Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-r5zm4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-03T09:34:10.320Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The Administrative Stabilization of Vaccines: Regulating the Diphtheria Antitoxin in France and Germany, 1894–1900

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 June 2008

Volker Hess*
Affiliation:
Institute for the History of Medicine, Charité Berlin

Argument

It is well known that the development of a diphtheria anti-toxin serum evolved in a competitive race between two groups of researchers, one affiliated with Emil Behring in Berlin and Marburg, and another affiliated with Émile Roux in Paris. Proceeding on the basis of different theoretical assumptions and experimental practices, the two groups developed a therapeutic serum almost simultaneously. But the standardized substance they developed took on very different forms in the two countries. In Germany the new serum was marketed in the private sphere and subjected to state regulations, becoming a kind of prototype of industrial medications. In France, however, the same substance was marketed as a gift of science to humanity and distributed through the communal health care system. This article demonstrates how a new medication emerged from the efforts to produce, market, regulate, distribute, and apply it in the two respective countries. It attributes the difference to the negotiations between the respective actors (scientists, industrialists, politicians, officers, and the public) and institutions (firms, academies, private and public institutes, legislative bodies, professional corporations). I develop this argument on three different levels: First, I stress the importance of the institutional foundations of serum production; second, I illustrate the decisive role played by existing “ways of regulating” in the rapid development of new legal statutes; and third, I describe the consequences that flowed from the respective administrative organization of marketing and dissemination. In sum, I explore how an experimental object was transformed into an object of the public health system and stabilized by administrative means.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Anonymous. 1894a. “Au congrès de Budapest. La découverte du docteur Roux.” Le Figaro 17 September.Google Scholar
Anonymous. 1894b. “Chroniques documentaires: L'antitoxie.” Le Figaro 9 October.Google Scholar
Anonymous. 1894c. “Le vaccin du croup.” Le Jour.Google Scholar
Aronson, Hans. 1894. “Weitere Untersuchungen über Diphtherie und das Diphtherie-Antitoxin.” Berliner klinische Wochenschrift 15–19:356358; 425427; 453456.Google Scholar
Baginski, Adolf. 1913. Diphtherie und diphtherischer Croup. Specielle Pathologie und Therapie Vol VII, edited by Nothnagel, Hermann and Frankl-Hochwart, Lothar von. 2nd revised edition. Wien: Hölder.Google Scholar
Behring, Emil Adolf von. 1890. “Über Desinfection, Desinfectionsmittel und Desinfectionsmethoden.” Zeitschrift für Hygiene und Infectionskrankheiten 9:395478.Google Scholar
Behring, Emil Adolf von. 1893. Die Geschichte der Diphtherie: mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der Immunitätslehre. Leipzig: G. Thieme.Google Scholar
Behring, Emil Adolf von. 1894a. “Zur Diphtherieheilungsfrage.” Deutsche Medicinische Wochenschrift 15:343.Google Scholar
Behring, Emil Adolf von. 1894b. “Zur Diphtherieheilungsfrage – Bemerkungen zu vorstehender Entgegnung.” Deutsche Medicinische Wochenschrift 17:385.Google Scholar
Behring, Emil Adolf von and Kitasato, S.. 1890. “Über das Zustandekommen der Diphtherie-Immunität und der Tetanus-Immunität bei Thieren.” Deutsche Medizinische Wochenschrift 16:11131114.Google Scholar
Berz, Peter. 2001. 08/15. Ein Standard des 20. Jahrhunderts. München: Fink.Google Scholar
Brockliss, Lawrence and Jones, Colin. 1997. The Medical World of Early Modern France. Oxford, NY: Clarendon.Google Scholar
Broman, Thomas. 1998. “The Habermasian Public Sphere and Science in the Enlightment.” History of Science 36:123149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buchner, Hans. 1894. “Ueber die natürlichen Hülfskräfte des Organismus gegenüber Krankheitserregern.” Münchener medizinische Wochenschrift 30:543544.Google Scholar
Calmette, Gaston. 1894a. “La guérison du croup à l'Institut Pasteur.” Le Figaro 9 September.Google Scholar
Calmette, Gaston. 1894b. “Pour la vaccin du croup.” Le Figaro 20 September.Google Scholar
Chauveau, Sophie. 1999. L'invention pharmaceutique. La pharmacie française entre l'Etat et la société au XXe siècle. Paris: Institut d'Édition Sanofi-Synthélabo.Google Scholar
Chauveau, Sophie. 2004. “Le statut legal du medicament en France au XIXe et XXe siècles.” Ms. Lyon.Google Scholar
Chauveau, Sophie. 2006. “Genèse de la ‘sécurité sanitaire’. Les produits pharmaceutiques en France aux XIXe et XXe siècles.” Revue d'histoire moderne et contemporaine 51:88117.Google Scholar
Daremberg, G[eorges]. 1894. “La guérison de la diphtérie.” Le Figaro 26 September.Google Scholar
Dixon, Cyril William. 1962. Smallpox. London: J. & A. Churchill.Google Scholar
Ernst, Elmar. 1975. Das “industrielle” Geheimmittel und seine Werbung. Arzneifertigwaren in der zweiten Hälfte des 19. Jahrhunderts in Deutschland. Würzburg: jal-verlag.Google Scholar
Fabrége, Frédéric. 1901. Institut Bousson-Bertrand. Montpellier: Jean Martel Aine.Google Scholar
Geison, Gerald L. 1995. The Private Science of Louis Pasteur. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Gradmann, Christoph. 2000. “Money, Microbes, and More: Robert Koch, Tuberculin and the Foundation of the Institute for Infectious Diseases in Berlin in 1891.” History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences 22:5579.Google Scholar
Gradmann, Christoph. 2004. “A Harmony of Illusions: Clinical and Experimental Testing of Robert Koch's Tuberculin 1890–1900.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 35:465481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hess, Volker. 2007. “Secrets, Bureaucracy and the Public: Drug Regulation in Prussia of the Early 19th Century.” In Ways of Regulating: Drug Trajectories V, edited by Gaudillière, Jean-Paul and Hess, Volker. Berlin: Max Planck-Institut für Wissenschaftsgeschichte.Google Scholar
Hickel, Erika. 1973. Arzneimittel-Standardisierung im 19. Jahrhundert in den Pharmakopoen Deutschlands, Frankreichs, Großbritanniens und der Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika. Stuttgart: Wissenschaftliche Verlagsgesellschaft mbH.Google Scholar
Hickel, Erika. 1977. “Das Kaiserliche Gesundheitsamt und die chemische Industrie im Zweiten Kaiserreich (1871–1918).” In Medizin, Naturwissenschaft, Technik und das Zweite Kaiserreich, edited by Mann, Gunter and Winau, Rolf. 6486. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht.Google Scholar
Huerkamp, Claudia. 1985. “The History of Smallpox Vaccination in Germany: A First Step in the Medicalisation of the General Public.” Journal of Contemporary History 20:617635.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huhle-Kreutzer, Gabriele. 1989. Die Entwicklung arzneilicher Produktionsstätten aus Apothekenlaboratorien, dargestellt an ausgewählten Beispielen. Stuttgart: Deutscher Apothekenverlag.Google Scholar
Hüntelmann, Axel C. 2006. “Das Diphterie-Serum und der Fall Langerhans.” Medizin, Gesellschaft und Geschichte 24:71104.Google Scholar
Hüntelmann, Axel C. 2007a. “Two cultures of regulation: The production and state control of Diphtheria serum at the end of the nineteenth century in France and Germany.” Hygiea Internationalis 7:99119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hüntelmann, Axel C. 2007b. “Evaluation and standardisation as a practical technique of administration: The example Diphtheria-serum.” In Evaluations: Standardising Pharmaceutical Agents 1890–1960, edited by Gradmann, Chistoph and Simon, Jonathan. Basingstoke: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Kibleur, Pascale. 1999. “L'evaluation et la validation des remèdes par la Société Royale de Médecine (1778–1793).” In Les thérapeutiques. Savoirs et usages, edited by Faure, Olivier, 7385. Lyon: Merieux.Google Scholar
L'annexe 1209. 1895. “Le rapport de loi relative à la préparation, à la vente, et à la distribution des sérums thérapeutiques et autres produits analogues (4 mars 1895).” Journal officiel de la République Française 74:247.Google Scholar
L'annexe 1245. 1895. “Le rapport de loi relative à la préparation, à la vente, et à la distribution des sérum thérapeutiques et autres produits analogues (28 mars 1895).” Journal officiel de la République Française 74:313316.Google Scholar
Mehrtens, Herbert. 1999. “Schmidts Schaufel (9,5 kg). Frederick W. Taylors Techniken des ‘Scientific Managments’.” In Normalität und Abweichung. Studien zur Theorie und Geschichte der Normalisierungsgesellschaft, edited by Sohn, Werner and Mehrtens, Herbert, 85106. Opladen, Wiesbaden: Westdeutscher Verlag.Google Scholar
Meinel, Christoph, ed. 1992. Die Allianz von Wissenschaft und Industrie – August Wilhelm Hofmann (1818–1892): Zeit, Werk, Wirkung. Weinheim: VCH.Google Scholar
Mendelsohn, Andrew. 1996. “Cultures of Bacteriology: Formation and Transformation of a Science in France and Germany, 18701914.” Department of History. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Ministère de l'Interiéur. 1895. Sérums thérapeutiques et autres produits analogues. Législation et réglementation. Extraits du tome XXV du recuil du comité consultatif d'hygiéne publique de France et des actes officiels de l'administration sanitaire. Melun: Imprimerie adminstrative.Google Scholar
Ministère de l'Interiéur 1896. Sérums thérapeutiques et autres produits analogues: Législation et réglementation. Extraits du tome XXVI du recuil du comité consultatif d'hygiéne publique de France et des actes officiels de l'administration sanitaire. Melun: Imprimerie adminstrative.Google Scholar
Murard, Lion, and Zylberman, Patrick. 1996. L'hygiène dans la République. Le santé publique en France, ou l'utopie contrariée 1870–1918. Paris: Fayard.Google Scholar
Pasteur, Louis. 1888. Inauguration de lInstitut Pasteur le 14 novembre 1888 ein présence de M. le Président de la République. Compte rendu. Sceaux: Charaire et fils.Google Scholar
Ramsey, Matthew. 1994a. “Academic Medicine and Medical Industrialism: The Regulation of Secret Remedies in France.” In French Medical Culture in the Nineteenth Century, edited by Berge, Ann La and Feingold, Mordechai, 2578. Amsterdam: Rodopi.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ramsey, Matthew. 1994b. “Public Health in France.” In The History of Public Health and the Modern State, edited by Porter, D., 45118. Amsterdam etc: Rodopi.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Straus, Isidore. 1984. “Sur la sérumthérapie.” Bulletin de l'Académie de Médecine 32:329333.Google Scholar
Throm, Carola. 1995. Das Diphtherieserum. Ein neues Therapieprinzip, seine Entwicklung und Markteinführung. Stuttgart: WVG.Google Scholar
Weindling, Paul. 1991. “Émile Roux et la diphthérie.” In L'Institut Pasteur. Contributions à son histoire. Ouvrage réalisé à partir des communications présentées au colloque international sur l'histoire de l'Institut Pasteur 6–10. juin 1988, edited by Morange, Michel, 136143. Paris: Éditions la Découverte.Google Scholar
Weisz, Georges. 1995. The Medical Mandarins. The French Academy of Medicine in the Nineteenth and Early Twentieth Centuries. New York: Oxford UP.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wimmer, Wolfgang. 1994. “Wir haben fast immer was Neues”: Gesundheitswesen und Innovationen der Pharma-Industrie in Deutschland, 1880–1935. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot.Google Scholar
Zeiss, Heinz and Bieling, Richard. 1940. Behring. Gestalt und Werk. Berlin: Bruno Schultz.Google Scholar