Keating and Cambrosio belong to the latter category. They observe that new platforms are often aligned with existing ones and integrated into an expanding set of clinical-biological strategies. Defined as a specific configuration of instruments, individuals, and programs, biomedical platforms generate routines, entities, and activities, held together by standard reagents and protocols. The book is highly recommended to anyone seeking to understand the rapidly changing universe of present-day biomedicine. However, a major paradox resulting from our comparison is that, despite these differences, French and British biologists and clinicians considered American biomedicine in much the same way, i. Their generosity made the workshop on which this special issue is based possible.
However, this system was far from homogeneous, and the meaning of biomedicine has been deeply influenced by the different scientific and national cultures that have shaped western medicine since the late nineteenth century. When immunologic features do not fit the morphologic features, I go back and review the morphology again. The authors focus on a specific biomedical platform known as immunophenotyping. This ebook brings jointly a distinct set of participants from a range to check present theories of institutional switch. Biomedical Platforms adds a new dimension: the use of monoclonal antibodies as a diagnostic tool. The purpose of the following collection is therefore to examine further this changing relationship, as well as encourage the study of biomedicine in different national contexts.
The authors focus on a specific biomedical platform known as immunophenotyping. Theyobserve that new platforms are often aligned with existing ones and integrated into an expanding setof clinical-biological strategies. However, it does provide what most consider useful, objective information and can increase the rate of detection by another 10—20%. They have also described the culture of the therapeutic miracle that has pervaded scientific and medical communities, and inspired the search for magic bullets against tuberculosis, cancer, and cardiovascular diseases. See also Virginia Berridge, Health and society in Britain since 1939, Cambridge University Press, 1999; Anne Hardy, Health and medicine in Britain since 1860, Basingstoke, Macmillan, 2000.
To describe this new alignment between the normal and the pathological, the authors introduce the notion of the biomedical platform. Yet the differences between Britain and France, not least their different systems of health care, might be significant enough to lead to distinct but nevertheless related biomedical practices, partly because none of the developments described above took place in isolation. Theydescribe its emergence as an experimental system with roots in biology immunology and pathology oncology. The last two papers deal with yet another similarity that emerges from this comparison, namely the common rise of the clinical trial as a privileged form of, and site for, therapeutic evaluation. The heterogeneity of principles does not mean, however, that biomedical practitioners can arbitrarily establish divisions within medicine and 20 Chapter 1 biology in order to create distinct and independent domains of professional expertise. The notion of a biomedical platform allows researchers interested in the development of contemporary medicine to describe events and processes overlooked by other approaches.
The prominence acquired by the term between 1945 and 1975 coincided with the appearance of a new system of medical innovation in relation to biology and health policy. The notion of a biomedical platform allows researchers interested in the development of contemporary medicine to describe events and processes overlooked by other approaches. The transformation of biology and medicine, and their convergence after 1945, is far from being uncharted territory for historians. They describe its emergence as an experimental approach with roots in biology immunology and pathology oncology. Social medicine in particular was discouraged as a discipline, and eventually declined into a version of medical statistics.
The relationship between medicine and the study of life is as old as medicine itself. In ancient times, so the story goes, physicians and patients shared a world of symbols and meanings, which enabled them to explore disease and illness from a consensual perspective. Deeply researched and imaginatively presented, their book links cells, machines, and professionals, in particular hospitals and in global nets. The second conclusion is that—contrary to what one might expect—in the era of biomedicine, individual national patterns have had a relatively limited influence. They observe that new platforms are often aligned with existing ones and integrated into an expanding set of clinical-biological strategies. The most obvious was the incorporation of new entities, ranging from enzymes to cancer viruses and inbred strains of mice, in the aetiological characterization of diseases.
Through this case study, they show that a biomedical platform is the bench upon which conventions concerning the biological or normal are connected with conventions concerning the medical or pathological. These developments in the life sciences were not without their consequences for, and echoes in, medicine. Keating and Cambrosio have taken one of them apart, brilliantly revealing the technical, social, commercial, and regulatory aspects of its construction and maintenance. What message can historians of twentieth-century medicine take from this selection of articles? The papers by John Stewart and Luc Berlivet show how this convergence emerged out of two different public health systems, the first in Britain, the second in France. Observations, interviews, and historical studies made in Canada, the United States, and France highlight both the importance of globalization and the persistence of local and national differences. The suggestion of a biomedical platform permits researchers drawn to the improvement of latest medication to explain occasions and tactics missed via different approaches. A powerful and significant contribution to our understanding of the complex and mutually constitutive worlds of biology and pathology, 'science' and 'technology.
While one may point out the importance of widely circulated and celebrated innovations, such as bacteriological cultures and diagnoses, or a few but impressive therapeutic agents like diphtheria antitoxin, bacteriology itself did not have a radical impact on early-twentieth-century public health. In this book Peter Keating and Alberto Cambrosio analyze the transformation of medicine into biomedicine and its consequences, ranging from the recasting of hospital architecture to the redefinition of the human body, disease, and therapeutic practices. In ancient times, so the story goes, physicians and patients shared a world of symbols and meanings, which enabled them to explore disease and illness from a consensual perspective. See also Christopher Lawrence and George Weisz eds , Greater than the parts: holism in medicine, 1920—1950, Oxford University Press, 1998. Wolfgang Streeck, Kathleen Thelen eds.
They played an important part in scaling-up activities and achieving statistical significance, but unexpectedly resulted in a blurring of the boundaries between the biological modelling of cancer causation and the therapeutic combination of surgery, radiotherapy, and drugs. To sum up, the main achievement of Biomedical Platforms is not the development of a general theoretical framework able to explain biomedicine everywhere, but the thoughtful and detailed study of a single case study that, as all good case studies do, successfully illuminates the whole. Its pervading influence is evident in the reorientation of the circulation of people, tools and results from a trans-European to a trans-Atlantic direction, and by the realignment of research practices in western medicine in the years following the war. Biomedical Platforms is an excellent example of the kind of studies sorely needed to make ethical and political discussion on this topic more meaningful and more efficient. The opportunities were in many respects obvious enough—universal health care for British citizens, which was comprehensive, free at the point of delivery, and accompanied by steadily rising expenditures.