Schneider L A
Soc Sci Med. 1982;16(12):1217-21. doi: 10.1016/0277-9536(82)90146-0.
Two powerful foundations, with interlocking directorates, were the most important media for transmitting American science to China and for making its development possible: In the 1920s and 1930s, the Rockefeller Foundation's China Medical Board and the China Foundation for the Promotion of Education and Culture recognized that transmission and development required much more than the transplantation of whole scientific institutions. This essay shows that, in their most mature form, the foundations' strategies were informed by a rational and coherent set of policies. Their premise was that the practice and development of advanced scientific medicine and bio-medical or natural scientific research all require an infrastructure of education, communication, physical plant, and equipment. This infrastructure did not exist before the foundations began to foster it in China. In this essay the foundations' China policies are outlined and detailed examples are given to show they built the science infrastructure amidst debate over the appropriateness of the dominant 'Johns Hopkins' institutional model and the norm of 'pure science'. In China, the 'Hopkins' model for medical training and practice featured a combination of clinical practice with sophisticated scientific laboratory research. This model and the 'pure science' norm were seriously challenged by the political and economic exigencies of the 1930s.
两个有着相互关联董事会的强大基金会，是将美国科学传播到中国并使其发展成为可能的最重要媒介：在20世纪20年代和30年代，洛克菲勒基金会的中国医学委员会以及中华教育文化基金会认识到，传播和发展所需的远不止是整个科学机构的移植。本文表明，在其最成熟的形式中，基金会的策略是由一套合理且连贯的政策所指导的。其前提是，先进科学医学以及生物医学或自然科学研究的实践与发展都需要教育、交流、实体设施和设备的基础设施。在基金会开始在中国培育这种基础设施之前，它并不存在。本文概述了基金会的中国政策，并给出了详细例子来说明它们是在关于占主导地位的“约翰·霍普金斯”机构模式的适用性以及“纯科学”规范的争论中构建科学基础设施的。在中国，“霍普金斯”医学培训和实践模式的特点是临床实践与精密科学实验室研究相结合。这种模式和“纯科学”规范在20世纪30年代的政治和经济形势下受到了严峻挑战。
