The scientific heritage |
||
The heritage of
|
Charles Nicolle |
Georges Blanc |
After the pastorian revolution, the experimental medicine turned away from the patient if not from the disease; it remained confined in laboratories. Charles Nicolle will get it out, to replace it in the nature; this nature which will never stop being an obsession with him. The study of natural history of the germ, of the virus, their living system in nature without man, is from our point of view the most precious meaning of Charles Nicolle's work. Without a doubt he is the first one to stand aloof from anthropocentrism, considering that in the cycle of these "infectious diseases" of which man considered himself as the centre, most of the time he happens to be a pure accident, an intrusive element. More than everybody else Charles Nicolle is the discoverer of this field, in which people of his school are still involved in an incomplete exploration; this field was recently brought into fashion under the name of "zoonosis" or "anthropozoonosis", since in that case "zoo-anthroponosis" would have been more significant as we referred to infections of animals transmittable to man. Charles Nicolle is the creator of what his beloved disciple, naturalist and physician himself "of all the closest to me", he said, Georges Blanc, in our opinion has been the first to name the "epidemiological research".
[]Thus what Charles Nicolle left us as the most precious inheritance is above all his example: example of his spirit, example of his methods, example as well of his enthusiasm that more than everything else he wanted to pass down". "Learn and cultivate enthusiasm in yourself and in your children. Once you become filled with it, its joys will make your effort worthwhile" he told inhabitants of Rouen. Expressing his regret to his students of Collège de France for such a late appointment, at the age of 66, he explained he had applied for this chair "only because having received this enthusiastic fervour, I had the duty not to let it die with me and to pass the message on young people."
"The best way to perpetuate this fervour is to hand on the torch myself to the younger generation". Will his followers be able to transmit this fervour that they tried to preserve? If not, "soon the veterans will depart this world one after the other leaving behind their own trace".
BALTAZARD M – L'héritage de Charles Nicolle.
Presse méd, 1966, 74, 2177-2180. [Complete text in french under pdf format]
Following the fate of the word epidemiology whose acceptance has completely changed since its creation in the middle of the last century, the term of epidemiological research expanded far beyond the meaning given by the French epidemiologists in the tradition of Charles Nicolle and especially Georges Blanc. [following article in french under pdf format]
BALTAZARD M – La recherche épidémiologique et son évolution. L'exemple d'un travail d'équipe sur la peste.
[The epidemiological research and its evolution. The example of teamwork on the plague.]
Bull Inst Pasteur, 1969, 67 (2), 235-262. [Complete text in french under pdf format]
[…] As Nicolle did it before him, Baltazard was able to combine naturalist and laboratory's subjects.
Regarding this epidemiologists and experimenters' line, should we distinguish periods in its history? Is there for example a before and after Baltazard? I don't think so. He inherited Charles Nicolle's main principles that he religiously kept, put into practice, developed and thanks to his strong character and charisma, he taught them himself with his well-known elegance and talent. His students, his collaborators tried always to think as naturalist, whether Henri Mollaret as regards the tularaemia or various yersiniosis, or his Iranian collaborators with the plague particularly, or myself as regards the encephalitis in Alsace with Claude Hannoun's team, or Jean-Michel Alonso, Monique Bourdin, André Dodin and so many others: we are all thankful to M. Baltazard who assured the continuation of a school of thought based on the rigorous way of thinking and working in the field.
A certain tradition, without this je-ne-sais-quoi of the past that some keep sticking to this word.
Indeed it is the story of a filiation that we have to preserve, a difficult task nowadays when seem to prevail in the eyes of the decision makers and unfortunately in a lot of our colleagues', ways of thinking, ways of working and more generally complete different values.
It is our duty to preserve in our followers sharing that sense, this taste for the fieldwork. It is in the practical field that we learn the most, sometimes in various and unexpected domains which in any case can and must interest the epidemiologist. At last I will come to the conclusion that epidemiology must be taught as we conceive and know it i.e. in field conditions.
