Skip Navigation

American Journal of Epidemiology 2005 161(3):207-212; doi:10.1093/aje/kwi033
This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Nathanson, N.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Nathanson, N.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Copyright © 2005 by the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health

SPECIAL ARTICLE

David Bodian’s Contribution to the Development of Poliovirus Vaccine

Neal Nathanson 

From the Departments of Microbiology and Neurology, School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA.

Received for publication September 22, 2004; accepted for publication October 18, 2004.

Abbreviations: MV, mixed virus.

The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below.


   INTRODUCTION
 
David Bodian spent almost his whole scientific career (1942–1983) at the Johns Hopkins University, first in the Department of Epidemiology at the School of Hygiene and Public Health and then in the Department of Anatomy at the School of Medicine. Arguably, his most important research contribution was the elucidation of the pathogenesis of poliomyelitis—a contribution that played a major role in the development of inactivated poliovirus vaccine (Salk vaccine), the first successful vaccine against poliomyelitis. In this historical review, I have chosen to focus on those aspects of Bodian’s research that were relevant to vaccine development. This retelling of the story is necessarily biased, since it emphasizes the work of one investigator while acknowledging that less attention is paid to the work of many others who made important contributions. In addition, I distort history somewhat by presenting the research results in an apparently logical sequence, while in truth the story . . . [Full Text of this Article]


   PATHOGENESIS OF POLIOMYELITIS
 

   PROTECTIVE ROLE OF ANTIBODY AND FORMULATION OF A VACCINE
 

   REPRISE
 

Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?