930 Book Reviews TECHNOLOGY AND CULTURE The author divides the history of American medicine into four successive stages: the colonial years, the young nation (1776—1865), the ascendant nation (1865-1940), and America since 1940. In chapters devoted to each of the four stages, he examines several aspects of health and medical care. He notably opens up the discussion of medicine to include not only the orthodox medical establishment but also midwives, natural healers, hydropaths, and other alternative practitioners as well as the self-help movements and regimens that Americans pursued in their quest for health and freedom from disease. Cassedy also assesses the changing role of government, the increasing importance of the health sciences in the 20th century, and the influence of geography or environ ment in understanding health and health care. In this analysis, the years between 1865 and 1940 receive the most attention, as the author depicts in characteristically broad strokes the transformations that marked American society and American medicine. A series of technological innovations make brief appearances in the narrative. The rapid spread of industrialism and the health hazards of late-19th-century urban America spawned increases in occupational disease and death, spurring the rise of a new medical specialty and efforts to improve safety in the workplace. The introduction of the X-ray and the growth of laboratory-based diagnosis gave physicians new tools for the treatment of injury and disease. Highlighting the medical implications of war, Cassedy describes the refinement and manufacture of artificial limbs, the development of new methods of evacuation of wounded, and the improved storage of blood and blood plasma. Cassedy’s inclusive approach permits only modest discussion of the changes and continuities that marked American medicine over the course of four centuries. The weakness of the genre should not detract from his achievement: a highly accessible, gracefully written, and historiographically informed synthesis of American medicine. Moreover, the book is supplemented with a bibliographic essay (nineteen pages) that introduces interested readers to the major monographs in the field. Medicine in America will be useful for undergraduate classes and of interest to general readers seeking an overview of American medicine. Susan E. Lederer Dr. Lederer, associate professor in the Department of Humanities at Pennsylvania State University College of Medicine, has published articles on the history of American medical research. The Development of American Pharmacology: John J. Abel and the Shaping of a Discipline. By John Parascandola. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1992. Pp. xvii + 212; illustrations, notes, bibliog raphy, index. $32.50. John J. Abel (1857—1938) was a key figure in the emergence of pharmacology as a biomedical discipline in the United States. After TECHNOLOGY AND CULTURE Book Reviews 931 the then-obligatory intellectual training and professional behavior conditioning in Germany and after a brief stint at Ann Arbor, Abel became the first professor of pharmacology at the Johns Hopkins Medical School. From there many of his students assumed key posts in universities, government, and industry. In addition to his own contributions at the laboratory bench, Abel had an activist’s role in the development of the usual institutional accompaniments of profess ionalization—the founding of the disciplinary society, the American Society of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics (ASPET), and the disciplinary organ, theJournal ofPharmacology and. Experimental Therapeutics, which he edited for many, many years. John Parascandola ’s work is solidly anchored in the fine surviving collection of Abel’s personal papers and other primary sources. Pharmacology is the scientific study of the physiological effects of drugs. P&rascandola does very well in introducing nonmedical readers to the historic origins of the held in materia medica and in experimental therapeutics. The story is a tangled one and involves much boundary setting and crossings of disciplinary lines. Although the primary focus is on the period ofAbel’s greatest activity (roughly to 1930), there are brief, interesting comments on later developments. Like a number of other medical fields (“preclinical” is the most common designation), pharma cology was both concerned with pure (or basic) knowledge and with applications in practice. It is interesting, as the author notes, that it now deals with effects ranging from the molecular to the whole body level. The virtue of the...
Search from 250 M+ research papersSearch from 250 M+ research papers
Feb 1, 2000
Toral Patel 
Open Access