__
U
Letters are welcomed and will be published, iffound suitable, as space permits. The editors reserve the right to edit and abridge letters, to publish replies, and to solicit responses from authors and others. Letters should be submitted in duplicate, double-spaced (including references), and generally should not exceed 400 words.
Comments on Brown's Paper on Rockefeller Influence Historical Footnote by Jonas Just an interesting historical footnote to E. R. Brown's fascinating paper on the influence of the Rockefellers on public health at home and abroad (AJPH, 66, 897, 1976). It was the Rockefeller Foundation which built the Institute of Public Health in Tokyo, Japan, which was, and still is, the only school of public health in that country. Even more interesting than the fact that the Institute was built was when it was
built-1938. The clouds of a possible U.S.-Japanese war were already forming over the Pacific. Japan was involved in a full-scale war with China, an ostensible ally of the United States. Japan was a developed country, at least in terms of its industrial base. Why should the Rockefeller Foundation take such a step? Japan did have very serious problems with communicable diseases, particularly tuberculosis, but also typhoid fever, smallpox, and several others, even with its industrial base. Was the Foundation primarily concerned with Japan itself? Did it see Japan as possibly the only reliable defense against communist revolution in China since the corruption and ineffectiveness of the Kuomintang was already well known at the time? Despite the anti190
Letters to the Editor Japanese policies being pursued by the Roosevelt Administration, were significant segments of the U.S. ruling group hoping to make an ally rather than an enemy of Japan? Could a serious investigation of the motivations behind what on the surface appears to be a simple public health program lead to a better understanding of the real causes of the War for the Pacific Basin, 1941-45? It certainly appears that we have yet another proof of Virchow's dictum that politics is simply medicine writ large. Steven Jonas, MD Associate Professor State University of New York at Stony Brook
Comments by Davis Dr. E. Richard Brown could have written a good article for your journal by citing archival material to show that economic justifications were constantly cited in documents on Rockefeller health programs in the early part of this century. Instead, he has taken those documents and read the minds of their authors, concluding that the arguments used to justify the programs were the motivation and intention behind those programs. Why? Why does Brown fail to footnote assertions crucial to his argument about intention, such as his belief that the Rockefellers' "extensive and widespread investments led them to a concern for the productivity of the entire economy"? Where is the proof? Why is Dr. Brown unable to produce unequivocal archival evidence to show a directive link between Rockefeller financial interests and Rockefeller philanthropy? An example of the kind of scholarship which foundation history deserves is provided by a recent article' by Peter
Donaldson showing how Rockefeller personnel influenced Thai medical curricula away from the "junior doctor" idea and towards unsuitable Flexnerian standards. Donaldson's article does not touch on possible linkages between Rockefeller financial interests and Rockefeller philanthropy, and so lends no weight to Brown's still unproven thesis. One could go about testing Brown's thesis in a quantitative way by comparing shifting patterns of Rockefeller investment and Rockefeller philanthropy over time and place to see whether they are more closely associated than one would expect by change. One cannot credibly test the Brown thesis by doing as he has done, taking documents and trying to make them perform acrobatics in the service of a tendentious thesis. Robert Davis 525 Reed Hall 1620 McElderry St. Baltimore, MD 21205
REFERENCE 1. Donaldson, P. J. Foreign intervention in medical education: A case study of the
Rockefeller Foundation's involvement in a Thai medical school. International J. Health Services 6:251-270, 1976.
Comments by Williams Dr. Brown might have improved his paper if he had taken a longer view of history. He could have started with the debate that was under way before the United States became an independent nation. This debate revolved around the question of how the industrializing nations should relate to other countries. Incidentally this debate is still going on. Health was one of the debate topics with very different points of view presented. One point of view faAJPH February 1977, Vol. 67, No. 2
U
Letters are welcomed and will be published, iffound suitable, as space permits. The editors reserve the right to edit and abridge letters, to publish replies, and to solicit responses from authors and others. Letters should be submitted in duplicate, double-spaced (including references), and generally should not exceed 400 words.
Comments on Brown's Paper on Rockefeller Influence Historical Footnote by Jonas Just an interesting historical footnote to E. R. Brown's fascinating paper on the influence of the Rockefellers on public health at home and abroad (AJPH, 66, 897, 1976). It was the Rockefeller Foundation which built the Institute of Public Health in Tokyo, Japan, which was, and still is, the only school of public health in that country. Even more interesting than the fact that the Institute was built was when it was
built-1938. The clouds of a possible U.S.-Japanese war were already forming over the Pacific. Japan was involved in a full-scale war with China, an ostensible ally of the United States. Japan was a developed country, at least in terms of its industrial base. Why should the Rockefeller Foundation take such a step? Japan did have very serious problems with communicable diseases, particularly tuberculosis, but also typhoid fever, smallpox, and several others, even with its industrial base. Was the Foundation primarily concerned with Japan itself? Did it see Japan as possibly the only reliable defense against communist revolution in China since the corruption and ineffectiveness of the Kuomintang was already well known at the time? Despite the anti190
Letters to the Editor Japanese policies being pursued by the Roosevelt Administration, were significant segments of the U.S. ruling group hoping to make an ally rather than an enemy of Japan? Could a serious investigation of the motivations behind what on the surface appears to be a simple public health program lead to a better understanding of the real causes of the War for the Pacific Basin, 1941-45? It certainly appears that we have yet another proof of Virchow's dictum that politics is simply medicine writ large. Steven Jonas, MD Associate Professor State University of New York at Stony Brook
Comments by Davis Dr. E. Richard Brown could have written a good article for your journal by citing archival material to show that economic justifications were constantly cited in documents on Rockefeller health programs in the early part of this century. Instead, he has taken those documents and read the minds of their authors, concluding that the arguments used to justify the programs were the motivation and intention behind those programs. Why? Why does Brown fail to footnote assertions crucial to his argument about intention, such as his belief that the Rockefellers' "extensive and widespread investments led them to a concern for the productivity of the entire economy"? Where is the proof? Why is Dr. Brown unable to produce unequivocal archival evidence to show a directive link between Rockefeller financial interests and Rockefeller philanthropy? An example of the kind of scholarship which foundation history deserves is provided by a recent article' by Peter
Donaldson showing how Rockefeller personnel influenced Thai medical curricula away from the "junior doctor" idea and towards unsuitable Flexnerian standards. Donaldson's article does not touch on possible linkages between Rockefeller financial interests and Rockefeller philanthropy, and so lends no weight to Brown's still unproven thesis. One could go about testing Brown's thesis in a quantitative way by comparing shifting patterns of Rockefeller investment and Rockefeller philanthropy over time and place to see whether they are more closely associated than one would expect by change. One cannot credibly test the Brown thesis by doing as he has done, taking documents and trying to make them perform acrobatics in the service of a tendentious thesis. Robert Davis 525 Reed Hall 1620 McElderry St. Baltimore, MD 21205
REFERENCE 1. Donaldson, P. J. Foreign intervention in medical education: A case study of the
Rockefeller Foundation's involvement in a Thai medical school. International J. Health Services 6:251-270, 1976.
Comments by Williams Dr. Brown might have improved his paper if he had taken a longer view of history. He could have started with the debate that was under way before the United States became an independent nation. This debate revolved around the question of how the industrializing nations should relate to other countries. Incidentally this debate is still going on. Health was one of the debate topics with very different points of view presented. One point of view faAJPH February 1977, Vol. 67, No. 2
