CONCLUSION

From many examples, I have concluded that war has had a large impact on innovation in the medical arts and sciences.  It is important to point out that war-driven innovations are not limited to those discussed here, but these were the most interesting and best for showing how war affected medical innovation.  A strong case could be made that war had a pivotal role in many other innovations, such as plastic surgery, the medical use of x-rays, blood transfusions and blood banks, and the broad societal use of vaccination as a preventative measure, to name a few.  The interesting questions are "Why does war have this effect?", and "What can we learn about innovation in general, independent of the horrors of war?"

My studies lead me to conclude that medical innovation often occurs when a society has 1) strong motivation to advance, 2) many opportunities to try new ideas, and 3) an adequate level of organization.  War often brings these three crucial conditions together for medical innovations.  Actually, I believe that it is not war that brings medical advancement, but rather the combination of motivation, opportunity, and organization that can occur during war. Medical innovation definitely occurs during peace time.  I suspect that a thorough study will reveal that these same three conditions are responsible for innovation during peacetime, also.  This is why medical science has been recently advancing rapidly without much regard to war.   In modern times, there is an advanced level of organization, and the effortlessness of communication and travel creates broad opportunities for researchers to find  subjects for research of assorted medical maladies. In modern times, with the proper motivation, innovation beyond limits can occur.

My studies have also lead me to another, quite different, observation about the nature of historical research and reporting.  I noticed that it was very difficult to find books devoted to the role of war in encouraging medical innovation, even though this was no doubt clear to many authors.  It was necessary for me to dig rather deeply in a number of references to make this case.  I have come to believe that this is because of the effect of bias on historical reporting and research!  Consider that the CD-ROM encyclopedias I used often mentioned many of the facts involved about a medical innovation, but actually seemed to avoid directly referring to a war as a supporting cause.  The discussion on penicillin, for example, talked about the discoverer, the nature of the drug, and that it found wide use during World War II.  However, much digging in other resources was required to uncover the fact that penicillin sat on a lab shelf for 12 years and did not get pushed into full scale development until an agency, founded only to deal with the pressures of the war, did so.  Interestingly, even books focused on medical innovations downplayed the role of war.  Dr. Reed’s proof that mosquitoes are the vector for yellow fever is lauded, but the role of Spanish-American War in causing the U.S. surgeon general to pressure for Dr. Reed’s studies is almost hidden!  The most useful books were those written by military physicians, but they focused more on the day-to-day accomplishments of military doctors, rather than the role of war in facilitating innovation.  In fact, they often minimized the role of war, as if they were embarrassed somehow by it.  It seems that nobody wants to come out and say that the tragedy of war has a good side.

Now that you have viewed my site, Please use my guestbook to give me some feedback!