[1140, 267, 446, 1024, 666, 348, 618, 217, 1038, 1152, 873, 81, 159, 198, 1075, 1142, 1189, 1196, 1036, 775, 835, 1145, 1178, 915, 1060, 1194, 1193, 885, 1192, 454, 360, 982, 407, 558, 669, 122, 196, 194, 218, 291, 349, 357, 446, 523, 545, 535, 158, 844, 976, 277, 217, 79, 950, 539, 493, 913, 1056, 159, 198, 403, 235, 702, 914, 237, 276, 120, 838, 1074, 840, 374, 197, 351, 372, 431, 581, 405, 293, 438]. -/48 [217]. -/Bd [198]. -/DM [446]. -arbeiten [1201]. -Geschichtsschreibung [1175]. -Mark [378]. -ÖS [1145]. -praxis [956]. -Schleinkofer [948]. -theoretische [1689].

/pdf/a-complete-bibliography-of-publications-in-berichte-zur-3higqmw4vb.pdf

A Complete Bibliography of Publications in Berichte zur Wissenschaftsgeschichte (Reports on the History of Science)

We argue for a sociology of health, illness, and disease. Under the influence of Talcott Parsons, the social study of health began as medical sociology and then morphed into sociology of health and illness, focusing largely on the social aspects of health-related topics. Social scientists have been reluctant to tackle disease in its physiological and biological manifestations. The result is an impoverishment of sociological analysis on at least three levels: social scientists have rarely made diseases central to their inquiries; they have been reluctant to include clinical endpoints in their analysis; and they have largely bracketed the normative purpose of health interventions. Consequently, social scientists tend to ignore what often matters most to patients and health care providers, and the social processes social scientists describe remain clinically unanchored. A sociology of disease explores the dialectic between social life and disease; aiming to examine whether and how social life matters for morbidity and mortality and vice versa. Drawing from specific advances in science and technology studies and social epidemiology, we point to ways that sociologists can participate as health researchers.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1467-9566.2008.01097.x

Towards a sociology of disease.

In the ancient world, impairment was common knowledge: archaeological and written material demonstrate that people with impairments were included in society Impairment was well understood and, in the rhetorical dynamic between author and reader, it was imaginatively used The Early Church, for instance, developed established impairment themes in order to articulate, explain, and demonstrate central conceptions and experiences of divine activity and human discipleship

Peculiar to the modern era has been the disappearance of people living impairment from mainstream experience As a result of this culturally-shaped process, modern presuppositions about impairment have emerged that are experienced by people living impairment as profoundly negative and disabling Modern biblical interpretation both reflects and reinforces these presuppositions, overlooking the wide range of uses of impairment in ancient texts, and causing alienation and damage to people living impairment

To read texts of the Bible informed by an investigation of the perspectives on impairment in the ancient world presents a challenge in two respects It identifies the inadequacies and impoverishment of uncritical modern interpretation of the biblical impairment texts It also stimulates new and fresh liberatory readings, which reclaim as the proper focus for the interpretation of these texts the experience of lived impairment

Injury and blessing : a challenge to current readings of biblical discourse concerning impairment

After 1900, the selective breeding of a few standard animals for research in the life sciences changed the way science was done. Among the pervasive changes was a transformation in scientists' assumptions about relationship between diversity and generality. Examination of the contents of two prominent physiology journals between 1885 and 1900, reveals that scientists used a diverse array of organisms in empirical research. Experimental physiologists gave many reasons for the choice of test animals, some practical and others truly comparative. But, despite strong philosophical differences in the approaches they represented, the view that it was best to incorporate as many species as possible into research on physiological processes was widespread in both periodicals. Authors aimed for generality, but they treated it as a conclusion that would or would not follow from the examination of many species. After 1900, an increasing emphasis on standardization, the growth of the experimental method and the growing industrialization of the life sciences led to a decline in the number of species used in research. In this context, the selective breeding of animals for science facilitated a change in assumptions about the relationship between generality and diversity. As animals were increasingly viewed as things that were assumed to be fundamentally similar, scientific generality became an a priori assumption rather than an empirical conclusion.

Before there were standards: the role of test animals in the production of empirical generality in physiology.

Historiography of science is in its current self-image a 
non-evaluative discipline. Its main goal is to understand past processes
 of knowledge formation on their own terms. In the last few decades this
 approach has greatly improved our understanding of the phenomenon of 
science. Yet, something strange in going on. Reading present-day 
historiography of science it is as if no one ever made a mistake. We may
 wonder why there has been development in science at all, if no mistake 
has ever stood in need of correction. I argue that it is possible to add
 an evaluative dimension to historiography of science without 
relinquishing the many insights won in the past few decades. Such an 
evaluative stance requires a radical comparative approach towards 
assessments of past science. I argue that this comparativism is not 
incompatible to relationalism but complementary to it. Next to this I 
argue that, if we take the wish to reduce uncertainty as the primary 
force of change in science, a proper conceptualization of the notion of 
error, which is now surprisingly lacking, becomes possible. The results 
of my thesis endow historians of science with a set of analytical 
possibilities, which, if used, will significantly strengthen the 
historiographical output of the field.

https://scholarlypublications.universiteitleiden.nl/access/item%3A2889293/view

Pluralism within Parameters : towards a mature evaluative historiography of science

L'A. decrit et explique comment les chirurgiens viennent a ecrire des faits historiques qui manquent a la regle historiographique de base qui replace les faits dans leur contexte, et montre comment un article scientifique est organise

How gods and saints became transplant surgeons: the scientific article as a model for the writing of history.

Making mistakes in science: Eduard Pflüger, his scientific and professional concept of physiology, and his unsuccessful theory of diabetes (1903-1910).

Lorsque l'etiologie d'une maladie est decouverte, il serait indispensable de redefinir l'identite de cette maladie, afin qu'elle soit decrite correctement. L'A. prend l'exemple du cretinisme dont la cause fut decouverte par Kocher (T.) en 1883, mais dont la signification fut identique que la cause soit connue ou non

/pdf/changing-disease-identities-cretinism-politics-and-surgery-2ab4wrfqzb.pdf

Thomas Schlich

Papers

How gods and saints became transplant surgeons: the scientific article as a model for the writing of history.

Making mistakes in science: Eduard Pflüger, his scientific and professional concept of physiology, and his unsuccessful theory of diabetes (1903-1910).

Changing disease identities: cretinism, politics and surgery (1844-1892).

Wolfgang U. Eckart, Medizin und Krieg. Deutschland 1914–1924, Paderborn: Ferdinand Schöningh 2014

Rezension: Biologie der Juden. Jüdische Wissenschaftler über “Rasse” und Vererbung 1900–1935 von Veronika Lipphardt