Mapping the methodologies of Burkitt lymphoma

While recent accounts have emphasised the planned, large-scale and systematic character of cancer virus research in the mid-C20, I argue here that a distinctive kind of small-scale scientific research existed, and made a distinctive contribution to the development of the field as a whole. Using the case of the research carried out to understand the causes of Burkitt lymphoma in Africa during the 1960s, I highlight two distinctive practices-geographical mapping and the re-purposing of existing disease infrastructure-that played a central role in this episode. My intention here is threefold: first, I will argue that this research is unlike the research practices usually identified as typical 'big science' research concerning cancer viruses, particularly in the United States. Second, I will argue that this kind of research is also clearly distinct from the kind of research that Derek Price (Price, 1963) characterised as 'little science'. Thirdly, I will sketch a positive characterisation of this kind of research as 'small science'. I conclude by suggesting that this characterisation may be applied to other kinds of historical biomedical research, and that so doing may offer the pluralist a useful alternative way of understanding medical research in the twentieth century.