New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

Scrubs

A rise in maternity ward deaths led one physician to discover the importance of hand washing

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

IN THE MID-1840s Hungarian physician Ignaz Semmelweis saw with alarm that 15 percent of new mothers in his Vienna General Hospital were dying of an illness called puerperal fever. Semmelweis was desperate to prevent the illnesses, but he didn't know how. As he pondered the problem, he learned that his friend, forensic pathologist Jakob Kolletschka, had died from what sounded like the same illness. It happened only a few days after a student accidentally pricked Kolletschka with a scalpel that had been used to dissect a cadaver.

The news gave Semmelweis pause. Medical students at his hospital would routinely go right from the morgue to the maternity ward without ever washing their hands. Were they carrying an infection to the mothers? Was that why they were dying? Could hand washing help?

To test his dirty-hands hypothesis, Semmelweis made his students wash their hands in a mixture of water and chlorine (soap and water did not eliminate the cadaver smell). Fevers in the maternity ward quickly dropped by 10 percent. Hand washing became standard procedure at Semmelweis's hospital.


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.


It took 40 years for the policy to take hold widely. Even today hospital workers don't follow it as consistently as they should. According to an ongoing study from the Maryland Health Quality and Cost Council, 90 percent of staff wash their hands when someone is looking, but only 40 percent do when alone.

Mike May is a freelance writer and editor based in Bradenton, Fla.

More by Mike May
Scientific American Magazine Vol 303 Issue 2This article was published with the title “Scrubs” in Scientific American Magazine Vol. 303 No. 2 (), p. 50
doi:10.1038/scientificamerican0810-50b

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe