologically, the research period covered in this special issue ranges from 1948 to 2002.

Medical historians and educators have long lamented that the integration of the study of the history of medicine into the educational curricula of medical schools and clinic-based teaching has been protractedly troubled. Employing the development of the history of medicine program at the University of Calgary as a case study, this article emphasizes the importance of integrating medical history with teaching schedules to further students' insights into changing health care settings, the social contingency of disease concepts, and socio-economic dependences of medical decision-making. History of medicine programs can furnish plentiful opportunities for research training through summer projects, insight courses, and field practica. This article explores the first fifty years of the History of Medicine and Health Care Program in Calgary and considers the impact of interdisciplinary cooperation as well as the role of interprofessional undergraduate and clinical medical education. Through this exploration, I argue that medical history should be a central part of study curricula, that a historical understanding can provide a robust background for physicians in a fast-changing world in the clinic, and that through their disciplinary expertise, medical historians play a fruitful role in scholarly and teaching exchanges with medical students and clinicians in the modern medical humanities., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press.)

Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The author declares that he has no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

The modern thesis regarding the "structural plastic" properties of the brain, as reactions to injuries, to tissue damage, and to degenerative cell apoptosis, can hardly be seen as expendable in clinical neurology and its allied disciplines (including internal medicine, psychiatry, neurosurgery, radiology, etc.). It extends for instance to wider research areas of clinical physiology and neuropsychology which almost one hundred years ago had been described as a critically important area for the brain sciences and psychology alike. Yet the mounting evidence concerning the range of structural neuroplastic phenomena beyond the significant early 3 years of childhood has shown that there is a progressive building up and refining of neural circuits in adaptation to the surrounding environment. This review essay explores the history behind multiple biological phenomena that were studied and became theoretically connected with the thesis of brain regeneration from Santiago Ramón y Cajal's pioneering work since the 1890s to the beginning of the American "Decade of the Brain" in the 1990s. It particularly analyzes the neuroanatomical perspectives on the adaptive capacities of the Central Nervous System (CNS) as well as model-like phenomena in the Peripheral Nervous System (PNS), which were seen as displaying major central regenerative processes. Structural plastic phenomena have assumed large implications for the burgeoning field of regenerative or restorative medicine, while they also pose significant epistemological challenges for related experimental and theoretical research endeavors. Hereafter, early historical research precursors are examined, which investigated brain regeneration phenomena in non-vertebrates at the beginning of the 20th century, such as in light microscopic studies and later in electron microscopic findings that substantiated the presence of structural neuroplastic phenomena in higher cortical substrates. Furthermore, Experimental physiological research in hippocampal in vivo models of regeneration further confirmed and corroborated clinical physiological views, according to which "structural plasticity" could be interpreted as a positive regenerative CNS response to brain damage and degeneration. Yet the underlying neuroanatomical mechanisms remained to be established and the respective pathway effects were only conveyed through the discovery of neural stem cells in in adult mammalian brains in the early 1990s. Experimental results have since emphasized the genuine existence of adult neurogenesis phenomena in the CNS. The focus in this essay will be laid here on questions of the structure and function of scientific concepts, the development of research schools among biomedical investigators, as well as the impact of new data and phenomena through innovative methodologies and laboratory instruments in the neuroscientific endeavors of the 20th century., Competing Interests: The author declares that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2022 Stahnisch.)

The peculiar therapeutic practice of "ovarian compression"-paradoxically, both in initiating and in terminating hysterical activity-remains largely unexplained territory from both historical and medical perspectives. The gynecological indications of "hysteria" and "hystero-epilepsy" are now considered to be among similar questionable indications as contemporaneous "nymphomania" and "epilepsy." This article analyzes historical clinical observations, as well as surgical experiences of the time, to determine if there has been a uniform understanding of the ovarian contribution to "hystero-epilepsy." The respective findings are interpreted in light of the physiology of "chronic pelvic pain." Evidence for pain as a source of hystero-epileptic attacks is further represented through a series of clinical photographs suggesting a link to current problems, such as severe left-lower-quadrant pain. The emerging insights link more clearly to the functional role ( le rôle fonctionnel ) of the ovaries in relation to the "fits" of hystero-epileptic patients, while validating women's pain experiences during the latter part of the nineteenth century. Differences in the interpretation of disease concepts between Robert Battey (1828-1895) and Octave Terrillon (1844-1895) thereby permit an understanding of variations in the use of the removal of women's ovaries for pain.

"Hysteria" and "hystero-epilepsy" were common medical diagnoses among physicians during the nineteenth century. In Paris, L'Hôpital de la Salpêtrière -originally a hospice for the poor and a prison for prostitutes and other female inmates-became a center of great interest for the possible role of neurological diseases in these conditions. At the same time in the Americas and Europe, gynecologists were removing women's ovaries in cases with the same clinical conditions, which emphasized the role of the ovaries in contemporary hysteria studies in France, Great Britain, and the United States. The objective of this article is to explore nineteenth-century conceptualizations of ovarian pain as an organ-pathological substrate for a portion of these diagnoses. The theoretical role of the pelvic organs in these diagnoses has waxed and waned over the centuries, but there have not been many detailed explorations of the associated clinical phenomena. Suggesting an organic basis ( le substratum organique ) for the diagnoses remains a precarious notion, given the universally repudiated role of the uterus and decreasing interest in the ovary. In contemporary literature, the potential role of the ovary has not been addressed from a detailed medical perspective, however.

Objective: This article explores the life and career of Sebastian K. Littmann. He was a foundational figure of the University of Calgary's Department of Psychiatry in his role as its second chair and, before this, as an influential administrator at Toronto's Queen Street Mental Health Centre and Clarke Institute during a transitional period in the 1970s-1980s. According to McGill University's Heinz Lehmann, this transitional period was when the field of psychiatry underwent an identity crisis that threatened to dissolve the discipline and see its functions increasingly filled by counsellors, neurologists, and primary physicians. Littmann's professional background and training in Edinburgh was followed by periods of community work in New York, which-by the time he immigrated to Canada-predisposed him to favour a humane and community-based approach to psychiatric work; this approach encompassed the cultural variations that were increasingly characterizing North America's urban social landscape. His compassionate and progressive approach to treatment was remarkable in light of his troubled and deprived upbringing in Nazi-era Germany., Conclusions: The present sketch of Littmann's personal and professional biography serves to highlight the ways that major historical events and large-scale migration movements, which affected Central Europe, impacted the development of Canadian psychiatry and, by extension, individual Canadians in the twentieth century.

In 1857, French-Austrian psychiatrist Bénédict Augustin Morel (1809-1873) published his infamous though highly successful Traité des dégénérescences physiques, intellectuelles et morales de l'espèce humaine, which was fully dedicated to the social problem of "degeneration" and its psychiatric and neurological underpinnings. European psychiatrists, neurologists, and pathologists integrated Morel's approach into their neuropsychiatric theories and searched for the somatic and morphological alterations in the human brain, as did the versatile pupil of Rudolph Virchow (1821-1902), Georg Eduard von Rindfleisch (1836-1908), in his Lehrbuch der pathologischen Gewebelehre (1867). This can be seen as a starting point of research into the vascular genesis of "multiple sclerosis" by observing that the changes of blood vessels and nerve elements could be the result of inflammation and increased blood flow. We examine the waxing and waning of a 19th century diagnostic condition, which fell out of favor and resurfaced during the 20th century.

Even before the completion of his medical studies at the universities of Berlin, Munich, and Strasburg, as well as his M.D.-graduation - in 1884 - under Friedrich Goltz (1834-1902), experimental biologist Jacques Loeb (1859-1924) became interested in degenerative and regenerative problems of brain anatomy and general problems of neurophysiology. It can be supposed that he addressed these questions out of a growing dissatisfaction with leading perceptions about cerebral localization, as they had been advocated by the Berlin experimental neurophysiologists at the time. Instead, he followed Goltz and later Gustav Theodor Fechner (1801-1887) in elaborating a dynamic model of brain functioning vis-à-vis human perception and coordinated motion. To further pursue his scientific aims, Loeb moved to the Naples Zoological Station between 1889 and 1890, where he conducted a row of experimental series on regenerative phenomena in sea animals. He deeply admired the Italian marine research station for its overwhelming scientific liberalism along with the provision of considerable technical and intellectual support. In Naples, Loeb hoped to advance his research investigations on 'tropisms' further to develop a reliable basis not only regarding the behavior of lower animals, but also concerning perception and general neural capacities. He thought that he could demonstrate the existence of center interdependence in the cerebral cortex of higher animals and humans, and was convinced that regenerative phenomena existed as plastic mechanisms influencing animal as well as human behavioral qualities. This new perspective on the organization of brain functioning and Loeb's astonishing successes in experimental research with hydrozoa and echinoidea brought him in close contact with many biologists working on the nervous system during the early twentieth century. Yet, it is impossible to conceive of Loeb's ground-breaking experiments without also taking his contemporary scientific network of teachers, colleagues, and local research milieus into account. All of these exerted a strong influence on a growing network of physiology, anatomy, and neurology peers and research trainees, who went on to interact in early brain research centers in Central Europe and North America. This article explores some intellectual and organizational influences that developed out of Loeb's early experiences at the Naples Zoological Station in Italy. The main focus is laid here on questions of the structure and organization of scientific institutions, the development of research networks among biologists of the nervous system, as well as the emergence of an interdisciplinary research style during the early decades of the twentieth century. This innovative style of laboratory investigations later influenced the make-up of a number of research units, for example at the Kaiser Wilhelm Society in Germany and the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research in the United States.

Oaths recited in medical schools provide valuable insight into the medical profession's evolving core of ethical commitments. This study presents a brief overview of medical oaths, and how they came to attain their current prominence. The authors examine medical oaths used in twentieth-century North America (the USA and Canada) through a critical review of six studies on oath administration and content that were undertaken between 1928 and 2004. While oath-taking became almost universally prevalent in twentieth-century North American medical schools, the ethical content of oaths grew increasingly heterogeneous. The findings challenge assumptions about the content of medical oaths. They also create dynamic markers for gauging the variability in the current ethical milieus of medical education, providing a basis for evaluating future direction., Competing Interests: Conflict of InterestThe authors declare that they have no conflict of interest., (© International Association of Medical Science Educators 2019.)

Research on memory has been a major focus in the neurosciences over the past decades. An important advance was achieved by Wilder Penfield at the Montreal Neurological Institute, who reported from the 1930s to the 1950s about experiential phenomena induced by electrical brain stimulation in humans, implying neuronal causation of memory. Since then, neuroscientists have addressed the topic of memory from a range of subdisciplines; however, these reports by Penfield and his group as well as those on patient H. M. by Brenda Milner at the same institution continue to be referenced as groundbreaking. Further experimental work by Nobel laureates Eric Kandel and John O'Keefe, as well as by Edvard and May-Britt Moser related Penfield's patient documentation to experiential phenomena. However, our reassessment of Penfield's original patient documentation questions the stance that he had uncovered the "storehouse of memories." Human memory must be regarded more as context sensitive and as representative of an active reconstructive process, than as a simple recording of events. Hence, strategies aiming at naturalizing all phenomena of mind (including memory) to cellular and molecular mechanisms cannot convincingly refer to Penfield's electrophysiological studies alone as evidence that memories are solely caused by neuronal firing patterns.

This article explores the work by Bernard Katz (1911-2003), Stephen W. Kuffler (1913-1980), and John C. Eccles (1903-1997) on the nerve-muscle junction as a milestone in twentieth-century neurophysiology with wider scientific implications. The historical question is approached from two perspectives: (a) an investigation of twentieth-century solutions to a longer physiological dispute and (b) an examination of a new kind of laboratory and academic cooperation. From this vantage point, the work pursued in Sydney by Sir John Carew Eccles' team on the neuromuscular junction is particularly valuable, since it contributed a central functional element to modern physiological understanding regarding the function and structure of the human and animal nervous system. The reflex model of neuromuscular action had already been advanced by neuroanatomists such as Georg Prochaska (1749-1820) in Bohemia since the eighteenth century. It became a major component of neurophysiological theories during the nineteenth century, based on the law associated with the names of François Magendie (1783-1855) in France and Charles Bell (1774-1842) in Britain regarding the functional differences of the sensory and motor spinal nerves. Yet, it was not until the beginning of the twentieth century that both the histological and the neurophysiological understanding of the nerve-muscle connection became entirely understood and the chemical versus electrical transmission further elicited as the mechanisms of inhibition. John C. Eccles, Bernard Katz, and Stephen W. Kuffler helped to provide some of the missing links for modern neurophysiology. The current article explores several of their scientific contributions and investigates how the context of forced migration contributed to these interactions in contingently new ways.

Already emerging as an original thinker in the field of classical philology and history of medicine, German scholar Ludwig Edelstein became one of many scholars who lost his academic position when the National Socialists came to power in early 1933. This paper details his life before and after his difficult transition from Europe to North America, while reviewing the lasting significance of his translation and commentary on the Hippocratic Oath., (© The Author(s) 2015.)

Research in biological psychiatry during the first half of the 20 th century was based upon a wide range of interrelated disciplines, including neurology, neuroanatomy, neuropathology, and experimental biology. The work of German-American psychiatrist and neurologist Lothar B. Kalinowsky (1899-1992) is taken here as an example of how such fields could be combined to produce a highly innovative and multidimensional research program in clinical neuroscience. Kalinowsky functioned exceptionally well in both scientific and clinical cultures despite the marked contextual differences between the Charité in Berlin and his later workplace in New York's Columbia Medical School. The innovative ideas exemplified by Kalinowsky's efforts, however, sometimes amounted to a dubious advantage for émigré clinical neuroscientists: they easily led to incommensurable scientific views, and sometimes even resulted in the marginalization of the innovator from existing research programs.

Background and Purpose: Understanding physician decision making is increasingly recognized as an important topic of study, especially in stroke care. We sought to characterize the process of acute stroke decision making among neurologists in the United States and Canada from clinical and epistemological perspectives., Methods: Using a factorial design online survey, respondents were presented with clinical data to mimic an acute stroke encounter. The history, examination, computed tomographic (CT) scan, CT angiogram, and CT perfusion were presented in sequence, and respondents rated their diagnostic confidence and likelihood of treatment with tissue-type plasminogen activator after each element. Patient age, race, sex, and CT perfusion imaging results were randomized, whereas the rest of the clinical presentation was held constant., Results: We collected 715 responses, of which 473 (66%) were complete. Diagnostic certainty and likelihood of treatment with tissue-type plasminogen activator rose incrementally as additional clinical data were provided. Diagnostic certainty and treatment likelihood were strongly influenced by the clinical history and the CT scan. Other factors such as physicians' personal beliefs or biases were not influential. Respondents' accuracy in interpreting CT angiographic and CT perfusion images was variable and generally low., Conclusions: Diagnostic certainty and likelihood of treatment with tissue-type plasminogen activator increase with additional clinical data, with the history being the most important factor for diagnostic and treatment decisions. Respondents had difficulty in interpreting the results of CT perfusion scans although they had little impact on treatment decisions. We did not identify treatment bias based on patient age, race, or sex., (© 2016 American Heart Association, Inc.)

Biological psychiatry in the early twentieth century was based on interrelated disciplines, such as neurology and experimental biology. Neuropsychiatrist Franz Josef Kallmann (1897-1965) was a product of this interdisciplinary background who showed an ability to adapt to different scientific contexts, first in the field of neuromorphology in Berlin, and later in New York. Nonetheless, having innovative ideas, as Kallmann did, could be an ambiguous advantage, since they could lead to incommensurable scientific views and marginalization in existing research programs. Kallmann followed his Dr. Med. degree (1919) with training periods at the Charité Medical School in Berlin under psychiatrist Karl Bonhoeffer (1868-1948). Subsequently, he collaborated with Ernst Ruedin (1874-1952), investigating sibling inheritance of schizophrenia and becoming a protagonist of genetic research on psychiatric conditions. In 1936, Kallmann was forced to immigrate to the USA where he published The Genetics of Schizophrenia (1938), based on data he had gathered from the district pathological institutes of Berlin's public health department. Kallmann resumed his role as an international player in biological psychiatry and genetics, becoming president (1952) of the American Society of Human Genetics and Director of the New York State Psychiatric Institute in 1955. While his work was well received by geneticists, the idea of genetic differences barely took hold in American psychiatry, largely because of émigré psychoanalysts who dominated American clinical psychiatry until the 1960s and established a philosophical direction in which genetics played no significant role, being regarded as dangerous in light of Nazi medical atrocities. After all, medical scientists in Nazi Germany had been among the social protagonists of racial hygiene which, under the aegis of Nazi philosophies, replaced medical genetics as the basis for the ideals and application of eugenics.

This special issue of the Journal of the History of the Neurosciences, comprised of six articles and one commentary, reflects on the multifold dimensions of intellectual migration in the neurosciences and illustrates them by relevant case studies, biographies, and surveys from twentieth-century history of science and medicine perspectives. The special issue as a whole strives to emphasize the impact of forced migration in the neurosciences and psychiatry from an interdisciplinary perspective by, first, describing the general research topic, second, by showing how new models can be applied to the historiography and social studies of twentieth-century neuroscience, and, third, by providing a deeper understanding of the impact of European émigré researchers on emerging allied fields, such as neurogenetics, biological psychiatry, psychosomatics, and public mental health, etc. as resulting from this process at large.

This article is a historiographical exploration of the special forms of knowledge generation and knowledge transmission that occur along local cultural boundaries in the modern neurosciences. Following the inauguration of the so-called "Law on the Re-Establishment of a Professional Civil Service" in Nazi Germany on April 7, 1933, hundreds of Jewish and oppositional neurologists, neuropathologists, and psychiatrists were forced out of their academic positions, having to leave their home countries and local knowledge economies and traditions for Canada and the United States. A closer analysis of their living and working conditions will create an understanding of some of the elements and factors that determined the international forced migration waves of physicians and clinical neuroscientists in the twentieth century from a historiographical perspective. While I am particularly looking here at new case examples regarding the forced migration during the National Socialist period in Germany, the analysis follows German-speaking émigré neurologists and psychiatrists who found refuge and settled in Canada. These individuals form an understudied group of refugee medical professionals, despite the fact that the subsegments of refugee neurologists and clinical psychoanalysts in the United States, for example, have been a fairly well-investigated population, as the works of Grob (1983), Lunbeck (1995), or Ash and Soellner (1996) have shown. This article is primarily an exploration of the adjustment and acculturation processes of several highly versatile and well-rounded German-speaking physicians, who had received their prior education in neurology, psychiatry, and basic brain research. They were forced out of their academic home institutions and had to leave their clinical research fields as well as their disciplinary self-understanding behind on the other side of the Atlantic.

Until the beginning 1930's the traditional dogma that the human central nervous system (CNS) did not possess any abilities to adapt functionally to degenerative processes and external injuries loomed large in the field of the brain sciences (Hirnforschung). Cutting-edge neuroanatomists, such as the luminary Wilhelm Waldeyer (1836-1921) in Germany or the Nobel Prize laureate Santiago Ramón y Cajal (1852-1934) in Spain, debated any regenerative and thus "plastic" properties in the human brain. A renewed interest arose in the scientific community to investigate the pathologies and the healing processes in the human CNS after the return of the high number of brain injured war veterans from the fronts during and after the First World War (1914-1918). A leading research center in this area was the "Institute for the Scientific Study of the Effects of Brain Injuries," which the neurologist Ludwig Edinger (1855-1918) had founded shortly before the war. This article specifically deals with the physiological research on nerve fiber plasticity by Albrecht Bethe (1872-1954) at the respective institute of the University of Frankfurt am Main. Bethe conducted here his paradigmatic experimental studies on the pathophysiological and clinical phenomena of peripheral and CNS regeneration.

The emergence of early brain research activities at the University of Strasburg constitutes a prominent interdisciplinary research field, which combines investigative approaches from anatomy, pathology, radiology, medicine, and surgery. This process happened during three consecutive political breaks: the Wilhelminian Empire's restitution of the German-speaking university (1872–1918), the liberal Interwar Period (1918–1939), as well as the Nazi occupation and creation of the German Reichs-University (1940/41–1944). Between 1872 and 1918, after the end of the Franco-German War and the annexation of Alsace-Lorraine into the German Empire, the newly inaugurated Kaiser-Wilhelms-University not only constituted the first foundation of a German university after the creation of the Rhenish Friedrich-Wilhelms University of Bonn in 1818. It became also established as a premier research university that showcased the excellence of German science and post-secondary education in Strasburg. During the first two decades of its existence, leading academics were hired as professors for the Medical Faculty, such as anatomist Wilhelm von Waldeyer (development of the neuron concept), pathologist Friedrich Daniel von Recklinghausen (exploration of neurofibromatosis), psychiatrist Richard Freiherr von Krafft-Ebing (pioneering studies in sexual psychopathology), who pushed the research envelope in contemporary neuroscience. The international standing of the university came to decline at the end of the nineteenth century, however, since several of its founding faculty were hired away to major research universities in Prussia; and lessened academic productivity of the remaining faculty subsequently became the rule before the outbreak of the First World War. During the interwar period, between 1918 and 1939, the Medical Faculty in Strasburg emerged as a liberal institution under the leadership of French-Alsatian dean Georges Gross, who came to advertise faculty positions to both French and German professors in the same way. Following to the second annexation of Alsace-Lorraine with the occupation of France in 1940, the new Nazi government – represented by Gauleiter Rudolf Wagner – came to marginalize the French influence and aligned many research activities with NS ideologies and horrific anthropological, euthanasia, and military programs. Nikolaus Jensch (∼ anthropological determinants of homosexuality), August Hirt (∼ racial foundations of scull and brain development), or Hans Lullies (∼ sympathetic lesions following to freezing traumas) became prime movers at the Strasburg Medical Faculty during "the Third Reich". In November 1944, the Reichs-University ended abruptly when allied French and American forces advanced into Alsace-Lorraine and brought the historical Nazi period to its final end.

A critical analysis of the historical involvement of neurology and neurosurgery in military emergency care services enables us to better contextualize and appreciate the development of modern neurology at large. Wartime neurosurgery and civil brain science during the German Nazi period tightly coalesced in examining the specific injury types, which military neurosurgeons such as Wilhelm Toennis, Klaus Joachim Zuelch, and Georg Merrem encountered and treated based on their neurophysiological understanding gained from earlier peacetime research. Collaborative associations with Dr. Toennis in particular proved to be highly beneficial to other military neurologists and neurosurgeons during World War II and beyond. This article also discusses the prewar developments and considers the fate of German neurosurgeons and military neurologists after the war. The envisaged dynamic concepts of fast action, reaction, and recycling, which contemporary physicians had intensively studied in the preceding scientific experiments in their neurophysiological laboratories, had already been introduced into neurological surgery during the interwar period. In retrospect, World War II emergency rescue units greatly strengthened military operations through an active process of 'recycling' indispensable army personnel. Neurosurgical emergency chains thereby introduced another decisive step in the modernization of warfare, in that they increased the momentum of military mobility in the field. Notwithstanding the violence of warfare and the often inhumane ways in which such knowledge in the field of emergency neurology was gained, the protagonists among the group of experts in military neurology and neurosurgery strongly contributed to the postwar clinical neuroscience community in Germany. In differing political pretexts, this became visible in both East Germany and West Germany after the war, while the specific military and political conditions under which this knowledge of emergency medicine was obtained have largely been forgotten., (© 2016 S. Karger AG, Basel.)

Particularly with the fundamental works of the Leipzig school of experimental psychophysiology (between the 1850s and 1880s), the modern neurosciences witnessed an increasing interest in attempts to objectify "pain" as a bodily signal and physiological value. This development has led to refined psychological test repertoires and new clinical measurement techniques, which became progressively paired with imaging approaches and sophisticated theories about neuropathological pain etiology. With the advent of electroencephalography since the middle of the 20th century, and through the use of brain stimulation technologies and modern neuroimaging, the chosen scientific route towards an ever more refined "objectification" of pain phenomena took firm root in Western medicine. This article provides a broad overview of landmark events and key imaging technologies, which represent the long developmental path of a field that could be called "algesiogenic pathology."

Berlin neurologist and neurohistologist Max Bielschowsky counts among the most innovative microanatomical researchers at the beginning of the twentieth century. Although being quite underrated in the history of neurology today, Bielschowsky contributed substantially to the understanding of neurohereditary pathologies, such as Alzheimer's disease, Parkinsonism, and Huntington's chorea, as well as the assessment of structural changes in several movement disorders. Working with other leading research neurologists, such as Oskar and Cecile Vogt or Korbinian Brodmann at the newly founded Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Brain Research in Berlin-Buch, he also pioneered neurohistological work on de- and regeneration processes in the Central Nervous System along with new morphological definitions of "nervous trauma."

The forced migration process of German-speaking neurologists and psychiatrists under the Nazis during the 1930s and 40s is often preoccupied solely with "successful" concepts and therapeutic approaches. The case of German-Canadian neurologist Karl Stern (1906-1975) is very instructive, however, since the process of forced migration, for him, proved to be a transitionary process from his former cutting edge work in neuropathology and holist neurology in Germany to clinical psychiatry and the development of the new discipline of geriatric medicine in Canada.

The ethical principle of 'equipoise', introduced in 1974, represents the most widely influential justification for the enrollment of patients into randomized clinical trials. However, definitions of equipoise vary, and its terms are not universally accepted. In this paper, we suggest a new way of approaching the ethics of clinical trial enrollment, which we call fallibility. The principle of fallibility argues that all physician opinions are sufficiently uncertain to warrant investigation, and that the ethical justification for any trial becomes a question of its epistemic validity, by which we mean the strength of its hypotheses and methods. The principle of fallibility can be translated into practice through the virtues of humility, skepticism and caring. While we cite recent examples from stroke medicine to demonstrate the limitations of equipoise, we propose that fallibility may offer a more general means of addressing the controversies that arise surrounding randomized controlled trials in many disciplines of medicine., (© 2014 World Stroke Organization.)

The medical profession's modern quandaries with Multiple Sclerosis (MS) largely began in 1849, with Friedrich von Frerichs' (1819-1885) early description of the clinical and pathological features of what he termed Hirnsklerose ("brain sclerosis"). This manuscript is an overview of the century of research (1850-1950) that followed the emergence of this clinical entity, with a focus on the hitherto under-explored English Canadian perspective. Using journal articles, reviews, and case studies, this historiographical paper reviews what may be some of the earliest recorded cases of MS in Canada, and outlines the diagnostic challenges that confronted early Canadian physicians in their encounters with MS. Early Canadian attempts to characterize the aetiology and epidemiology of MS and treat it are also discussed. These activities were influenced by developments in the field in Europe and the United States, and helped set the stage for the modern era of immunologic and therapeutic research on MS.