Search

This paper discusses the historical context of collaborative research and authorship disputes, exemplified by the complex relationship between Dutch anatomist and physician Gerard L. Blaes and his East-Central European mentee, Daniel Gödtke, during the study of medulla spinalis. The study employs historical analysis to unravel the dynamics of scholarly collaboration, emphasizing the significance of mentorship in scientific progress and the communal nature of knowledge exchange. This historical analysis is based on primary sources and historical records. It underscores Blaes's strategy to circumvent public confrontations regarding the authorship of the seminal work 'Anatome medullae spinalis, et nervorum inde provenientium' (1666). As a teacher, he facilitated his student's participation in a public disputation to avert public authorship conflicts over the book. This ultimately led to the publication of two distinct versions of 'Anatome medullae spinalis.' The first one was co-authored by the mentor and his mentee, while the latter was solely attributed to the mentor. This historical narrative raises essential questions about attributing individual contributions in medical sciences, echoing concerns still pertinent in contemporary academia. Additionally, it makes visible the power dynamics inherent in faculty-students relationships and the potential repercussions of authorship disputes on scholars' reputations. By drawing parallels between historical and modern authorship dilemmas, this study contributes to ongoing discussions on equitable authorship in scientific research and publishing. It not only highlights a historical precedent for the complex dynamics of mentor-mentee collaborations and authorship disputes but also illuminates how these practices continue to influence contemporary academic and publishing customs., (© 2024 American Association for Anatomy.)

Social Media has changed the way that individuals interact with each other - it has brought considerable benefits, yet also some challenges. Social media in anatomy has enabled anatomists all over the world to engage, interact and form new collaborations that otherwise would not have been possible. In a relatively small discipline where individuals may be working as the only anatomist in an institution, having such a virtual community can be important. Social media is also being used as a means for anatomists to communicate with the current generation of students as well as members of the public. Posting appropriate content is one of the challenges raised by social media use in anatomy. Human cadaveric material is frequently shared on social media and there is divided opinion among anatomists on whether or not such content is appropriate. This article explores the uses and challenges of social media use in the field of anatomy and outlines guidelines on how social media can be used by anatomists globally, while maintaining professional and ethical standards. Creating global guidelines has shown to be difficult due to the differences in international law for the use of human tissue and also the irregularities in acquiring informed consent for capturing and sharing cadaveric images. These nuances may explain why cadaveric images are frequently shared on social media. This article proposes that as standard practice, anatomists obtain informed consent from donors before sharing images of cadaveric material on social media and ensure posts include a statement stating the same., (© 2020 The Authors. Anatomical Sciences Education published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Association for Anatomy.)

The increasing availability of physician-assisted death (PAD) has opened up a novel means of making donated bodies available for anatomical dissection. This practice has come to the fore in Canada, but is unlikely to be confined to that country as legislation changes in other countries. The ethical considerations raised by this development are placed within the framework of the ethical guidelines on body donation promulgated by the International Federation of Associations of Anatomists. The discussion centers on understanding the ethical dimensions of moral complicity, and whether it is accepted or rejected. If rejected it is possible to separate ethical concerns regarding PAD from subsequent use of donated bodies, as long as there is fully informed consent and complete ethical and procedural separation of the two. Openness about the origin of bodies for dissection is essential. Students should be instructed on the nuances of moral complicity, and consideration be given to those with moral doubts about PAD. Two issues are raised in considering whether these moves represent an ethical slippery slope: the attraction represented by obtaining relatively "high quality" bodies, and the manner in which organ donation following PAD has led to challenges to the dead donor rule. Although body donation raises fewer concerns, the ethical dimensions of the two are similar. The ethical constraints outlined here have the capacity to prevent an ethical slippery slope and constitute a sound basis for addressing an innovative opportunity for anatomists., (© 2019 American Association of Anatomists.)

Historically, legislature has been utilized to facilitate appropriate use of cadavers in the anatomical sciences. However, cadaver acquisition and use have also been guided by ethically appropriate and morally acceptable principles. Various global and regional frameworks of "ethical practice" guide body donation, including the use of unclaimed bodies by institutions. These frameworks are responsive to, and reciprocal with the various ethical, moral and legal factors that influence the development of body donation programs. This reciprocity supports the notion that anatomists and anatomical societies have a responsibility to advocate for legal reform when required. In this study, two body bequest programs from geopolitically and socially disparate countries are used as cases to contrast existing legal and governance frameworks for body donation and to examine whether anatomists can direct the acquisition of ethically donated cadavers. The study includes an Australian donor program that has exclusively accepted bequests since its inception, and a South African program that has recently transitioned to a bequest system. Elements such as consent by next-of-kin and Inspector of Anatomy, use of unclaimed bodies and ethics committee approval amongst others, are compared. It is acknowledged that legal frameworks for cadaver acquisition generally deliver broad guidance on acceptable utilization of bodies for the anatomical sciences. However, professional discretion is of importance in adapting to societal needs and values. Thus, while anatomists have been able to progress toward more ethical practice than that which is required by the law, they must continue to do so as societal values evolve., (© 2019 American Association of Anatomists.)

Aim: Appreciating the contribution of donor-cadavers to medical education is a well observed practice among anatomists. However, the appreciation of their contribution in research and scientific articles remains dubious. We aimed to evaluate how much data anatomists provide about specimens they have used and how frequently anatomists acknowledge their cadavers in published articles., Materials and Methods: We evaluated all articles performed on human cadaveric specimens that were published in Clinical Anatomy and Surgical and Radiologic Anatomy between January 2011 and December 2015. We evaluated how much data on the demographics, preservation method(s), source, and ethical/legal permissions regarding cadavers were provided. We also evaluated the number of articles that acknowledged donor-cadavers., Results: The majority of articles provided demographic data (age and sex) and preservation method used in the article. The source of the specimens was not mentioned in 45.6 % of the articles. Only 26.2 % of the articles provided a degree of consent and only 32.4 % of the articles reported some form of ethical approval for the study. The cadavers and their families were acknowledged in 17.7 % of the articles. We observed that no standard method for reporting data has been established., Conclusions: Anatomists should collaborate to create awareness among the scientific community for providing adequate information regarding donor-cadavers, including source and consent. Acknowledging donor-cadavers and/or their families should also be promoted. Scientific articles should be used to create a transparent relationship of trust between anatomists and their society.

Public anatomies have been characterized as carnivalesque events: like the Carnival, they took place in January and February and celebrated bodily existence. However, in late sixteenth-century Padua and its famous anatomy theater, the annual, public anatomy was a formal, ceremonial event. Girolamo Fabrici, the leading anatomist, gave a philosophical presentation of his research, a presentation organized by topic rather than by the gradual dissection of corpses. For medical students, the annual anatomy and the theater itself encouraged silence, obedience, and docility, reinforcing the virtues that permeated the late humanist environment of Renaissance Padua.