Advertisement

Rethinking the Post-War Hegemony of DDT: Insecticides Research and the British Colonial Empire

  • Sabine Clarke
Chapter
  • 161 Downloads

Abstract

The historical literature on insecticides and tropical disease is focussed overwhelmingly on the global Malaria Eradication Programme launched by the World Health Organisation (WHO) in 1955. The dominance at the WHO of the view that an aggressive programme of eradication using insecticides was the only acceptable option in the fight against malaria has led to the notion of the post-war hegemony of DDT.1 What this hegemony meant in practice, according to historians such as Randall Packard, was a significant decline in scientific research after 1940.2 It is repeatedly asserted that the dominance of insecticide-based control programmes retarded the understanding of malaria both as a biological and public health event. Packard states ‘The adoption of a global malaria eradication programme by the WHO eradicated malariologists’.3 A dis-tinction has been set up in the literature between research capable of producing nuanced understandings of tropical disease and the crude application of the technological quick fix in the form of DDT. The recurring theme in the narrative of DDT use by rich nations is technological hubris. Post-war interventions in the tropics are said to have been characterised by uncritical faith in the superior nature of Western technology and its transformative power, which is said in the case of DDT to have had its origins in the experiences of the Second World War.4

Keywords

Malaria Control Tropical Disease National Archive Synthetic Insecticide Colonial Government 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. 1.
    R. Packard (2007). The Making of a Tropical Disease: A Short History of Malaria (Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press)Google Scholar
  2. J. L. A. Webb (2009). Humanity’s Burden: A Global History of Malaria (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press)Google Scholar
  3. M. J. Dobson, M. Malowany and R. M. Snow (2000). ‘Malaria control in East Africa: the Kampala conference and the Pare-Taveta scheme: a meeting of common and high ground’, Parassitologia, 42, pp. 149–66Google Scholar
  4. L. Schumaker (2000). ‘Malaria’, in R. Cooter and J. Pickstone (eds). Medicine in the Twentieth Century (Amsterdam: Harwood Academic), pp. 703–17.Google Scholar
  5. 6.
    D. J. Bradley (1998). ‘Specificity and verticality in the history of malaria control’, Parassitologia, 40, 9Google Scholar
  6. J. McGregor and T. Ranger (2000). ‘Displacement and disease: epidemics and ideas about malaria and Matabeleland, Zimbabwe, 1945–1996’, Past and Present, 167, pp. 203–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 9.
    S. Clarke (2007). ‘A technocratic imperial state? The colonial office and scientific research, 1940–1960’, Twentieth-Century British History, 18, pp. 453–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 10.
    C. Bonneuil (2000). ‘Development as experiment: state and state building in late Colonial and postcolonial Africa, 1930–1970’, Osiris, 15, pp. 258–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. J. McCracken (1982). ‘Experts and expertise in colonial Malawi’, African Affairs, 81, pp. 101–16.Google Scholar
  10. J. Hodge (2007). Triumph of the Expert: Agrarian Doctrines of Development and the Legacies of British Colonialism (Athens: Ohio University Press).Google Scholar
  11. 12.
    I. M. Heilbron (1945). ‘The new insecticidal material, DDT’, Journal of the Society of the Arts, xciii, pp. 66–7.Google Scholar
  12. 15.
    M. Harrison (2007). Medicine and Victory: British Military Medicine in the Second World War (Oxford: Oxford University Press), p. 270.Google Scholar
  13. 16.
    J. Sheail (1985). Pesticides and Nature Conservation: the British Experience 1950–1970 (Oxford: Clarendon Press), p. 93.Google Scholar
  14. 18.
    W. J. Reader (1975). Imperial Chemical Industries: A History, vol. 2 (Oxford: Oxford University Press), pp. 454–7.Google Scholar
  15. 26.
    C. Jeffries (1964). A Review of Colonial Research, 1940–1960 (London: HMSO), p. 91.Google Scholar
  16. 29.
    D. L. Hodgson (2000). ‘Taking stock: state control, ethnic identity and pastoralist development in Tanganyika, 1948–1958’, Journal of African History, 41, pp. 55–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 30.
    K. Brown (2005). ‘Tropical medicine and animal diseases: Onderstepoort and the development of veterinary science in South Africa, 1908–1950’, Journal of Southern African Studies, 31, pp. 513–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 46.
    M.A.C. Dowling (1953). ‘Control of malaria in Mauritius’, Transactions of the Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene, 47, pp. 177–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 52.
    M. Gillies (2000). Mayfly on the Stream of Time (Hamsey: Messuage Books), p. 171.Google Scholar
  20. 53.
    Colonial Pesticides Research Unit (1960). Report on the Pare-Taveta Malaria Scheme 1954–1959 (Dar es Salaam: Government Printer).Google Scholar
  21. 58.
    D. Hodgson and M. Van Beusekom (2000). ‘Lessons learned? Development experiences in the late colonial period’, Journal of African History, 41, pp. 29–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Sabine Clarke 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sabine Clarke

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations