Advertisement

Journal of the History of Biology

, Volume 43, Issue 1, pp 111–157 | Cite as

Scientific Discovery and Scientific Reputation: The Reception of Peyton Rous’ Discovery of the Chicken Sarcoma Virus

  • Eva Becsei-Kilborn
Article

Abstract

This article concerns itself with the reception of Rous’ 1911 discovery of what later came to be known as the Rous Sarcoma Virus (RSV). Rous made his discovery at the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research which had been primarily established to conduct research into infectious diseases. Rous’ chance discovery of a chicken tumor led him to a series of conjectures about cancer causation and about whether cancer could have an extrinsic cause. Rous’ finding was received with some scepticism by the scientific community that held that cancer was not infectious and favored explanations which located the origins of cancer in the inner mechanism of the cell. After 4 years of unsuccessful effort to isolate and further determine the virus Rous felt compelled to discontinue his work on cancer viruses. When 55 years later, the significance of Rous’s discovery was attested by the award of the Nobel Prize, it opened up debates about the issues of delayed recognition and scientific reputation. This article also considers why Rous’ hypothesis of a viral origin of cancer could not be incorporated into the existing body of knowledge about cancer before the 1950s.

Keywords

virus cancer germ theory inflammation bacteriology scientific medicine Peyton Rous Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research delayed recognition scientific reputation 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by grants from the American Philosophical Society, Philadelphia the Rockefeller Archive Center, Tarrytown, New York, the Francis Clark Wood Institute of College of Physicians of Philadelphia and the University of Illinois at Chicago. I would also like to acknowledge the help received in preparation of this article from Nathaniel Comfort.

References

  1. Andrewes, C. H. 1971. ‹Rous, Francis Peyton (1879–1070).’ Biographical Memoirs of Fellows of the Royal Society 17: 643–662.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Amsterdamska, O. 1988. ``Chemistry in the Clinic: The Research Career of Donald Dexter Van Slyke.'' Soroya de Chadarevian and Harmke Kamminga (eds.), In Molecularizing Biology and Medicine: New Practices and Alliances 1910s–1970s. Amsterdam: Harwood Academic Publishers, pp. 47–82Google Scholar
  3. —— 2001 ``Between Medicine and Science: The Research Career of Oswald T. Avery.'' Jean-Paul Gaudillière and Ilana Löwy (eds.), Heredity and Infection: The History of Disease Transmission. New York, Routledge, pp. 181–211Google Scholar
  4. Austoker, J. 1988. A History of the Imperial Cancer Research Fund, 1902–1986. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Bashford, E. F. 1911a. “Cancer Research.” The British Medical Journal April: 1008Google Scholar
  6. Bashford, E. F. 1911b. “The Obligation Imposed Upon the General Practitioner by the Development of Experimental Investigation of Cancer.” The Practitioner March: 337–347.Google Scholar
  7. Becsei-Kilborn, E. 2003. Going Against The Grain: Francis Peyton Rous (1879–1970) and the Search for the Cancer Virus. Ph.D thesis, University of Illinois at Chicago.Google Scholar
  8. Bishop, J. M. 2003. How to Win the Nobel Prize: An Unexpected Life in Science. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Bos, L. 1999. ‹Beijerinck’s Work on Tobacco Mosaic Virus: Historical Context and Legacy.’ Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences 354((March)): 675–685.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cantor, D. 1993. ‹Cancer.’ W. F. Bynum, Roy Porter (eds.), Companion Encyclopedia of the History of Medicine, 1 vols. New York:Routledge, pp. 537–561.Google Scholar
  11. Coates, W. E. 1899. ‹Parasitic Origin of Tumors.’ The Plexus: Official Organ of College of Physicians and Surgeons of University of Illinois 5(3): 103–105.Google Scholar
  12. Comfort, N. 1995. “Rous’s Reception: Tumor Viruses in the Context of the Germ Theory, 1908–1915.” Unpublished paper presented to the History of Science Society October 26–29, 1995, Minneapolis, MN.Google Scholar
  13. Comfort, N. 1999. ‹‹The Real Point is Control’: The Reception of Barbara McClintock’s Controlling Elements.’ Journal of the History of Biology 32: 133–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Comfort, N. 2001a. The Tangled Field: Barbara McClintock’s Search for the Patterns of Genetic Control. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Comfort, N. 2001b. “From Controlling Elements to Transposons: Barbara McClintock and the Nobel Prize.” Trends in Biomedical Sciences 26: 454–457. Simultaneously published in Trends in Genetics 17: 475–478.Google Scholar
  16. Comfort, N. 2002. ‹Barbara McClintock’s Controlling Elements: Premature Discovery or Stillborn Theory?’ Ernest B. Hook (ed.), Prematurity in Scientific Discovery: On Resistance and Neglect. California:University of California Press.Google Scholar
  17. Corner, G. W. 1964. A History of the Rockefeller Institute 1901–1953, Origins and Growth. New York:The Rockefeller Institute Press.Google Scholar
  18. Creager, A. H. 2002. The Life of a Virus: Tobacco Mosaic Virus as an Experimental Model 1930–1965. Chicago:The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  19. Creager, A. H., Gaudillière, J. P. 2001. ‹Experimental Arrangements and Technologies of Visualization: Cancer as a Viral Epidemic, 1930–1960.’ Jean Paul Gaudillière, Ilana Löwy (eds.), Heredity and Infection: The History of Disease Transmission. New York:Routledge, pp. 203–241.Google Scholar
  20. Delafield, F., Prudden, T. M. 1914. A Text-Book of Pathology. New York:William Wood and Company.Google Scholar
  21. Dulbecco, R. 1976. “Francis Peyton Rous, October 5, 1879–February 16, 1970.” Biographical Memoirs of the National Academy of Sciences 48: 275–306.Google Scholar
  22. Ewing, J. 1908. “Animal Experimentation and Cancer.” Issued under the auspices of the Committee on Experimental Medicine of the Medical Society of the State of New York. James B. Murphy papers, reprint, Cancer Publications #2, APS.Google Scholar
  23. —— 1916. ``Pathological Aspects of Some Problems of Experimental Cancer Research.'' Journal of Cancer Research 1: 71–86Google Scholar
  24. Ewing, J. 1922. Neoplastic Diseases: A Treaties on Tumors, 3rd ed. Philadelphia:W.B. Saunders.Google Scholar
  25. Furth, J. 1976. ‹The Making and Missing of Discoveries: An Autobiographical Essay.’ Cancer Research 36(March): 871–880.Google Scholar
  26. Gage, A. A. 1996. ‹Roswell Park, M.D. – The Parasitic Theory of the Cause of Cancer.’ Lilli Sentz, Ronald Elmer Batt (eds.), Medical History in Buffalo, 1846–1996. Buffalo New York:School of Medicine and Biomedical Services, State University of New York at Buffalo, pp. 163–179.Google Scholar
  27. Gaudillière, J. P. 1993. “Oncogenes as Metaphors for Human Cancer: Articulating Laboratory Practices and Medical Demands.” Ilana Löwy (ed.), Medicine and Change. NSERM-John Libbey, p. 212.Google Scholar
  28. Gaudillière, J. P. 1998. ‹The Molecularization of Cancer Etiology in the Postwar United States: Instruments, Politics and Management.’ Soroya de Chadarevian, Harmke Kamminga (eds.), Molecularizing Biology and Medicine: New Practices and Alliances 1910s–1970s. Amsterdam:Harwood Academic Publishers, pp. 139–170.Google Scholar
  29. Gaylord, H. R. 1907. ‹Parasitism and Infection in Cancer.’ New York State Journal of Medicine 7((May)): 189.Google Scholar
  30. Grafe, A. 1991. A History of Experimental Virology. New York:Springer-Verlag, pp. 41–44. 47–158.Google Scholar
  31. Helvoort, T. V. 1994a. ‹History of Virus Research in the Twentieth Century: The Problem of Conceptual Continuity.’ History of Science 32: 185–235.Google Scholar
  32. Helvoort, T. V. 1994b. ‹The Construction of Bacteriophage as Bacterial Virus: Linking Endogenous and Exogenous Thought Styles.’ Journal of the History of Biology 27: 91–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Helvoort, T. V. 1999. ‹A Century of Research into the Cause of Cancer: Is the New Oncogene Paradigm Revolutionary?’ History and Philosophy of Life Sciences 21: 293–330.Google Scholar
  34. Helvoort, T. V. 2000. ‹A Dispute over Scientific Credibility: A Struggle for an Independent Institute for Cancer Research in Pre-World War II Berlin.’ Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 31(2): 315–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Helvoort, T. V. 2001. ‹Scalpel or Rays? Radiotherapy and the Struggle for the Cancer Patient in Pre-World War II Germany.’ Medical History 45(1): 33–60.Google Scholar
  36. Helvoort, T. V. 2004. ‹The Start of a Cancer Research Tradition: Peyton Rous, James Ewing and Viruses as a Cause of Cancer.’ Darwin H. Stapleton (ed.), Creating a Tradition of Biomedical Research. New York:Rockefeller University Press, pp. 191–211.Google Scholar
  37. Hook, E. B. (ed.). 2002. Prematurity in Scientific Discovery: On Resistance and Neglect. California:University of California Press.Google Scholar
  38. Hughes, S. S. 1977. The Virus, A History of the Concept. New York:Science History Publications.Google Scholar
  39. Keating, P. 2004. ‹Does Biomedicine Entail the Successful Reduction of Pathology to Biology?’ Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 47(3): 357–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Keating, P., Cambrioso, A. 2003. Biomedical Platforms: Realigning the Normal and the Pathological in Late-Twentieth-Century Medicine. Cambridge, Massachusetts:The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  41. Kevles, D. J. 1995. ‹Pursuing the Unpopular: A History of Courage, Viruses, and Cancer.’ R. B. Silvers (ed.), Hidden Histories of Science. New York:A New York Review Book, pp. 69–115.Google Scholar
  42. Kidd, J. G. 1971. A Notable Career in Finding Out: Peyton Rous, 1879–1970. New York:The Rockefeller University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Klein, G. 1999. ‹The Tale of the Great Cuckoo Egg.’ Nature 400: 515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Koblenz, L. 2000. “The Making of Modern Cancer: Institutional Beginnings in America.” Unpublished paper read at New York Academy of Medicine, pp. 1–23.Google Scholar
  45. Landeker, H. 2007. Culturing Life: How Cells Became Technologies. Cambridge: Mass:Harvard University Press, pp. 68–107. Chapter Immortality.Google Scholar
  46. Latour, B., Woolgar, S. 1979. Laboratory Life: The Social Construction of Scientific Facts. London and Beverly Hills:Sage.Google Scholar
  47. Loeb, L. 1916a. ‹Review of The Cancer Problem by William Bainbridge.’ Science 43((January)): 70–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Loeb, L. 1916b. ‹General Problems and Tendencies in Cancer Research.’ Science 43((March)): 293–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Löwy, I. 1989. ‹The Impact of Medical Practice on Biomedical Research: The Case of Human Leucocyte Antigen Studies.’ Minerva 23: 171–200.Google Scholar
  50. Löwy, I. 1990. ‹Variances in Meaning in Discovery Accounts: The Case of Contemporary Biology.’ Historical Studies in the Physical and Biological Sciences 21(1): 87–121.Google Scholar
  51. Löwy, I. 1996. Between Bench and Bedside, Science, Healing, and Interlukin-2 in a Cancer Ward. Cambridge, Massachusetts:Harvard University Press, p. 279.Google Scholar
  52. Löwy, I., Gaudillière, J. P. 1998. ‹Disciplining Cancer: Mice and the Practice of Genetic Purity.’ Ilana Löwy, Jean Paul Gaudillière (eds.), The Invisible Industrialist: Manufacturers and the Production of Scientific Knowledge. New York:St. Martin’s Press, pp. 218–221.Google Scholar
  53. Marcum, J. A. 2005. ‹From the Molecular Genetics Revolution to Gene Therapy: Translating Basic Research into Medicine.’ Journal of Laboratory and Clinical Medicine 146: 312–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Marks, H. M. 2000. The Progress of Experiment: Science and Therapeutic Reform in the United States, 1900–1990. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  55. Maulitz, R. 1979. ‹‹Physician versus Bacteriologist’: The Ideology of Science in Clinical Medicine.’ Morris J. Vogel, Charles E. Rosenberg (eds.), The Therapeutic Revolution: Essays in the Social History of American Medicine. Philadelphia:University of Pennsylvania Press, pp. 91–107.Google Scholar
  56. Mendelsohn, J. A. 2001. ‹Medicine and the Making of Bodily Inequality In Twentieth-Century Europe.’ Jean Paul Gaudillière, Ilana Löwy (eds.), Heredity and Infection: The History of Disease Transmission. New York:Routledge, pp. 21–80.Google Scholar
  57. Mirand, E. A. 1996. “Dr. Roswell Park’s Lasting Legacy to the World in Developing the Concept of a Cancer Center.” Lilli Sentz and Ronald Elme Batt (eds.), Medical History in Buffalo, 1846–1996. New York: School of Medicine and Biomedical Services, State University of New York at Buffalo, pp. 193–209.Google Scholar
  58. Moberg, C. L. 2004. ‹James B. Murphy, the Rous Sarcoma Agent, and Origins of Modern Cell Biology.’ Darwin H. Stapleton (ed.), Creating a Tradition of Biomedical Research. New York:Rockefeller University Press, pp. 259–271.Google Scholar
  59. Moss, R. W. 1991 [1989]. The Cancer Industry: The Classic Exposé on the Cancer Establishment. New York: Paragon House.Google Scholar
  60. Oberling, C. 1952. The Riddle of Cancer, translated by W.H. Woglom. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  61. Osler, W., McCrae, T. 1900. Cancer of the Stomach: A Clinical Study. Philadelphia:P. Blakiston’s Son.Google Scholar
  62. Park, R. 1893. “The Parasitic Theory of the Etiology of Carcinoma.” New York Medical Journal 57: 133–137.Google Scholar
  63. Park, R. 1907. ‹The Work of the New York State Cancer Laboratory – Retrospective: Prospective.’ New York State Journal of Medicine 7((May)): 186–189.Google Scholar
  64. Patterson, J. T. 1987. The Dread Disease. Cambridge, Massachusetts:Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  65. Peller, S. 1979. Cancer Research since 1900: An Evaluation. New York:Philosophical Library.Google Scholar
  66. Pinell, P. 2000. “Cancer.” Roger Cooter and John Pickstone (eds.), Medicine in the Twentieth Century. Amsterdam: Harwood Academic Publishers, p. 673.Google Scholar
  67. Proctor, R. N. 1995. Cancer Wars, How Politics Shapes What We Know and Don’t Know About Cancer. New York:Basic Books: A Division of Harper Collins Publishers, pp. 35–54.Google Scholar
  68. Prüll, C. R. 2000. ‹Illness of Cells or Illness of Patients? – The Cultural Impact on Cancer Research in German and British Pathology, 1900–1945.’ Wolfgang U. Eckart (ed.), 100 Years of Organized Cancer Research. Stuttgart and New York:Georg Thieme Verlag, pp. 17–21.Google Scholar
  69. Pusey, W. A. 1911. ‹Cancer.’ School Science and Mathematics 11: 591–598. 696–703.Google Scholar
  70. Raskó, István, Downs, C. S. 1995. Genes in Medicine: Molecular Biology and Human Genetic Disorders. :Chapman and Hall.Google Scholar
  71. Rather, L. J. 1978. The Genesis of Cancer: A Study in the History of Ideas. Baltimore:Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  72. Raven, R. W. 1990. The Theory and Practice of Oncology: Historical Evolution and Present Principles. New Jersey:The Parthenon Publishing Group.Google Scholar
  73. Rheinberger, H. J. 1995. ‹From Microsomes to Ribosomes: “Strategies” of “Representation”.’ Journal of the History of Biology 28: 49–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Robinson, A. D. 1974. ‹An Evaluation of Garrod’s Contribution to the One Gene-One Enzyme Hypothesis.’ BioScience 24: 357–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Rous, P. 1908. “The Teaching of Physiological Pathology at the University of Michigan.” Bulletin of the Johns Hopkins Hospital, 336–338.Google Scholar
  76. Rous, P. 1910a. ‹An Experimental Comparison of Transplanted Tumor and a Transplanted Normal Tissue Capable of Growth.’ Journal of Experimental Medicine 12: 345–365.Google Scholar
  77. Rous, P. 1910b. ‹A Transmissible Avian Neoplasm: Sarcoma of the Common Fowl.’ Journal of Experimental Medicine 12: 696–705.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Rous, P. 1911a. ‹Transmission of a Malignant New Growth by Means of a Cell-Free Filtrate.’ Journal of American Medical Association 56((January)): 198.Google Scholar
  79. Rous, P. 1911b. ‹A Sarcoma of the Fowl Transmissible by an Agent Separable from the Tumor Cells.’ Journal of Experimental Medicine 13: 397–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Rous, P. 1912. ‹An Avian Tumor in its Relation to the Tumor Problem.’ Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 60((July)): 201–205.Google Scholar
  81. Rous, P. 1913. ‹Resistance to Tumour-Producing Agent as Distinct from Resistance to the Implanted Tumour.’ Journal of Experimental Medicine 18: 416–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Rous, P. 1914. ‹The Influence of Diet on Transplanted and Spontaneous Mouse Tumors.’ Journal of Experimental Medicine 20: 433–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Rous, P. 1943a. “Viruses and Tumors.” Virus Diseases: By Members of the Rockefeller Institute of Medical Research. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press, pp.␣147–170.Google Scholar
  84. Rous, P. 1943b. ‹‹The Nearer Causes of Cancer.’ Fourth Barnard Hospital Lecture.’ The Journal of the American Medical Association 122(9): 573–581.Google Scholar
  85. Rous, P. 1961. ‹The Scope of Carcinogenesis.’ Extrait de Acta Union Internationale Contre Le Cancer 17: 261–272.Google Scholar
  86. Rous, P. 1965. ‹Viruses and Tumor Causation.’ Nature 207: 457–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Rous, P. 1966. “The Dualism of the Discoverer,” Die Johann Wolfgang Goethe Universität, offprint; unpublished article. 23–52.Google Scholar
  88. Rous, P. 1967. ‹The Challenge to Man of the Neoplastic Cell.’ Cancer Research 27: 1919–1924.Google Scholar
  89. Rous, P,, Friedewald, W. F. 1944. ‹The Initiating and Promoting Elements in Tumor Production. An Analysis of the Effects of Tar, Benzpyrene, and Methylcholanthrene on Rabbit Skin.’ Journal of Experimental Medicine 80: 101–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Rous, P, Murphy, J. B. 1912. ‹The Nature of the Filterable Agent Causing a Sarcoma of the Fowl.’ Journal of American Medical Association 58((June)): 1938.Google Scholar
  91. Rous, P., Murphy, J. B. 1914a. ‹On the Causation by Filterable Agents of Three Distinct Chicken Tumors.’ Journal of Experimental Medicine 18: 52–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Rous, P., Murphy, J. B. 1914b. ‹On Immunity to Transplantable Chicken Tumors.’ Journal of Experimental Medicine 20: 419–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Rusch, H. P. 1985. ‹The Beginnings of Cancer Research Centers in the United States.’ Journal of the National Institute of Cancer 74((February)): 391–403.Google Scholar
  94. Simpson, B. T. 1916. “Notes on Some Experiments with the Rous Chicken Sarcoma.” In Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research, Ninth Annual Meeting, Held in Washington D.C., May 8.Google Scholar
  95. Stent, G. 1972. ‹Prematurity and Uniqueness in Scientific Discovery.’ Scientific American 227(6): 84–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Stengel, A. and Fox, H. 1915, 1921 [1900]. A Text-book of Pathology, 3rd revised edition. Philadelphia, London: W.B. Saunders.Google Scholar
  97. Temin, H. M., Rubin, H. 1958. ‹Characteristics of an Assay for Rous Sarcoma Virus and Rous Sarcoma Cells in Tissue Culture.’ Virology 6: 609–688.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Tomes, N. 1997. ‹American Attitudes Toward the Germ Theory of Disease: Phyllis Allen Richmond Revisited.’ Journal of the History of Medicine and Allied Sciences 52((January)): 17–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Tomes, N. 1998. The Gospel of Germs: Men, Women and the Microbe in American Life. Cambridge, Mass:Harvard University Press, pp. 91–113.Google Scholar
  100. Tomes, N., Warner, J. H. 1997. ‹Introduction to Special Issue on Rethinking the Reception of the Germ Theory of Disease: Comparative Perspectives.’ Journal of the History of Medicine and Allied Sciences 52((January)): 7–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Triolo, V. A. 1964. ‹Nineteenth Century Foundations of Cancer Research: Origins and Experimental Research.’ Cancer Research 24: 4–26.Google Scholar
  102. Triolo, V. A. 1965. ‹Nineteenth Century Foundations of Cancer Research: Advances in Tumor Pathology, Nomenclature and Theories of Oncogenesis.’ Cancer Research 25: 75–106.Google Scholar
  103. Tyzzer, E .E. 1909. “The Bearings of the Experimental Investigation of Tumors on the Tumor Problem in General.” A Course of Lectures on Tumors, Cancer Commission of Harvard University. Boston, Massachusetts: Medical School of Harvard University, pp. 1–17.Google Scholar
  104. Tyzzer, E. E. 1914. “Report of the Director.” In Cancer Commission of Harvard University, Second Annual Report of the Cancer Commission of Harvard University, 1913–1914. Boston, Massachusetts: Cancer Commission of Harvard University, pp. 5–18.Google Scholar
  105. Varmus, H. Y. 1990. ‹“Retroviruses and Oncogenes I,” Nobel Lecture, December 8, Stockholm, Sweden. Bioscience Reports 10: 413–430.Google Scholar
  106. Vogt, P. K. 1996. ‹Peyton Rous: Homage and Appraisal.’ The FASEB Journal 10: 1559–1562.Google Scholar
  107. Warner, J. H. 1992. “The Fall and Rise of Professional Mystery: Epistemology, Authority, and the Emergence of Laboratory Medicine in Nineteenth-Century America.” Andrew Cunningham and Perry Williams (eds.), The Laboratory Revolution in Medicine. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 14–141, 310–341.Google Scholar
  108. White, C. P. 1908. Lectures on the Pathology of Cancer. Manchester:The University Press.Google Scholar
  109. Williams, R. 1908. The Natural History of Cancer with Special Reference to Its Causation and Prevention. New York:William Wood and Company.Google Scholar
  110. Witkowski, J. A. 1990. ‹The Inherited Character of Cancer: An Historical Survey.’ Cancer Cells 2: 229–257.Google Scholar
  111. Worboys, M. 2000. Spreading Germs: Disease Theories and Medical Practice in Britain, 1865–1900. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, pp. 193–277.Google Scholar
  112. Yamagiwa, K. and Ichikawa, K. 1918. “Experimental Study of the Pathogenesis of Carcinoma,” the English translation of the original 1915 Japanese article was published in the Journal of Cancer Research 3: 1–29.Google Scholar
  113. Yoshida, T. 1917. “A History of Cancer Research in Japan: With Particular Reference to Yamagiwa’s Coal-tar Carcinoma of 1915.” Hideki Yukawa (ed.), Profiles of Japanese Science and Scientists. Tokyo, Japan: Kodansha, pp. 44–56.Google Scholar
  114. Ziegler, E. 1885. A Text-Book of Pathological Anatomy and Pathogenesis, PartI-II. London:Macmillan.Google Scholar
  115. Zuckermann, H., Lederberg, J. 1986. ‹Postmature Scientific Discovery?’ Nature 324: 629–631.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.StirlingScotland, UK

Personalised recommendations