Lectures: “Building a Collection: Personal Narratives from 1918-1919 Influenza Pandemic, New York Academy of Medicine

Please join us on Wednesday, August 18, 2021, at 6 p.m. ET, for a virtual talk by Russell Johnson, Curator of the History of Medicine and Sciences at UCLA Special Collections: Building a Collection: Personal Narratives from the 1918-1919 Influenza Pandemic. More than a decade ago, UCLA Library Special Collections began collecting individual letters, diaries, ephemera, and other mostly English-language items about the global 1918-1919 influenza pandemic. Students, faculty, journalists and other researchers use the collection to experience firsthand accounts of the flu and its impact on life and death in the military and on the home front. We will look (remotely) at a selection of these materials and discuss collecting, writing styles, handwriting, genealogy, digitization and more. Go to our events site here: https://www.nyam.org/events/event/building-collection-personal-narratives-1918-1919-influenza-pandemic/   to register and the zoom link will be sent to you in advance of the event.

Calls for Papers: Medicine, Myth and Memory: Trusted Voices in the Pandemic

CALL FOR PAPERS – Online event – Wed 8/Thu 9 December 2021 Medicine, Myth and Memory: Trusted Voices in the Pandemic

Since March 2020, medical museums across the UK have shown an impressive ability to adapt to new ways of working, keeping audiences and collections at the forefront when their doors have been forced to close. Medical Museums occupy a unique space in the culture and heritage sector. Their historical collections, education and learning programmes, and public engagement offers are more important than ever, as UK citizens seek answers and information during this challenging time for public health. Just when we need a long view of medicine and health, our museums are facing operational challenges and uncertain futures. However, there’s a greater crisis in which medical museums could be playing a greater role – as trusted spaces to capture and share the stories of COVID-19, contextualised within the historic human struggle against disease. This online event will be free to attend. It is being organised by the UK Medical Collections Group; a group of museums and collections reconvened in response to the coronavirus pandemic, to support collaboration between medical museums for the public good. Aims This event aims to:

  • Showcase the impressive range of projects and innovations that medical museums have delivered throughout COVID-19.
  • Demonstrate the important role that medical museums play in education and information sharing, particularly during public health crises when it is most needed.
  • Continue with the creative and engaging online activities that museums have offered to their public audiences this past year

Format The event will be hosted online on Wednesday 8 Dec 2021 10am – 4pm, with the possibility to extend into Thursday 9 Dec. It will comprise of a series of talks and workshops delivered by a range of contributors, showcasing brilliant work from across the medical museums sector. The more creative and engaging the better. We want the event to be for our public audiences, as well as a chance for colleagues in the sector to come together and share innovations.

Submissions We welcome a variety of proposals to keep the day as varied as possible. Your proposals will help us shape the programme. This is not an exhaustive list, but your proposal could be;

  • A 20-minute talk (single or joint speakers)
  • Interactive workshop
  • Panel discussion (3 – 4 members and Chair)
  • Lightning talks (10 minutes each)

The submissions should cover one of the following themes, which are aligned to the aims of the event:

  • Innovative ways of engaging audience during the pandemic
  • Adapted ways of working in response to building/site closures during the pandemic
  • Digital engagement
  • Health and wellbeing activities provided during the pandemic
  • Citizen science

Proposals for your talk or workshops should be up to 250 words detailing what you would like to present and how it responds to the themes. Up to two supporting documents can also be submitted. Please keep a public audience in mind. Deadline for expressions of interest: 10 September 2021 Send to: heritage@anaesthetists.org Questions about the event? Just ask Caroline Hamson CarolineHamson@anaesthetists.org or Frances Reed frances.reed@rcn.org.uk Sarah Chaney (she/her) Events & Exhibitions Manager (Wed – Fri) Library and Archive Service Royal College of Nursing, 20 Cavendish Square, London W1G 0RN   020 7647 3602 www.rcn.org.uk/library

Grant: Turning Points in History Grant

The Albert Lepage Center for History in the Public Interest at Villanova University is pleased to announce a new funding opportunity to support public-facing historical projects related to the theme of “Turning Points” in history.

The Center will fund up to 5 projects that creatively engage with how the study of past turning points have affected the course of history, and how historical study can further public understanding of the present times.

We welcome applications that are original and imaginative in content and form. Proposals can include (but are not limited to) a series of blog posts, a series of podcast conversations, digital and in-person exhibits, an oral history project, an initiative with a local newspaper to write a series of op-eds, a mapping project, a multimedia resource, and other creative ideas. Educators, independent researchers, museum specialists, librarians, archivists, students, and activist are welcome to apply!

Each grantee will receive up to $5,000 depending on the scope, size, and need of the proposal. The deadline for submissions is August 31, 2021, at 11:59 pm (EST).

For more information about the Lepage Center and the Turning Points in History grant visit the website: https://www1.villanova.edu/villanova/artsci/lepage/resources/turning-points-grant.html

Fellowships: New York Academy of Medicine Library 2022 History of Medicine Fellowship Application Process Open

Instructions and application forms for the New York Academy of Medicine Library’s 2022 two residential history of medicine fellowships, the Paul Klemperer Fellowship in the History of Medicine and the Audrey and William H. Helfand Fellowship in the History of Medicine and Public Health, are now available on our website here: https://www.nyam.org/fellows-grants/grants-awards/library-fellowships/

The submission deadline is September 17, 2021.

Questions about the application process and requests for research assistance may be sent to me at the address below or to history@nyam.org

Arlene Shaner, MA MLS | she, her, hers
Historical Collections Librarian

212.822.7313 office | ashaner@nyam.org

Calls for Papers: “Seeing the Medieval World through a Pandemic Lens.” Western Michigan University’s International Congress of Medieval Studies

“Seeing the Medieval World through a Pandemic Lens.” Western Michigan University’s International Congress of Medieval Studies (Kalamazoo) will be virtual again in 2022: May 9-14. This session of three co-authored papers asks submitters to find a partner in a different discipline, on another continent, working in a different linguistic tradition, in any kind of “contrasting” space, and think about the ways your approaches to the medieval past have changed because of the experience of living through our own pandemic times. Medievalists outside of North America and Europe are especially encouraged to apply. Details can be found at this link: https://www.academia.edu/49952205/CFP_SEEING_THE_MEDIEVAL_WORLD_THROUGH_A_PANDEMIC_LENS_Kalamazoo_2022. For more information, contact monica.h.green@gmail.com. Deadline for submissions is 1 September 2021

Fellowships: Institute for Advanced Study

INSTITUTE FOR ADVANCED STUDY, School of Historical Studies, Opportunities for Scholars 2022-2023

The Institute is an independent private institution founded in 1930 to create a community of scholars focused on intellectual inquiry, free from teaching and other university obligations.Scholars from around the world come to the Institute to pursue their research. Candidates of any nationality may apply for a single term or a full academic year. Scholars may apply for a stipend, but those with sabbatical funding, other grants, retirement funding, or other means are also invited to apply for a non-stipendiary membership. Some short-term visitorships (for less than a full term and without stipend) are also available on an ad-hoc basis. Open to all fields of historical research, the School of Historical Studies’ principal interests is the history of western, near eastern and Asian civilizations, with particular emphasis upon Greek and Roman civilization, the history of Europe (medieval, early modern, and modern), the Islamic world, East Asian studies, art history, the history of science, and late modern history. Support is available each year for one scholar in music studies. Residence in Princeton during term time is required. The only other obligation of Members is to pursue their research. A Ph.D. (or equivalent) and substantial publications are required. Scholars can find further information in the announcement on the web at https://www.hs.ias.edu/mem_announcement or on the School’s website, www.hs.ias.edu. Inquiries sent by post should be addressed to the School of Historical Studies, Institute for Advanced Study, Einstein Dr., Princeton, N.J. 08540 (Email address: hsappquery@ias.edu.) Deadline: October 15, 2021.

Congratulations to the 2021 AAHM Award Winners!

Congratulations to the 2021 AAHM award winners honored on May 14, 2021 during the 94th annual meeting of the Association held virtually.

William Osler Medal Honorable Mention: Aneek Patel of New York University Grossman School of Medicine, for his essay, “Roots of Resistance: The Slave Midwife as an Agent of Slave Resistance in the Antebellum South.”

William Osler Medal: Margo A. Payton of Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, for her essay, “Segregated in Life and Death: Johns Hopkins and the Racial Science of Tuberculosis.”

Richard H. Shryock Medal: Gina Surita of Princeton University Department of History, for her essay, “Gendered Hormonal Binaries and the Development of the Concept of Hormone-Dependent Cancers, 1940-1990.”

Fielding H. Garrison Lecturer for 2022: Janet L. Golden, Professor Emerita Rutgers University

J. Worth Estes Prize: Beatriz Puentes-Ballesteros, “Chocolate in China: Interweaving cultural histories of an imperfectly connected world,” in Harold Cook (ed.), Translation at Word: Chinese Medicine in the First Global Age (Boston: Brill Rodopi, 2020)

Jack D. Pressman-Burroughs Wellcome Fund Career Development Award in 20th Century History of Medicine or Biomedical Sciences Award: Dr. Heidi Morefield, Postdoctoral Research Associate, Princeton University to support her Book Project, “Developing to Scale: Technology and the Making of Global Health.”

George Rosen Prize: Michael Rembis, Catherine Kudlick, and Kim E. Nielsen for their book, The Oxford Handbook of Disability History published by Oxford University Press, 2018.

William H. Welch Medal:  Benjamin Breen for his book, IThe Age of Intoxication: Origins of the Global Drug Trade published by the University of Pennsylvania Press, 2019.

Genevieve Miller Lifetime Achievement Award: Susan M. Reverby

Congratulations to all our winners.

Call for nominations: Digital Humanities & Public History Editor BHM

Call for nominations: Digital Humanities & Public History Editor
The Bulletin of the History of Medicine is seeking nominations for a Digital Humanities & Public History Editor to manage this section of the journal, which will appear in two of the publication’s four issues per year. The Digital Humanities & Public History Editor will identify physical and online exhibits, films, and other media that would be helpful or interesting to our readers, especially those teaching the history of medicine, and solicit the appropriate scholars to write such reviews for the Bulletin. The Editors would be willing to appoint co-Editors to this section. This position is unpaid. The ideal candidate(s) will hold a PhD in the history of medicine or a related field and have expertise in digital humanities. (All nominations will be held in confidence.) Kindly send names of nominees to the editors at bhm@jhmi.edu by May 1, 2021.


AAHM News: AAHM calls for properly archiving JAMA’s podcast on “Structural Racism for Doctors”

March 30, 2021           American Association for the History of Medicine

AAHM calls for properly archiving JAMA’s podcast on “Structural Racism for Doctors”

As scholars in the American Association for the History of Medicine, we support the sentiments expressed in the letter below by several AAHM members calling on the Journal of the American Medical Association to preserve and archive its recently aired, deeply disturbing podcast on “Structural Racism for Doctors.”

In the segment, Ed Livingston, the host and “full time editor of JAMA,” dismissed structural racism as “an unfortunate term,” insisting that people are “turned off by the whole structural racism phenomenon.” “Are there better terms we can use? Is there a better word than racism?” he asked, concluding that “personally, I think taking racism out of the conversation will help.” In light of the ignorance and dismissiveness expressed by Dr. Livingston (and following considerable public and professional outrage), the JAMA editor in chief apologized and JAMA deleted the podcast. JAMA’s editor in chief has been placed on administrative leave amid an independent investigation.

Expunging this important conversation from its website and archives, and thus erasing the full record of attitudes from the historical record, is a mistake by JAMA that should be remedied. A record of the podcast must be preserved by JAMA so that observers, scholars, and future historians looking back at 2021 will be able to analyze and learn from this unfortunate, roundly criticized, yet all-too-revealing controversy. 

-Keith Wailoo, President, AAHM and the AAHM Council


Response to the JAMA Podcast on Structural Racism 

As members of the American Association for the History of Medicine, we are acutely aware of the longstanding racist structures in American medicine that have explicitly and implicitly favored white healthcare providers and white patients. Racism in medicine and structural racism in the United States has produced a long history of health inequities that are still experienced today by Black, Latino/a, and Indigenous people. As historians of medicine we also recognize the need to preserve, document, archive, and make accessible the primary sources that are part of the historical record on racism in medicine.

A recent podcast on February 23, 2021 about structural racism, produced by the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), has exposed the damaging ways that many doctors continue to ignore, downplay, perpetrate, and misunderstand racism in medicine and structural racism. We are pleased to see the pushback against the JAMA podcast by members of our organization in theBritish Medical Journal’s Medical Humanities. In response to that and more widespread criticism, the host of the podcast, JAMA Deputy Editor for Clinical Reviews and Education, Edward H. Livingstone, has resigned; JAMA Editor-in-Chief Howard Bauchner has issued a formal apology; and Bauchner hosted a hastily arranged a follow up event, a Conversation About #Racism and #StructuralRacism in Medicine & Health Care on the JAMA Network with three physicians who have extensive experience on racism and structural racism in medicine.

However, JAMA has withdrawn the original podcast and deleted it from all available platforms. JAMA has refused to either archive the episode or make it available publicly or privately upon request, which concerns us greatly.

Removing the podcast does not absolve JAMA or its parent organization, The American Medical Association, of the professional imperative to adequately address the errors in the podcast or rectify its damaging impact on ongoing efforts to dismantle structural racism in medicine. The podcast exemplifies how ignorance about structural racism and the history of the American health care system remain pervasive in the medical profession. It also revealed the consequences of privileging individual experiences and opinions about race over decades of historical knowledge, theory, and data. In its recent apology, the AMA stated that it would need to look inward. Removing the podcast risks erasing it from both the historical record and the AMA’s institutional memory, which impedes the process of self-examination, accountability, and transformation necessary to address the harms it caused. The ignorance displayed in this podcast must be archived and challenged by amplifying the history of racism in medicine. JAMA and the AMA must work collectively towards strategies for dismantling structural racism in medicine and advocate for an anti-racist pedagogy in universities, medical schools, and in the broader American health care system.

As members of the American Association for the History of Medicine, we believe that the JAMA podcast about structural racism must be preserved, archived, and made publicly accessible. Being transparent about errors and ignorance displayed in this podcast is the first step toward the accountability and education necessary for dismantling structural racism in medicine. Thus, we have provided a transcript of the podcast below. We call upon JAMA to archive the podcast episode about structural racism in their digital archive alongside the rest of their content and attach the formal apology given by Dr. Bauchner.


Jacob Steere-Williams, College of Charleston

Jaipreet Virdi, University of Delaware

Kylie M. Smith, Emory University

Elise A. Mitchell, New York University

Rana A. Hogarth, University of Illinois, at Urbana-Champaign

Ayah Nuriddin, Johns Hopkins University

Lauren MacIvor Thompson, Georgia State University

Christopher D. E. Willoughby, The Pennsylvania State University

Deirdre Cooper Owens, University of of Nebraska-Lincoln

Jacqueline D. Antonovich, Muhlenberg College

Graham Mooney, Johns Hopkins University

Antoine S. Johnson, University of California, San Francisco

Jim Downs, Gettysburg College

Stephen T Casper, Clarkson University

Mariola Espinosa, University of Iowa

Rebecca Kluchin, California State University, Sacramento

Janet Golden, Rutgers University

Cynthia Connolly, University of Pennsylvania

Susan Lederer, University of Wisconsin, Madison

Kavita Sivaramakrishnan, Columbia University

Podcast: Structural Racism for Doctors – What is it? JAMA clinical reviews 2/23/2021

Transcript by Rachel Buckle on 17th March 2021, using the verbatim format

Interviewer Ed Livingston – This is the third and final instalment of my recent interview with Dr Mitch Katz, the president and CEO of New York City Health and Hospitals. In the first two parts, that are linked to in the show-notes, we talked about COVID19 in New York and LA and racial and ethnic disparities in COVID19. In this final instalment we discuss structural racism. Going into this interview, I didn’t understand the concept. Racism is defined as the use of race to make decisions about what people can or can’t do or somehow influence their possibilities. The use of race for any sort of transactional activity was made patently illegal by the civil rights legislation passed in the 1960s. Given that racism is illegal, how can it be so embedded in society that it’s considered structural? As a child of the 60s I didn’t get it. I asked Dr Katz about this concept, what it means and what needs to be done about it. In today’s JAMA Clinical Reviews podcast we discuss structural racism for sceptics.

Intro – From the JAMA Network, this is JAMA Clinical Reviews, interviews and ideas about innovations in medicine, science and clinical practice. Here’s your host: Ed Livingston

Ed Livingston – Dr Katz, can you start by defining what structural racism is for us?

Dr Katz – Yeah, I think it’s a great question Ed. I think actually acknowledging structural racism can be helpful to us, because structural racism is not about whether someone is a racist, or whether some individual person loves other people of a different ethnicity, or doesn’t like it, it’s not about peoples personal opinions. Structural racism refers to a system in which policies or practices or how we look at people perpetuates racial inequality. So it gets people off the question of “Well, what are people talking about, I’m not racist. My neighbor’s African American, he and I go golfing every weekend, we love each other, you know I’m not racist” This is not about racism of meaning someone’s individual views. This is about how as a society we perpetuate inequality. And. You know, you raised the issue of your own background and I, you were insightful enough to mention to me that your family changed its name. We are of a similar age. I remember, you know, my own father making reservations in the name of Mr K instead of Mr Katz because of his fear that if he made a reservation in the name of Mr Katz, his name would never come up on the list. I remember him explaining that he didn’t go to law school because the feeling was that at that time they wouldn’t hire a Jewish lawyer. So, I mean the idea of bias prejudice is not a new one. It has existed in our society, ah I worked for many years in San Francisco and was horrified to learn that the history of the creation of Chinese hospital, was that the public sector in San Francisco which is now an incredibly progressive place, in the 1880s wouldn’t see Chinese Americans and viewed them as a source for disease. So, this is not a new phenomenon but what we are talking about are, how does policy prevent people from rising. So a common example outside of the health, but I think that people can understand, in almost every big city when you’re building a truck route, it isn’t through the middle-class neighborhoods, the truck route always goes through the lower income neighborhoods. And that truck route, those trucks, spew their diesel fumes and the surrounding population is more likely to be exposed to that pollution, more likely to develop asthma, more likely to then miss school because they developed asthma. In that poor section because there are our society despite the civil rights movement in many cities remains segregated, and so in certain neighborhoods the schools are not as good, the hospitals have fewer resources, so the children don’t get educated in the same way. The hospitals are not able to provide the same level of care, not cause they don’t want to, um not because the doctors aren’t every bit if not more committed to that population, since they’re choosing to work in safety net hospitals, but because the resources are not there. So, you know, I think what’s important is to that we ask ourselves we, we know that there are disparities, we recognize that the racial disparities in the US are connected to income, so what are the set of interventions? What are the sets of changes in policy that we can do? Income grants if you want people to be out of poverty, you can provide them economic assistance that enables them to not live at the level of poverty. As you and I were talking, housing can be important not just for people who are homeless, but for people who are living in sub-standard housing, we can improve those conditions to the extent, you improve the conditions then you are participating in a set of practices that decreases racial inequality instead of perpetuating it.

Ed Livingston – So the way you explain it, which is by the is a wonderful explanation, I think the term racism might be hurting us, because as I articulated my response to it is just what you and your explanation of my response is: I don’t feel I’m a racist, I grew up in a family where racism was reviled and my parents taught me never to hate based on what people’s colors are or their religion because they had suffered the most extreme violence because they were Jews, and they said ‘that’s wrong’, ‘its fundamentally wrong, you can’t do that’, so I grew up kinda anti-racist that just never ever even think about a person’s race or ethnicity when you’re when you’re evaluating them. Yet I feel like I’m being told I’m a racist in the modern era cause of this whole thing about structural racism, but what you’re talking about isn’t racism as much as that there are populations that its more of a socio-economic phenomenon that have a hard time getting out of their place because of their environment, and it isn’t their race, it isn’t their color, it’s their socio-economic status, it’s where they are. Is that a fair assessment?

Dr Katz – Yes, I mean I think I mean I the so you are not a racist, and also we are not going to end structural racism by focusing on individual people’s attitudes. We’re going to end structural racism by changing policies that keep people down, that’s how we’re going to do it. I think where it goes beyond socio-economic but still stays as a as a societal issue is that because of the countries past with slavery, because of views that people held toward the Chinese coming to San Francisco, or Mexicans coming to Los Angeles, there are biased views and that the goal should be that society should not re-inforce them. One of my co-authors tells a really funny story, Dr Louis Hart, he’s a pediatrician with us, brown skinned African American, he grew up in Canada until he was a young teenager. When he came to the US, the question that people asked him the most was what’s your ethnicity? and he answered Canadian. Because he wasn’t aware, you know, that in the US race was considered such a major part of your identity. And I, I do believe, and I think there’s good data to suggest that whatever people’s belief they cannot necessarily prevent the idea that they may react differently to a person who looks different than they do. That it happens and again JAMA has, you know, done a good job, I think of revealing ways that it happens between physicians, again I point out not just along racial grounds, it can happen every time a woman doctor is assumed to be a nurse, or called ‘honey’ or told to get a doctor into the room, but there are ways that that people see other people and if you grow up African American and the number of people see you as dangerous or in someway less-than or less likely to succeed, maybe they wish you the best, but they feel oh you won’t succeed because, you know, they’ve never met an African American doctor or they’ve never seen an African American as president until Obama, so they assume you can’t be. But all of those things have an impact on that minority person, but the big thing that we can all do is move away from trying to interrogate each other’s opinions and move to a place where we are looking at the policies of our institutions, making sure that they promote equality.

Ed Livingston – So you’re an editor at JAMA Internal medicine. I’m a full time editor at JAMA so we spend a lot of time thinking about words and what those words mean. I think using the term racism invokes uh feelings amongst people, as I just said my own feelings earlier on. That make it, that are negative and that people do have this response that we said repeatedly ‘I’m not a racist, so why are you calling me a racist’ that’s how because they respond that way, they’re turned off by the whole structural racism phenomenon. Are there better terms we can use? Is there a better word than racism?

Dr Katz – There may well be, I I don’t know it, again when I when I describe it I always try to get people to focus on the structural part of it. And to help people see that the issue is not trying to tell people how to think, which I think will always fail. And I think that one of the mistakes that good people make is thinking that we need to tell people how to think, that is not going to succeed. You cannot tell people how to think, but you can create a society that promotes equality.

Ed Livingston– So, asking you a hard question. What do we do to end structural racism? Or try to address it the best that we can

Dr Katz – We acknowledge that it exists, so, and again that’s why I make the distinction, acknowledging structural racism does not mean saying that I’m a racist. It means saying that our countries policies need to be changed. And then I think that you’re your next part would be to say ‘Ok well what would the US look like if we didn’t have structural racism. What it would look like is that we we might still have people living in poverty but they wouldn’t be disproportionally minority. We would still have people in jail, but they wouldn’t be disproportionally minority. We would still have people who lived in sub-standard housing, but they wouldn’t be disproportionally from the minority. We would at every level you would see all of the country in a equitable way. So that the proportion of doctors, an lawyers, an senators, an supreme court justices would reflect the percentages in the population because we don’t believe that it’s genetic differences. Right, we don’t believe that the disproportionate harm that’s come to African Americans and Latinos for their health is because of genetic differences. We are physicians and we know there are a few diseases, you know, whether that’s Sickle Cell or Tay-Sachs that have a genetic basis, but that is not why we believe that black and brown people have higher mortality uh in this country due to COVID and a number of other illnesses. So the world that doesn’t have structural racism is a world where everyone doesn’t grow up to be president but anyone could grow up to be president.

Ed Livingston – Structural racism is an unfortunate term to describe a very real problem. There are structural problems in our society, as Dr Katz pointed out. There are neighborhoods that are impoverished; the quality of life is poor in those areas, because we may put factories in them or have major thoroughfares that travel through them. But we strive to have a society that’s more equal. Where, everybody has the same opportunities, so that hard working people can improve those neighborhoods and make them better for the people who live there. The racism part means that in those poor areas there tends to be a disproportionate share of certain kinds of races such as blacks or Hispanics. They aren’t there because they are not allowed to buy houses in better neighborhoods, or they can’t get a job because they are black or Hispanic, that would be illegal. But, disproportionality does exist and we as a society need to figure out why that occurs and how to make conditions better for people who live in structurally undesirable circumstances. Personally I think taking racism out of the conversation would help. Many people like myself, are offended by the implication that we are somehow racist, when many of us grew up in an era when there had been racism and much progress had been made in ameliorating racism via dramatic legislation that was passed in the 1960s. I think the population at large would be more accepting of this general concept if we concentrate on the structural part of it, and ensured that all people who lived in these disadvantaged circumstances have equal opportunities to become successful and have better qualities of life. The focus must be on equal opportunity and making sure that that exists. Others at the JAMA Network have discussed this and related topics and we have linked those podcasts in the show-notes. I’d like to thank Dr Mitch Katz for talking with us today on JAMA Clinical Reviews about structural racism. This episode was produced by Daniel Morrow. Our audio team here at the JAMA Network includes Jesse McQuarters, Shelly Stephens, Maylyn Martinez from the University of Chicago, Lisa Hardin and Mike Berkwits, the deputy editor for electronic media here at the JAMA Network. I’m Ed Livingston, deputy editor for clinical reviews and education at JAMA. Thanks for listening.

AAHM News: Dan David 2021 Laureates

Congratulations to AAHM President Keith Wailoo and historians of medicine and sciences Katharine Park and Alison Bashford for being named 2021 Dan David Prize Laureates!

From the Press Release: Tel Aviv – The Dan David Prize announced on Monday (Feb. 15, 2021) that medical historians Alison Bashford, Katharine Park, and Keith Wailoo are among the recipients of the distinguished 2021 award, reflecting the worldwide desire to understand and combat the COVID-19 pandemic and improve global health.

The three accomplished historians share a prize of $1 million for their work in the field of History of Health and Medicine (Past category). They join the Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) Dr. Anthony Fauci, who won the prize in the field of Public Health (Present category), and anti-cancer immunotherapy pioneers Prof. Zelig EshharProf. Carl June, and Dr. Steven Rosenberg, who won in the field of Molecular Medicine (Future category).

In choosing the field of History of Health and Medicine for the prizethe Dan David Board commented that “the nominations for the 2021 Dan David Prize embody the most significant developments and shifts in our field over the past few decades: the use of gender as an analytic tool; consideration of race and ethnicity; and the expansion of the field geographically and chronologically. Influential work in our field is now as likely to be centered in the Global South, or in the Middle Ages, as in nineteenth-century Paris or twentieth-century Baltimore.”

The internationally renowned prize, headquartered at Tel Aviv University, annually honors outstanding contributions of globally inspiring individuals and organizations that expand knowledge of the past, enrich society in the present, and promise to improve the future of our world. The Prize awards three gifts of $1 million, shared among the winners of each category. The total purse of $3 million makes the Dan David Prize one of the highest-valued awards internationally.

The seven laureates will be honored at the 2021 Dan David Prize Award Ceremony, to be held in an  special online event in May 2021.