Irritating Experiments

One of the great medical controversies of the Enlightenment was the European debate on motion, sensation, and animal experimentation provoked by Albrecht von Haller’s treatise on irritability and sensibility (1752). Irritating Experiments is the first full-length study to explore the theoretical background and the experimental process that led to Haller's description and separation of two fundamental bodily qualities: irritability, or the capacity of muscles to contract upon stimulation, and sensibility, or the capacity of the nervous system to transmit impressions that are felt as touch or pain in humans, or produce signs of pain in animals. This new concept presented a serious challenge to the reigning medical systems. Haller’s animal experiments were repeated all over Europe, on a scale never seen before. The results, however, were contradictory. Haller's concept was largely rejected, and animal experimentation could not be established as a major research method in physiology. Focussing on procedural aspects of experimentation, the interaction between experiment and theory, the status of surgery, the use of medical and pathological models, and the culture of criticism, Irritating Experiments tries to explain why

Irritating Experiments

One of the great medical controversies of the Enlightenment was the European debate on motion, sensation, and animal experimentation provoked by Albrecht von Haller’s treatise on irritability and sensibility (1752). Irritating Experiments is the first full-length study to explore the theoretical background and the experimental process that led to Haller's description and separation of two fundamental bodily qualities: irritability, or the capacity of muscles to contract upon stimulation, and sensibility, or the capacity of the nervous system to transmit impressions that are felt as touch or pain in humans, or produce signs of pain in animals. This new concept presented a serious challenge to the reigning medical systems. Haller’s animal experiments were repeated all over Europe, on a scale never seen before. The results, however, were contradictory. Haller's concept was largely rejected, and animal experimentation could not be established as a major research method in physiology. Focussing on procedural aspects of experimentation, the interaction between experiment and theory, the status of surgery, the use of medical and pathological models, and the culture of criticism, Irritating Experiments tries to explain why

Parochialism or Self-Consciousness? Internationality in Medical History Journals 1997–2006

Research councils, universities and funding agencies are increasingly asking for tools to measure the quality of research in the humanities. One of their preferred methods is a ranking of journals according to their supposed level of internationality. Our quantitative survey of seventeen major journals of medical history reveals the futility of such an approach. Most journals have a strong national character with a dominance of native language, authors and topics. The most common case is a paper written by a local author in his own language on a national subject regarding the nineteenth or twentieth century. American and British journals are taken notice of internationally but they only rarely mention articles from other history of medicine journals. Continental European journals show a more international review of literature, but are in their turn not noticed globally. Increasing specialisation and fragmentation has changed the role of general medical history journals. They run the risk of losing their function as international platforms of discourse on general and theoretical issues and major trends in historiography, to international collections of papers. Journal editors should therefore force their authors to write a more international report, and authors should be encouraged to submit papers of international interest and from a more general, transnational and methodological point of view

Parochialism or Self-Consciousness? Internationality in Medical History Journals 1997-2006

Research councils, universities and funding agencies are increasingly asking for tools to measure the quality of research in the humanities. One of their preferred methods is a ranking of journals according to their supposed level of internationality. Our quantitative survey of seventeen major journals of medical history reveals the futility of such an approach. Most journals have a strong national character with a dominance of native language, authors and topics. The most common case is a paper written by a local author in his own language on a national subject regarding the nineteenth or twentieth century. American and British journals are taken notice of internationally but they only rarely mention articles from other history of medicine journals. Continental European journals show a more international review of literature, but are in their turn not noticed globally. Increasing specialisation and fragmentation has changed the role of general medical history journals. They run the risk of losing their function as international platforms of discourse on general and theoretical issues and major trends in historiography, to international collections of papers. Journal editors should therefore force their authors to write a more international report, and authors should be encouraged to submit papers of international interest and from a more general, transnational and methodological point of vie

A New Medical History Journal

This is the first issue of the European Journal for the History of Medicine and Health (ehmh), a new platform of scholarly research and exchange in the vibrant, diverse and expanding field of history of medicine and health. The intention of the journal is to offer a platform to scholars interested in all possible aspects of the history of medicine and health. The journal is a joint undertaking of the Swiss Society for the History of Medicine and the European Association for the History of Medicine and Health. It is a continuation of Gesnerus: Swiss Journal for the History of Medicine and Science, which was published between 1943 and 2020

The history of the development of the regular straight stem in hip arthroplasty.

Since the middle of the 20th century, total hip arthroplasty has become a very successful treatment for all end-stage diseases of the hip joint. Charnley solved with his low frictional torque arthroplasty the problem of wear and friction with the introduction of a new bearing couple and the reduction of the head size, which set the prerequisite for the further development of stem design. This narrative review presents the major developments of regular straight stems in hip arthroplasty. It does not only provide an overview of the history but also assembles the generally scarce documentation available regarding the rationale of developments and illustrates often-unsuspected links. Charnley's success is based on successfully solving the issue of fixation of the prosthetic components to the bone, using bone cement made of polymethyl-methacrylate. In the field of cemented anchorage of the stem, two principles showing good long-term revision rates emerged over the years: the force-closed and the shape-closed principles. The non-cemented anchorage bases on prosthesis models ensure enough primary stability for osteointegration of the implant to occur. For bone to grow onto the surface, not only sufficient primary stability is required but also a suitable surface structure together with a biocompatible prosthetic material is also necessary