Rockefeller Philanthropy and Modern Biomedicine: International Initiatives from World War I to the Cold War
http://www.100md.com
《新英格兰医药杂志》
This book originated in a workshop held at the Rockefeller Archive Center in Sleepy Hollow, New York, in July 1999. The purpose of the workshop was to study comparatively "the development of biomedicine outside the United States in the first part of the twentieth century, with a focus on the role played by the Rockefeller Foundation." For this purpose, the organizers, William H. Schneider, Giuliana Gemelli, and Jean-Fran?ois Picard, brought together a panel of international scholars, all writing from the point of view of the social history of science and medicine.
The book consists of an introduction and a long historical article by Schneider that presents the views of two key officers of the Rockefeller Foundation (the directors of the Medical Division, Richard Pearce and Alan Gregg) and eight case studies focused on different countries — mostly, but not only, European. The case studies are presented more or less according to the chronological order in which they were dealt with by the foundation — Ireland, Hungary, France, the former Soviet Union, China, Italy, Germany, and the United Kingdom.
Beyond documenting enough of the background of the Rockefeller Foundation for the reader to understand the case studies, the purpose of the initial section is to give credit to two main figures influential in the launching of what is now called "biomedicine," Pearce and Gregg, who, according to Schneider, "set the model for the current relationship between medical centers and external funding sources." Schneider presents both men as having been overshadowed by two other influential officers of the Rockefeller Foundation, Abraham Flexner, the author of the famous 1910 Carnegie report on medical education in the United States and Canada and later the first head of the Rockefeller General Education Board, and Warren Weaver, head of the Rockefeller Foundation's Natural Sciences Division (1932 to 1953) when the foundation launched an important program in experimental and molecular biology.
The discrepancy in reputation between the first two men and the second two is not justified in Schneider's eyes, and he therefore seeks to restore the balance and to give due credit to Pearce and Gregg. Clearly written and well documented, this chapter thoroughly presents the endeavors of these foundation officers, who conducted extensive medical surveys in most of the European countries between 1920 and 1931, defined a strategy of medical reform, and coped with both local and institutional resistance. However, decisions that were taken "before they got the job," changes in the Rockefeller Foundation's strategy at the upper level of the trustees, resistance in the field (as in the French case study), and even world events (the Great Depression of the 1930s and emerging dictatorships in certain European countries) prevented the program that Pearce called the "Latin strategy," in which he and others at the foundation invested so much energy, from being fully implemented. In explaining why Pearce and Gregg did not succeed in implementing their own program, Schneider also clarifies why historians did not see these figures as equivalent to Flexner and Weaver, whose programs were considered to be paradigms of success.
In the case of Gregg, however, Schneider's conclusion goes further in a very interesting direction. He states in assessing Gregg's legacy that Gregg's critical appraisal of the evolution of the philanthropic system of funding (going more and more to small grants programs rather than to large-scale or long-term programs) was as important as the concrete projects he developed. Indeed, this is the main point of the introductory section (as well as of the whole book, as shown in its exploration of different countries). By choosing to present not only success stories but also the people and programs that did not succeed all the time, Schneider and the other contributors are able to expose the various constraints (personal, institutional, and so on) that operate in the relationships between a private foundation (even one as large as the Rockefeller Foundation) and various local research programs.
Turning to the broader scope of the book and its place in comparison with previous scholarship on private foundations, I would say that two key terms that were part of the theme of the original workshop are of special interest — namely, "biomedicine" and "outside the United States." With regard to biomedicine, although the role of the Rockefeller Foundation in the development of American medicine and biology was the object of considerable scholarly attention in the 1980s and early 1990s, this book develops an original, integrative approach, grounded in newly researched case studies, that helps the reader to understand some of the forces behind the development of this field outside the United States.
At the same time, several articles in the book constitute a direct continuation of case studies that appeared in a 1999 book edited by Schneider, Gemelli, and Picard, Managing Medical Research in Europe: The Role of the Rockefeller Foundation (1920s–1950s) (Bologna, Italy: CLUEB, 1999), which also broadened the scope of research beyond the development of American biomedicine but included mostly reprinted articles. For example, Paul Weindling's contributions to the 1999 and 2002 books dealt with the Rockefeller Foundation and German medicine before and after World War II, respectively, and the article in the 1999 book was a reprint of a paper originally published in 1988.
Finally, the book suggests further research into the so-called "Latin strategy" that was part of the early efforts of the Rockefeller Foundation's Medical Sciences Division. This point is highlighted in Schneider's chapter but is not followed up in the book. Although the components of such a strategy and its immediate Rockefeller Foundation context are thoroughly accounted for by Schneider, I have asked myself what might the relation — if any — have been of that strategy with other "Latin" programs, such as "Latin eugenics," formulated during the same period and in the same countries, or even "Latin medicine," which was also part of the vocabulary of the time (e.g., in France). Was there a connection beyond the name in terms of content and ideology? Was Latin defined in opposition to German, Anglo-Saxon, or both? Does this mean that beyond questions of funding and philanthropy lie cultural issues such as national identity? Large institutions such as the Rockefeller Foundation with its worldwide network provide a good topos for examining such issues. In conclusion, this beautiful and well-researched book not only offers a better understanding of biomedicine but also suggests new topics for further research — just what we should expect from serious scholarship.
Etienne Lepicard, M.D., Ph.D.
Tel Aviv University Faculty of Medicine
69978 Tel Aviv, Israel
etiennel@post.tau.ac.il(Edited by William H. Schn)
The book consists of an introduction and a long historical article by Schneider that presents the views of two key officers of the Rockefeller Foundation (the directors of the Medical Division, Richard Pearce and Alan Gregg) and eight case studies focused on different countries — mostly, but not only, European. The case studies are presented more or less according to the chronological order in which they were dealt with by the foundation — Ireland, Hungary, France, the former Soviet Union, China, Italy, Germany, and the United Kingdom.
Beyond documenting enough of the background of the Rockefeller Foundation for the reader to understand the case studies, the purpose of the initial section is to give credit to two main figures influential in the launching of what is now called "biomedicine," Pearce and Gregg, who, according to Schneider, "set the model for the current relationship between medical centers and external funding sources." Schneider presents both men as having been overshadowed by two other influential officers of the Rockefeller Foundation, Abraham Flexner, the author of the famous 1910 Carnegie report on medical education in the United States and Canada and later the first head of the Rockefeller General Education Board, and Warren Weaver, head of the Rockefeller Foundation's Natural Sciences Division (1932 to 1953) when the foundation launched an important program in experimental and molecular biology.
The discrepancy in reputation between the first two men and the second two is not justified in Schneider's eyes, and he therefore seeks to restore the balance and to give due credit to Pearce and Gregg. Clearly written and well documented, this chapter thoroughly presents the endeavors of these foundation officers, who conducted extensive medical surveys in most of the European countries between 1920 and 1931, defined a strategy of medical reform, and coped with both local and institutional resistance. However, decisions that were taken "before they got the job," changes in the Rockefeller Foundation's strategy at the upper level of the trustees, resistance in the field (as in the French case study), and even world events (the Great Depression of the 1930s and emerging dictatorships in certain European countries) prevented the program that Pearce called the "Latin strategy," in which he and others at the foundation invested so much energy, from being fully implemented. In explaining why Pearce and Gregg did not succeed in implementing their own program, Schneider also clarifies why historians did not see these figures as equivalent to Flexner and Weaver, whose programs were considered to be paradigms of success.
In the case of Gregg, however, Schneider's conclusion goes further in a very interesting direction. He states in assessing Gregg's legacy that Gregg's critical appraisal of the evolution of the philanthropic system of funding (going more and more to small grants programs rather than to large-scale or long-term programs) was as important as the concrete projects he developed. Indeed, this is the main point of the introductory section (as well as of the whole book, as shown in its exploration of different countries). By choosing to present not only success stories but also the people and programs that did not succeed all the time, Schneider and the other contributors are able to expose the various constraints (personal, institutional, and so on) that operate in the relationships between a private foundation (even one as large as the Rockefeller Foundation) and various local research programs.
Turning to the broader scope of the book and its place in comparison with previous scholarship on private foundations, I would say that two key terms that were part of the theme of the original workshop are of special interest — namely, "biomedicine" and "outside the United States." With regard to biomedicine, although the role of the Rockefeller Foundation in the development of American medicine and biology was the object of considerable scholarly attention in the 1980s and early 1990s, this book develops an original, integrative approach, grounded in newly researched case studies, that helps the reader to understand some of the forces behind the development of this field outside the United States.
At the same time, several articles in the book constitute a direct continuation of case studies that appeared in a 1999 book edited by Schneider, Gemelli, and Picard, Managing Medical Research in Europe: The Role of the Rockefeller Foundation (1920s–1950s) (Bologna, Italy: CLUEB, 1999), which also broadened the scope of research beyond the development of American biomedicine but included mostly reprinted articles. For example, Paul Weindling's contributions to the 1999 and 2002 books dealt with the Rockefeller Foundation and German medicine before and after World War II, respectively, and the article in the 1999 book was a reprint of a paper originally published in 1988.
Finally, the book suggests further research into the so-called "Latin strategy" that was part of the early efforts of the Rockefeller Foundation's Medical Sciences Division. This point is highlighted in Schneider's chapter but is not followed up in the book. Although the components of such a strategy and its immediate Rockefeller Foundation context are thoroughly accounted for by Schneider, I have asked myself what might the relation — if any — have been of that strategy with other "Latin" programs, such as "Latin eugenics," formulated during the same period and in the same countries, or even "Latin medicine," which was also part of the vocabulary of the time (e.g., in France). Was there a connection beyond the name in terms of content and ideology? Was Latin defined in opposition to German, Anglo-Saxon, or both? Does this mean that beyond questions of funding and philanthropy lie cultural issues such as national identity? Large institutions such as the Rockefeller Foundation with its worldwide network provide a good topos for examining such issues. In conclusion, this beautiful and well-researched book not only offers a better understanding of biomedicine but also suggests new topics for further research — just what we should expect from serious scholarship.
Etienne Lepicard, M.D., Ph.D.
Tel Aviv University Faculty of Medicine
69978 Tel Aviv, Israel
etiennel@post.tau.ac.il(Edited by William H. Schn)