We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
This article adopts a historical perspective to examine the development of Laboratory Animal Science and Medicine, an auxiliary field which formed to facilitate the work of the biomedical sciences by systematically improving laboratory animal production, provision, and maintenance in the post Second World War period. We investigate how Laboratory Animal Science and Medicine co-developed at the local level (responding to national needs and concerns) yet was simultaneously transnational in orientation (responding to the scientific need that knowledge, practices, objects and animals circulate freely). Adapting the work of Tsing (2004), we argue that national differences provided the creative “friction” that helped drive the formation of Laboratory Animal Science and Medicine as a transnational endeavor. Our analysis engages with the themes of this special issue by focusing on the development of Laboratory Animal Science and Medicine in Norway, which both informed wider transnational developments and was formed by them. We show that Laboratory Animal Science and Medicine can only be properly understood from a spatial perspective; whilst it developed and was structured through national “centers,” its orientation was transnational necessitating international networks through which knowledge, practice, technologies, and animals circulated.
The modern concept of stress is commonly traced to the physiologist, Hans Selye. Selye viewed stress as a physiological response to a significant or unexpected change, describing a series of stages: alarm, resistance, and exhaustion, when an organism's adaptive mechanisms finally failed. While Selye originally focused on nonspecific physiological responses to harmful agents, the stress concept has since been used to examine the relationship between a variety of environmental stressors and mental disorders and chronic organic diseases such as hypertension, gastric ulcers, arthritis, allergies, and cancer. This edited volume brings together leading scholars to explore the emergence and development of the stress concept and its ever-changing definitions. It examines how the concept has been used to connect disciplines such as ecology, physiology, psychology, psychiatry, public health, urban planning, architecture, and a range of social sciences; its application in a variety of sites such as the battlefield, workplace, clinic, hospital, and home; and the emergence of techniques of stress management in a variety of different socio-cultural and scientific locations. Contributors: Theodore M. Brown, David Cantor, Otniel E. Dror, Rhodri Hayward, Mark Jackson, Robert G. W. Kirk, Junko Kitanaka, Tulley Long, Joseph Melling, Edmund Ramsden, Elizabeth Siegel Watkins, Allan Young. David Cantor is Acting Director, Office of History, National Institutes of Health. Edmund Ramsden is Research Fellow at the Centre for History of Science, Technology and Medicine, University of Manchester.
Edited by
David Cantor, Acting Director, Office of History, National Institutes of Health,Edmund Ramsden, Research Fellow at the Centre for History of Science, Technology and Medicine, University of Manchester
Edited by
David Cantor, Acting Director, Office of History, National Institutes of Health,Edmund Ramsden, Research Fellow at the Centre for History of Science, Technology and Medicine, University of Manchester
Edited by
David Cantor, Acting Director, Office of History, National Institutes of Health,Edmund Ramsden, Research Fellow at the Centre for History of Science, Technology and Medicine, University of Manchester
In Britain, as elsewhere in the 1950s, it had become “fashionable to assert” that there was “an increase in the incidence of mental disorders and that the cause of this is the increased stress of modern life.” Some medical professionals feared this trend to be self-fulfilling, warning that “mental health propaganda” was “instilling a phobia for the inevitable stresses of life.” The language of stress was certainly ubiquitous at this time, not least within the various branches of the biomedical sciences. In the wake of Hans Selye's general adaptation syndrome, stress had quickly become a conceptual space in which the study of clinical medicine, biology, physiology, endocrinology, neurology, biochemistry, psychology, psychiatry, and behavior, among many other fields, could enter into dialogue. This is not to suggest that there was agreement on the nature of stress or even the meaning of the term. On the contrary, across these disciplines stress was invoked in different ways, according to different models. Arguably, it was the very flexibility of the concept that accounted for its prevalence.
In July 1958, for example, the Mental Health Research Fund organized a conference with the aim to “arrive at a synthesis of the concepts used in different branches of the behavioral sciences when discussing stressful effects.”
Edited by
David Cantor, Acting Director, Office of History, National Institutes of Health,Edmund Ramsden, Research Fellow at the Centre for History of Science, Technology and Medicine, University of Manchester
Edited by
David Cantor, Acting Director, Office of History, National Institutes of Health,Edmund Ramsden, Research Fellow at the Centre for History of Science, Technology and Medicine, University of Manchester
Edited by
David Cantor, Acting Director, Office of History, National Institutes of Health,Edmund Ramsden, Research Fellow at the Centre for History of Science, Technology and Medicine, University of Manchester
Edited by
David Cantor, Acting Director, Office of History, National Institutes of Health,Edmund Ramsden, Research Fellow at the Centre for History of Science, Technology and Medicine, University of Manchester
Edited by
David Cantor, Acting Director, Office of History, National Institutes of Health,Edmund Ramsden, Research Fellow at the Centre for History of Science, Technology and Medicine, University of Manchester
Edited by
David Cantor, Acting Director, Office of History, National Institutes of Health,Edmund Ramsden, Research Fellow at the Centre for History of Science, Technology and Medicine, University of Manchester
Edited by
David Cantor, Acting Director, Office of History, National Institutes of Health,Edmund Ramsden, Research Fellow at the Centre for History of Science, Technology and Medicine, University of Manchester
Edited by
David Cantor, Acting Director, Office of History, National Institutes of Health,Edmund Ramsden, Research Fellow at the Centre for History of Science, Technology and Medicine, University of Manchester
Edited by
David Cantor, Acting Director, Office of History, National Institutes of Health,Edmund Ramsden, Research Fellow at the Centre for History of Science, Technology and Medicine, University of Manchester
Edited by
Alex S. Evers, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis,Mervyn Maze, University of California, San Francisco,Evan D. Kharasch, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis
