Translate AMICOR contents if you like

Wednesday, April 25, 2012

200 Years of the New England Journal of Medicine


A Reader's Guide to 200 Years of the New England Journal of Medicine

Allan M. Brandt, Ph.D.
N Engl J Med 2012; 366:1-7January 5, 2012
 Comments open through December 31, 2012
Article
References
Citing Articles (1)
Comments (5)
Audio Interview
Interview with Allan Brandt on the first 200 years of the Journal as a window into the history of medicine, science, and society.
Interview with Allan Brandt on the first 200 years of theJournal as a window into the history of medicine, science, and society. (22:26)
With this issue, the New England Journal of Medicine marks its 200th anniversary. In January 1812, as the first issue came off the handset letterpress, few of its founders could have predicted such continuity and success. (See Figure 1FIGURE 1Illustration from “Cases of Organic Diseases of the Heart and Lungs,” by John C. Warren, April 1, 1812, Issue of the Journal., from an 1812 issue.) John Collins Warren, the renowned Boston surgeon, his colleague James Jackson, a founder of Massachusetts General Hospital, and the small group of distinguished colleagues who joined them in starting the New England Journal of Medicine and Surgery, and the Collateral Branches of Science expressed modest and largely local aspirations for the enterprise. Boston, a growing urban center, and the wider New England environs had no medical journal of their own, although much medical knowledge and practice was considered region-specific. Although the name and format of the Journal would vary until 1928, 7 years after its ownership passed to the Massachusetts Medical Society, it remains the longest continuously published medical periodical in the world. The prospectus for the Journal, a call for papers issued in late 1811, explained the goals of Warren and his collaborators: “The editors have been encouraged to attempt this publication by the opinion, that a taste for medical literature has greatly increased in New England within a few years past. New methods of practice, good old ones which are not sufficiently known, and occasional investigations of the modes in common use, when thus distributed among our medical brethren in the country, will promote a disposition for inquiry and reflection, which cannot fail to produce the most happy results.”1

No comments: