I wonder if I might
respond to this post briefly. It was (I believe) sometime in 1996 or 1997
(I could check my files and give the more or less exact date) that I took the
opportunity, provided by the ease of communication of email, to send a note to
the registrar of Leipzig University to ask about E.M. Jellinek’s transcript
and degrees received there. As I noted in Ranes Report’s issue
number 11 (http://www.roizen.com/ron/rr11.htm),
wherein I later reported the results of this inquiry, there was talk around the
watercooler in my old days at the Alcohol Research Group regarding E.M.J.’s
“uncertain academic background and certification.” The result
of my inquiry was a seeming confirmation that Jellinek probably took no degree
from Leipzig U. and may have possessed no earned
doctorate or even any college degree at all. I never intended that
publishing this finding on the web would have the effect of encouraging some
readers to wholly dismiss any of E.M.J.’s contributions to alcohol
science. Indeed, I took some pains to emphasize that E.M.J. contributions
to the emergent alcohol science field in the U.S. were significant. I
wrote, for example, in the piece: “From his alcohol-related work's commencement in 1939 (at offices
in the New York Academy of Medicine) to his death in 1963 (at Stanford
University), Jellinek played a crucial role in the ascendancy of modern science's
claim to cultural "ownership"3 of the American alcohol
problems social arena.” My main conclusion regarding this excursion
into Jellinek’s academic past was that his iffy certification might be
regarded as a telling indirect indicator of the very marginal status of alcohol
science in its early post-Repeal days. In due course, however, I leaned
that in some quarters the misstatement of one’s academic credentials has
a sort of “this invalidates everything he did” consequence.
On another list and a year or two ago, one lay (if I may term it such) listmember
explained to me that possessing a doctorate by itself created much of the
authority behind someone’s pronouncements or contributions to a field of
research or study. I think the situation is significantly different in
the academic community. E.M.J. might have lost an academic job if it were
discovered that his c.v. had been embellished (he might not have, too –
it depends), but his journal articles would not, by that fact alone, have been
withdrawn or lost whatever research and scholarly value they possessed.
That value, instead, would have to be judged on the merits of the contribution,
not the author’s troubled c.v. alone. Perhaps one or two of my
colleagues grimaced a little when I published the Jellinek web article, I’m
not sure. Maybe Jellinek’s iffy credentials should have remained
inside the protected province of alcohol researchers, as a kind of “insider
knowledge” that is not allowed to sully a revered scientist in a field
still struggling for scientific legitimacy. Some might say I’ve
never been much good at scholarly etiquette. But, and to repeat, I never
saw this little article as an excuse to trash and disregard any and all of
Jellinek’s work.
Thanks.
Ron Roizen
From: Academic and Scholarly Discussion of Addiction Related Topics.
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf
Of No Name Available
Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006
6:23 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Does any one know
anything about this - AA works for a few people
I wonder how many people who've heard of
Jellinek found out that he was a fraud? He claimed to possess a PhD but in fact
had attended college for less than a year.
At the time he claimed to have been
awarded his degree, all German and Austrian universities had excluded Jews (he
was Jewish), and he wouldn't have been permitted in their buildings, let
alone awarded a degree.
He later claimed that all records of his
academic work had been destroyed in the war, and was able to advance his fraudelent
career as a 'researcher'.
His Jellinek Curve has nothing to do with
the progression of alcoholism for most people, and his 5 types of alcoholics
could have been described by any observant bartender or minister.
Just like most of AA's tenets, Jellinek's
work has no validity whatsoever.
I wonder how many of the folks who spout
about alcoholism/alcohol dependence being a disease have ever read Jellinek's "Disease
Concept of Alcoholism"?