1 One Health in History Michael Bresalier,* Angela Cassidy and Abigail Woods Department of History, King’s College London, UK Introduction theory and zoonosis control. While the import- ance of these individuals and activities can- The purpose of this chapter is to outline the not be denied, their roles within the history of history of One Health. This task immediately One Health require more critical consider- raises the question of how to approach the ation. The accounts in which they feature are history of a subject that only became known neither politically neutral nor historically well- as ‘One Health’ a few years ago, and is still grounded and have been assembled not for evolving conceptually under the influence the purpose of understanding the past but for of health challenges, scientific advances, and advancing the case for One Health today. political, economic, environmental and profes- While this strategy may be useful in justifying sional priorities. While there were many pre- and winning support for One Health, it has cedents to One Health, they did not go by this resulted in an extremely partial and selective term, and they occurred at times when health reading of the past. problems, scientific ideas and the wider world Rather than analysing history retrospect- were very different to today. This state of af- ively from the perspective of present-day agen- fairs makes it impossible to impose a simple das, this chapter adopts a neutral, prospective, structure on to past events, or to link them, in evidence-based approach that pays due regard linear fashion, to present-day One Health. to historical context.1 Drawing on an extensive It is important to highlight this problem body of historical literature and source mater- because existing histories of One Health usu- ial, we aim to effect a fundamental shift in the ally gloss over it. These accounts are structured way that the history of One Health is popu- around key historical figures and scientific ad- larly conceived. We take as our subject matter vances, whose contributions to health are used the constellation of ideas, practices and cir- to argue for the importance of pursuing a One cumstances that brought human and animal Health approach today. The achievements of health (and to a lesser extent, the environment) Rudolf Virchow, Robert Koch, William Osler, into alignment, the people and institutions in- John McFadyean, James Steele and Calvin volved and the reasons for change over time. Schwabe are routinely celebrated, along with This chapter will demonstrate that while at the health benefits of vaccination, the germ certain points in history, particular individuals *E-mail: [email protected] © CAB International 2015. One Health: The Theory and Practice of Integrated Health Approaches (eds J. Zinsstag et al.) 1 2 M. Bresalier et al. made deliberate attempts to rally people and humans and animals, which derived from the resources in support of an integrated agenda, Christian belief that only humans had souls there were often many people already work- (Hardy, 2003). In fact, this divide has been ing along these lines, in accordance with overstated, for the perceived boundaries be- established scientific ideas and practices. tween humans and animals were often blurred This account makes no claim to complete- and unstable (Fudge, 2000). In health and ness, in part, due to space constraints. Only a medicine there existed historically three key brief summary is offered of very recent events points of intersection: (i) animals were used as these are well described elsewhere (Lebouef, to work out the anatomy and physiology of 2011; Cassidy, 2014). It also reflects the fact that human bodies; (ii) they were studied in com- many aspects of One Health history have yet parison to humans in order to work out the to be subjected to the sort of systematic, con- relations between them; and (iii) the theory textualized analysis needed to make sense and practice of animal medicine attracted the of individual observations. Amongst the neg- attention of human doctors, usually as an end lected areas is the history of One Health in in itself, but occasionally as a basis for com- non-western contexts. Owing to the frag- parison with human medicine. Aspects of these mentary state of this field, this chapter connections can be identified in very ancient focuses overwhelmingly on western medical civilizations (Gordon and Schwabe, 2004). and veterinary traditions. However, it does ac- However, as all three featured in Ancient knowledge the importance of cross-cultural Greek thought, which exerted a powerful in- exchanges, which were often facilitated by fluence in the west until the 17th century, this international health organizations concerned will form the starting point of our survey. with human and animal disease control. Around one-quarter of the surviving The first section analyses intersections works produced by the Greek philosopher between human and animal health in the pre- Aristotle in the 4th century bc are devoted to modern era. It will reveal how deeply animals animals, most importantly History of Animals, and animal health were embedded within Parts of Animals and Generation of Animals. human medicine and the importance of the While Aristotle distinguished humans from environment to health ideas and practices. The animals through their possession of a rational second section extends from the late 18th- soul, he also sought to relate them, by docu- century foundation of the veterinary profes- menting differences and similarities in the sion until the turn of the 20th century. It tracks form, function and purpose of their parts and the evolving relationship between the veter- drew up a taxonomic system. The numerous inary and medical professions, and how, as dissections he conducted in the course of this scientific ideas and practices changed, new work illustrated the possibility of learning links were forged between humans, animals about humans from animals (Clutton-Brock, and the environment. The third section extends 1995). Taboos on the use of human bodies led this analysis into the 20th century, focusing the famous Greek doctor, Galen, working in particularly on the changing status of animals 2nd-century Rome, to follow Aristotle’s lead. within medical research, and on international In an extensive and influential body of writing, efforts to develop comparative medicine and he documented the results of his numerous veterinary public health. The conclusion re- observations and experiments on animals. flects on the importance of these findings for The errors he made in extrapolating from ani- history, and for One Health today. mal to human anatomy were not discovered until Andreas Vesalius (1514–1564) revived human dissection at Padua University in the 16th century (Guerrini, 2003). Pre-Modern Connections Vesalius, and several of his contemporar- ies and successors, also vivisected animals in Looking back on the pre-modern era, commen- their attempts to work out the differences tators often highlight the existence of a funda- between living and dead bodies and to de- mental, well-entrenched distinction between scribe and explain how body parts functioned Chapter 1: One Health in History 3 (Shotwell, 2013). Vivisection was problematic: few in number. Consequently, most humans debates surrounded the value of know- and animals relied on self-help, clergymen, ledge drawn from animals and the suffer- gentry and the various self-styled healers that ing involved (Guerrini, 2003). Nevertheless, made up the ‘medical marketplace’. Here, it enabled Realdo Columbo (1516–1559) and the division between species was less well Fabricius (1537–1619) to identify the pulmon- defined (Curth, 2002). ary transit of the blood and the function of the The 17th and 18th century movement away venous valves, respectively. After studying from ancient Greek thought brought humans under Fabricius, William Harvey took up an and animals into even greater proximity. The Aristotelian programme of research on animals new experimental philosophy of nature, and that resulted in his novel and, at the time, Rene Descartes’ (1596–1650) conception of ani- controversial proposal that the blood circu- mals as ‘automata’ (self-operating machines), lated. Meanwhile, as part of the wider inves- resulted in the more extensive use of animal tigation of nature, medical doctors followed vivisection in medical research and teaching Aristotle in dissecting dead animals, for ex- (Guerrini, 2003). For example, Swiss physi- ample at the elite Paris Academy Royale des ologist Albrecht von Haller (1708–1777) used Sciences during the 1660s and 1670s. This live animals to work out human neurological activity, described as ‘comparative anatomy’, functions (Eichberg, 2009). At Leiden in the drew on animals derived from colonial con- Netherlands, and later in Edinburgh, Scotland, quests that were contained within European anatomy lecturers vivisected dogs and dis- leaders’ menageries (Cunningham, 2010). sected humans simultaneously, in order to The health of humans and animals were demonstrate to students the structure and the defined by the same medical theory: humor- function of body parts (Guerrini, 2006). A new alism. This awarded a significant role to the scheme of classifying animals, drawn up by environment in maintaining, disturbing and Swedish naturalist Carolus Linnaeus (1707– restoring health status. Drawing on the ideas 1778), placed humans, apes, monkeys and bats of Hippocrates and Galen, humoralism formed within the same order of primates and brought the dominant system of medical thought until humans and orang-utans together in the the 18th century. It held that all bodies were genus Homo, thereby challenging notions of a composed of four humours, influenced by human–animal divide (Ritvo, 1995). Subse- factors such as feeding, climate, ventilation, quently, in Paris, additional classification exercise and sexual behaviour. Disease of schemes were drawn up using dissected ani- individual bodies resulted from an imbalance mals from the Versailles menagerie. Here, the between the humours (Curth, 2002).