Hull Andrew J
History of Medicine, Centre for Philosophy, Humanities and Law in Healthcare, University of Swansea, UK.
Bull Hist Med. 2007 Fall;81(3):569-93. doi: 10.1353/bhm.2007.0071.
This article argues that historians of medicine have, until very recently, misinterpreted the relationship of "science" and "the clinic" in the early twentieth century. It follows recent historiographic developments in focusing on the relationship in practice as exemplified by the development of a specific variety of collaborative clinical research using laboratory methods, ca. 1919-37, in a major British medical school. It suggests that it is such working hybrids that should be studied in order to understand fully the development of scientific medicines in the United Kingdom in this period. In Glasgow, it was the local medical culture's characteristic local subservience to clinical priorities that facilitated, in a particular kind of academic unit, a certain type of hierarchical teamwork between clinicians and laboratory workers; the paper reveals how and why this teamwork became, over time, more of an equal partnership.
本文认为,直到最近,医学史学家仍错误解读了20世纪初“科学”与“临床”的关系。它紧跟近期史学发展趋势,聚焦于实践中的关系,以大约1919年至1937年期间一所英国主要医学院采用实验室方法开展的特定类型合作临床研究的发展为例进行说明。文章指出,正是这类实用的混合体值得研究,以便全面理解这一时期英国科学医学的发展。在格拉斯哥,当地医学文化对临床优先事项的典型地方从属关系,在一种特定类型的学术单位中,促成了临床医生与实验室工作人员之间某种层级式的团队合作;本文揭示了这种团队合作如何以及为何随着时间的推移变得更像是一种平等伙伴关系。