Epidemiology, like any branch of medical science, functions within a social and historical context. That context influences what questions are asked, how they are investigated, and how their conclusions are interpreted, both by researchers and by the public. The international debate over whether abortion increases breast cancer risk, which has been the subject of many studies and much heated controversy in recent decades, became so intensely politicized in the United States that it serves as a particularly stark illustration of how elusive the quest for scientific certainty can be. Although a growing interest in reproductive factors and breast cancer risk developed after the Second World War, it was not until the early 1980s, after induced abortion had been legalized in many countries, that studies began to focus on this specific factor. In the US these were the years following Roe v Wade, when anti-abortionists mounted their counterattack and pro-choice forces were on the defensive. As a result, epidemiologists found themselves at the centre of a debate which had come to symbolize a deepening divide in American culture. This paper traces the history of the scientific investigation of the alleged abortion-breast cancer link, against the backdrop of what was increasingly termed an “epidemic” of breast cancer in the US. That history, in turn, is closely intertwined with the anti-abortion movement's efforts, following the violence of the early 1990s, to regain respectability through changing its tactics and rhetoric, which included the adoption of the “ABC link” as part of its new “women-centred” strategy.

Practical mathematics in the early modern period was applied to such fields as astronomy and navigation; cartography and surveying; engineering and military arts, including gunnery; and especially banking and mercantile trade. Those who have written about practical mathematics make no mention of medical applications in their surveys, although there were many cases where physicians set up as mathematical practitioners. This article examines medical applications found in practical mathematical literature up to the end of the seventeenth century in England.

This essay examines the ‘infiltration’ of eugenics into Russian medical discourse during the formation of the eugenics movement in western Europe and North America in 1900–17. It describes the efforts of two Russian physicians, the bacteriologist and hygienist Nikolai Gamaleia (1859–1949) and the psychiatrist Tikhon Iudin (1879–1949), to introduce eugenics to the Russian medical community, analysing in detail what attracted these representatives of two different medical specialties to eugenic ideas, ideals, and policies advocated by their western colleagues. On the basis of a close examination of the similarities and differences in Gamaleia’s and Iudin’s attitudes to eugenics, the essay argues that lack of cohesiveness gave the early eugenics movement a unique strength. The loose mix of widely varying ideas, ideals, methods, policies, activities and proposals covered by the umbrella of eugenics offered to a variety of educated professionals in Russia and elsewhere the possibility of choosing, adopting and adapting particular elements to their own national, professional, institutional and disciplinary contexts, interests and agendas.

The National Health Service (NHS) has often been regarded, by both academic commentators and the public, as the centrepiece of Britain's welfare state. It has retained a high degree of popularity, and politicians have had to take account of this, privately and publicly. So, for example, in the late 1950s a leading Conservative observed that the electorate might accept cuts in defence spending: “But meddle with National Health? That's political suicide.” A quarter of a century later Margaret Thatcher felt obliged to declare at the Conservative Party annual conference that “the National Health Service is safe with us”. The Labour Party has been particularly keen to associate itself with the NHS, playing on its central role in the service's creation. At the 2001 general election, for instance, the manifesto of the Scottish Labour Party proclaimed that: “For over 50 years, the NHS has been part and parcel of what it means to be British. Its foundations—tax-based funding and care according to need—remain as valid today as ever.” In doing so, it stressed the service's founding principles alongside the assertion that it is a central component of British identity.