Toxinology in Australia's colonial era: A chronology and perspective of human envenomation in 19th century Australia

The medical management of those envenomed by snakes, spiders and poisonous fish in Australia featured extensively in the writings 19th century doctors, expeditioners and anthropologists. Against the background of this introduced medical doctrine there already existed an extensive tradition of Aboriginal medical lore; techniques of heat treatment, suction, incision and the application of plant-derived pharmacological substances featured extensively in the management of envenomed victims. The application of a hair-string or grass-string ligature, suctioning of the bite-site and incision were practised in a variety of combinations. Such evolved independently of and pre-dated such practices, which were promoted extensively by immigrant European doctors in the late 19th century. Pacific scientific toxinology began in the 17th century with Don Diego de Prado y Tovar's 1606 account of ciguatera. By the end of the 19th century more than 30 papers and books had defined the natural history of Australian elapid poisoning. The medical management of snakebite in Australia was the focus of great controversy from 1860 to 1900. Dogmatic claims of the supposed antidote efficacy of intravenous ammonia by Professor G.B. Halford, and that of strychnine by Dr. Augustus Mueller, claimed mainstream medical attention. This era of potential iatrogenic disaster and dogma was brought to a conclusion by the objective experiments of Joseph Lauterer and Thomas Lane Bancroft in 1890 in Brisbane; and by those of C.J. Martin (from 1893) and Frank Tidswell (from 1898), both of Sydney. The modern era of Australian toxinology developed as a direct consequence of Calmette's discovery, in Paris in 1894, of immune serum, which was protective against snakebite. We review the key contributors and discoveries of toxinology in colonial Australia.

Developing interdisciplinary research graduates: educational opportunities and dilemmas

Attempting to solve the complex problems of the 21st century requires research graduates that have developed a sophisticated array of interdisciplinary teamwork and communication skills. Although universities, governments, industry and the professions have emphasised the need to break down disciplinary silos in order to produce graduates, who can respond more effectively to the needs of the knowledge economy, much of this work has centred on undergraduate programs. While there are some research higher degree students who choose to work on interdisciplinary research topics, very little has been done to develop interdisciplinary research education systematically. This paper explores the educational opportunities and dilemmas involved in developing systematic programs of interdisciplinary research activities in two research centres at the University of Queensland. Framed by Bruhn's (2000, p. 58) theoretical discourse about interdisciplinary research as 'a philosophy, an art form, an artifact, and an antidote', this paper emphasises the need for such programs to embed the development of students' interdisciplinary research skills and attitudes within their research projects. The two diverse programs also emphasise experiential, active and interactive learning techniques and are centred upon the development of students' reflective practice skills.