A fragmented career? Life and work of the Jewish pathologist Kurt Aterman (1913-2002).

Kurt Aterman (1913-2002) is regarded one of the leading experimental pathologists of his time with a strong focus on pediatric and hepatopathology. Without doubt, he is also one of the most international representatives of his field: Grown up in the German-speaking area, he studied medicine in the former Czechoslovakia and the United Kingdom, and then taught at universities and hospitals in the USA and Canada. Less well known is the fact that he was persecuted by the Nazi regime because of his Jewish decent after the Nazis started their annexation policy. Aterman was able to flee to Great Britain, but experienced a career setback there. This is precisely where the present study comes in: The overriding goal of this paper is to trace Kurt Aterman's life and work, which has been scarcely researched to date. It focuses on the decisive milestones and setbacks of his career, the question of compensation after the war, and the background and characteristics of his (re)connection with the German academic community. The study is based on previously unevaluated archive material and a re-analysis of the relevant research literature, supplemented by an autobiographical essay (1991). The paper concludes that Kurt Aterman always put his personal convictions above his career ambitions. It is equally remarkable that he maintained his relations with the German scientific community despite his repressive experiences in the Third Reich. In return he was made an honorary member of the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Pathologie (German Society for Pathology (1990/91).

Discourse and policy making on consumer protection in the areas of mobile telecommunication and tanning.

Perceived health risks from electromagnetic fields in mobile telecommunication and from UV radiation in tanning have become regulation issues in Germany during the last decade. Health risk messages from government expert bodies and the main stakeholders in these areas as well as subsequent consumer protection policy making are investigated. Publications and websites of government expert bodies and the main stakeholders as well as debates in Federal Parliament were analysed to compare argumentation patterns and parliamentary decision-making processes. In both areas, the public received competing health risk messages from the industries and their critics. As a government expert body, the Federal Office for Radiation Protection (BfS) held the view that alleged health risks from electromagnetic telecommunication were not proven, and propagated the precautionary principle. This opinion did not endanger the agreement of 2001 between the government and mobile telecommunication operators. After the failure to obtain voluntary commitment from the tanning industry, by contrast, the BfS recommended stricter consumer protection legislation, which was subsequently implemented. The BfS was in a key position to demand the prerogative of interpretation concerning mutually excluding health risk messages and to provide the argumentation which led the way to non-ionic radiation health protection measures.

Mobile phone health risk policy in Germany: the role of the federal government and the Federal Office for Radiation Protection.

In order to establish a regulatory framework for a given technology important to society, the government must make decisions in the face of existing unknowingness. In the last decade, health risks originating from electromagnetic fields of mobile telecommunication transmitting stations and devices have become a regulation policy issue in Germany. This article investigates the role of the government and the Federal Office for Radiation Protection in regard to policy-making by analysing publications and Federal Parliament reports, hearings and debates. The government and Federal Parliament perceived the research situation in 2001 as insufficient in the absence of hard evidence for health impairment. Against this background, the government struck a compromise with mobile telecommunication network operators, who did not want to integrate stricter limit values for transmission stations as precautionary measures. The network operators' voluntary self-commitment included financing half the budget of the German Mobile Telecommunication Research Programme (2002-2008) under the lead management of the Federal Office for Radiation Protection, which concluded that it was not required to change the position taken in 2001. The results of this programme provided the basis to continue the agreement of that year. With regard to health issues and all the other interests involved, this agreement was an acceptable and remarkably stable compromise.