Article

A short history of neurosciences in Austria.

Institute of Clinical Neurobiology, Vienna, Austria.
Journal of Neural Transmission (Impact Factor: 2.87). 04/2006; 113(3):271-82. DOI: 10.1007/s00702-005-0400-7
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Based on internal medicine and psychiatry and in close connection with pathology, the neurosciences in Austria began to develop in the 18(th) century, e.g. with the description of inflammation of the central nervous system by J. P. Franck (1745-1823) and the "phrenology" by F. J. Gall (1745-1823). Under the influence of the great pathologist C. Rokitansky (1804-1878), the tripode of the Vienna neurology - L. Türck (1810-1868), as initiator, Th. v. Meynert (1833-1892) the activator, and H. Obersteiner (1847-1922) as the founder of the Vienna Neurological Institute, presented basic contributions to the morphology and pathology of the nervous system. At the end of the 19(th) and in the early 20(th) century, they were followed by important publications by S. Fred (aphasia), C. Redlich (tabes dorsalis), F. Sträussler (CNS syphilis), A. Spitzer (fiber anatomy of the brain), P. Schilder (diffuse sclerosis), R. Barany (Nobel price for physiology and medicine 1914), J. Wagner v. Jauregg (Nobel price for medicine, 1927), O. Loewi (Nobel Price for Physiology and Medicine together with Sir H. Dale, 1936), A. Schüller (histiocytosis X), C. v. Economo (encephalitis lethargica and cytoarchitectonics of the human cerebral cortex), E. Pollak (Wilson disease), E. Gamper (mesencephalic subject), J. Gerstmann (Gerstmann-Sträussler-Scheinker syndrome and Gerstmann parietal syndrome), H. Hoff with L. Schönbauer (brain tumors and surgery), and others. Major research institutions were the departments of psychiatry I and II at the University of Vienna School of Medicine (foundation 1870), unification 1911, separation into departments of neurology, psychiatry and neuropsychiatry of children and adolescents in 1971), the Obersteiner Institute in Vienna (foundation 1882, separation 1993), the university departments at Graz and Innsbruck, both founded in 1891, and other laboratories, where renouned clinicans and neuroscientists, like O. Marburg, H. Hoff, O. Pötzl, O. Kauders, F. Seitelberger, H. Tschabitscher, K. Weingarten, H. Reisner,W. Birkmayer, H. Petsche, F. Gerstenbrand, H. Bernheimer, H. W. Heiss, H. Lassmann, W. Poewe, L. Deecke, and many of their associates produced important contributions to wide areas of modern neurosciences. Important for the future are the foundation of the Institute of Brain Research at Vienna Medical University and of the Austrian Society of Neurology which will give further impact for the future progress of neuroscience research in Austria and its integration into the international science community.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
123 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Heinrich Obersteiner (1847–1921) was amongst the most influential neuroscientists in the 19th century. Born into a family of physicians, he gained early exposure to medicine, and as a medical student, he focused much of his research in neuroanatomy, eventually becoming a professor of neuroanatomy at the University of Vienna. Throughout his academic career, he focused greatly on neuropathology, and incorporated much of his research into his textbook, “Introduction to the Study of the Structure of the Central Nervous Organs in Health and Disease,” which was considered the foremost reference text of neurology for many generations of scholars. The culmination of his contributions to the neurological world can be seen as the Neurological Institute of Vienna, which he founded in 1882. Scholars from all over the world sought out his expertize and tutelage. While he was the director of the Institute, over 500 articles were published within the Obersteiner-Arbeiten. Much of this work helped set the foundation for the eventual development of neurology as a medical discipline. A review of his life will help us better understand the legacy Heinrich Obersteiner left in the field of neurology. Clin. Anat., 2014. © 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
    Clinical Anatomy 04/2014; 28(1):5-11. DOI:10.1002/ca.22401 · 1.16 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The day is 1st August and all is quiet at Lewisham. The consultants collectively hold their breath. There is one SHO working in the hospital the only other is telling us he is one his way to Carlisle and not our acute adult ward. This newsletter reflects the sense of dread and disorientation that Consultants and juniors feel about MMC, the MTAS debacle. Some major players in the College have contributed. Michael Maier summarises the medico political mess. Amit Malik chair of the Psychiatric Trainees Committee gives the perspective of the trainee. That is where we are now. Our Dean sets a context of 20 years of loss of deference, service fragmentation and the conflict of agendas of those who pay for the service and those that provide it. I am reminded of a time when demonstrating the electronic notes at Lewisham to the former chief executive of the NHS Nigel Crisp, when one of his party became animated by the electronic risk assessment and asked "do the police have access to this information?". The Dean's call for unity within psychiatry rather than factionalism is our defence against alienation. There are those who manage change and today we welcome Martin Baggaley, the new SlaM Medical Director, who gives an e-interview about his interests influences and aspirations. This is contrasted with the retiring Director David Roy. The influence of
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Training of neuropathologists varies worldwide. Systems range from highly organized specialist and subspecialist education with national certification, to regulated training with diploma recognition, to informal apprenticeships in neurological hospitals and no formal recognition. This overview compiles and summarizes the history of regulated training systems, the status of neuropathology within various countries' medical systems, and the manner in which neuropathologists are trained. Anecdotal evidence suggests that countries with regulated systems of neuropathology training and an active professional organization are more likely to have an adequate supply of diagnostic specialists and a vibrant research community. The different training systems reflect the style of medical services delivery in the respective countries. In general, the existence of formal neuropathology training systems occurs only in countries with relatively high levels of per capita health expenditures, reflecting the development of medical specialization overall. Evolving diagnostic technologies and major international research endeavors, whose goals are to understand structure and function of the human brain, demand that neuropathology training is more than simply diagnostic histopathology.
    Brain Pathology 11/2013; 24(3). DOI:10.1111/bpa.12104 · 4.35 Impact Factor