{"id":1592,"date":"2013-08-07T17:22:08","date_gmt":"2013-08-07T17:22:08","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/occamstypewriter.org\/trading-knowledge\/?p=1592"},"modified":"2013-08-07T17:22:08","modified_gmt":"2013-08-07T17:22:08","slug":"mrc-publishing-100-years-on","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/occamstypewriter.org\/trading-knowledge\/2013\/08\/07\/mrc-publishing-100-years-on\/","title":{"rendered":"MRC publishing – 100 years on"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

It may have escaped your notice that this year is the 100th anniversary of the Medical Research Council<\/a>, and there has been a cornucopia<\/a> of celebratory activities<\/a> to mark the occasion. \u00a0One aspect that has not been much remarked on is the history of the MRC as a publisher. Since I have a Library store full of MRC publications I think it is probably down to me to wave this particular flag. Our recent open day motivated me to put together a little exhibition about MRC publishing, and I thought I might as well inflict it on my blog too.<\/p>\n

Here are the notes about, and some photos of, the exhibits. I know the photos aren’t very exciting. In truth, the exhibition wasn’t very exciting either. In the feedback one person commented that it was a bit dull and “not interactive”. I know it is a niche interest but I \u00a0hope that this blogpost might find that niche.<\/p>\n

\"\"

One half of the exhibition.<\/p><\/div>\n

MRC as a publisher<\/h1>\n

The Medical Research Committee (this was the original title of the MRC until it was reconstituted and renamed ‘Council’ in 1920) encouraged investigators to publish their results independently, in order to make them \u201creadily available in the general pool of scientific knowledge\u201d. MRC investigators had \u201cfreedom to publish without official approval\u201d.<\/p>\n

This policy helped to enhance MRC\u2019s scientific credibility: MRC was about science not about politics. In the 1925-6 annual report the MRC said:<\/p>\n

There is no certitude in science except that which is gained by the free and gradual suffrage of general scientific opinion based on repetition at will of the experimental facts reported.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The great bulk of MRC-funded research was (and still is) published in scientific journals, but MRC also had an extensive publishing programme itself, especially in earlier years.<\/p>\n

Bear in mind that the range of journals available in 1913 was rather different, and more limited, than it is today. Looking in the MRC Annual Report for 1915-1916 (the first one with detailed listings of publications) the dominant journals are BMJ<\/em> and\u00a0Lancet<\/em>, with about 30 publications each. \u00a0Next comes the\u00a0Journal of the Royal Army Medical Corps<\/em>\u00a0with 11 then\u00a0Biochemical Journal<\/em> with eight, and\u00a0Journal of Physiology\u00a0<\/i>with four. \u00a0There were one or two publications in each of another eight journals. This restricted choice of publishing venue makes it easier to understand why MRC considered it needed to publish some research itself, in dedicated channels.<\/p>\n

1. \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 The earliest MRC book<\/b><\/p>\n

One of the earliest actions of the MRC was to commission a book about milk. It was published by Longmans, but under the direction of the MRC. It gathered together knowledge about milk from a wide variety of disciplines and sources. Its author, Janet Lane-Claypon was a pioneer in epidemiology and the use of cohort studies. (Incidentally, she deserves a better Wikipedia page<\/a>).<\/p>\n