| The observation made by Peyton Rous in 1911 that cancer could be caused by a virus was received with skepticism by the scientific community which held that cancer could not be the result of a microorganism. Having failed to produce persuasive evidence, Rous felt compelled to abandon his work on cancer viruses. Fifty-five years later, however, Rous was awarded the Nobel Prize for his cancer work. The study of Rous's viral theory of cancer provides a lens that will help to illuminate several episodes in the history of cancer research in particular, and the nature of scientific research in general. This study uncovers the reasons why Rous abandoned his cancer work in 1915, why he resumed it in the 1930s and how a small network of researchers helped to sustain Rous's viral program. A detailed analysis of Rous's interaction with other cancer researchers unveils the nature of the debate surrounding the viral theory of cancer, in particular how it was shaped by the underlying tension between clinic and laboratory. The reemergence of the viral theory in the 1950s and the impact of developments in post-World War II medical technology highlight the historical processes that drove cancer research in the United States in the second half of the twentieth century.;By locating Rous within the context of research at the Rockefeller Institute, the study examines the ways in which research is shaped through the multiple influences of local research contexts, laboratory traditions, and scientific paradigms, as well as by broader social and political factors. This study is informed by recent scholarship in the history of science and cultural studies which demonstrates that science is not derived from fundamental laws, but is rather the product of a consensus worked out by a collective of people in specific places and times. Medical science is seen to be the result of the complex interplay between medical theory, social values, institutional imperatives, technological development, and human agency. |
