The most interesting part this week was the rivalry between Louis

Pasteur and Robert Koch. This is the first that we discuss their
discoveries in the context of the history of medicine. We used to study
their theories in different courses without acknowledging the fact that
they were fueled by national rivalry and language barriers, so intense
that a mistranslated work from French to German during a lecture
given by Pasteur, triggered Koch indignation and denigration of Pasteur
research on anthrax. However, this acute conflict between them was
enormously constructive considering that their in-depth research and
discoveries shaped the germ theory of diseases and challenged many
postulates.
The epistemological change discussed by Michel Foucault is a very
interesting point of view to explain the development of the scientific
method in medicine during the French revolution. This change is
characterized by a public alienation from all social, ethnics and
religious constraints that were preventing the advancement of
practical medicine, specially anatomy and pathology. Some voices
presume that this epistemological change was a deterioration of the
patient-physician relationship from a humanitarian form to mechanical
one. However the fact is that physicians had to dissect and experiment
recent bodies in order to save future ones. This period of profound
experimentation and discovery was only a transition phase to acquire
in depth knowledge of diseases and later perform a proper diagnosis.
So we should not blame it on the physicians but rather realize that
these patients who were depicted by Foucault as subjects or objects of
experimentations were in reality only victim of the mere fact that they
lived in this period were science needed advancements to solve future
mysteries. On the other hand I agree that we need more cultural and
societal changes in order to achieve more breakthroughs and that
epistemological changes could be the fuel of these discoveries. For
example we can recall without a feministic epistemological change we
could have been deprived of the scientific discoveries done by the
famous female physicists Marie Curie.
John snow statistical evidence and observations pushed to claim that
the simple mechanistic action of removing the handle of pump on
Broad Street would limit the spreading of cholera in the area and its
surrounding neighborhoods. However John
Snow failed to convince the local authorities that such simplistic
measure could have a tremendous effect on public health, mainly
because his results were inconclusive and because he did not provide a
tangible explanation for this. In this situation we dont see any
government support to pursue and develop this discovery, which could
have saved many lives if the council adopted it before the pandemic

surged in the city. Contrary to what happened in London, we notice the

French and German governments fully backing up their sciences by
providing all the financial and political supports they need in order to
achieve scientific breakthroughs. In fact, this exclusive support was
behind the scientific discoveries done by Pasteur and Koch whom were
successful to provide palpable evidence and extraordinary results in
their field of research.