The Administrative Stabilization of Vaccines
Regulating the Diphtheria Antitoxin in France and Germany, 1894-1900
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 4516161 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Volker He (0000-0002-7500-2567, Berlin Institute of Health at Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corresponding author), Volker Hess (0000-0003-1185-0564) |
| Year | 2008 |
| Volume | 21 |
| Issue | 2 |
| Pages | 201-227 |
| Publication date | 2008-06-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Science in Context (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0269-8897 • E-ISSN: 1474-0664 |
| Publisher | Cambridge University Press (CUP) (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.1017/s0269889708001695 |
| PMID | 18831137 |
| OpenAlex | W2016996006 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 4 |
| References cited | 11 |
ArgumentIt 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
Health care · Law and economics · Legislature · Negotiation · Political science · Right to health · Sociology · Statute · Diphtheria, Corynebacterium, and Tetanus · Historical Medical Research and Treatments · Law · Medical History and Research · Medicine · Public Administration
| Unique citing works | 4 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 0,27 |
| Citation span | 2011 - 2024 (14) |
| Citation velocity | recent |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 4 |