Koprowska I
Diagn Cytopathol. 1985 Jul-Sep;1(3):245-8. doi: 10.1002/dc.2840010315.
The history of clinical cytology is analyzed in light of the dependence of discoveries upon their cultural environment and past contributions. Simultaneous reports of George N. Papanicolaou and Aurel Babes and their respective originality are compared. Although glorified for saving countless women from death due to uterine cancer, Papanicolaou tried in vain to convey to his peers the importance of a distinct cellular pattern corresponding to cervical intraepithelial neoplastic lesions. The value of this pattern expressing evolutionary steps in the development of cancer at individual cell levels was not appreciated. His terminology was ignored and replaced by histologic diagnoses already familiar to pathologists as well as clinicians. Papanicolaou was the first to describe this pattern, whereas malignant cells in vaginal smears were recognized and used for cancer diagnosis by others before Papanicolaou's work. It is therefore no wonder that the Nobel Prize Committee was at a loss to identify what he discovered.
本文从发现与文化环境及过往贡献的依存关系角度，对临床细胞学的历史进行了分析。比较了乔治·N·帕帕尼科拉乌和奥雷尔·巴贝斯的同时期报告及其各自的独创性。尽管帕帕尼科拉乌因使无数女性免于子宫癌死亡而备受赞誉，但他却徒劳地试图向同行传达与宫颈上皮内瘤变相对应的独特细胞模式的重要性。这种在个体细胞水平上表达癌症发展演变步骤的模式的价值未得到认可。他的术语被忽视，取而代之的是病理学家和临床医生早已熟悉的组织学诊断。帕帕尼科拉乌是第一个描述这种模式的人，而在帕帕尼科拉乌的工作之前，其他人就已经识别出阴道涂片中的恶性细胞并将其用于癌症诊断。因此，诺贝尔奖委员会难以确定他的发现也就不足为奇了。
