Medical Technology, 1915 [Slideshow]

The science of healing from a century ago

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Joseph Lister published his “Antiseptic Principle of the Practice of Surgery” in 1867; it was one of the major milestones on the road to modern medicine. In the next 40 years, Louis Pasteur and Robert Koch developed a firm basis for the germ theory of disease; vaccines for cholera, anthrax, rabies, typhoid fever and plague were developed, and a cure for malaria found. The outbreak of the First World War, however, showed that medical care lagged for those injured by the mass-produced weapons that now saturated the battlefield. Some of the medical technology here was developed specifically in response to the millions of casualties caused by explosive shells and high-velocity bullets. X-ray imaging was a fairly recent invention, but had been quickly developed into a useful mobile tool for military medical facilities. If necessity is the mother of invention, the use of sphagnum moss as a wound dressing goes firmly in that category, given the acute shortage of cotton and linen for that purpose. In a war with such a great need for military manpower, one priority for those who were not severely injured was for as speedy a recovery as possible in order to shorten the length of time that soldiers were kept out of front line trenches. Some of the machines devised to keep soldiers limber and strong look quite a lot like the machines we use in our gyms today for exercise. Those who were permanently or severely injured, then as now, could only rely on medical technology to a limited extent; in 1915 rehabilitation for these soldiers focused largely on attempting to provide the patient with enough mobility and training to carry on a trade and so avoid being an economic burden.

We might think the science of a century ago as crude, but we can still recognize the roots of our own system of treatments 100 years on, in these snapshots of the latest medical technology from 1915.

You can peruse the history of modern medicine in the full Archive of Scientific American from 1845 at www.ScientificAmerican.com/magazine/sa.

 

Dan Schlenoff was a contributing editor at Scientific American and edited the 50, 100 and 150 Years Ago column for one seventh of the magazine's history.

More by Dan Schlenoff
Scientific American Magazine Vol 312 Issue 2This article was published with the title “Medical Technology, 1915 [Slideshow]” in Scientific American Magazine Vol. 312 No. 2 ()
doi:10.1038/scientificamerican022015-7pO3kgFJtk1IijMTVrCFuq

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe