Introduction
The leaps in technology has permeated many areas of human life, but perhaps the
field of medicine is the one that has gained so much from this once unimaginable human achievement. With technology, many parts of medicine have gone through numerous changes, thereby giving people more power and control of their own health. Gone were the days when people would simply succumb to diseases, such as the bubonic plague which claimed the lives of 25 million people in the span of only five years. Women now stand a much better chance of living longer and healthier after giving birth. People now feel safer against diseases such as smallpox as even though there is yet a cure for it, it can be prevented through vaccination. Many other diseases continue to get treated and human health has gone through considerable improvements due largely to technology. Thus, as technology continues to move forward, so will the field of medicine as these two go hand in hand, as shown in the way modern medicine for both hospital and laboratory were developed through laboratory science (Worboys 109), the development of important medical products through macromolecularization developed during World War II (Lowy 119), the apparent link established among medicine, tehnology, and science as shown in history, .
Review of related literature
First, in order to see the future path of medicine, it would be helpful to
learn and understand some of its most significant achievements as influenced by technology. The nineteenth century marks the birth of modern medicine. It was during this time that “development of hospital and laboratory medicine, public health, and the rise of the asylum took place” (Worboys 109). It was also the period when several “neglected areas” in medicine were given attention, and this includes the history of the human body, gender, alternative medicine, and patients. However, while this period marks a milestone for the medical world, as defined by the products produced by laboratory sciences, other scientists argue that the field of medicine should revert to biology-based medical sciences (Lowy 116). According to the Rockefeller Foundation, biological knowledge should be the basis of medical sciences, such that application of the cure and prevention of diseases should be anchored on it. Compared to laboratory science, biomedicine, which had its roots in World War II, when an increase in collaboration among biologists, clinicians, and industrialist lead to the creation of important medical products such as penicillin through the discovery of ‘macromolecularization’ (Lowy 117). With larger funds allocated for medical research to battle the effects of World War II, the pharmaceutical industry also increased. Other disciplines such as endocrinology, hematology, and oncology also became grounded on biomedical. In addition, historians of medicine who were highly trained in history increased in number, thereby providing a wider and richer collaboration between historians of medicine and scholars who worked on investigating current developments in medicine.
Second, further development in medicine was achieved with the popularity of biomedicine and the discovery of macromolecularization. During the late twentieth century, biomedicine increased rapidly and became a subject of interest among sociologists, philosophers, and anthropologists (Lowy 119). As gender also became a subject studied by historians of medicine, sex hormones to control fertility, body performance enhancers, as well as medicines that would deal with atypical bodies as a result of sex/gender change materialized. These developments in pharmaceuticals show the rich contribution of biomedicine. However, as issues regarding biomedicine and gender are linked with various factors that include but is not limited to legal history, business, political science, and industrial history, historians of medicine, or more popularly called ‘scholars’ these days continue to work on expanding the pharmaceutical industry following the biomedicine approach.
Third, while medicine and technology have been intertwined for so many years that they have become inseparable, this is not the case between science and medicine. Scholars apparently find it challenging, if not awkward, to link science and medicine, and even all three together. Historians trace as far back as the Renaissance how certain terms started being used, specifically those which refer to genres of knwoledge, i.e. ‘natural philosophy,’ ‘natural history,’ and ‘mixed mathematics.’ These three have strong links with science, technology, and medicine, collectively called STM, such that natural philosophy deals with meanings of the world, mathematicians with quantities, and naturalists in different kinds like animals, plants, and minerals, to name a few (Pickstone 124). Regardless of the historical disjoint of science, medicine, and technology, their functions and relationship with each other has made it possible for all three to work together effectively, such that science gave way to technology, which in turn developed medicine, thereby making medicine linked to science.
Last, while a strong link is established between medicine and technology, Worboys offered another perspective on the disjoint between science and medicine in his article “Practice and the Science of Medicine in the Nineteenth Century.” Worboys believes that the practice of science in medicine has yet to be completely realized, but that the focus of historians of medicine became less on medicine but more in history as they were said to be working more in history departments instead of “alongside historians of science or in medical schools” (110). Warner (as cited in Worboys) prescribes historians to look into meanings when it comes to science for medicine, delving into the wider roles of medicine ‘in shaping cultural values and social order, such as gender roles, hygienic ideas, and notions of normality’ (111). This suggests that knowledge about science in alternative medicine is important as it is linked to the “democratization of knowledge, as at its meanings in laboratory investigations, where special sites, long training, and esoteric terms seemed necessarily linked to expertise, exclusivity, and hierarchies” (Worboys 111). Science in medicine plays an important role in anchoring terminologies which are closely linked to practice and expertise, thus making it imperative for science and medicine to work together in order to not only explore the multitudes of possibility that the application of one to another could offer, but also to see how effective each would perform when applied.
Conclusion
In conclusions, the review of the articles about medicine and technology provided
information on how the medical field has been positively influenced by technology. Historians of medicine has traced this effect as far back as World War II, when medicine was given an opportunity to expand through financial funds. Through the years, medicine, with the aide of technology, has seen several milestones which were caused by some shift in focus in terms of the process applied. While ‘turn of practice’ or the reliance on laboratory science was able to produce several significant contributions to medicine, more scholars still support and follow biomedicine. Both produced positive and relevant results, as such application of both in the field of medicine implies a lot of promise. In the same manner, the contribution of scholars or historians of medicine prove be extremely helpful. With this outline of current and past conditions putting medicine, technology, and science together, it can be safely assumed that both will continue to swing high in the years to come.
Works Cited
Lowy, Ilana. “Historiography of Biomedicine: “Bio,” “Medicine,” and
in Between.” History of Science Society 102.1 (2011). pp.116-122. jstor.org. Web. 9 March 2016.
Pickstone, John V. “Sketching Together the Modern Histories of Science, Technology, and
Medicine.”History of Science Society 102.1 (2011). pp.123-133. jstor.org. Web. 9 March 2016.
Raj, Kapil. “Beyond Postcolonialism and Postpositivism: Circulation
and the Global History of Science.” History of Science Society 104.2 (2013). pp.337-347. jstor.org. Web. 9 March 2016.
Worboys, Michael. “Practice and the Science of Medicine in the
Nineteenth Century.” History of Science Society 102.1 (2011). pp.109-115. jstor.org. Web. 9 March 2016.
