Mapping Early Epidemiology: Concepts of Causality in Reports of the Third Plague Pandemic, 1894–1950

Lukas Engelmann
{"title":"Mapping Early Epidemiology: Concepts of Causality in Reports of the Third Plague Pandemic, 1894–1950","authors":"Lukas Engelmann","doi":"10.21061/VIRAL-NETWORKS.ENGELMANN","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The science of epidemiology has always had an intricate relationship to the history of diseases. The design of models of the dynamics that govern diseases in their relation to population is ultimately based on information and data gathered from past outbreaks. Epidemiology belongs to what Lorraine Daston has recently called “Sciences of the Archive.”1 Like astronomy, zoology, demography, or meteorology, the study of epidemics operates with objects of superhuman scale. The discipline deals with plagues that exceed historiographical periods and geographical regions; and, thus, it always requires elaborated practices of collecting, accounting, and archiving to establish its status as a discipline. Daston reminds us that despite this reliance of some “hard” sciences on the historical record, their conduct of history often differs from the perspective of humanists on the same historical event. Where exegesis, commentary, and interpretation of contexts and niches might characterize a history of diseases and epidemics, the epidemiological grasp on the historical record seeks to collect quantifiable data. But epidemiology wasn’t always a science of mathematical analysis, concerned with the production of formal expressions and the elaborate design of stochastic models. The epidemiology of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries is best described as a broad interdisciplinary project, suspended between isolated academics in medical schools and a growing group of governmental medical officers applying a mixture of methods, integrating","PeriodicalId":355263,"journal":{"name":"Viral Networks","volume":"24 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-12-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Viral Networks","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21061/VIRAL-NETWORKS.ENGELMANN","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

The science of epidemiology has always had an intricate relationship to the history of diseases. The design of models of the dynamics that govern diseases in their relation to population is ultimately based on information and data gathered from past outbreaks. Epidemiology belongs to what Lorraine Daston has recently called “Sciences of the Archive.”1 Like astronomy, zoology, demography, or meteorology, the study of epidemics operates with objects of superhuman scale. The discipline deals with plagues that exceed historiographical periods and geographical regions; and, thus, it always requires elaborated practices of collecting, accounting, and archiving to establish its status as a discipline. Daston reminds us that despite this reliance of some “hard” sciences on the historical record, their conduct of history often differs from the perspective of humanists on the same historical event. Where exegesis, commentary, and interpretation of contexts and niches might characterize a history of diseases and epidemics, the epidemiological grasp on the historical record seeks to collect quantifiable data. But epidemiology wasn’t always a science of mathematical analysis, concerned with the production of formal expressions and the elaborate design of stochastic models. The epidemiology of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries is best described as a broad interdisciplinary project, suspended between isolated academics in medical schools and a growing group of governmental medical officers applying a mixture of methods, integrating
绘制早期流行病学:1894-1950年第三次鼠疫大流行报告中的因果关系概念
流行病学一直与疾病的历史有着错综复杂的关系。控制疾病与人口关系的动力学模型的设计最终是基于从过去疫情中收集的信息和数据。流行病学属于洛林·达斯顿最近所说的“档案科学”。像天文学、动物学、人口学或气象学一样,对流行病的研究也涉及到超乎人类的范围。该学科研究超越历史时期和地理区域的瘟疫;因此,它总是需要详细的收集、核算和存档的实践来建立它作为一门学科的地位。达斯顿提醒我们,尽管一些“硬科学”依赖于历史记录,但它们对历史的研究往往与人文主义者对同一历史事件的看法不同。对背景和环境的注释、评论和解释可能是疾病和流行病历史的特征,而流行病学对历史记录的把握则寻求收集可量化的数据。但流行病学并不总是一门数学分析的科学,它关注的是正式表达式的产生和随机模型的精心设计。19世纪末和20世纪初的流行病学被最好地描述为一个广泛的跨学科项目,在医学院的孤立学者和越来越多的政府医疗官员之间暂停使用混合方法,整合
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信