Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of Figures and Graphs
- Acknowledgments
- Abbreviations
- 1 Introduction: Medical Cultures
- 2 Medical Revolutions
- 3 The Rockefeller Foundation and the Culture of British Medicine
- 4 The Organization and Ethos of Edinburgh Medicine
- 5 Edinburgh, London, and North America
- 6 The Departments of Surgery and Medicine
- 7 A Hospital Laboratory
- 8 A University Laboratory in a Hospital
- 9 Bench and Bedside
- 10 Conclusion: Modern Times
- Bibliography
- Index
8 - A University Laboratory in a Hospital
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 17 March 2023
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of Figures and Graphs
- Acknowledgments
- Abbreviations
- 1 Introduction: Medical Cultures
- 2 Medical Revolutions
- 3 The Rockefeller Foundation and the Culture of British Medicine
- 4 The Organization and Ethos of Edinburgh Medicine
- 5 Edinburgh, London, and North America
- 6 The Departments of Surgery and Medicine
- 7 A Hospital Laboratory
- 8 A University Laboratory in a Hospital
- 9 Bench and Bedside
- 10 Conclusion: Modern Times
- Bibliography
- Index
Summary
The Department of Therapeutics used the lab to achieve high academic visibility in three ways: through the “pure” research of basic scientists, through the studies of clinicians who combined bedside observations with bench research, and through the joint investigations of both groups. By the 1920s a background in research was essential to constructing a career in academic medicine. It could also be used to further a future in private medical practice since it might enhance the possibility of obtaining a hospital appointment and hence a higher public profile. Creating a prestigious academic department of medicine in Britain was not easy in these years. Basic problems of administration and conditions of employment had to be sorted out. A model of collaborative work and attributions of seniority had to be agreed on. In Edinburgh, the Infirmary Managers and clinical staff had to be convinced that a powerful professorial unit was a good thing. The University would of course be sympathetic to promoting academic excellence but that did not mean it could be relied on for limitless economic support. Outside agencies, notably the RF and MRC, had to be enrolled.
Making an academic career in medicine at this time was extremely difficult and most of those clinicians using the lab probably did so to improve their prospects in regular practice. Money was the problem. By the 1920s scientific staff in non-clinical departments such as medical chemistry were paid by universities to teach and research. Meakins's scientific staff in the lab were paid by the University, in this case largely to do research. The University staff in clinical medicine, working on the wards of the Infirmary, were paid by the University to teach. The Infirmary paid no salaries. If Infirmary staff did research it was in their own time and largely at their own expense. A few funding possibilities, however, did exist. First, and most important, was the MRC which could be approached for personal expenses grants. These were used to free younger clinicians (almost invariably those active in the lab) from taking on additional duties such as extra-mural teaching.They were also used to supplement the University salary of full-time research workers in the lab. The MRC also provided equipment grants, usually of £100, for specific projects. The University had various fellowships, scholarships, bursaries, and grants in aid of research.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Rockefeller Money, the Laboratory and Medicine in Edinburgh 1919-1930New Science in an Old Country, pp. 225 - 268Publisher: Boydell & BrewerPrint publication year: 2005