油脂、炭疽门和犬舍咳嗽:早期兽医疫苗的修正主义历史。

I Tizard
{"title":"油脂、炭疽门和犬舍咳嗽:早期兽医疫苗的修正主义历史。","authors":"I Tizard","doi":"10.1016/s0065-3519(99)80005-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In conclusion, it is remarkable just how farsighted many of the early vaccine investigators were. Jenner was apparently very comfortable with contagion and even recognized that infectious agents could gradually change and adapt to a new species. Pasteur, long before his fowl cholera experiment, dreamed that attenuation could yield safe vaccines and it took him no time at all therefore to recognize the significance of that serendipitous experiment. The fact that two other investigators were also developing anthrax vaccines simultaneously is yet another example of how the times favor certain discoveries. Finally Ferry, while constrained by the fact that he had no idea that distemper was caused by a virus, recognized well the concept of secondary infection and rationalized, not unreasonably, that his vaccine might assist in controlling this. It is also clear that we must look skeptically at the accepted historical record. Thus, it is clear that Jenner used horse-derived material as a source of vaccine material and that vaccinia may in fact be the long-lost agent of horsepox. Certainly this would not be news to many nineteenth-century investigators and veterinarians. Individuals planning to use live vaccinia in recombinant vaccines may wish to keep this in mind. Who discovered anthrax vaccine? Burdon-Sanderson clearly recognized that he could attenuate the organism. Greenfield showed that this could protect against disease although he was far from developing an effective vaccine. Poor Henri Toussaint was probably the first to develop an effective product but did not publicize his results widely. It was left to Louis Pasteur to take the risks inherent in a high-profile public experiment and win. I believe that he richly deserves the prize. Finally, who deserves the credit for distemper vaccine? First, Carré deserves much more credit than hitherto for discovering that distemper was caused by a virus. Second, Ferry, although misled by his identification of B. bronchiseptica deserves credit for realizing that his vaccine could play a role in controlling secondary infections. The true discoverer of an effective distemper vaccine was the Italian, Puntoni, but once again the publicity went to others, Laidlaw and Dunkin. Thus a pattern emerges that prior discovery matters little in the face of aggressive publicity. If nobody knows you did the experiment you might as well have never done it in the first place. Publish or perish is by no means a new phenomenon.</p>","PeriodicalId":72111,"journal":{"name":"Advances in veterinary medicine","volume":"41 ","pages":"7-24"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1999-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/s0065-3519(99)80005-6","citationCount":"20","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Grease, anthraxgate, and kennel cough: a revisionist history of early veterinary vaccines.\",\"authors\":\"I Tizard\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/s0065-3519(99)80005-6\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>In conclusion, it is remarkable just how farsighted many of the early vaccine investigators were. Jenner was apparently very comfortable with contagion and even recognized that infectious agents could gradually change and adapt to a new species. Pasteur, long before his fowl cholera experiment, dreamed that attenuation could yield safe vaccines and it took him no time at all therefore to recognize the significance of that serendipitous experiment. The fact that two other investigators were also developing anthrax vaccines simultaneously is yet another example of how the times favor certain discoveries. Finally Ferry, while constrained by the fact that he had no idea that distemper was caused by a virus, recognized well the concept of secondary infection and rationalized, not unreasonably, that his vaccine might assist in controlling this. It is also clear that we must look skeptically at the accepted historical record. Thus, it is clear that Jenner used horse-derived material as a source of vaccine material and that vaccinia may in fact be the long-lost agent of horsepox. Certainly this would not be news to many nineteenth-century investigators and veterinarians. Individuals planning to use live vaccinia in recombinant vaccines may wish to keep this in mind. Who discovered anthrax vaccine? Burdon-Sanderson clearly recognized that he could attenuate the organism. Greenfield showed that this could protect against disease although he was far from developing an effective vaccine. Poor Henri Toussaint was probably the first to develop an effective product but did not publicize his results widely. It was left to Louis Pasteur to take the risks inherent in a high-profile public experiment and win. I believe that he richly deserves the prize. Finally, who deserves the credit for distemper vaccine? First, Carré deserves much more credit than hitherto for discovering that distemper was caused by a virus. Second, Ferry, although misled by his identification of B. bronchiseptica deserves credit for realizing that his vaccine could play a role in controlling secondary infections. The true discoverer of an effective distemper vaccine was the Italian, Puntoni, but once again the publicity went to others, Laidlaw and Dunkin. Thus a pattern emerges that prior discovery matters little in the face of aggressive publicity. If nobody knows you did the experiment you might as well have never done it in the first place. Publish or perish is by no means a new phenomenon.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":72111,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Advances in veterinary medicine\",\"volume\":\"41 \",\"pages\":\"7-24\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1999-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/s0065-3519(99)80005-6\",\"citationCount\":\"20\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Advances in veterinary medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/s0065-3519(99)80005-6\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Advances in veterinary medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/s0065-3519(99)80005-6","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 20

摘要

总之,许多早期疫苗研究人员的远见卓识令人瞩目。詹纳显然对传染病很熟悉,甚至认识到传染源可以逐渐改变并适应一个新物种。巴斯德,早在他的家禽霍乱实验之前,就梦想着衰减可以产生安全的疫苗,因此他很快就意识到这个偶然实验的重要性。另外两名研究人员也在同时开发炭疽疫苗,这一事实是时代如何支持某些发现的另一个例子。最后,费里,虽然他不知道犬瘟热是由病毒引起的,但他很好地认识到了继发感染的概念并合理地认为,他的疫苗可能有助于控制这种情况。同样清楚的是,我们必须对公认的历史记录持怀疑态度。因此,很明显,詹纳使用马源材料作为疫苗材料的来源,牛痘实际上可能是马痘长期消失的病原体。当然,这对许多19世纪的研究者和兽医来说并不是什么新闻。计划在重组疫苗中使用活痘苗的个人可能希望记住这一点。谁发现了炭疽疫苗?波顿-桑德森清楚地意识到他可以削弱这种有机体。格林菲尔德证明了这可以预防疾病,尽管他还远远没有研制出有效的疫苗。可怜的亨利·杜桑可能是第一个开发出有效产品的人,但他没有广泛宣传他的成果。路易斯·巴斯德(Louis Pasteur)承担了一项备受瞩目的公开实验所固有的风险,并取得了胜利。我认为他理应获奖。最后,谁应该得到犬瘟热疫苗的荣誉?首先,carr发现犬瘟热是由病毒引起的,这比迄今为止值得更多的赞扬。其次,费里虽然被他对支杆菌的鉴定所误导,但他意识到他的疫苗可以在控制继发感染方面发挥作用,这一点值得赞扬。有效的犬瘟热疫苗的真正发现者是意大利人蓬托尼,但公众的关注又一次流向了其他人,莱德劳和邓金。因此,一种模式出现了,即在咄咄逼人的宣传面前,事先发现并不重要。如果没人知道你做了这个实验,那你还不如一开始就没做过。出版或消亡绝不是一个新现象。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Grease, anthraxgate, and kennel cough: a revisionist history of early veterinary vaccines.

In conclusion, it is remarkable just how farsighted many of the early vaccine investigators were. Jenner was apparently very comfortable with contagion and even recognized that infectious agents could gradually change and adapt to a new species. Pasteur, long before his fowl cholera experiment, dreamed that attenuation could yield safe vaccines and it took him no time at all therefore to recognize the significance of that serendipitous experiment. The fact that two other investigators were also developing anthrax vaccines simultaneously is yet another example of how the times favor certain discoveries. Finally Ferry, while constrained by the fact that he had no idea that distemper was caused by a virus, recognized well the concept of secondary infection and rationalized, not unreasonably, that his vaccine might assist in controlling this. It is also clear that we must look skeptically at the accepted historical record. Thus, it is clear that Jenner used horse-derived material as a source of vaccine material and that vaccinia may in fact be the long-lost agent of horsepox. Certainly this would not be news to many nineteenth-century investigators and veterinarians. Individuals planning to use live vaccinia in recombinant vaccines may wish to keep this in mind. Who discovered anthrax vaccine? Burdon-Sanderson clearly recognized that he could attenuate the organism. Greenfield showed that this could protect against disease although he was far from developing an effective vaccine. Poor Henri Toussaint was probably the first to develop an effective product but did not publicize his results widely. It was left to Louis Pasteur to take the risks inherent in a high-profile public experiment and win. I believe that he richly deserves the prize. Finally, who deserves the credit for distemper vaccine? First, Carré deserves much more credit than hitherto for discovering that distemper was caused by a virus. Second, Ferry, although misled by his identification of B. bronchiseptica deserves credit for realizing that his vaccine could play a role in controlling secondary infections. The true discoverer of an effective distemper vaccine was the Italian, Puntoni, but once again the publicity went to others, Laidlaw and Dunkin. Thus a pattern emerges that prior discovery matters little in the face of aggressive publicity. If nobody knows you did the experiment you might as well have never done it in the first place. Publish or perish is by no means a new phenomenon.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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