In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

Bulletin of the History of Medicine 76.2 (2002) 371-372



[Access article in PDF]

Book Review

Die Entwicklung zur experimentellen Pharmakologie, 1790-1850:
Wegbereiter von Rudolf Buchheim


Marcel H. Bickel. Die Entwicklung zur experimentellen Pharmakologie, 1790-1850: Wegbereiter von Rudolf Buchheim. Supplement 46 to Gesnerus. Basel: Schwabe, 2000. 158 pp. Ill. FF 45.00; DM 54.00; öS 420.00 (paperbound, 3-7965-1422-7).

Marcel H. Bickel's aim in this fine monograph is to describe and analyze the events leading up to the appearance of pharmacology as a specialized, institutionalized medical and scientific discipline. This is largely a nineteenth-century story, although Bickel devotes some space to earlier and later developments. The pivotal figure in this account is Rudolf Buchheim, who in Bickel's view was the first to give a full definition of the content and methods of the field and begin its institutionalization by devoting to it a full-time academic career, founding its first institute, and training many researchers, including the leading figure of the next generation, Oswald Schmiedeberg.

Although Buchheim stands at the center of this development, it is not until the book's penultimate chapter that Bickel examines his career and work. This is because his main object is not Buchheim himself but his antecedents or forerunners, as the subtitle makes clear. Bickel's central question is: What prepared the way for Rudolf Buchheim, and therefore for the appearance of pharmacology as a medical and scientific discipline?

In answering this question Bickel takes us through first a brief survey of ideas on medicines and their actions from ancient times through the eighteenth century, and then a more extended discussion of major criticisms of traditional materia medica in the first half of the nineteenth century. He emphasizes the importance of François Magendie's methodological innovations, and juxtaposes them with the limited movements toward experimentalism in pharmacology before 1850 in Germany, France (apart from Magendie), Britain, and Italy. [End Page 371] Finally, he surveys the medical reform movement in Germany in the 1840s, and early German advocates of experimental pharmacology.

Bickel concludes that Buchheim's way was prepared by both criticism and positive efforts by many individuals in several countries. Most notable among these was Magendie, who in Bickel's view established the methodological basis for experimental pharmacology and put it into practice. According to Bickel, Buchheim was not as accomplished an experimentalist as Magendie, but went beyond him in his full-time dedication to pharmacology as a research specialty (Magendie remained a practicing physician and pursued physiological research) and in his work to constitute it as a scientific discipline.

The concision and organization of his presentation allow Bickel considerable temporal scope within the confines of a small volume. Also noteworthy is the international breadth of this study, which emphasizes German and French developments but does not neglect English, Italian, or other materials pertinent to the analysis. This approach allows attention to cross-national influences (or the lack of them) and national comparisons, an example that one may hope will be followed in future studies of the history of pharmacology.

Bickel's focus on individuals and his emphasis on conceptual and methodological issues carry him far but are not sufficient in themselves to account for the emergence of pharmacology as a medical and scientific discipline. While he makes a persuasive case that Buchheim plays a pivotal role in this development, a broader analysis would be required to characterize adequately the dynamics of the process—for example, its academic politics—even within the confines of German-speaking Europe. Bickel only hints at the problematic nature of disciplinary boundaries, especially in the sciences related to medicine from the late nineteenth century onward. This book provides essential materials for a broader disciplinary study, but it is not a substitute for one.

Bickel rightly points to the need for more study of Rudolf Buchheim and Oswald Schmiedeberg. The same may be said of the history of pharmacology in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Historians taking up this challenge will find an excellent resource in...

pdf

Share