Sketching together the modern histories of science, technology, and medicine.

This essay explores ways to "write together" the awkwardly jointed histories of "science" and "me dicine"--but it also includes other "arts" (in the old sense) and technologies. It draws especially on the historiography of medicine, but I try to use terms that are applicable across all of science, technology, and medicine (STM). I stress the variety of knowledges and practices in play at any time and the ways in which the ensembles change.

Focus: between and beyond "histories of science" and "histories of medicine". Introduction.

Historians tend to treat science and medicine as having developed in parallel, and we maintain separate societies and journals, often giving primacy to science, at least for intellectual history. Yet much of "science" before circa 1800 was dependent on the organizations of medicine, and much of science now is promoted for the improvement of medical diagnoses and therapies. This Focus section unpicks some of the historical and historiographical relationships, recognizing the present prominence of biomedicine and the diminishing utility of distinctions between science, medicine, and technology.

Early dialysis in Britain: Leeds and beyond.

In parallel with the experience in most countries, early clinical experiments with dialysis in Britain did not lead to general adoption of the treatment. After a decade, dialysis for acute kidney failure was re-established at Leeds General Infirmary under the direction of Dr Frank Parsons, who had been inspired by Dr John Merrill in Boston. The intervening period was not characterized by indifference to kidney failure, but was devoted to defining acute kidney failure and successfully applying "conservative" measures, such as dietary regimens based on the scientific understanding and teaching of the time.

Working knowledges before and after circa 1800: practices and disciplines in the history of science, technology, and medicine.

Historians of science, inasmuch as they are concerned with knowledges and practices rather than institutions, have tended of late to focus on case studies of common processes such as experiment and publication. In so doing, they tend to treat science as a single category, with various local instantiations. Or, alternatively, they relate cases to their specific local contexts.

Contested cumulations: configurations of cancer treatments through the twentieth century.

The treatment of cancer through the twentieth century may be seen as the successive addition of modalities: first surgery; then radiotherapy, especially between the world wars; and then chemotherapy, from the 1960s. This paper explores some of the systematic differences between the modalities, and how these additions were negotiated in different countries, with different long-term consequences for the development of services and specialization. It focuses chiefly on the United Kingdom and the United States, the former exemplifying a centralized health polity, and the latter, liberal markets combined with large and crucial postwar inputs from government.