Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T16:09:59.452Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Locating Therapeutic Vaccines in Nineteenth-Century History

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 June 2008

Christoph Gradmann
Christoph Gradmann*
Affiliation:
University of Oslo
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Argument

This essay places some therapeutic vaccines, including particularly the diphtheria antitoxin, into their larger historical context of the late nineteenth century. As industrially produced drugs, these vaccines ought to be seen in connection with the structural changes in medicine and pharmacology at the time. Given the spread of industrial culture and technology into the field of medicine and pharmacology, therapeutic vaccines can be understood as boundary objects that required and facilitated communication between industrialists, medical researchers, public health officials, and clinicians. It was in particular in relation to evaluation and testing for efficacy in animal models that these medicines became a model for twentieth-century medicine. In addition, these medicines came into being as a parallel invention in two very distinct local cultures of research: the Institut Pasteur in Paris and the Institut für Infektionskrankheiten in Berlin. While their local cultural origins were plainly visible, the medicines played an important role in the alignment of the methods and objects that took place in bacteriology research in France and Germany in the 1890s. This article assesses the two locally specific regimes for control in France and in Imperial Germany. In France the Institut Pasteur, building on earlier successful vaccines, enjoyed freedom from scrutinizing control. The tight and elaborate system of control that evolved in Imperial Germany is portrayed as being reliant on experiences that were drawn from the dramatic events that surrounded the launching of a first example of so-called “bacteriological medicine,” tuberculin, in 1890.

Type
Research Article
Information
Science in Context , Volume 21 , Issue 2 , June 2008 , pp. 145 - 160
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Amsterdamska, Olga. 1987. “Medical and Biological Constraints: Early Research on Variation in Biology.” Social Studies of Science 17:657–687.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bäumler, Ernst. 1989. Farben, Formeln, Forscher. Hoechst und die Geschichte der industriellen Chemie in Deutschland. Munich and Zürich: Pieper.Google Scholar
Behring, Emil, and Kitasato, Shibasaburo. 1890. “Über das Zustandekommen der Diphtherie-Ummunität und der Tetanus-Immunität bei Thieren.” Deutsche Medicinische Wochenschrift 16:1113, 1145.Google Scholar
Bernschneider-Reif, Sabine, Huber, Th. Walter, and Possehl, Ingunn. 2002. “Was der Mensch thun kann . . .” Geschichte des pharmazeutisch-chemischen Unternehmens Merck. Darmstadt: Merck KGaA.Google Scholar
Bulloch, William. [1938] 1960. The History of Bacteriology. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bynum, William F. 1994. Science and the Practice of Medicine in the Nineteeth Century. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cahan, David. 1992. Meister der Messung. Die Physikalisch-Technische Reichsanstalt im Deutschen Kaiserreich. Weinheim: VCH.Google Scholar
Cassier, Maurice. 2005. “Appropiation and Commercialisation of the Pasteur Anthrax Vaccine.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 36:722–742.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cornet, Georg. 1889. “Über das Verhalten der Tuberkelbacillen im thierischen Organismus unter dem Einfuß entwicklungshemmender Stoffe.” Zeitschrift für Hygiene 5:98–133.Google Scholar
Cunningham, Andrew. 1992. “Transforming Plague. The Laboratory and the Identity of Infectious Disease.” In The Laboratory Revolution in Medicine, edited by Cunningham, Andrew and Williams, Perry, 209–224. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cunningham, Andrew, and Williams, Perry, eds. 1992. The Laboratory Revolution in Medicine. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
De Kruif, Paul. [1926] 1927. Mikrobenjäger. Zürich: Füssli.Google Scholar
Die Wirksamkeit des Koch'schen Heilmittels gegen Tuberkulose. Amtliche Berichte der Klinken, Polikliniken und pathologisch-anatomischen Institute der preussischen Universitäten, supplementary volume to Klinisches Jahrbuch. 1891. Berlin: Julius Springer.Google Scholar
Dixon, C. W. 1962. Smallpox. London: J. & A. Churchill.Google Scholar
Ehrlich, Paul. [1894] 1957. “Über die Gewinnung der Diphtherie-Antitoxine aus Blutserum und Milch immunisierter Thiere.” In The Collected Paperes of Paul Ehrlich, edited by Himmelweit, F., 72–79. London: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Ehrlich, Paul. [1897] 1957. “Die Wertbemessung des Diphtherieheilserums unjd deren theortische Grundlagen.” In The Collected Papers of Paul Ehrlich, edited by Himmelweit, F., 86–106. London: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Epstein, Steven. 1996. Impure Science: Aids, Activism, and the Politics of Knowledge. Berkeley; Los Angeles; London: University of California Press.Google ScholarPubMed
Eschenhagen, Gerhard. 1983. “Das Hygiene-Institut der Berliner Universität unter der Leitung Robert Kochs 1883–1891.” Med. diss., Humboldt University, Berlin.Google Scholar
Faber, Knud. 1930. Nosography: The Evolution of Clinical Medicine in Modern Times. New York: Paul B. Hoeber.Google Scholar
Fleischer, Arndt. 1984. Patentgesetzgebung und chemisch-pharmazeutische Industrie im deutschen Kaiserreich (1871–1918). Stuttgart: Deutscher Apotheker Verlag.Google Scholar
Gaudilliere, Jean Paul, and Löwy, Ilana, eds. 1998. The Invisible Industrialist: Manufactures and the Production of Scientific Knowledge. Houndsmills: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geison, Gerald. 1995. The Private Science of Louis Pasteur. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Gradmann, Christoph. 2001. “Robert Koch and the Pressures of Scientific Research: Tuberculosis and Tuberculin.” Medical History 45:1–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gradmann, Christoph. 2005. Krankheit im Labor. Robert Koch und die medizinische Bakteriologie. Göttingen: Wallstein-Verlag.Google Scholar
Hardy, Anne I. 2006. “Paul Ehrlich und die Serumproduzenten.” Medizinhistorisches Journal 41:51–84.Google Scholar
Hennock, E. P. 1998. “Vaccination Policy against Smallpox, 1835–1914: A Comparison of England with Prussioa and Germany.” Social History of Medicine 11:49–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hess, Volker. 2006. “Standardising Body Temperature: Quantification in Hospitals and Daily Life.” In Medical Quantification in Historical and Sociological Perspective, edited by Jorland, Gérartd, Opinel, Annick, and Weisz, George, 109–126. Montreal: McGill-Queens Press.Google Scholar
Huerkamp, Claudia. 1985. “The History of Smallpox Vaccination in Germany: A First Step in the Medicalisation of the General Public.” Journal of Contemporary History 20:617–635.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huhle-Kreutzer, Gabriele. 1989. Die Entwicklung arzneilicher Produktionsstätten aus Apothekenlaboratorien. Dargestellt an ausgewählten Beispielen. Stuttgart: Deutscher Apotheker Verlag.Google Scholar
Hüntelmann, Axel Cäsar. 2005. “Das Diphtherie-Serum und der Fall Langerhans.” Medizin, Geschichte und Gesellschaft 24:71–104.Google ScholarPubMed
Koch, Robert. [1882] 1912. “Die Ätiologie der Tuberkulose.” In Gesammelte Werke von Robert Koch, edited by Schwalbe, Julius, 428–445. Leipzig: Verlag von Georg Thieme.Google Scholar
Lewin, Leo. [1881] 1899. Die Nebenwirkungen der Arzneimittel. Pharmakologisch-klinisches Handbuch. Berlin: August Hirschwald.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liebenau, Jonathan. 1990. “Paul Ehrlich as Commercial Scientist and Research Administrator.” Medical History 34:65–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Löffler, Friedrich. 1884. “Untersuchung über die Bedeutung der Mikroorganismen für die Entstehung der Diphtherie beim Menschen, bei der Taube und beim Kalbe.” Mittheilungen aus dem kaiserlichen Gesundheitsamte 2:421–499.Google Scholar
Löwy, Ilana. 1994. “On Hybridizations, Networks and New Disciplines: The Pasteur-Institute and the Development of Microbiology in France.” Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science 25:655–688.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marks, Harry M. 1997. The Progress of Experiment: Science and Therapeutic Reform in the United States, 1900–1990. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mazumdar, Pauline M. H. 1995. Species and Specificity: An Interpretation of the History of Immunology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mendelsohn, John Andrew. 1996. “Cultures of Bacteriology: Formation and Transformation of a Science in France and Germany, 1870–1914.” Ph.D. diss., Princeton University.Google Scholar
Métraux, Alexandre. 1991. “Reaching the Invisible: A Case Study of Experimental Work in Microbiology (1880–1900).” In Social Organisation and Social Process. Essays in Honor of Anselm Strauss, edited by Maines, David R., 249–260. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Müller-Jahnke, Wolf-Dieter, and Friedrich, Christoph. 1996. Geschichte der Arzneimitteltherapie. Stuttgart: Deutscher Apotheker Verlag.Google Scholar
Otto, Richard. 1906. Die staatliche Prüfung der Heilsera. Jena: Gustav Fischer, (Arbeiten aus dem Königlichen Institut für experimentelle Therapie, Vol. 2).Google Scholar
Parascandola, John. 1981. “The Theoretical Basis of Paul Ehrlich's Chemotherapy.” Journal for the History of Medicine and Allied Sciences 36:19–43.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pickstone, John V., ed. 1992. “Medical Innovations in Historical Perspective.” Houndsmills, Basingstoke: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prüll, Cay-Rüdiger. 2003. “Part of a Scientific Master Plan? Paul Ehrlich (1854–1915) and the Origins of his Receptor Concept.” Medical History 47:331–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roux, Émile, and Yersin, Alexandre. 1888. “Contribution à l'étude de la diphthérie.” Annales de l' Institut Pasteur 2:629–661.Google Scholar
Schievelbusch, Wolfgang. [1977] 1989. Geschichte der Eisenbahnreise. Zur Industrialisierung von Raum und Zeit im 19. Jahrhundert. Frankfurt am Main: Fischer.Google Scholar
Schlich, Thomas. 1996. “Ein Symbol medizinischer Fortschrittshoffnung. Robert Koch entdeckt den Erreger der Tuberkulose.” In Meilensteine der Medizin, edited by Schott, Heinz, 368–374. Düsseldorf: Harenberg.Google Scholar
Schlich, Thomas. 1999. “Die Kontrolle notwendiger Krankheitsursachen als Strategie der Krankheitsbeherrschung im 19. und 20. Jahrhundert.” In Strategien der Kausalität. Konzepte der Krankheitsverursachung im 19. und 20. Jahrhundert, edited by Gradmann, Christoph and Schlich, Thomas, 3–28. Pfaffenweiler: Centaurus.Google Scholar
Schriftleitung der Deutschen Medizinischen Wochenschrift, ed. 1890–1891. Robert Koch's Heilmittel gegen die Tuberkulose. Berlin und Leipzig: Thieme.Google Scholar
Seckelmann, Margit. 2006. Industrialisierung, Internationalisierung und Patentrecht im Deutschen Reich, 1871–1914. Frankfurt: Klostermann.Google Scholar
Silverstein, Arthur. 1989. A History of Immunology. San Diego et al.: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Simon, Jonathan. 2007. “Emil Behring's Medical Culture: From Disinfection to Serotherapy.” Medical History 51:201–218.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sneader, Walter. 2005. Drug Discovery: A History. Chichester: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stanton, Jennifer, ed. 2002. Innovations in Health and Medicine: Diffusion and Resistance in the Twentieth Century. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Star, Susan Leigh, and Griesemer, J. R.. 1989. “Insitutional Ecology, Translations and Boundary Objects: Amateurs and Professionals in Berkeley's Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907–1939.” Social Studies of Science 19:387–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Throm, Carola. 1995. Das Diphtherieserum. Ein neues Therapieprinzip, seine Entwicklung und Markteinführung. Stuttgart: Wiss. Verlags-Gesellschaft.Google Scholar
Travis, Anthony S. 1989. “Science as Receptor of Technology: Paul Ehrlich and the Synthetic Dyestuffs Industry.” Science in Context 3 (2):383–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tröhler, Ulrich. 1993. “Die therapeutische ‘Erfahrung’ – Geschichte ihrer Bewertung zwischen subjektiv sicherem Wissen und objektiv wahrscheinlichen Kenntnissen.” In Die Wissenschaft in der Medizin, edited by Köbberling, J., 65–81. Stuttgart, New York: Schattauer.Google Scholar
Warner, John Harley. 1995. “The History of Science and the Sciences of Medicine.” Osiris 10:164–193.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Weindling, Paul. 1992a. “From Medical Research to Clinical Practice: Serum Therapy for Diphtheria in 1890s.” In Medical Innovations in Historical Perspective, edited by Pickstone, John V., 72–83. Houndmills, Basingstoke: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weindling, Paul. 1992b. “Scientific Elites and Laboratory Organisation in fin de siècle Paris and Berlin. The Pasteur Institute and Robert Koch's Institute for Infectious Diseases Compared.” In The Laboratory Revolution in Medicine, edited by Cunningham, Andrew and Williams, Perry, 170–188. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Weindling, Paul. 2000. Epidemics and Genocide in Eastern Europe, 1890–1945. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wetzel, Walter. 1991. Naturwissenschaft und chemische Industrie in Deutschland: Voraussetzungen und Mechanismen ihres Aufstiegs im 19. Jahrhundert. Stuttgart: Steiner.Google Scholar
Wimmer, Wolfgang. 1994. “Wir haben fast immer was Neues”: Gesundheitswesen und Innovation der Pharma-Industrie in Deutschland 1880–1935. Berlin: Duncker & Humblodt.Google Scholar
Wise, Norton M., ed. 1995. The Values of Precision. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wlasich, Gert J. 1996. Schering: von der grünen Apotheke zum Weltunternehmen: historischer Jahresstrang. Berlin: Schering Aktiengesellschaft.Google Scholar
Wolff, Eberhard. 1998. Einschneidende Maßnahmen. Pockenschutzimpfung und traditionale Gesellschaft im Württemberg des frühen 19. Jahrhunderts. Stuttgart: Steiner.Google Scholar