William was a government employee tasked with gathering data and writing reports for the local government related to public safety and health. He adamantly defended the prevailing wisdom that the composition of the atmosphere was the primary public health crisis of the day. The scientific establishment at every level, from local government leaders to researchers and scientists of international fame, were united in recommending sweeping, expensive mitigation measures to improve reduce human impacts on air quality.
Scientific journals and grantees supported their field work that was always undertaken, of course, with their convictions in mind. William and others cited data that spanned centuries—even millennia—and, not surprisingly, the results seemed to always support their hypotheses. Their science in hand, they successfully talked governments into expensive projects they claimed would help. Sadly, it did not. Damaging events continued with unceasing regularity.
John was a self-made man, a physician who worked as an anesthesiologist during the day, and a researcher when he could make the time. Like William and his colleagues who espoused the theory of harmful atmospheric gasses as the cause of the world’s poor health, John was driven to find a way to stop the death and cultural upheaval he saw around him. It consumed him. Unlike William, however, John’s own research led him to dismiss the idea that the active modification of atmospheric gases could solve the problem. Instead, John chose to open his mind, follow the data, and go against the established scientific thought.
It was not an easy decision for John. His reputation as a non-devotee of the accepted scientific theory closed a lot of doors to financial support and he was forced to fund his research with his own money. Once condemnation of his initial research began, his life was anything but peaceful. He was one voice against a boisterous chorus of critics. He courageously published his findings despite the widespread disapproval of his peers, the government, and scientific journals. The more he studied the problem, however, the more he was convinced that he was right and he knew he had to find a way to convince the masses.
Then came a particularly deadly public health event where hundreds died. John documented his field work and carefully mapped the data. He spoke out incessantly trying to affect change. If not his scientific arguments, at least his persistence was successful in gaining one small action by the government that, in hindsight, may have saved countless lives. But his contributions were ignored and his critics continued to dismiss him as a marginal voice. Ultimately, the stress of rejection and the selfless energy he devoted to his research began to take its toll. One day he simply collapsed at his desk and died. He was only 45.
John never lived to see his work vindicated. But he was proven correct. Whether out of courtesy or simply out of desperation to find a solution to the problems that continue to plague the world, William began looking more carefully at John’s research and started to see the wisdom in his approach. Years passed and, once another major health crisis brought death to the region. This time William applied John’s analytical approach to the problem, and he realized that John had been right. Nobody really understood the underlying cause of the problem, but William was now convinced that atmospheric gases weren’t to blame.
As an apology of sorts, William published his findings in support of his deceased colleague. Ultimately, William was successful in helping change the view of the scientific community to recognize John’s contribution. Government leaders adapted their public improvements activities accordingly and they successfully halted the centuries of death that had plagued the region.
EPILOGUE
This story is true. And while it’s obviously written in a way to evoke thoughts of a more familiar scientific controversy, the account of the lone, principled researcher who stands against an entire scientific body, even though he doesn’t fully understand the science behind his findings, is as informative as it is tragic.
John Snow was a nineteenth-century physician who lived through multiple cholera epidemics in London. He pioneered the field of anesthesiology, but he couldn’t ignore the suffering that appeared in deadly regularity around him. His years of self-funded research into the cause of the cholera epidemic placed him at odds with most of the scientific community of the day that believed in the miasma theory of disease.
Miasma is the belief that all disease is caused by the air around us, that smells and polluted air made us sick, and often it was our constitution (literally what kind of people we are, morally, spiritually, intellectually) that determined whether or not we’d succumb to the illness. William Farr, a data analyst in the British General Register Office, was a miasma devotee who dedicated himself to solving the cholera problem by focusing on cleaning up the air (specifically the smells) in London.
While we now know that goal of reducing air quality is itself noble, the approach led William and his colleagues to ignore contradictory voices (like Snow’s) and push implementation of misguided policies like encouraging the government to dump all of London’s sewage into the Thames, the source of much of the city’s drinking water. Obviously, the epidemics continued.
John’s work led to the removal of the handle of the pump he deemed to be at the center of the 1854 cholera epidemic. He couldn’t explain exactly why he thought water was the problem (the bacterial theory of disease wouldn’t be understood until decades later), but that single action may have saved numerous lives. Sadly, without fully accepting the science behind the decision, the government didn’t act city-wide until after the 1866 epidemic (long after John’s death in 1858), when William Farr had finally accepted and supported the validity of John’s water-borne hazard theory.
While William Farr enjoyed some of the recognition that John should have shared, he was gracious in acknowledging Farr’s role. Today, a plaque commemorating John Snow and his 1854 study stands at the place of the water pump mentioned above. The plaque shows a water pump with its handle removed.
Exactly 155 years after his death, the British medical journal, The Lancet, printed a correction of its short obituary of Snow that they had originally published in 1858:
"The journal accepts that some readers may wrongly have inferred that The Lancet failed to recognise Dr Snow's remarkable achievements in the field of epidemiology and, in particular, his visionary work in deducing the mode of transmission of epidemic cholera."
_____________________________
Note: I first became interested in John Snow’s story via this book:
Other references of note:
John Snow, Cholera, the Broad Street Pump; Waterborne Diseases Then and Now











