Emigrated neuroscientists from Berlin to North America

ABSTRACT

The highest number of German scholars and physicians, forced by the National Socialist regime to emigrate for “race” or political reasons, were from Berlin. Language and medical exams were requested differently in their new host country—the United States—leading to a concentration of immigrants in the New York and Boston areas. Very early Emergency Committees in Aid of German Scholars and Physicians were established. Undergraduate students (like F. A. Freyhan, H. Lehmann, and H.-L. Teuber) from Berlin seemed to integrate easily, in contrast to colleagues of more advanced age. Some of the former chiefs and senior assistants of Berlin’s neurological departments could achieve a successful resettlement (C. E. Benda, E. Haase, C. F. List, and F. Quadfasel) and some a minor degree of success (F. H. Lewy and K. Goldstein). A group of neuropsychiatrists from Bonhoeffer’s staff at the Berlin Charité Hospital could rely on the forceful intercession of their former chief. The impact of the émigré colleagues on North American neuroscience is traced in some cases. Apart from the influential field of psychoanalysis, a more diffuse infiltration of German and European neuropsychiatry may be assumed. The contribution to the postwar blossoming of neuropsychology by the émigré neuroscientists K. Goldstein, F. Quadfasel, and H.-L. Teuber is demonstrated in this article.     

Promoting productivity in the National Health Service, 1950 to 1966

In the 1950s, the Ministry of Health, supported by interested groups outside government, recognised the political importance of productive efficiency. For leadership, organisational models and techniques the Ministry looked to the movement for industrial productivity. The NHS was receptive, but private-sector approaches were modified and dampened as they were imported. NHS management was to be the provider of technical expertise, but the deployment of this expertise was limited by clinical autonomy and de-coupling from financial incentives. This article casts new light on the history of productivity policy, NHS management and the moving frontier between state and civil society.     

Walter Moxon and His Thoughts About Language and the Brain

Walter Moxon wrote a well-timed paper in 1866 on aphemia with accompanying right sided hemiplegia. Like many other investigators of this apparent lopsidedness of the articulatory system for human speech, Moxon had to reconcile left hemisphere specialization for this function with the overriding law of symmetry, which for a large sector of the scientific community was a sine qua non of the anatomy and function of high level animal cognition. His reasoning was essentially that since the right dominant hand (and hence the left hemisphere) in some sense led overall bilateral limb movement patterns, that the right side of the tongue would lead whole tongue movement for articulation, the left side following in some mechanical sense. Thus, Moxon could link left hemisphere dominance for handedness as well as for speech. His theory was that “attention” was focused on the left hemisphere during limb movement development, under his assumption that the articulators were limbs as well as the arms and hands. The present paper will examine the professional life of Moxon and his 1866 paper, as well as the scant commentary that it has elicited in the literature on the history of left hemisphere dominance for the human articulatory function.     

Freud's impact on aphasiology ‐ aphasiology's impact on Freud*

Abstract

In 1891, Sigmund Freud published a book on aphasia. Although Freud's contribution to aphasiology could have been important in retrospect, it was hardly acknowledged for three quarters of a century. It may have had an impact on psychoanalytic theory, but this was not acknowledged by Freud. If there are neurological roots in psychoanalysis, they are buried by paradigmatic shifts in Freud's theory.     

Restoring Phineas Gage: A 150th Retrospective

September 13 1998 marked the 150th anniversary of the accident to Phineas Gage, one of the most famous cases of survival after massive injury to the brain, and certainly the most famous case of personality change after brain damage. For this article a sample of the current literature about Gage was examined. It was found that although his case is mentioned in about 60% of introductory textbooks in psychology, there is a good deal of inaccuracy in what has been written about him. Similar inaccuracy was found in a smaller sampling of the psychiatric, medical, physiological, linguistic, and general neuroscientific literature. The main basis of the inaccuracies is an ignorance or disregard of what is contained in the primary sources about Gage, coupled with a tendency to attribute to him characteristics that belong to other cases of frontal damage. The errors and their bases are discussed in an endeavour to restore the picture of Gage to its original state. The paper includes an Appendix of verbatim quotations from the primary sources that can be compared with the later, inaccurate renditions.     

“We Seem to Have Always Spoken in Prose . . .” Policy Analysis Is a Clinical Profession: Implications for Policy Analysis Practice and Instruction

The purpose of this article is (i) to propose the concept of policy analysis as a clinical profession, (ii) to relate to the clinical intellectual processes involved in policy analysis, and (iii) following studies in other clinical disciplines, to infer implications for policy analysis and policy analysis instruction. The article will highlight notions of clinical reasoning and clinical cognitive processes relevant to policy analysis and will address reasoning errors associated with bounded rationality and uncertainty in the clinical analytic process. The article seeks to promote awareness of clinical notions and of their relevance for policy analysis practice and instruction.     

Three Twentieth-Century Multiauthored Neurological Handbooks – A Historical Analysis and Bibliometric Comparison

The emergence of neurology as a separate specialty from internal medicine and psychiatry took several decades, starting at the end of the nineteenth century. This can be adequately reconstructed by focusing on the establishment of specialized journals, societies, university chairs, the invention and application of specific instruments, medical practices, and certainly also the publication of pivotal textbooks in the field. Particularly around 1900, the German-speaking countries played an integral role in this process. In this article, one aspect is extensively explored, notably the publication (in the twentieth century) of three comprehensive and influential multivolume and multiauthor handbooks entirely devoted to neurology. All available volumes of Max Lewandowsky's Handbuch der Neurologie (1910–1914) and the Handbuch der Neurologie (1935–1937) of Oswald Bumke and Otfrid Foerster were analyzed. The handbooks were then compared with Pierre Vinken's and George Bruyn's Handbook of Clinical Neurology (1968–2002).

Over the span of nearly a century these publications became ever more comprehensive and developed into a global, encompassing project as is reflected in the increasing number of foreign authors. Whereas the first two handbooks were published mainly in German, “Vinken & Bruyn” was eventually published entirely in English, indicating the general changes in the scientific language of neurology after World War II. Distinctions include the uniformity of the series, manner of editorial involvement, thematic comprehensiveness, inclusion of volume editors in “Vinken & Bruyn,” and the provision of index volumes. The increasing use of authorities in various neurological subspecialties is an important factor by which these handbooks contrast with many compact neurological textbooks that were available at the time.

For historiographical purposes, the three neurological handbooks considered here were important sources for the general study of the history of medicine and science and the history of neurology in particular. Moreover, they served as important catalyzers of the emergence of neurology as a new clinical specialty during the first decades of the twentieth century.     

A Note on Marinus of Alexandria

Abstract

Neurology in its modern sense was first studied in the well‐known neurological institutions of France and England. In America, however, this new field of medicine was developed by a physician in a private practice, Dr. William Alexander Hammond. This article addresses the question how Hammond was able to limit his practice to neurology. It is argued that Hammond was a famous military physician before becoming the first practitioner of clinical neurology in America. This fame translated into a large referral base.     

President Wilson's Brain Trust: Woodrow Wilson,Francis X. Dercum,and American Neurology

On October 2, 1919, President Woodrow Wilson suffered a stroke that paralyzed the left half of his body. Wilson's stroke forced the American public to confront stroke, and laypeople came to identify stroke as a nervous disorder, rather than a condition rooted solely in psychological phenomena. His medical care was overseen by Cary Grayson, his personal internist, and Francis X. Dercum, a remarkably accomplished neurologist from Philadelphia. Dercum was very involved in the treatment of the President, from the day of the stroke until years later. While the medical records have been destroyed, some basic facts of Wilson's treatment and rehabilitation can be inferred from the literature. Although Woodrow Wilson was an exceptional patient, his care, albeit administered by some of the most famous physicians of the era, was typical of the time. Therefore, this paper's approach to Wilson's 1919 stroke contextualizes the President's case into the larger scheme of early twentieth-century neurology.