Vanderbilt Medicine was Built to Unite Clinics and Labs and to Inspire a Country

Book Reviews / Doing Research / Faculty Life

It often helps to look at history to understand the present. Vanderbilt Medical Center has a storied history, and fortunately, a few books preserve that story for the present. Timothy Jacobson’s Making Medical Doctors: Science and Medicine at Vanderbilt Since Flexner tells the story of Vanderbilt’s medical school since an important date. Although this book is about forty years old (and still available), it’s one of the most accessible records of the medical center’s founding. I’ll share some of that story here.

The title provokes the question: What exactly happened with Flexner? Even though the Flexner Report is over 100 years old, many working in medicine remain familiar with its name. Published in 1910, this report ultimately revolutionized the way the United States pursued medical education. It sought to make medical education follow the German model, then-recently pioneered in the US at Johns Hopkins. When implemented, it shut down many smaller medical schools that could not pursue scientific research, sadly including many schools focused on underserved populations. Instead, it recentered medical education around laboratory-based medicine, which it still is today. Thus far, this story is commonly shared.

Not as famous is the story of Vanderbilt’s central role in testing Abraham Flexner’s views. When the Flexner Report came out, many immediately doubted whether American medical education could adapt. They admired Johns Hopkins’ and the Germans’ work but questioned whether the entire nation could implement it. The report was too revolutionary for a grand scale, they said. In response, Flexner needed a test case to prove his ideas could apply broadly and looked for a good one for the next 15 years. He ultimately focused on a project to re-found Vanderbilt’s medical school, then an unnoteworthy institution in a stagnated region.

In 1925, Vanderbilt University was a private school focused on public service in the reconstructed South. Sixty years after the Civil War, the South was still recovering economically from war’s upheavals, and despite its initial endowment by tycoon Cornelius Vanderbilt, Vanderbilt tended to lag other Northern schools in quality. Without a standard-bearer for the new paradigm, medicine all over the South ran behind the times.

Vanderbilt Chancellor James Kirkland, Abraham Flexner, and Dean of Medicine G. Canby Robinson conspired to reboot the medical school into something much grander than had been previously run. It has operated since 1874 without much distinction, and the best Flexner could report was that it had “satisfactory laboratories” in many fields. However, it was enough for the visionary Kirkland to court Flexner to bring a new format. The three made an unusual group for the project: Kirkland was an ambitious Latin professor, Flexner an educator with no formal healthcare expertise, and only Robinson had a physician’s education at Johns Hopkins.

In 1925, Vanderbilt Medical School was re-founded to test Flexner’s ideas about a laboratory-based education. Before this date, the medical school did not stand out significantly from other Southern medical schools. However, Flexner, working with the Rockefeller Foundation’s General Education Board from 1912-1928, secured unique funding for Vanderbilt. At the time, large federal healthcare funding was not available, and no other institution received as big a largess from the Rockefeller family’s riches. With a religious penchant for good social deeds, the Rockefellers used their immense wealth from Standard Oil to advance noble ends across America all the way to Nashville.

Vanderbilt hired aggressively but wisely. The renewed Vanderbilt Medical School sought to integrate research and medical training intimately and attract nation-leading faculty to implement this new vision. Fortunately, dedicated scientific luminaries like Ernest Goodpasture signed up for the grand experiment. Vanderbilt capitalized on the spirit of the age in that, like Johns Hopkins and its German forebears, it integrated the clinic and the lab intimately. Unlike these others, it did so in a region that was not as economically vibrant – an impressive feat to reconstruct a still-divided nation. It proved that with proper funding and leadership, a successful, research-driven medical school was possible anywhere. The Flexner Report’s ambitions were proven feasible even in the recovering South. Eventually, they were implemented nationwide.

(For more information about the Flexner Report’s broader impact on American medicine, I recommend the treatment in The Social Transformation of American Medicine by Paul Starr (1982) on pages 116-127. The book won a Pulitzer Prize in 1984 and is a gem to understand the American medical system’s history. Another treatment is available at Duffy TP. The Flexner Report–100 years later. Yale J Biol Med. 2011 Sep;84(3):269-76. PMID: 21966046; PMCID: PMC3178858.)

Then truly innovative, attendings, students, and residents could roam freely between labs and clinics at Vanderbilt in an almost seamless manner. Goodpasture provides a good example of its value. As a pathologist, he famously invented a way to mass produce viral material in egg yolks. This was a key step to mass producing viral material to disseminate vaccines to the wider population. By integrating the clinical question of supplying vaccines with a laboratory method, he demonstrated the value of close-knit relationships between the clinic and the lab. Not many other places in the world could have produced such an innovation.

Before an era of big government grants, these scientists spent their days quietly bringing the lab to patients and patient care into lab work. Using luminaries like Johns Hopkins’ William Osler as a launch pad, they showed that science could broadly meet society’s needs for medical care, starting in Nashville.

After World War II, many medical centers grew along Vanderbilt’s model with increased federal biomedical research funding. Unlike other centers, however, Vanderbilt’s administration deliberately aimed to keep alive the dream of major research advances. Many institutions used federal funds to provide jobs for regional facilities; as Jacobson details, Vanderbilt sought to maintain its initial vision of integrating labs and the clinics in novel ways. Its identity remains, in no small part, to integrate and translate research and clinical advancements.

Jacobson’s book details many more ebbs and flows of Vanderbilt’s journey until the book’s publication in 1987. With stories like these, he illustrates that education, research, and service served as historic foundations still directing its course. Since its re-founding, Vanderbilt never intended to be merely another medical center, but instead to lead healthcare projects from bench to bedside and back way before that catchphrase was ever dreamed of. Its students impacted the entire southern region with a curious, scientific approach to medical care. This history can guide our biomedical community to continue to imagine big for the nation’s and world’s patient care today.

Making Medical Doctors: Science and Medicine at Vanderbilt Since Flexner
By Timothy C. Jacobson
Copyright © 1987
The University of Alabama Press
ISBN13 9780817303150
Page Count: 349

Predicting Whether a Collaboration Will Work

Book Reviews / Networking & Collaboration

We know collaborating on common goals with outside groups is a good thing, but how can you know going in that a collaboration will be successful? Despite all the best intentions, cultural and historical factors don’t always align to support a good collaboration. It’d be nice to know that before committing on a time-consuming venture of establishing a new scientific or business relationship.

Researchers Paul Mattessich and Kirsten Johnson of the Wilder Research group have reviewed dozens of published case studies to identify factors that enhance compatibility. They distilled their research into an inventory of questions called the Wilder Collaboration Factors Inventory, contained in Chapter 6 of Collaboration: What Makes It Work. This exposition focuses on any group collaborations, not just individuals, and not just for science.

Mattessich is an experienced sociology researcher who consults on projects in Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom. There, he has dealt with latent cultural forces, often beyond a business’ control, that sometimes scuttle projects. Those perspectives clearly lie behind his and Johnson’s approach in this inventory.

For groups already engaged in collaboration, this book doesn’t offer much more than an academic exploration of social factors involved in working together successfully. It spells out 22 broad factors related to the environment, membership, process, communication, purpose, and resources. Although these categories were gleaned from case studies on collaboration, the text, unfortunately, does not provide much detail to ground these abstractions. However, for groups where resistance to cooperating might exist, this book offers a formal framework to test whether the time and circumstances are right.

Their inventory provides a comprehensive diagnostic battery gleaned from other collaboration’s shortcomings. Based on the 22 factors, it offers 44 statements to test a collaboration’s readiness. These questions should be asked before a collaboration begins. Questions include:
• Question 9: The people involved in our collaboration represent a cross section of those who have a stake in what we are trying to accomplish.
• Question 31: The people who lead this collaborative group communicate well with its members.
• Question 43: The people in leadership positions for this collaboration have good skills for working with other people and organizations.
They are meant to engage your mind with practicalities to get ready for success.

Fraught social circumstances can kill even the most well-supported collaboration. Sometimes, those circumstances are beyond any collaborative party’s control, too. Asking the not-so-obvious questions ahead of time can provide a good foundation for an effort’s dynamics.

In academe, foreseeing rough patches with other labs, foundation groups, or industry partners can lead to more successful outcomes. Diplomatic care isn’t just for a nation’s foreign policy; it can help figure out whether to make a deep dive in a new partnership or save effort. Tools like the Wilder Collaboration Factors Inventory can help a group predict whether such collaborations are worthwhile ahead of time.

Collaboration: What Makes It Work
By Paul W. Mattessich & Kirsten M. Johnson
3rd Edition
Copyright © 2018
Fieldstone Alliance
ISBN13 9781683367918
Page Count: 108