Lu Chen is a Postdoctoral Research Fellow at the Wellcome Centre for Cultures and Environments of Health, University of Exeter and a 2023-2024 Consortium Research Fellow.
With the support of the Consortium for History of Science, Technology and Medicine, I had the unique opportunity to conduct research at three prestigious institutions: the Rockefeller Foundation Archive, Manuscripts & Archives at Sterling Memorial Library of Yale University, and the Schlesinger Library at Harvard University. This archival work was undertaken as part of my project, “Alternative Road to Alma-Ata: Social Medicine and Socialist Medicine Roots of Primary Health Care from the Third World.” The project investigates the origins of primary health care (PHC) in Asia and Africa, focusing on socialist and social medicine traditions that have been largely overlooked in global health narratives. It examines how socialist movements and decolonization processes shaped innovative healthcare models in these regions, such as China’s barefoot doctors and rural health initiatives. Additionally, it explores the influence of diverse socialist ideologies—Soviet Leninism, Maoism, and African socialism—on health policies and practices. It also analyzes how private connections and professional networks contributed to the development of social and socialist medicine ideas and how they impacted the local practices to global health policies. This research trip proved instrumental in deepening my understanding of the complex evolution of social medicine in China and its profound impact on global health paradigms throughout the 20th century. The Consortium’s support allowed me to conduct in-depth research across multiple archives, reinforcing the project’s goal of challenging conventional narratives and promoting a more inclusive history of global health that recognizes diverse actors and perspectives.
The Rockefeller Foundation Archive has proven indispensable to my research on social medicine in China, offering unparalleled access to critical records that shed light on the development of community-based healthcare models in the early 20th century. In the Rockefeller Foundation Archive, I conducted an in-depth examination of materials related to the Ding Xian rural health experiment of the 1930s. This initiative exemplifies how collaboration between Chinese reformers, Western philanthropic organizations like the Rockefeller Foundation and the Milbank Memorial Fund, and governmental entities fostered innovative healthcare approaches. These efforts laid both the ideological and practical foundations for socialist medicine principles in China, emphasizing universal access to preventive and curative care regardless of social or economic status. The archives revealed how figures like Liu Ruiheng, Chen Zhiqian, and John B. Grant championed “Gongyi” (state medicine), integrating biological and social dimensions of health management in rural demonstration stations. By studying these materials, I learned how the idea of social medicine was shaped in China, which influenced pre-World War II health practices and later informed the socialist healthcare model of the 1950s and 1960s. Moreover, the archives highlighted the global dissemination of these innovations through professional networks. For instance, John B. Grant’s work in India inspired the Bhore Committee, a blueprint for post-colonial healthcare services. This transnational exchange demonstrates how Chinese social medicine resonated internationally, shaping policies in other developing nations. The findings have enriched my understanding of social medicine in China and underscores its global implications, contributing to a more inclusive narrative of global health that recognizes the diversity of ideas and actions shaping equitable healthcare systems worldwide.
My visit to the Manuscripts & Archives at Sterling Memorial Library of Yale University proved invaluable for my research on socialist and social medicine in China, as well as its global influence. In the library, I gained access to a wealth of archival materials that illuminated the intellectual and professional networks shaping healthcare innovations during the early to mid-20th century. Among the collections I explored were the Henry Ernest Sigerist papers, which provided critical insights into his role as a proponent of socialist medicine. Through Henry Ernest Sigerist’s extensive communication networks, I gained a deeper understanding of how socialist medicine transcended time and space, traveling across continents and influencing global health agendas. His connections with key entities such as the World Health Organization (WHO), institutions in the United States, and actors in China reveal the pathways through which socialist medical ideas were disseminated and adapted. Sigerist’s personal connection with Jiang Yu-tu is particularly fascinating to me. Jiang played a crucial role in the certification of smallpox eradication in China. He was responsible for the retrospective studies of the smallpox eradication in China and drafted the national report which was translated into English and submitted to the World Health Organization as evidence for the certification of smallpox eradication in China in 1979. In the 1980s, Jiang corresponded with Sigerist requesting his publications regarding socialist medicine and showed great interest to Sigerist’s study. These connections illustrate the transnational nature of socialist medicine, where ideas flowed between the Soviet Union, Eastern Europe, China, and beyond. By examining these connections, I gained insight into how socialist medicine was not only a product of its ideological origins but also a dynamic and adaptive framework that responded to local needs and global challenges.
During my visit to the Schlesinger Library at Harvard University, I consulted the Papers of Martha May Eliot, which provided critical insights into the intersection of maternal and child health programs with social medicine principles. Martha May Eliot’s advocacy for social medicine is evident in her efforts to integrate healthcare delivery with broader social and economic reforms. She believed that health outcomes could not be separated from the conditions in which people lived, worked, and grew—a core tenet of social medicine. Her work often highlighted the importance of addressing systemic inequities to improve health outcomes for vulnerable populations. Her 1960 WHO/UNICEF trip focused on training programs for permanent health services benefiting mothers and children in Southeast Asia and Africa. Her reports, syllabi, and correspondence revealed how global health initiatives addressed socio-economic contexts through community-based approaches. In Uganda, her work on health visitor courses and nutrition programs highlighted localized training that empowered communities, aligning with social medicine’s focus on equity and accessibility. Eliot’s earlier trip to India and Ceylon in 1949 further illustrated her engagement with post-colonial health reforms. Her notes and reports revealed how she sought to adapt social medicine principles to diverse cultural and political contexts, particularly in regions rebuilding their healthcare systems after years of colonial exploitation. By examining these materials, I gained a deeper understanding of how Eliot’s involvement with international organizations like the WHO and UNICEF helped disseminate social medicine principles globally.
In conclusion, this research trip, supported by the Consortium for History of Science, Technology and Medicine, has significantly enriched my understanding of social medicine in China and its global implications. Through extensive archival work at the Rockefeller Foundation Archive, Yale University, and Harvard University, I uncovered how socialist and social medicine principles evolved through international collaboration and local innovation. These findings have enriched my understanding of social medicine as both a product of its historical and ideological origins and a flexible framework that responds to local needs and global challenges. By recognizing the contributions of overlooked actors—such as rural reformers, leftist activists, and medicine professionals—this research contributes to a more inclusive narrative of global health history.