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20世纪初， 从历史上看，20世纪40年代的抗生素革命的特点是， 作为一个贫瘠的时间治疗攻击传染病（特别是 鉴于基础科学的新发现），科学家和 实践者“等待”这样一个不可避免的革命。拟议 关于用抗血清治疗肺炎的历史 在1892年到1942年之间，试图挑战这样一个 特点，有几个后果：1）通过有关的崛起， 抗肺炎球菌血清疗法的支持上的应用免疫学和 对照临床试验在本世纪的前四十年， 展示了伴随着治疗方法的重新制定而产生的紧张局势 传染病，作为对特定生物体的“特定”攻击 陪伴，然后取代病人的生理支持 自己证明了这样一种早于 抗生素革命本身将允许现代方法 肺炎病人（与所有传染病的类别相同）， 历史背景，确定这种方法的起源 缩小2)虽然利用肺炎来证明这种广泛的治疗方法 主题，手稿将同样剖析历史疾病类别 从解剖学到微生物实体，从私人 疾病对公共卫生问题的影响，以进一步证明这种可塑性， 类别和医疗专业的方法。3)最后通过 从抗血清到化疗和抗生素的转变分析 在20世纪30年代末和40年代初， 一份手稿将揭露这场“革命”本身的异质性 (and也许，在某种程度上，大多数治疗“革命”），以及 这种革命的修辞方面的影响摆在首位 为随后的办法，由医疗专业人员对肺炎和 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.