Doctoral Dissertation Research: Medicine, Magic, Mirage: Redefining the Boundaries of Medical Therapies in Modern America

博士论文研究：医学、魔法、海市蜃楼：重新定义现代美国医学疗法的界限

• 批准号: 0646576
• 负责人: Michael Osborne
• 金额: $ 0.8万
• 依托单位: University of California-Santa Barbara
• 依托单位国家: 美国
• 项目类别: Standard Grant
• 财政年份: 2007
• 资助国家: 美国
• 起止时间: 2007-01-01 至 2007-12-31
• 项目状态: 已结题
• 来源: https://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/showAward?AWD_ID=0646576&HistoricalAwards=false
• 关键词: Doctoral; Dissertation; Research; Medicine; Magic

What constitutes a scientific approach to medical inquiry and who determines what is scientific medicine and what is not? How does the definition of medical science influence the development and application of medical therapies? These questions form the basis for inquiry in the Science and Society Dissertation Improvement Grant, which will use NSF funding to collect relevant data at U.S. based archives. The process of defining boundaries between scientific and unscientific approaches to medicine remains highly contested. A variety of stakeholders have been involved in forming these boundaries including regulators, advertisers, consumers, professionals, and philanthropists by altering the parameters of and definitions for therapeutic legitimacy, acceptability, and legality. The dissertation explores how institutional structures, professional objectives, legislative reforms, and consumer demand shaped the development of a scientifically based medical orthodoxy in the early twentieth century United States. In doing so, the dissertation makes a crucial contribution to existing literature in the medical humanities which provides an analytical framework designed to test hypotheses about how unorthodox medical movements arise, develop, and affect the delivery of health services but fails to synthetically examine various stakeholders involved in the process of boundary formation between the dominant and peripheral medical paradigms. Drawing from a broad range of perspectives, the dissertation is framed by case studies illustrating the roles of various interest groups or stakeholders. These case studies are designed to illustrate the historical development of the dynamic and complex relationships between orthodox and unorthodox medicine over time, in the fashion of existing scholarly work on the cultural boundaries of science. This type of analysis involves distinguishing between effective and ineffective ways of acquiring, formulating, and providing reliable and scientific medical knowledge while examining how and where cultural credibility is determined. The dissertation contributes to this literature, and the broader literature in science studies, by identifying and illustrating the techniques used in promoting multiple and contested meanings of health and medicine, by defining the role of science in each area. The manuscript will also make at least two additional major contributions to the broader disciplines of the history of science and the history of medicine. First, by identifying the historical boundaries between orthodox and unorthodox medical therapies, it will explain how a nexus of legislative, economic, philosophical, and professional dynamics were involved in defining and disseminating what constitutes medical science. Second, by placing these developments in their social and cultural contexts, the dissertation will assess the factors that determine the status of therapies by discussing their relationship not only to science but also to values, beliefs, and philosophical orientations toward health and life. Because unorthodox therapeutic systems have often been defined by their deviation from scientific knowledge, support of unconventional metaphysical systems, and commitment to the empirical tradition, historicizing the dialogue between alternative and mainstream medical systems and treatments facilitates redefining the contemporary social and medical influence of each while providing a broader understanding of medicine and society. This research will allow for the completion of the dissertation, facilitate the publication of drafted articles in scholarly journals, and provide the basis for an eventual book manuscript. The researcher's experience with online publications and working discussions with on-site archivists also allow for additional broad dissemination of research findings. The proposed research also represents an unprecedented effort to broadly incorporate unpublished archival material from private and professional organizations, demonstrating the breadth of efforts to define the boundaries of scientific medicine in the early twentieth century.

什么构成了医学探究的科学方法？谁决定什么是科学医学，什么不是？医学科学的定义如何影响医学疗法的发展和应用？这些问题构成了科学与社会论文改进补助金的调查基础，该补助金将利用NSF的资金在美国档案馆收集相关数据。界定科学和非科学医学方法之间界限的过程仍然存在很大争议。通过改变治疗合法性、可接受性和合法性的参数和定义，包括监管机构、广告商、消费者、专业人士和慈善家在内的各种利益相关者都参与了这些边界的形成。本论文探讨了体制结构、专业目标、立法改革和消费者需求如何塑造了世纪初美国以科学为基础的医学正统的发展。在这样做的过程中，本论文作出了至关重要的贡献，现有的文献中的医学人文提供了一个分析框架，旨在测试假设如何非正统的医疗运动的出现，发展和影响提供卫生服务，但未能综合研究各种利益相关者之间的主导和外围医学范式的边界形成的过程中。从广泛的角度来看，论文的框架是案例研究，说明了各种利益集团或利益相关者的作用。这些案例研究的目的是说明随着时间的推移，正统和非正统医学之间的动态和复杂的关系的历史发展，在科学的文化边界现有的学术工作的时尚。这种类型的分析包括区分有效和无效的获取，制定和提供可靠和科学的医学知识的方法，同时研究如何以及在何处确定文化可信度。本论文有助于这一文献，并在科学研究更广泛的文献，通过确定和说明用于促进健康和医学的多重和有争议的意义，通过定义科学在每个领域的作用的技术。该手稿还将对科学史和医学史这两个更广泛的学科做出至少两个额外的重大贡献。首先，通过确定正统和非正统医学治疗之间的历史界限，它将解释如何在定义和传播什么构成医学科学的立法，经济，哲学和专业动态的关系。其次，通过将这些发展放在他们的社会和文化背景下，本文将评估决定治疗地位的因素，讨论它们不仅与科学的关系，而且与健康和生命的价值观、信仰和哲学取向的关系。由于非正统的治疗系统往往被定义为偏离科学知识，支持非传统的形而上学系统，并致力于实证传统，历史化的替代和主流医疗系统和治疗之间的对话有助于重新定义当代社会和医学的影响，同时提供更广泛的理解医学和社会。这项研究将允许完成论文，促进学术期刊上的文章草稿的出版，并为最终的书手稿提供基础。研究人员在网上出版物和与现场档案管理员进行工作讨论方面的经验也使研究结果得到更广泛的传播。拟议的研究也代表了一个前所未有的努力，广泛纳入未出版的档案材料从私人和专业组织，展示了努力的广度，以确定界限的科学医学在世纪初。