What do you think?
Rate this book
Blood Work: A Tale of Medicine and Murder in the Scientific Revolution
"Excellent…Tucker’s chronicle of the world of 17th-century science in London and Paris is fascinating." —The Economist
In December 1667, maverick physician Jean Denis transfused calf’s blood into one of Paris’s most notorious madmen. Days later, the madman was dead and Denis was framed for murder. A riveting exposé of the fierce debates, deadly politics, and cutthroat rivalries behind the first transfusion experiments, Blood Work takes us from dissection rooms in palaces to the streets of Paris, providing an unforgettable portrait of an era that wrestled with the same questions about morality and experimentation that haunt medical science today.
In December 1667, maverick physician Jean Denis transfused calf’s blood into one of Paris’s most notorious madmen. Days later, the madman was dead and Denis was framed for murder. A riveting exposé of the fierce debates, deadly politics, and cutthroat rivalries behind the first transfusion experiments, Blood Work takes us from dissection rooms in palaces to the streets of Paris, providing an unforgettable portrait of an era that wrestled with the same questions about morality and experimentation that haunt medical science today.
336 pages, Kindle Edition
First published December 23, 2010
159 people are currently reading
10063 people want to read
About the author
Holly Tucker
13 books283 followersHolly Tucker teaches at Vanderbilt University, where she holds appointments in the Center for Medicine, Health & Society and the Department of French & Italian. Her writing has appeared in the New Scientist, the Wall Street Journal, the San Francisco Chronicle, Christian Science Journal, among others. Holly is also the author of Blood Work: A Tale of Medicine & Murder in the Scientific Revolution (Norton, March 2011), and edits the general history website Wonders & Marvels.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 309 reviews
January 27, 2021
Science discoveries are often thought of as an area of intelligent human endeavor full of emotional reserve and reasonable educated caution. But any reader who enjoys reading books about the history of science knows that the people who explored what we today call science subjects were (and are) no better than the society in which they worked and lived, even if more driven, obsessed and highly educated than the average citizen.
National politics, raw ambition, Protestant vs. Catholic faith (England vs. France, in other words), class discrimination, Descartes’ philosophy about the soul, conservatives vs. progressives - is it possible scientific experimentation ever was so fraught with dispute as it was when Europe was leaving the Middle Ages behind? Science is fraught with dispute all of the time, actually, but the book ‘Blood Work’ covers a particular struggle between celebrity doctors exploring blood transfusion in the 1660’s.
I was a secretary who read a lot, and I still read a lot, but I am no expert in research and history. The following is a general understanding of what this reviewer has picked up in a very erratic manner, so corrections are welcome:
The time period that the author Holly Tucker describes in ‘Blood Work’ is before the scientific method was articulated. Rules regarding the ethics of scientific experimentation were strongly influenced by primitive social European beliefs infused with biblical teachings and classic works of literature which were translated from the ancient Greeks and Romans. The ancient Greeks and Romans had written Science experimentation books which had finally become known in the West when the books were captured in the Crusader wars and in trading with Muslim merchants. The world of Christianity in its early centuries made a practice of burning ancient libraries as heathen works of the devil. Muslims had saved every ancient book in territories they conquered; thus, the works of the Roman Republic/Empire and the ancient Greeks came to the Western world through Islamic countries.
In early centuries, the field work of who we today would call scientists and the work of thought experiments conducted by men we today call philosophers were often performed by the same man. The separations of fields of study which we acknowledge today - Religion, Philosophy, Science, Astrology, Astronomy - are separated in our modern world, but were not in the Middle Ages. In my opinion, most of the historically important gentlemen we study when reading books about the history of science and philosophy were polymaths. Some were powerful literary talents as well who wrote works of poetry that are subjects of early-Literature classes.
Hardly any of the above is discussed in this book, which is why I am not giving it more than three and a half stars. I think the author Holly Tucker could have mentioned the above as quickly as I have in her book about early experiments in blood transfusions, and she should have, since she refers obliquely to this history here and there.
Tucker wrote ‘Blood Work’ in a New York Times journalism style. It is very readable. It is also extremely interesting. The doctors she profiles who were experimenting with blood transfusions in the mid-1600’s had little legal or social prohibitions from using animals, which was mostly dogs (even their pets). People who were considered socially unessential or insignificant (such as a 15-year-old boy and a drunken, occasionally psychotic, impoverished married man of a lower class) were also experimented on. The author does not linger on the experiments the doctors performed on their chosen victims, er, patients, but she does graphically describe (included are drawings) the struggles the doctors had in transferring blood from one living body to another using quills (?!?!?) Not all transfers were animal to animal or human to human. Mind you, this was before anyone knew about blood types. Doctors were still arguing about which organ created blood, and the question of whether blood circulated around the body was not yet settled. Due to one of the human volunteers (using the term loosely) suddenly dying a few days after a transfusion, most doctors of the era were convinced by their peers to quit experimentation for the next 200 years. The author presents certain known circumstances from documents and papers (and gossip) of the time period which give cause to wonder whether it was a transfusion or murder behind the death.
I don’t know whether to applaud these ‘scientists’ for their audacious, blinded-by-curiosity-and-ambition efforts or to protest because of their ferocity and cold-blooded obsession. It is all very amusing, interesting and fascinating unless you are a sensitive person, which, alas, I cannot make any such claims. For the record, members of my family have received transfusions which saved their lives.
National politics, raw ambition, Protestant vs. Catholic faith (England vs. France, in other words), class discrimination, Descartes’ philosophy about the soul, conservatives vs. progressives - is it possible scientific experimentation ever was so fraught with dispute as it was when Europe was leaving the Middle Ages behind? Science is fraught with dispute all of the time, actually, but the book ‘Blood Work’ covers a particular struggle between celebrity doctors exploring blood transfusion in the 1660’s.
I was a secretary who read a lot, and I still read a lot, but I am no expert in research and history. The following is a general understanding of what this reviewer has picked up in a very erratic manner, so corrections are welcome:
The time period that the author Holly Tucker describes in ‘Blood Work’ is before the scientific method was articulated. Rules regarding the ethics of scientific experimentation were strongly influenced by primitive social European beliefs infused with biblical teachings and classic works of literature which were translated from the ancient Greeks and Romans. The ancient Greeks and Romans had written Science experimentation books which had finally become known in the West when the books were captured in the Crusader wars and in trading with Muslim merchants. The world of Christianity in its early centuries made a practice of burning ancient libraries as heathen works of the devil. Muslims had saved every ancient book in territories they conquered; thus, the works of the Roman Republic/Empire and the ancient Greeks came to the Western world through Islamic countries.
In early centuries, the field work of who we today would call scientists and the work of thought experiments conducted by men we today call philosophers were often performed by the same man. The separations of fields of study which we acknowledge today - Religion, Philosophy, Science, Astrology, Astronomy - are separated in our modern world, but were not in the Middle Ages. In my opinion, most of the historically important gentlemen we study when reading books about the history of science and philosophy were polymaths. Some were powerful literary talents as well who wrote works of poetry that are subjects of early-Literature classes.
Hardly any of the above is discussed in this book, which is why I am not giving it more than three and a half stars. I think the author Holly Tucker could have mentioned the above as quickly as I have in her book about early experiments in blood transfusions, and she should have, since she refers obliquely to this history here and there.
Tucker wrote ‘Blood Work’ in a New York Times journalism style. It is very readable. It is also extremely interesting. The doctors she profiles who were experimenting with blood transfusions in the mid-1600’s had little legal or social prohibitions from using animals, which was mostly dogs (even their pets). People who were considered socially unessential or insignificant (such as a 15-year-old boy and a drunken, occasionally psychotic, impoverished married man of a lower class) were also experimented on. The author does not linger on the experiments the doctors performed on their chosen victims, er, patients, but she does graphically describe (included are drawings) the struggles the doctors had in transferring blood from one living body to another using quills (?!?!?) Not all transfers were animal to animal or human to human. Mind you, this was before anyone knew about blood types. Doctors were still arguing about which organ created blood, and the question of whether blood circulated around the body was not yet settled. Due to one of the human volunteers (using the term loosely) suddenly dying a few days after a transfusion, most doctors of the era were convinced by their peers to quit experimentation for the next 200 years. The author presents certain known circumstances from documents and papers (and gossip) of the time period which give cause to wonder whether it was a transfusion or murder behind the death.
I don’t know whether to applaud these ‘scientists’ for their audacious, blinded-by-curiosity-and-ambition efforts or to protest because of their ferocity and cold-blooded obsession. It is all very amusing, interesting and fascinating unless you are a sensitive person, which, alas, I cannot make any such claims. For the record, members of my family have received transfusions which saved their lives.
June 24, 2015
2.5 stars. This has some interesting information about 17th-century attempts to transfuse blood from one living creature to another, describing experiments which began with dogs (those poor dogs) and escalated to humans. The focus is on one particular experiment in which the death of the human subject, a madman, led to a murder charge for the French physician who carried out the transfusion.
The book meanders around its subject. The stuff about transfusions would fit into an essay, so this is padded out with a lot of historical detail that should have been more interesting than it was. I usually enjoy this kind of thing, but there’s something about the narrative flow that did not work for me.
There’s not actually a lot of scientific detail about blood compatibility issues. In particular, there wasn’t a good explanation of how so many subjects survived the transfusions. The author does a good job of describing the experiments on animals, being honest without dwelling on how horrific it could be, but it still makes for a disturbing read.
The murder charge at the center of the book is a political mess. I’m sure the author deliberately chose it to highlight the impact of politics on science, but as a mystery, and as the core story of the book, it’s unsatisfying.
The book meanders around its subject. The stuff about transfusions would fit into an essay, so this is padded out with a lot of historical detail that should have been more interesting than it was. I usually enjoy this kind of thing, but there’s something about the narrative flow that did not work for me.
There’s not actually a lot of scientific detail about blood compatibility issues. In particular, there wasn’t a good explanation of how so many subjects survived the transfusions. The author does a good job of describing the experiments on animals, being honest without dwelling on how horrific it could be, but it still makes for a disturbing read.
The murder charge at the center of the book is a political mess. I’m sure the author deliberately chose it to highlight the impact of politics on science, but as a mystery, and as the core story of the book, it’s unsatisfying.
April 11, 2011
This is what I loved about Blood Work: from the very beginning Holly Tucker’s sense of place and time, 17th century Paris during the Age of Enlightenment, is conveyed in absolute perfect detail and she hooks us in like a great murder mystery. At the same time, we gain information and insights into our own scientific history and a time when both amazing and horrible things were happening. Blood Work tells the story of the first blood transfusions and the subsequent scientific and political struggles that took place in Paris and London as a result.
Blood transfusions created intense controversy. Many people believed the blood contained the essence of a human being, or the soul, and transfusions were blasphemy. Likewise, many, including prominent physicians and politicians of the time, were heavily invested in the opposite of transfusion: blood letting. It was important to keep the status quo. Does any of this sound familiar? Everything that happens in the book is true, and meticulously researched. We know the sights and smell of Paris. We know the financial situation, personality, and motivations of Jean-Baptist Denis, the fanatical physician who first transfused animal-to-human blood. Tucker’s flawless writing conveys an amazing story, and at the same time, she helps us see that as far as we think we've come in medical science, we're still grappling with many of the same issues-- and we're even using the same language.
March 12, 2011
As a physician I was fascinated to learn that the first blood transfusions were attempted way back in the 1660's. However, what really made this book interesting was the contrasting reactions in England and France. Not only is this a fascinating story from the early days of science, it provides an excellent example of how things like politics and religions affect scientific inquiry. That's what makes this story relevent for 21st Century readers.
Not only that, it includes a pretty good murder mystery.
Note: Holly Tucker will be my guest on my Books and Ideas podcast in April 2011.
Not only that, it includes a pretty good murder mystery.
Note: Holly Tucker will be my guest on my Books and Ideas podcast in April 2011.
January 12, 2012
Overall I enjoyed this book but at some points found it hard to follow. The book was very well researched and put together but I often got confused which person did what and if they were English or French, which was often times important. I had never really thought about the history of blood transfusions or realized how much controversy was involved in the study. This book isn't someone with a weak stomach as it goes through bloody and painful procedures of dogs going through early transfusion which resulted in a lot of dogs dying. Then the process of human and animal transfusion which is where most of the controversy lies. Again this book was well researched and well put together and colored a very interesting tale of blood transfusions that I was unaware of until this book. I want to read this book again just so I can pick up on more of the scientific details.
June 30, 2017
Tucker begins her book with a Prologue that connects the earliest blood transfusions with modern stem cell research. Then, her first chapter tells the story of Denis' blood transfusions on the "madman," Mauroy. She then goes back to tell the reader how the idea of blood transfusions came into being, starting with Galen and the humors and William Harvey and blood circulation. She tells the reader about the scientific progress being made in England and France in the 17th century and about the battles between the two always-battling countries. She throws in other historical context (like the popularity of sundials and the construction of Versailles). The book moves forward in time until she circles back on Denis' experiments on Mauroy. The book ends with the "medicine and murder" promised in its subtitle. Tucker concludes with an Epilogue that explains when and why she became interested in Denis and that, once again, connects transfusions to stem cell research. She urges her reader to consider the opposition to transfusions, which have gone on to save countless lives (the transfusions, not the opposition; ignore my faulty syntax, please). She wants us to consider what it means to be human and to seriously weigh all aspects of stem cell research before making a definitive conclusion about it. Essentially, she wants us to leave morals out of it and focus on the scientific practicality of research in controversial fields.
Tucker's Prologue and Epilogue have much more heart and demonstrate much more passion than does the entire book in between. To be fair, I could tell that Tucker enjoyed what she was writing about; I feel, though, that making the connection to modern-day scientific issues explicit throughout the book would have made the historical topic much more current and the understanding of it more urgent. I was interested in Denis and his story enough to read Tucker's book, but the subtitle sets up a promise that most of the book doesn't fulfill. Also, I understand why she wrote about blood transfusions, but the scope of the book is both too broad and too narrow to really flesh out the topic in any substantially effective way.
I recommend this book if you want a mini biography about an early blood transfusionist, a book that also includes some broader historical context. Otherwise, I would read something else. I actually enjoyed Five Quarts: A Personal and Natural History of Blood much more, though it was more personal, because it didn't promise to be anything but an overview. Either way, this is a solid book but not one of my favorites in the pop science genre.
Tucker's Prologue and Epilogue have much more heart and demonstrate much more passion than does the entire book in between. To be fair, I could tell that Tucker enjoyed what she was writing about; I feel, though, that making the connection to modern-day scientific issues explicit throughout the book would have made the historical topic much more current and the understanding of it more urgent. I was interested in Denis and his story enough to read Tucker's book, but the subtitle sets up a promise that most of the book doesn't fulfill. Also, I understand why she wrote about blood transfusions, but the scope of the book is both too broad and too narrow to really flesh out the topic in any substantially effective way.
I recommend this book if you want a mini biography about an early blood transfusionist, a book that also includes some broader historical context. Otherwise, I would read something else. I actually enjoyed Five Quarts: A Personal and Natural History of Blood much more, though it was more personal, because it didn't promise to be anything but an overview. Either way, this is a solid book but not one of my favorites in the pop science genre.
April 1, 2011
In one way, this book is difficult to read. It deals with some truly horrific experiments in the name of science and some truly horrific human stupidity.
In another way, this book is easy to read. The writing flows smoothly, the events narrated are fascinating and the science is explained in a way that's accessible without being dumbed down.
This book reminds me of Saving Private Ryan and Schindler's List in that I'm glad I read it, I had a definite emotional and intellectual response to it, but I've no desire to read it again.
I can and do recommend this to anyone curious about the beginning of the science of blood transfusion, as long as the reader doesn't have a delicate stomach or a thin skin.
This book was sent to me for review.
In another way, this book is easy to read. The writing flows smoothly, the events narrated are fascinating and the science is explained in a way that's accessible without being dumbed down.
This book reminds me of Saving Private Ryan and Schindler's List in that I'm glad I read it, I had a definite emotional and intellectual response to it, but I've no desire to read it again.
I can and do recommend this to anyone curious about the beginning of the science of blood transfusion, as long as the reader doesn't have a delicate stomach or a thin skin.
This book was sent to me for review.
September 16, 2020
Probably the most interesting discussion to me was why blood-letting was seen as such a curative to all forms of sickness. There was enough information to make a really decent short story or maybe a term paper. Much of the book was just padding to make it thick enough to put out as a scientific book. Some authors can really bring a bunch of disparate info into their book and tie it all together in an interesting pastiche. She can't. A saving grace is her writing style is pleasant enough and the book is not long. 2 Stars
November 3, 2011
Blood Work: A Tale of Medicine and Murder in the Scientific Revolution is a thoroughly researched and richly illustrated early history of blood transfusions.
The writing is clear and easy to understand. I had no trouble following the history. It is written as if the author was directly telling you the story.
In the Epilogue, Holly Tucker explains why she wanted to write this book. There were two reasons but the important one to me was George W. Bush's State of the Union in 2006. He wanted a ban on "animal human stem cell research”. I have never forgotten his words.
Stem cell research is a controversial subject, there were fears of human cloning, animal human hybrids and all of this is tied up with political, ethical and religious concerns. The same fears surrounding stem cell research used to envelop blood transfusion research long ago
Holly Tucker takes us through the history of blood transfusions to discuss this question. The knowledge of transfusions started with animal transfusions. At one point, the French Parliament banned all transfusions. What made them decide to do that? What if the researchers had given up? What was the important mystery connected to that decision?
Why did England and France participate in a blood transfusion race similar to the space race between United States and Russia?
There are some gruesome experiments involving dogs and other animals and even humans but the fact is that they are the history of the blood transfusions. Without them, the author would not be able to give a full and truthful account.
I highly recommend this book to those interested in medical history and those who debate whether some medical research is immoral and should be prevented.
I received this book from the author but that did not influence my review, my thoughts are my own.
The writing is clear and easy to understand. I had no trouble following the history. It is written as if the author was directly telling you the story.
In the Epilogue, Holly Tucker explains why she wanted to write this book. There were two reasons but the important one to me was George W. Bush's State of the Union in 2006. He wanted a ban on "animal human stem cell research”. I have never forgotten his words.
Stem cell research is a controversial subject, there were fears of human cloning, animal human hybrids and all of this is tied up with political, ethical and religious concerns. The same fears surrounding stem cell research used to envelop blood transfusion research long ago
Holly Tucker takes us through the history of blood transfusions to discuss this question. The knowledge of transfusions started with animal transfusions. At one point, the French Parliament banned all transfusions. What made them decide to do that? What if the researchers had given up? What was the important mystery connected to that decision?
Why did England and France participate in a blood transfusion race similar to the space race between United States and Russia?
There are some gruesome experiments involving dogs and other animals and even humans but the fact is that they are the history of the blood transfusions. Without them, the author would not be able to give a full and truthful account.
I highly recommend this book to those interested in medical history and those who debate whether some medical research is immoral and should be prevented.
I received this book from the author but that did not influence my review, my thoughts are my own.
April 25, 2011
Blood Work is an interesting non-fiction work that chronicles the beginning of blood transfusions in the 17th century in France and England. Scientists started experimenting in blood transfusions long before the knew anything about the composition or purpose of blood- many still did not even believe in circulation of blood throughout the body!
This book describes wonderfully, if that is the right word, the gory nature of blood work before modern practices. Bloodletting was still one of the most common medical treatments for patients and the new technique of blood transfusions was even more 'icky' than bloodletting. Blood Work also describes the political nature of science in the 17th century- especially the feud between protestant England and Catholic France. I found some of this background to be more interesting than the specific blood transfusion debates.
While I think Holly Tucker did a great job of bringing to light this interesting piece of scientific inquiry, I felt like there was too much build up to the end and a little too much background information. Some thingsdragged on, like the description of King Louis XIV when he really had very little involvement in the transfusion debate. The promised murder in the book was also a let down since it was not at all difficult to guess the assumed murderers and their reasons for murder. However, I did not read this because I wanted a thrilling mystery; rather, I wanted to learn blood transfusions in the 17th century, which this book accomplished.
Overall, I think Blood Work was interesting and informative. My main complaint is that there was some extra unnecessary information that bogged down the plot some. Instead of jumping around to explain all of the background, I think it could have been trimmed more to make a more efficient, cohesive narrative
This book describes wonderfully, if that is the right word, the gory nature of blood work before modern practices. Bloodletting was still one of the most common medical treatments for patients and the new technique of blood transfusions was even more 'icky' than bloodletting. Blood Work also describes the political nature of science in the 17th century- especially the feud between protestant England and Catholic France. I found some of this background to be more interesting than the specific blood transfusion debates.
While I think Holly Tucker did a great job of bringing to light this interesting piece of scientific inquiry, I felt like there was too much build up to the end and a little too much background information. Some thingsdragged on, like the description of King Louis XIV when he really had very little involvement in the transfusion debate. The promised murder in the book was also a let down since it was not at all difficult to guess the assumed murderers and their reasons for murder. However, I did not read this because I wanted a thrilling mystery; rather, I wanted to learn blood transfusions in the 17th century, which this book accomplished.
Overall, I think Blood Work was interesting and informative. My main complaint is that there was some extra unnecessary information that bogged down the plot some. Instead of jumping around to explain all of the background, I think it could have been trimmed more to make a more efficient, cohesive narrative
August 6, 2011
I'm 44% of the way through this and finding my enjoyment of a truly gripping tale of murder and science distinctly hampered by the quality of the writing. Too much novelistic projecting of emotions onto the characters and disjointed. When Denis transfused lamb's blood into a 16 year old boy...what happened to the boy after the first day? How is it possible he did not die? If he did not, why not? Want more detail, more fact, more mystery building! Less speculation as to the noble ambitions of the various players.
I seem to be alone in this frustration. Maybe it will pull together at the half way mark?
Well I finished it. This is well researched and the topic is compelling, but the literary quality is...academic. If you're intersted in the topic, go for it, but I cannot recommend it as a good read.
I seem to be alone in this frustration. Maybe it will pull together at the half way mark?
Well I finished it. This is well researched and the topic is compelling, but the literary quality is...academic. If you're intersted in the topic, go for it, but I cannot recommend it as a good read.
June 22, 2011
Blood Work is a solid historical monologue, though to call it "a tale of medicine and murder" is a clear attempt to pull in readers that wouldn't normally read medical history. The "murder" part of the tale comprises a mere few pages, while the great majority of the book traces the progress in scientific understanding of blood circulation and transfusion. The author's preachy epilogue, in which she equates the proscriptions on blood transfusions to today's limits on stem-cell research, seemed self-evident and over-the-top. Still, I learned a lot of new things in this book, and that's why I love to read history! This one really should get a 3 1/2 stars.
March 3, 2011
Excellent book for those who like science with their history. I would recommend this to fans of Mary Roach or Deborah Blum, or to anyone with scientific/medical curiosity. This is far from a dry recitation of facts. Like any good historical work, it helps the reader grasp the much larger sociological picture, and does so in a witty and engaging manner.
September 9, 2016
This was a very interesting look at the early history of blood transfusion and the political, philosophical and religious issues surrounding it.
May 13, 2023
One star for the author's research, 1/2 star for her writing and 1 star because I should have put this book down 2 chapters in. First off, the history of animal abuse in medicine was way too much for me, the technicalities of blood transfusion a bit over my head-ha! who am I kidding, way over my head.
Take this with a grain of salt, if you can swallow the experiments on dogs and you have a science background you may love this.
Take this with a grain of salt, if you can swallow the experiments on dogs and you have a science background you may love this.
March 23, 2011
Blood Work is a non-fictional account of the first blood transfusions which took place in England and France during Scientific Revolution in the 1600s. If you've ever read any historical fiction or non-fiction from this period and onwards through the 1800s, you'll notice odd medical practices like blood-letting for illnesses. Leeches, draining, and more were done to bring the body back into balance through the humors. If you've never heard of this practice, I think it's mentioned in at least one of Jane Austen's novels. Holly Tucker also notes that George Washington had this practice done. Wow. Never knew that.
When blood transfusions were first thought up and carried out by the curious and educated, I find it odd that they didn't see it as a way to make up for lost blood, but as another way of treating an illness of the body or mind. I loved how these men pursued the quest for knowledge and how England and France kind were in kind of a scientific war over this. Quiet fascinating and at times very disgusting. I have to admit that I felt so sorry for all the animals that were worked on during their practices. But they eventually moved on to humans and this is where most of the drama unfolds. Blood transfusion became a religious, moral, and national problem. Transferring blood between human and animal or even human and human might possible interfere with a person's soul and even worse turn someone into a hybrid with animal and human characteristics! Or so they believed.
History books like these are the type I adore. It's well research and jammed packed with all sorts of interesting characters and aspects of life during this period. We get a glimpse into the court life of the Sun King, Louis XIV, as his Academy of Sciences opposes blood transfusion. We get a vibrant look at people like Jean-Baptiste Denis who try to make a name for himself by becoming successful at blood transfusion almost at all cost. Henry Oldenburg, a German-born philosopher working in England who is imprisoned because he is a foreigner and therefore suspicious. And one of my favorites, Henri-Martin de la Martinière, who ran away from home as a young boy, became a pirate then physician. I'd love to read more about him. As for the murder...well you'll just have to read the book for that one.
As a side note: I was reading this the other day when I had a doctor's appointment. As I was getting some blood taken, the nurse noticed the book title and asked what it was about. When I told her she looked a little shocked and then asked why I was reading it. That actually made me think. While I totally enjoyed it, it does seem like an odd book to just pick up. Then I read Holly's epilogue and I came to understand what it was. She wrote, "early animal-to-human transfusions were a case study for larger political struggles, religious controversies, and cutthroat ambitions during the late seventeenth century." And it doesn't stop there. She wrote that she became aware that she needed to write this book when she heard President Bush's speech in 2006 wanting to prohibit animal-human embryonic stem cell research. Wow. Is history trying to repeat itself? And that's why I was reading it and enjoying it. It's a fascinating historical tale that provides a new outlook on modern controversies. Thanks Holly!
When blood transfusions were first thought up and carried out by the curious and educated, I find it odd that they didn't see it as a way to make up for lost blood, but as another way of treating an illness of the body or mind. I loved how these men pursued the quest for knowledge and how England and France kind were in kind of a scientific war over this. Quiet fascinating and at times very disgusting. I have to admit that I felt so sorry for all the animals that were worked on during their practices. But they eventually moved on to humans and this is where most of the drama unfolds. Blood transfusion became a religious, moral, and national problem. Transferring blood between human and animal or even human and human might possible interfere with a person's soul and even worse turn someone into a hybrid with animal and human characteristics! Or so they believed.
History books like these are the type I adore. It's well research and jammed packed with all sorts of interesting characters and aspects of life during this period. We get a glimpse into the court life of the Sun King, Louis XIV, as his Academy of Sciences opposes blood transfusion. We get a vibrant look at people like Jean-Baptiste Denis who try to make a name for himself by becoming successful at blood transfusion almost at all cost. Henry Oldenburg, a German-born philosopher working in England who is imprisoned because he is a foreigner and therefore suspicious. And one of my favorites, Henri-Martin de la Martinière, who ran away from home as a young boy, became a pirate then physician. I'd love to read more about him. As for the murder...well you'll just have to read the book for that one.
As a side note: I was reading this the other day when I had a doctor's appointment. As I was getting some blood taken, the nurse noticed the book title and asked what it was about. When I told her she looked a little shocked and then asked why I was reading it. That actually made me think. While I totally enjoyed it, it does seem like an odd book to just pick up. Then I read Holly's epilogue and I came to understand what it was. She wrote, "early animal-to-human transfusions were a case study for larger political struggles, religious controversies, and cutthroat ambitions during the late seventeenth century." And it doesn't stop there. She wrote that she became aware that she needed to write this book when she heard President Bush's speech in 2006 wanting to prohibit animal-human embryonic stem cell research. Wow. Is history trying to repeat itself? And that's why I was reading it and enjoying it. It's a fascinating historical tale that provides a new outlook on modern controversies. Thanks Holly!
April 30, 2011
Tucker asks 2 questions here:
What is the Scientific Revolution?
and
Has the Scientific Revolution left us?
She shows the SR to have been a lively, morally dubious, highly competitive, and thoroughly disgusting business, and places it alongside its political context (Louis XIV) and cultural context (the reshaping of major European cities). To do so, HT traces the story of one blood transfusion gone seemingly awry, explaining both the roots of the procedure and the charged scientific/political environment framing the process.
In addition, HT points out the ongoing legacy of the SR, and in particular, the history of blood transfusion work. (The stem cell debate, she points out, is just one of many modern issues that call back to debates at the time of the SR.)
The book is a very good work of history, well-written and appealing to the non-academic (as well as academic) public. My 4-star review reflects, though, my own response to the book as well as my response to its intellectual merits: In particular, the book captures almost too honestly the amount of violence inflicted upon animals (and people), and does so with vivid detail. As an animal lover, I found some of the descriptions extremely upsetting, to the point where I almost put the book aside. That said, the book is doing history a service in being blunt about what happened, and certainly the book's detail is used judiciously and correctly--it was simply difficult for me, as an individual, to read.
What is the Scientific Revolution?
and
Has the Scientific Revolution left us?
She shows the SR to have been a lively, morally dubious, highly competitive, and thoroughly disgusting business, and places it alongside its political context (Louis XIV) and cultural context (the reshaping of major European cities). To do so, HT traces the story of one blood transfusion gone seemingly awry, explaining both the roots of the procedure and the charged scientific/political environment framing the process.
In addition, HT points out the ongoing legacy of the SR, and in particular, the history of blood transfusion work. (The stem cell debate, she points out, is just one of many modern issues that call back to debates at the time of the SR.)
The book is a very good work of history, well-written and appealing to the non-academic (as well as academic) public. My 4-star review reflects, though, my own response to the book as well as my response to its intellectual merits: In particular, the book captures almost too honestly the amount of violence inflicted upon animals (and people), and does so with vivid detail. As an animal lover, I found some of the descriptions extremely upsetting, to the point where I almost put the book aside. That said, the book is doing history a service in being blunt about what happened, and certainly the book's detail is used judiciously and correctly--it was simply difficult for me, as an individual, to read.
June 9, 2011
Blood Work: A Tale of Medicine and Murder in the Scientific Revolution by Holly Tucker is meticulously researched and retold in a way that sucks the reader right in. While the subject matter is itself very interesting, the fabulous writing by Ms. Tucker raises it to an even more impressive level. With her extensive education and experience, I feel that there is no one better to bring us this true tale of life and death than Holly Tucker.
I very much enjoyed the religion versus science debate. With regards to the current stem-cell research controversy, it’s clear that the old adage is still true: Those that don’t learn from history are bound to repeat it. Often with seriously negative consequences.
Great surprise ending! I thought I knew what the outcome was going to be, but I admit I was fooled. I never would have guessed who the real culprit(s) was. And it was a happy ending of sorts. I was worried that Denis would be punished for trying to help others. Although Denis did want fame and fortune, he was able to affect others in a positive fashion, especially with his last, and greatest invention.
Even though some parts made me feel a little bit squeamish, this book is by no means gruesome -- just intriguing. Blood Work is a terrific read and should be considered a must for anyone interested in medical history.
4 1/2 stars
I very much enjoyed the religion versus science debate. With regards to the current stem-cell research controversy, it’s clear that the old adage is still true: Those that don’t learn from history are bound to repeat it. Often with seriously negative consequences.
Great surprise ending! I thought I knew what the outcome was going to be, but I admit I was fooled. I never would have guessed who the real culprit(s) was. And it was a happy ending of sorts. I was worried that Denis would be punished for trying to help others. Although Denis did want fame and fortune, he was able to affect others in a positive fashion, especially with his last, and greatest invention.
Even though some parts made me feel a little bit squeamish, this book is by no means gruesome -- just intriguing. Blood Work is a terrific read and should be considered a must for anyone interested in medical history.
4 1/2 stars
May 21, 2011
This was a very well researched history of the early days of blood transfusion. National rivalries, political intrigue, money, ego and religion all played a roll in the race to understand blood, as the study slowly moved from alchemy and superstition to empirical science.
As it sometimes seems to happen, the science got ahead of the public's acceptance and understanding of the work. The universities and governments of England, France and later Italy waged philosophical wars over the nature of humanity, the seat of the soul, whether or not circulation of blood was real, and the fear of creating chimeras through the process of transfusing blood between species.
This book is an enjoyable and important history lesson. My only issue with the book was that it seemed repetitive at times.
If you have read and enjoyed Stiff: The Curious Lives of Human Cadavers, or The Poisoner's Handbook: Murder and the Birth of Forensic Medicine in Jazz Age New York, this book will be equally satisfying. It also underscores that the debate over the direction of scientific inquiry is still raging today.
April 17, 2011
"Blood Work: A Tale of Medicine and Murder in the Scientific Revolution" is a non-fiction piece telling the history of blood transfusions, from the first animal to animal transfusion up through a handful of human transfusions, and ending with Blood Transfusions becoming more or less banded in the late 1600 early 1700 period. It's full of interesting facts surrounding early medicine, their incorrect practices, and the reasoning behind them, as well as how they relate to what we know about modern medicine today. The focus of the book is to explain why blood transfusions were banded, and how the practice WAS medically safe even at that time, but how fear and politics stopped further experiments from continuing. As it ends, it leaves the reader wondering how the world would be different today if blood transfusions would not have been forced to lay unpracticed for nearly 150 years. It then leads to reader to marvel at our responsibility to insure that the decisions we make today regarding medicine and medical exploration do not unnecessarily hinder medical advancement. A great read, it will change your opinions, and further your understanding of early medicine.
January 1, 2016
An interesting little book about the 17th century science of blood, blood circulation and blood transfusion. The book is a well researched narrative of the "race" between the French and the English to see who could do the first successful blood transfusion and is, at times, rather graphic.
The real take away of this book is how our social, moral, political views effect scientific research. In Dr. Tucker’s words, “My greatest hope is that when historians tell our own story decades and centuries from now, they will be able to say that we thought these issues through well and addressed them with fearless curiosity.” This review was originally posted on THE PFAEFFLE JOURNAL
The real take away of this book is how our social, moral, political views effect scientific research. In Dr. Tucker’s words, “My greatest hope is that when historians tell our own story decades and centuries from now, they will be able to say that we thought these issues through well and addressed them with fearless curiosity.” This review was originally posted on THE PFAEFFLE JOURNAL
September 2, 2013
Well-researched and intensely interesting; chock-full of details about the mysteries of blood and early transfusions around the 1600’s, comparing the advances experimented between England and France, historically foes in every way. The bibliography was fantastic.
As the author, Holly Tucker, describes it: this book “sheds light on an era that wrestled with the same questions about morality and experimentation that haunt medical science to this day.”
Expect to read about a LOT more than just blood work!
As the author, Holly Tucker, describes it: this book “sheds light on an era that wrestled with the same questions about morality and experimentation that haunt medical science to this day.”
Expect to read about a LOT more than just blood work!
April 10, 2011
I loved it! A real live murder mystery - all based on historical data from the dark world of medical experimentation and revelation. A great book and a very approachable author. Check out her webpage at "www.wondersandmarvels.com" for many more delicious, historical tidbits from the world of medicine and beyond!
August 14, 2012
Fascinating book about the history of blood transfusions. A couple of dull chapters but the information in those chapters is vital to understanding the overall story. It was interesting to learn about the differences between the Catholic and Protestant views of medicine. The Protestants embraced alchemy while the Catholics did not.
February 20, 2016
Really fantastic! It was highly detail-intensive, which at times could be a little tedious, but overall it was a very informative and interesting book!
June 9, 2020
(3.5) Holly Tucker's Blood Work is an engaging medical history of blood transfusion in seventeenth-century Europe. In the race between England and France to be the world's first nation to successfully transfuse blood into humans, France won. The French physician, Jean Denis transfused animal blood (believed to be untainted and pure) into a man notorious for his mental illness. The man's death at the time was significant in the politics of blood.
Tucker shows the interconnectedness of medical experimentation and the intellectual movements that characterized the Scientific Revolution. Europeans had for centuries believed in Galenic humoralism to explain human physiology and the rise of medical science that contested those long-standing beliefs delayed medical innovation. Both humoralism and the practice of bloodletting continued well into the early twentieth century despite the medical breakthroughs in the seventeenth century. Many scientists doubted that transfusion was possible for humans because they believed that blood in one person's body was different from another; this was especially true for distinguishing animal blood versus human blood. Risking the life of a human for the purpose of transfusion seemed pointless and unethical, so they compromised with animal blood. In fact, ideas about animals–debates about their soul and emotions–enabled vivisection, the experimentation of live animals. The Cartesian logic that animals cannot feel pain meant that physicians could and did experiment with animal bodies, mainly dogs. They injected ink, milk, and liquors into animals to test its effects. Reading about animal abuse is undoubtedly disturbing. But, as Tucker shows, it made sense in the context of seventeenth-century Europe.
Tucker explains seemingly difficult medical concepts well. Humoralism can be an unwieldy concept to follow because its logic belongs to another world. Understanding humoralism though is an essential context for this book since it explains, for instance, the practice of bloodletting–fever was a sign of the overabundance of blood and thus had to be removed in order to achieve physiological or humoral balance. Tucker also covers a broad range of topics–mental illness, trepanization, plague, astronomy, science as spectacle and a sign of social status, and the competition between national (and fringe) medical communities. The murder and trial were only covered in a few pages. But the murder itself was representative of the persistence of old ideas. Now here's where the book becomes tricky. Tucker, like all authors, has an agenda. She believes that medical experimentation is necessary in order for the field to advance. Her cause? Human stem cell research. Denis's trial and the end of blood transfusion experiments until the nineteenth century is a convenient example for the author to question: "Should a society set limits on its science? If so, how and at what price?" It's a rhetorical question since the book illustrates how scientific discovery can be impeded by a society unwilling to discard old ideas. Tucker wants us to believe that limitations on scientific experiments can be detrimental to future progress and our understanding of the human body. But the Holocaust and Dr. Mengele's horrific experiments on Jews (not to mention vivisection) proves limitations can be a very good thing. A book on seventeenth-century Europe seems an inconvenient place to push a modern agenda without the needed ethical discussion about human stem cell research. Just give me the history.
Tucker shows the interconnectedness of medical experimentation and the intellectual movements that characterized the Scientific Revolution. Europeans had for centuries believed in Galenic humoralism to explain human physiology and the rise of medical science that contested those long-standing beliefs delayed medical innovation. Both humoralism and the practice of bloodletting continued well into the early twentieth century despite the medical breakthroughs in the seventeenth century. Many scientists doubted that transfusion was possible for humans because they believed that blood in one person's body was different from another; this was especially true for distinguishing animal blood versus human blood. Risking the life of a human for the purpose of transfusion seemed pointless and unethical, so they compromised with animal blood. In fact, ideas about animals–debates about their soul and emotions–enabled vivisection, the experimentation of live animals. The Cartesian logic that animals cannot feel pain meant that physicians could and did experiment with animal bodies, mainly dogs. They injected ink, milk, and liquors into animals to test its effects. Reading about animal abuse is undoubtedly disturbing. But, as Tucker shows, it made sense in the context of seventeenth-century Europe.
Tucker explains seemingly difficult medical concepts well. Humoralism can be an unwieldy concept to follow because its logic belongs to another world. Understanding humoralism though is an essential context for this book since it explains, for instance, the practice of bloodletting–fever was a sign of the overabundance of blood and thus had to be removed in order to achieve physiological or humoral balance. Tucker also covers a broad range of topics–mental illness, trepanization, plague, astronomy, science as spectacle and a sign of social status, and the competition between national (and fringe) medical communities. The murder and trial were only covered in a few pages. But the murder itself was representative of the persistence of old ideas. Now here's where the book becomes tricky. Tucker, like all authors, has an agenda. She believes that medical experimentation is necessary in order for the field to advance. Her cause? Human stem cell research. Denis's trial and the end of blood transfusion experiments until the nineteenth century is a convenient example for the author to question: "Should a society set limits on its science? If so, how and at what price?" It's a rhetorical question since the book illustrates how scientific discovery can be impeded by a society unwilling to discard old ideas. Tucker wants us to believe that limitations on scientific experiments can be detrimental to future progress and our understanding of the human body. But the Holocaust and Dr. Mengele's horrific experiments on Jews (not to mention vivisection) proves limitations can be a very good thing. A book on seventeenth-century Europe seems an inconvenient place to push a modern agenda without the needed ethical discussion about human stem cell research. Just give me the history.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
July 16, 2019
I adore Holly Tucker. I love the way she tells a story from history, frames it in its historical context, and then talks about the implications this story has for the present day. In this work on the history of blood transfusion (a medical procedure that is common practice today), she discusses the paranoia and power struggles that made research on this procedure illegal for hundreds of years. Her commentary on the similarities between 17th century transfusion politics and our own current day stem cell research politics is thought-provoking and challenges us to ask the thorny and immensely important question: what does it mean to be human?
Well worth the read. I gave it four stars because there are a few parts where she deviates to a side story that, while always interesting and relevant, sometimes feels a little disconnected. She reconnects it back up beautifully, but there is that moment of, "Wait, how did we get here?" that can be just the tiniest bit confusing.
Well worth the read. I gave it four stars because there are a few parts where she deviates to a side story that, while always interesting and relevant, sometimes feels a little disconnected. She reconnects it back up beautifully, but there is that moment of, "Wait, how did we get here?" that can be just the tiniest bit confusing.
August 6, 2019
This microhistory of experiments leading up to the practice of blood transfusion, which involved not only myriad farm animals but murder, definitely has an interesting story to tell -- one can only imagine how grotesque some of these experiments would have been to witness in person! My interest was piqued when I heard her speak about the book on a podcast a number of years ago, and it's been on my to-read list since. Overall, the narrative is somewhat dry, with lots of filler and minimal action, but I recommend it with reservations if you're into the history of medicine.
January 8, 2023
The first book in a very long time that I couldn’t put down. Clearly very well researched. A must read for anyone working in healthcare or who have a fascination in human biology.
September 15, 2024
Fairly captivating re-telling of the French-English race for the first human to human blood transfusion. Would not read again but gave some interesting insight to the trial and error of medicine
Displaying 1 - 30 of 309 reviews