Analysis of the ethical issues in authorship of collaborative research. Observations inspired by the historical case study of Gerard L. Blaes' (Blasius) claim to sole authorship of 'Anatome medullae spinalis'.

This paper discusses the historical context of collaborative research and authorship disputes, exemplified by the complex relationship between Dutch anatomist and physician Gerard L. Blaes and his East-Central European mentee, Daniel Gödtke, during the study of medulla spinalis. The study employs historical analysis to unravel the dynamics of scholarly collaboration, emphasizing the significance of mentorship in scientific progress and the communal nature of knowledge exchange. This historical analysis is based on primary sources and historical records. It underscores Blaes's strategy to circumvent public confrontations regarding the authorship of the seminal work 'Anatome medullae spinalis, et nervorum inde provenientium' (1666). As a teacher, he facilitated his student's participation in a public disputation to avert public authorship conflicts over the book. This ultimately led to the publication of two distinct versions of 'Anatome medullae spinalis.' The first one was co-authored by the mentor and his mentee, while the latter was solely attributed to the mentor. This historical narrative raises essential questions about attributing individual contributions in medical sciences, echoing concerns still pertinent in contemporary academia. Additionally, it makes visible the power dynamics inherent in faculty-students relationships and the potential repercussions of authorship disputes on scholars' reputations. By drawing parallels between historical and modern authorship dilemmas, this study contributes to ongoing discussions on equitable authorship in scientific research and publishing. It not only highlights a historical precedent for the complex dynamics of mentor-mentee collaborations and authorship disputes but also illuminates how these practices continue to influence contemporary academic and publishing customs.

The real Theriac - panacea, poisonous drug or quackery?

ETHNOPHARMACOLOGICAL RELEVANCE: Theriac is considered the most popular cure-all multi-ingredient medicine and has been used for more than two millennia. It has also been used as one of the most important anti-epidemic drugs up to the 19th c., treated as an emergency medicine in case of e.g. bubonic plague. AIM OF THE STUDY: Until now, no reliable information regarding the pharmacological effect of the treacle was available, including its possible toxic or narcotic properties. In order to change the state of knowledge in this matter we have selected the Theriac recipe that had been actually used for producing the treacle in 1630, which was confirmed by the official municipal documents of the time. METHODS: The recipe was written in Latin, with the use of pre-Linnean nomenclature and then apothecary common names, which required translation into the modern scientific language in order to get reliable pharmacological conclusions. The information from historical sources has been compiled with the pharmacological data concerning the most potent compounds, which for the first time made it possible to calculate the amounts of active compounds in the doses taken by then patients. RESULTS: Only two species included in Theriac can be harmful in humans: poppy and sea squill, but in both cases the calculated quantity of morphine and cardiac glycosides, respectively, were below toxic level. There are no indications, both from the historical and pharmacological point of view, for Theriac being toxic or narcotic in patients, when used as prescribed. CONCLUSIONS: As for now, the most probable is that the treacle owed its postulated efficacy in the main indications to the placebo effect. Still, the results should be further confirmed by reconstructing the actual Theriac and subjecting it to modern tests and analyses.