Nils Hansson1, Matthis Krischel2, Thorsten Halling2, Friedrich Moll2, Heiner Fangerau2. 1. Department of the History, Philosophy, and Ethics of Medicine, Medical Faculty, Heinrich-Heine-University, Universitätsstr. 1, 40225, Düsseldorf, Germany. nils.hansson@hhu.de. 2. Department of the History, Philosophy, and Ethics of Medicine, Medical Faculty, Heinrich-Heine-University, Universitätsstr. 1, 40225, Düsseldorf, Germany.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Recent historical research has reconstructed the roads leading to the Nobel Prize for the trained urologists Werner Forssmann (1904-1979) in 1956 and Charles Huggins (1901-1997) in 1966. However, the story of urology and the Nobel Prize does not start and end with the laureates. Taking James Israel (1848-1926), Félix Guyon (1831-1920), and Peter J Freyer (1852-1921) as examples, this paper shows that pioneers in urology were in fact runners-up for the award much earlier. METHODS: The study is based on an analysis of original files in the Nobel Prize archive in Stockholm, scientific publications of the early twentieth century, and secondary literature. RESULT AND CONCLUSION: We argue that Israel's, Guyon's, and Freyer's candidacies reflect not only scientific trends and controversies in urology at the turn of twentieth century, but that the development of the specialty itself was reflected in nominations of physicians working on problems of the genito-urinary system.
PURPOSE: Recent historical research has reconstructed the roads leading to the Nobel Prize for the trained urologists Werner Forssmann (1904-1979) in 1956 and Charles Huggins (1901-1997) in 1966. However, the story of urology and the Nobel Prize does not start and end with the laureates. Taking James Israel (1848-1926), Félix Guyon (1831-1920), and Peter J Freyer (1852-1921) as examples, this paper shows that pioneers in urology were in fact runners-up for the award much earlier. METHODS: The study is based on an analysis of original files in the Nobel Prize archive in Stockholm, scientific publications of the early twentieth century, and secondary literature. RESULT AND CONCLUSION: We argue that Israel's, Guyon's, and Freyer's candidacies reflect not only scientific trends and controversies in urology at the turn of twentieth century, but that the development of the specialty itself was reflected in nominations of physicians working on problems of the genito-urinary system.
Keywords:
Félix Guyon; History of medicine; James Israel; Medical specialization; Nobel Prize for physiology or medicine; Peter J Freyer; Surgery; Urology