Search

Background: Nazi Germany surrendered to the Allies on May 8, 1945. Six months later, the Allies tried the surviving leaders of Nazi Germany at the first Nuremberg trial. Later, the United States conducted 12 additional trials. The first one, The Unites States of America versus Karl Brandt et al., has been dubbed the Doctors' Trial. During the trial, the prosecution relied on the testimony of Dr. Andrew Ivy and Dr. Leo Alexander. At the end of the trial, Judge Sebring enunciated 10 principles needed to conduct human subject research-the Nuremberg Code. Authorship of the Code has been the subject of dispute, with both Ivy and Alexander claiming sole authorship.Methods: In the summer of 2017, I visited Duke University Medical Center's Archives and surveyed the contents of boxes labeled "Alexander's papers." I also explored online databases with information on the Doctors' Trial. Pertinent documents were compared across collections, and against scholarly works on the topic.Results: Box 3 of Alexander's papers at Duke University Medical Center's Archives contains a three-page document with six principles that, nearly word for word, were included in what is known as the Nuremberg Code. Alexander's name and appointment are typed at the end of the document.Conclusions: Although the Nuremberg Code is likely to have been an unplanned collaboration among members of the prosecuting team and the judges, I present evidence suggesting that Alexander drafted the blueprint and was the main contributor to the final version of the Code. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Sebastian Kneipp (1821-1897) is seen as a vital link between the European nature cure movement of the 19th century and American naturopathy. He promoted a holistic treatment concept founded on five pillars: hydro- and phytotherapy, exercise, balanced nutrition, and regulative therapy. Kneipp attempted to bridge the gap with allopathic medicine, and many modern treatments that are based on his methods indeed blend wellness elements with naturopathic medicine and biomedicine. Because Kneipp's approach to health and healing today are mainly covered in German literature, this paper aims to provide a broader international audience with insights into his life and his treatment methods and to highlight the profound influence Kneipp has had to this day on natural and preventive medicine. The paper emphasizes in particular the continued popularity of Kneipp's holistic approach to health and well-being, which is evident in the many national and international Kneipp Associations, the globally operating Kneipp Werke, postgraduate qualifications in his treatment methods, and the existence of more than 60 accredited Kneipp spas and health resorts in Germany alone. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This case study documents the news reporting of Edward J. Meeman (1889–1966), who was among the first reporters from the Scripps-Howard newspaper chain to visit Germany after the Nazis consolidated their power in the summer of 1933. The completeness of the record surrounding Meeman's month-long visit makes his reporting from Germany an excellent way to examine the issues that visiting US journalists faced in the earliest days of the Nazi dictatorship and the quality of information they could obtain about the regime. This paper, in particular, contributes to our understanding of how much of Nazi Germany's anti-Semitic foundations were evident to visiting American journalists in 1933. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

This paper explores the lessons drawn by German constitutional scholars from the breakdown of the Weimar Republic, and how this traumatic experience became a starting point at the end of the 1930s for a new conception of democracy both liberal and robust (or “defensive”). Emigré constitutional scholars devised three distinctive versions of this “democratic robustness”: an “anti-extremist” (which originated in Weimar legal antipositivism); a “militant democracy” (first exposed by Karl Loewenstein); and a “constitutional dictatorship” (Carl J. Friedrich, Frederick W. Watkins). At the heart of each one lies a decisive debate with Carl Schmitt, even if implicit or diffracted. By reconstructing these debates one can appreciate to what extent postwar constitutional democracies have incorporated Schmitt's ideas. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

In 1917, the German-American scientist Jacques Loeb (1859-1924) published a short essay, entitled 'Biology and War', that summarized his disagreement with World War I. He was deeply saddened by the break-up of the international scientific community as a consequence of the actions of bellicose politicians. These actions were in direct opposition to his efforts to promote social reform, mechanistic biology and scientific internationalism. The aim of this paper is to examine Loeb's activities aimed at these efforts before, during and after the war. It attempts to explain how Loeb's scientific work was formed, what was special about it and why it was both successful and attacked. Particular emphasis is placed on how Loeb reacted to the War and the subsequent forced disintegration of his international scientific network. Loeb's attempts to integrate his interpretation of biology into post-war Europe's approach to the life sciences is analysed in connection with his social commitment. It is argued that his emigration to the USA, the circumstances of World War I, the reaction of his German colleagues to it and the demolition of the international scientific community changed: (1) Loeb's feelings towards his old home; (2) the direction of his scientific endeavours; and (3) his engagement in science politics. His correspondence with eminent scientists from all over the world serves as a key to Loeb's efforts in the context of the social elements of scientific networks and perceptions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In modern discourse about the history of science, it seems to be widely accepted that at the end of the nineteenth century, Germany was one of the leading countries in the production of science. In the past, historians of science tried to trace back a specific ‘German style’ of science that—in combination with other factors—determined this German dominance around 1900, especially in the life sciences. Considering the theoretical concept of ‘national styles’, it has to be kept in mind that around 1900, contemporaries already proclaimed ‘national styles’ of science as representations of national identity. Thus, the question arises as to how far existing historiographical conceptions of national styles may include earlier claims and prejudices. Careful reconstructions of contemporary discourses on national styles and inquiries into the ‘stylisation’ of a dominant, successful ‘German style’ are necessary. One of the contemporary critics of a ‘German style’ of science was the physiologist Jacques Loeb (1859–1924), who emigrated to the USA in 1891. Loeb corresponded regularly with the physicist and philosopher Ernst Mach (1838–1916). Ernst Mach can be considered Loeb's intellectual father with whom he corresponded about strategic, philosophical, and epistemological questions. Using the Loeb–Mach correspondence, the aim of the paper is to reconstruct Loeb's conception of a ‘German style’ of science and its differences to an ‘American style’. Changes in his views are discussed as well as the roots of his views and some of their consequences. Finally, Loeb's ideas on national styles and his working profiles before and after his emigration are compared to historiographical analyses of ‘American’ or ‘German’ styles of science around 1900. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

CONNOLLY C. Nursing Inquiry 2004; 11: 138 –147 Pale, poor, and ‘pretubercular’ children: a history of pediatric antituberculosis efforts in France, Germany, and the United States, 1899–1929 An international consensus emerged in the years between 1900 and 1910 regarding the need to refocus antituberculosis efforts away from treating tuberculosis in adults and toward preventing active disease in children. This paper uses social history as a framework to explore pediatric health experiments in France (foster placement of city children with rural farm families), Germany (open-air schools), and the United States (preventorium) for children considered ‘pretubercular’. The scientific, social, and political variables that reshaped prevailing ideas and practice with regard to TB prevention during those years are described. The creation of the first preventorium in the United States is explained and the way in which French and German pediatric prevention strategies were adapted to address a specific population considered at high risk in the United States, indigent immigrants, is detailed. For each of these three nations, nurses were central actors. Their efforts provide a unique vantage point to study the cultural dimensions of risk and prevention embedded in nursing care and the interplay between science, culture, nurses, and the state. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]