Chapter 1 presents the historical context and the key players who called for statistics to be collected as part of the interwar public health programs presented in later chapters. Striving to promote the health of “others” – poor rural communities, or people in foreign countries – using scientific methods, the Rockefeller Foundation and the Milbank Memorial Fund provided support to statistical initiatives with the help of bacteriologists trained in laboratory methods, who aimed to extend those principles to the social world. Missionaries’ sons born in China – with knowledge both of Chinese conditions and North American public health training – made implementation of such programs possible in China. It was these driving forces that enabled these public health programs, including related statistical practices.

Chapter 2 details how Karl Pearson’s mathematical statistics were integrated into public health education, specifically at the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health (JHSPH) statistics department and its Chinese counterpart at the Peking Union Medical College (PUMC) in Beijing. Conceptions of the role of statistics in science differed at the two schools: the JHSPH aspired to identify the underlying statistical regularities in life and death; the PUMC was focused on testing and adapting scientific knowledge to fit Chinese public health work. The JHSPH’s transition from a biological focus in Pearson’s tradition to a focus on public health and epidemiology is also discussed. That approach was transferred – up to a point – to the PUMC. The major intermediaries in the transfer were a JHSPH alumnus and Rockefeller Foundation officer, John B. Grant, and one of his students, Yuan Yijing. Graduates of the two schools went on to use mathematical statistics in fieldwork, though they encountered resistance from locals and other experts. Statistical reporting nonetheless gained an increasingly prominent role in public health work in New York, Geneva, and Beijing. Graduates of the two schools were later employed by health organizations at different levels.

Chapter 5 describes efforts by UNRRA and the WHO to rebuild a health statistics reporting system from 1943, when UNRRA took over the LNHO’s international epidemiological intelligence efforts. The WHO also developed an all-encompassing statistical system to gather statistics collected through research, administration, and policy-making. Just like the LNHO, the WHO established a tiered network for spreading its statistical practices, but sought broader geographic coverage. By including statisticians from different regions in the standard-making process, the WHO took local variation into account when making standards. A case study on the Republic of China – which still ruled the mainland in 1943 but was exiled to Taiwan in 1949 – shows that UNRRA and the WHO’s statistical reporting was often undermined by geopolitics and administrative constraints.

Chapter 3 focuses on the League of Nations Health Organization (LHNO) epidemiological intelligence service and the organization’s relationship with the Chinese government. Using Rockefeller funding, the LNHO strove to lead international health collaboration by creating an international health statistics reporting system. The organization’s statistical authority, however, was a patchwork, as it had to negotiate with stakeholders individually. The epidemiological intelligence service devised a tiered network for generating and sharing statistical standards and data. North Atlantic countries were included in the standard-making process, whereas other regions were relegated to the receiving end. A focus on the Chinese government’s strategies of cooperation with the service is illuminating as to the geopolitical context, which played a salient role in the epidemiological reporting network, especially given that the Republic of China saw its collaboration with the LNHO as a way to recover customs controls from the imperial powers.