The Treatment of Pneumonia with Antiserum 1892-1942

描述(由申请人提供)： 从1880年微生物学的黄金时代到1880年微生物学的开始 20世纪40年代的抗生素革命S的特点是，从历史上看， 作为对传染病进行治疗性攻击的贫瘠时期(尤其 鉴于基础科学的新发现)，就好像科学家和 实践者“等待”了这样一场不可避免的革命。建议数 用抗血清治疗肺炎的历史手稿 在1892年至1942年之间，将试图挑战这样一种 人物刻画，有几个结果：1)通过讲述 应用免疫学支持下的抗肺炎球菌血清疗法和 在本世纪头40年的受控临床试验中，它将 展示伴随着治疗方案重新制定而来的紧张局势 传染病，即对特定生物体的“特定”攻击 陪护后更换患者的生理支持 他们自己。证明了这样的重新提法早于 抗生素革命本身将允许现代方法来 肺炎患者(所有传染病的类型)将被安置在 历史脉络，辨认出这种做法的由来最终是S 缩小范围。2)在利用肺炎展示如此广泛的治疗效果的同时 主题，手稿同样会剖析历史疾病的范畴 肺炎本身从解剖到微生物，从私人 疾病对公共卫生的问题进一步证明了这种可塑性 类别和医学专业S给他们的方法。3)最后，通过 抗血清向化疗和抗生素过渡的分析 在1930年代末和1940年代初治疗肺炎时， 手稿将揭露这场“革命”本身的异质性。 (也许，在某种程度上，是最具治疗性的“革命”)，以及 首先，这场革命的修辞方面的含义 有关医学界其后对肺炎及 它自己的历史。

DESCRIPTION (provided by applicant): The era between the Golden Age of Microbiology in the 1880 and the onset of the Antibiotic Revolution in the 1940's has been characterized, historically, as a barren time for therapeutic attacks upon infectious diseases (especially in view of the emerging findings of basic science), as though scientists and practitioners "awaited" such an inevitable Revolution. The proposed manuscript, relating the history of the treatment of pneumonia with antiserum between 1892 and 1942, would be an attempt to challenge such a characterization, with several consequences: 1) Through relating the rise of antipneumococcal serotherapy atop the support of applied immunology and controlled clinical trials in the first four decades of this century, it would demonstrate the tensions that accompanied the reformulation of the treatment of infectious diseases, as "specific" attacks on specific organisms accompanied and then replaced the physiological support of patients themselves. Demonstrating such a reformulation which antedated the onset of the Antibiotic Revolution itself would permit the modem approach to the pneumonia patient (as type for all infectious diseases) to be placed in historical context, identifying the origins of such an approach s eventual narrowing. 2) While utilizing pneumonia to demonstrate such broad therapeutic themes, the manuscript would likewise dissect the historical disease category of pneumonia itself from anatomical to microbiological entity, from private disease to public health issue to demonstrate further the plasticity of such categories and the medical profession s approach to them. 3) Finally, through an analysis of the transition from antiserum to chemotherapy and antibiotics for the treatment of pneumonia in the late 1930s and early 1940s, the manuscript would expose the heterogeneous nature of this "revolution" itself (and perhaps, to some degree, most therapeutic "revolutions"), as well as the implications of the rhetorical aspects of such a revolution in the first place for the subsequent approach by the medical profession to pneumonia and to its own history.