The discoveries in the late nineteenth century that malaria is caused by protozoan parasites, which are transmitted by mosquitoes, quickly led to intense speculation about its history in antiquity. The historiography of malaria has passed through three distinct phases during the last hundred years or so. The first generation of historians to consider the effects of malaria did exaggerate its significance in some respects. The argument by W H S Jones that the Greek doctrine of fevers was based on malaria was generally and rightly accepted. However, it is not surprising that his view that malaria was a major reason for the degeneration of the moral character of the ancient Greeks attracted little sympathy. The eradication of malaria from southern Europe in the 1930s and 1940s contributed to a decline of interest in the subject. Subsequently medical historians and even professional malariologists tended to minimize the historical significance of malaria. The revisionist tendencies of this second phase of research led to attempts to reassess some of the details of the evidence upon which Jones had relied. For example, Leonard Bruce-Chwatt and Julian de Zulueta rejected Jones's belief that Plasmodium falciparum, the most dangerous of the four species of human malaria, was already active in Greece in the fifth century BC. They suggested that it started to spread in southern Europe only during the time of the Roman Empire and attributed all the references to intermittent tertian fevers in Hippocratic texts dating to the fifth and fourth centuries BC to the less virulent P. vivax. Although the literature produced during this second phase of scholarship was in many ways more sophisticated, it still suffered from some of the same weaknesses; in particular, analysis proceeded in a purely qualitative manner, without any consideration of the effects of malaria on historical human populations in quantitative terms. A second weakness was a tendency to make generalizations covering the whole of Mediterranean Europe. Since many types of mosquito are incapable of transmitting malaria to humans, mosquito breeding sites do not occur everywhere, and many mosquitoes do not fly further than a few hundred yards from their breeding sites, malaria can only be really understood by micro-analyses, conducted at a very local level, of geography, hydrology, climate, competition between different species of mosquito for breeding sites, and human activities.

From the mid-nineteenth to the mid-twentieth century, specialist institutions such as sanatoria and asylums were established. In these, patients could be separated and isolated from the community and provided with the control and management of specific medical conditions such as tuberculosis and lunacy. At the start of this period, tuberculosis was a disease closely associated with the rapid growth of industrialization and a poorly nourished urban working class who lived in insalubrious, overcrowded conditions. By the early twentieth century, despite attempts by reforming socialist organizations such as the Garden City movement in England or the Life Reform movement in Germany to introduce healthier housing, these conditions had changed little. As the disease was more prevalent in younger men and women of working age, the financial drain on the European economy was considerable. By this time, research and treatment of the disease had coincided with the advent of modernism. This was a cultural movement that in architecture and applied design involved the integration of form with social purpose. It also attempted to create a new classless and hygienic lifestyle with socialist values.

Given the centrality of ethics review by independent committees (called Research Ethics Committees, or RECs, in the UK) to modern biomedical research, and the ubiquity of complaints about such review on the part of researchers, it is curious that little attention has been paid to these organizations by medical historians in contrast to the work done on the role of institutions such as the British Medical Association (BMA) and the General Medical Council (GMC) in the development of medical professional ethics, and the general evolution of medical professionals' ethical values. Thus while some work has explored the origins of modern medical ethics teaching in the UK and the parallel development of academic bioethics, there has been very little consideration of how Research Ethics Committees specifically were set up and evolved in the late 1960s and early 1970s. Although some scholars have discussed the development of the British REC system, this work tends to provide little beyond an outline of major events. These might include a report from the Royal College of Physicians (RCP) in 1967, the Department of Health's ‘Red Book’ of 1991 outlining the responsibilities of Local Research Ethics Committees (LRECs) and, more recently, the introduction of multicentre RECs (MRECs) in 1997.

The relationship between medicine and the study of life is as old as medicine itself. Nevertheless, historians have highlighted the great transformation that took place in the nineteenth century when first physiology and then bacteriology became important resources for the classification, diagnosis, and treatment of human diseases. In that period, significant links developed between the sites specializing in biological experimentation (i.e. laboratories) on the one hand, and the places of healing (i.e. hospitals, dispensaries) and public health offices on the other. Together, they helped to fashion modern, professional medicine. However, many historical studies have also argued that this mobilization of biological knowledge exerted a limited impact on medical practice in general, and clinical practice in particular.