寻找丢失的跳蚤:重新考虑保罗-路易斯·西蒙德对鼠疫传播研究的贡献

IF 0.9 2区 哲学 Q4 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Christos Lynteris
{"title":"寻找丢失的跳蚤:重新考虑保罗-路易斯·西蒙德对鼠疫传播研究的贡献","authors":"Christos Lynteris","doi":"10.1017/mdh.2022.19","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Paul-Louis Simond’s 1898 experiment demonstrating fleas as the vector of plague is today recognised as one of the breakthrough moments in modern epidemiology, as it established the insect-borne transmission of plague. Providing the first exhaustive examination of primary sources from the Institut Pasteur’s 1897–98 ‘India Mission’, including Simond’s notebooks, experiment carnets and correspondence, and cross-examining this material with colonial medical sources from the first years of the third plague pandemic in British India, the article demonstrates that Simond’s engagement with the question of the propagation of plague was much more complex and ambiguous than the teleological story reproduced in established historical works suggests. On the one hand, the article reveals that the famous 1898 experiment was botched, and that Simond’s misreported its ambiguous findings for the Annales de l’Institut Pasteur. On the other hand, the article shows that, in the course of his ‘India Mission’, Simond framed rats as involved in the propagation of plague irreducibly in their relation to other potential sources of infection and not simply in terms of a parasitological mechanism. The article illuminates Simond’s complex epidemiological reasoning about plague transmission, situating it within its proper colonial and epistemological context, and argues for a new historical gaze on the rat as an ‘epidemiological dividual’, which highlights the relational and contingent nature of epidemiological framings of the animal during the third plague pandemic.","PeriodicalId":18275,"journal":{"name":"Medical History","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"In search of lost fleas: reconsidering Paul-Louis Simond’s contribution to the study of the propagation of plague\",\"authors\":\"Christos Lynteris\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/mdh.2022.19\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract Paul-Louis Simond’s 1898 experiment demonstrating fleas as the vector of plague is today recognised as one of the breakthrough moments in modern epidemiology, as it established the insect-borne transmission of plague. Providing the first exhaustive examination of primary sources from the Institut Pasteur’s 1897–98 ‘India Mission’, including Simond’s notebooks, experiment carnets and correspondence, and cross-examining this material with colonial medical sources from the first years of the third plague pandemic in British India, the article demonstrates that Simond’s engagement with the question of the propagation of plague was much more complex and ambiguous than the teleological story reproduced in established historical works suggests. On the one hand, the article reveals that the famous 1898 experiment was botched, and that Simond’s misreported its ambiguous findings for the Annales de l’Institut Pasteur. On the other hand, the article shows that, in the course of his ‘India Mission’, Simond framed rats as involved in the propagation of plague irreducibly in their relation to other potential sources of infection and not simply in terms of a parasitological mechanism. The article illuminates Simond’s complex epidemiological reasoning about plague transmission, situating it within its proper colonial and epistemological context, and argues for a new historical gaze on the rat as an ‘epidemiological dividual’, which highlights the relational and contingent nature of epidemiological framings of the animal during the third plague pandemic.\",\"PeriodicalId\":18275,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Medical History\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Medical History\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/mdh.2022.19\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medical History","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/mdh.2022.19","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

保罗·路易斯·西蒙德(Paul-Louis Simond) 1898年的实验证明了跳蚤是鼠疫的媒介,这被认为是现代流行病学的突破性时刻之一,因为它确立了鼠疫的虫媒传播。对巴斯德研究所1897-98年“印度使命”的主要资料进行了第一次详尽的检查,包括西蒙德的笔记本,实验卡片和信件,并将这些资料与英属印度第三次瘟疫大流行的第一年的殖民地医学资料进行了交叉检验,这篇文章表明,西蒙德对瘟疫传播问题的研究比既定历史著作中再现的目的论故事要复杂和模糊得多。一方面,这篇文章揭示了1898年著名的实验是拙劣的,西蒙德在《巴斯德研究所年鉴》(Annales de l’institut Pasteur)上错误地报告了其模棱两可的发现。另一方面,这篇文章表明,在他的“印度使命”过程中,西蒙德认为老鼠与鼠疫传播的关系不可避免地与其他潜在感染源有关,而不仅仅是在寄生虫学机制方面。这篇文章阐明了Simond关于鼠疫传播的复杂流行病学推理,将其置于适当的殖民地和认识论背景中,并主张对老鼠作为“流行病学个体”进行新的历史审视,这突出了第三次鼠疫大流行期间动物流行病学框架的相关性和偶然性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
In search of lost fleas: reconsidering Paul-Louis Simond’s contribution to the study of the propagation of plague
Abstract Paul-Louis Simond’s 1898 experiment demonstrating fleas as the vector of plague is today recognised as one of the breakthrough moments in modern epidemiology, as it established the insect-borne transmission of plague. Providing the first exhaustive examination of primary sources from the Institut Pasteur’s 1897–98 ‘India Mission’, including Simond’s notebooks, experiment carnets and correspondence, and cross-examining this material with colonial medical sources from the first years of the third plague pandemic in British India, the article demonstrates that Simond’s engagement with the question of the propagation of plague was much more complex and ambiguous than the teleological story reproduced in established historical works suggests. On the one hand, the article reveals that the famous 1898 experiment was botched, and that Simond’s misreported its ambiguous findings for the Annales de l’Institut Pasteur. On the other hand, the article shows that, in the course of his ‘India Mission’, Simond framed rats as involved in the propagation of plague irreducibly in their relation to other potential sources of infection and not simply in terms of a parasitological mechanism. The article illuminates Simond’s complex epidemiological reasoning about plague transmission, situating it within its proper colonial and epistemological context, and argues for a new historical gaze on the rat as an ‘epidemiological dividual’, which highlights the relational and contingent nature of epidemiological framings of the animal during the third plague pandemic.
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
Medical History
Medical History 医学-科学史与科学哲学
CiteScore
1.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
25
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Medical History is a refereed journal devoted to all aspects of the history of medicine and health, with the goal of broadening and deepening the understanding of the field, in the widest sense, by historical studies of the highest quality. It is also the journal of the European Association for the History of Medicine and Health. The membership of the Editorial Board, which includes senior members of the EAHMH, reflects the commitment to the finest international standards in refereeing of submitted papers and the reviewing of books. The journal publishes in English, but welcomes submissions from scholars for whom English is not a first language; language and copy-editing assistance will be provided wherever possible.
×
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