The Founding
Abstract
Between 1901 and 1930 American medicine was rebuilt around the research laboratory, the university hospital and the salaried professor. The American Medical Association's Council on Medical Education set the standards and started the survey that became the 1910 Flexner Report. The Carnegie Foundation paid for the survey and agreed with the AMA to keep their collaboration out of view. Rockefeller's General Education Board then spent $94 million on 25 medical schools and bound them to its plan by contract. The number of schools fell by more than half. Five of seven Black medical schools closed, graduates of the more rigorous schools less often practiced in rural areas, and areas near a closed school had fewer physicians per capita. Frederick Gates, who designed the Rockefeller medical program, recorded its purposes in letters and memos: healthier workers, an end to physicians setting their own fees, and a medicine that traced poverty and crime to disease.
1.1 Rockefeller medicine before 1910
Frederick T. Gates, a Baptist minister who managed John D. Rockefeller's philanthropy, read William Osler's Principles and Practice of Medicine in July 1897. He later recalled concluding that medicine "could hardly hope to become a science until medicine should be endowed and qualified men could give themselves to uninterrupted study and investigation, on ample salary, entirely independent of practice." His memo to Rockefeller that summer argued that Pasteur's discoveries "had saved for the French nation a sum in excess of the entire cost of the Franco-German War."
Rockefeller money was committed to laboratory medicine before the Flexner Report, through the Rockefeller Institute in 1901 and the Sanitary Commission in 1909.
Rockefeller founded the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research in 1901, and Simon Flexner became its director. By 1920 the Rockefellers had given the Institute $23 million, and by 1928 some $65 million. In 1909 Rockefeller gave $1 million to found the Rockefeller Sanitary Commission for the Eradication of Hookworm Disease, which Gates organized.
Evidence: Exhibit 023, Exhibit 024, Exhibit 040, Exhibit 043
Mechanism: Philanthropic steering
The Sanitary Commission worked through the boards of health of the Southern states. Gates described the arrangement in his unpublished 1928 autobiography: "the hookworm work is done in every state under the guise of the State Health Boards, while it is in fact minutely directed by Mr. Rockefeller's staff and paid for with Mr. Rockefeller's money." In 1913 the new Rockefeller Foundation extended the hookworm program worldwide through its International Health Commission. Wickliffe Rose, who had run the Sanitary Commission, directed the Foundation's international health program from 1915.
1.2 The survey the AMA started
The AMA's Council on Medical Education, chaired by Arthur Dean Bevan, began serious work in 1905. In 1907 it rated 160 schools: 82 as class A, 46 as class B and 32 as class C. Bevan urged state and local medical societies to see that "the right sort of men" were appointed to state licensing boards. Within two years the state medical societies, guided by the Council, dominated the boards.
Bevan then turned to the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. According to the historian E. Richard Brown, Bevan sought "the foundation's developing prestige and image of 'objectivity,'" because an agency outside the profession "could openly attack medical schools." Bevan invited the Foundation's president, Henry S. Pritchett, to examine the Council's survey materials in 1907. The Foundation's trustees authorized a study in November 1908.
The AMA's Council on Medical Education started the Flexner study. The Carnegie Foundation paid for it and published it.
On 28 December 1908 the Council met Pritchett and Abraham Flexner in New York. It put its data at the Foundation's disposal, and the Foundation agreed to be "guided largely by the Council's investigations." N. P. Colwell, the Council's secretary, accompanied Flexner to most of the 155 schools he visited. The Carnegie Foundation published the result in 1910 as its Bulletin Number Four, Medical Education in the United States and Canada. It recommended that the continent's 155 medical schools be reduced to 31.
Evidence: Exhibit 025, Exhibit 026, Exhibit 043
Mechanism: The middleman, Philanthropic steering
1.3 Hand in glove
The Carnegie Foundation and the AMA agreed to keep their collaboration on the Flexner Report out of public view.
The Council's minutes of 28 December 1908 record the condition: "to avoid the usual claims of partiality no more mention should be made in the report of the Council than any other source of information." On 4 November 1909 Pritchett wrote to Bevan: "In all this work of the examination of the medical schools we have been hand in glove with you and your committee." He added: "When our report comes out, it is going to be ammunition in your hands." Before publication he asked Bevan "to maintain in the meantime a position which does not intimate an immediate connection between our two efforts."
Evidence: Exhibit 025, Exhibit 027, Exhibit 028, Exhibit 043
Mechanism: Managing the narrative
How the report was presented
The Carnegie Foundation published the report under its own name. Pritchett's introduction thanks "leading representatives of medicine and surgery" for "cooperation and advice," and names Bevan and Colwell among those who gave assistance.
What the correspondence shows
The AMA's Council started the study, supplied its data and standards, and sent its secretary on the inspections. The Council and the Foundation agreed to mention the Council no more than any other source. Pritchett told Bevan the report would be "ammunition in your hands."
Brown found the Pritchett–Bevan letters in the Carnegie Foundation's files. He calls the arrangement "the conspiracy between the foundation and the AMA" and writes that "This sort of deception increased the credibility of the Flexner report, but it was not essential to the transformation underway." The minutes are known through a 1975 paper by James Monahan, and the letters through Brown's book.
Exhibit 027 · Correspondence
Henry S. Pritchett to Arthur Dean Bevan, 4 November 1909
The Carnegie Foundation's president writes to the chairman of the AMA Council on Medical Education, seven months before the report's publication: "In all this work of the examination of the medical schools we have been hand in glove with you and your committee." He adds: "When our report comes out, it is going to be ammunition in your hands."
- Source
- Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching
- Date
- 4 November 1909
- Grade
- Primary record
- Document
- https://archive.org/details/rockefellermedic00browrich
- Accessed
- 2026-11-09
- Cited by
- Findings citing this exhibit
- Note
- Known through E. Richard Brown, Rockefeller Medicine Men (1979), p. 151; wording checked against Brown. Archival locator from Brown's note 52 (p. 258): correspondence with AMA, Carnegie Foundation files.
1.4 The Flexner brothers
Abraham Flexner was a professional educator. He had taken a bachelor's degree at Johns Hopkins and had founded and run a college preparatory school in Louisville. His brother Simon directed the Rockefeller Institute. Brown reports that Pritchett discussed the study with Charles Eliot, a trustee of the Carnegie Foundation, the General Education Board and the Rockefeller Institute, and with Simon Flexner. In Brown's account, Simon proposed Abraham as director of the study. Brown's note 24 labels this sequence an inference from the available accounts.
Pritchett's introduction to the report thanks three men by name for "constant and generous assistance": William H. Welch of Johns Hopkins, Simon Flexner "of the Rockefeller Institute," and Bevan. In the spring of 1911 Gates invited Abraham Flexner to lunch and asked him, "What would you do if you had a million dollars with which to make a start in reorganizing medical education in the United States?" Flexner named Welch and Johns Hopkins. In 1913 he became Secretary of the General Education Board and directed its medical program.
1.5 Ninety-four million dollars
Rockefeller incorporated the General Education Board in 1903. His gifts to it reached $43 million by 1907, at the time the largest gift to a philanthropic organization in American history. The Board's medical program began in 1913, three years after the Flexner Report.
Rockefeller's General Education Board spent $94 million on 25 medical schools between 1913 and 1929, directed by Abraham Flexner and tied to a full-time clinical faculty.
The Rockefeller Archive Center records that the Board's medical education program ran from 1913 to 1929 and distributed $94 million to 25 medical schools. The first grant, in 1913, went to Johns Hopkins for its clinical departments. Rockefeller then earmarked a further $45 million for the program, given between 1919 and 1921. Three months after the Hopkins grant, the Board decided to devote all its medical education funds to "the installation of full-time clinical teaching."
Evidence: Exhibit 029, Exhibit 030, Exhibit 043
Mechanism: Philanthropic steering
The full-time plan came from Franklin Mall of Johns Hopkins, who told Flexner the money should go toward "placing upon a salary basis the heads and assistants in the leading clinical departments." Clinical chiefs then earned roughly $20,000 to $35,000 a year from consultations. Under the plan they would receive a salary of $10,000, their assistants $2,500, and all consultation fees would go to the school. Welch asked that salaried professors keep some consulting fees. The Board refused all exceptions and voted Johns Hopkins $1.5 million in October 1913.
Washington University, Yale and the University of Chicago received more than $8 million for full-time reorganization. Harvard refused the plan. Nicholas Murray Butler, president of Columbia, rejected the Board's terms as "so reactionary and so antagonistic to the best interests of the public, of medical education and of Columbia University, that they will not, under any circumstances, be approved by us." Bevan denounced the plan as "unethical and illegal" because it deprived clinical faculty of their fees. By 1926, 42 percent of the $13 million in American medical school operating expenses went to the salaries of full-time faculty.
Brown's totals for the Board's medical spending, drawn from its annual reports, are lower than the Archive Center's: more than $78 million appropriated by 1929 and more than $82 million applied by 1930. The difference reflects appropriations, disbursements and program boundaries.
1.6 Contract and inducement
What the Board said
"We have never asked any institution to adopt the plan," the Board's chief executive, Wallace Buttrick, wrote to the president of the University of Chicago in December 1914. Flexner later recalled of the Hopkins grant: "No pressure was used ... no inducement was held out."
What the Board's contracts required
The full-time contracts required a university that abandoned or modified the plan without the Board's consent to return the endowment securities on demand. Flexner and other officers made the Board's requirements known orally and confidentially, and saw to it that written proposals came from the institutions.
The General Education Board enforced its plan through contracts that required a school to return its endowment if it departed from the plan, and later through schools' need for further grants.
The contract clause reads that if the full-time plan "shall, without the consent of the said General Education board, be abandoned, substantially modified or departed from, the said university will, upon demand of said board, return said securities or any securities representing their reinvestment." In 1919 Pritchett warned Buttrick that "Such a contract binding a university to a fixed policy laid down by the giver of money seems to me a dangerous thing," and that the contracts, if made public, would bring "severe criticism." In October 1925 the Board's counsel, Thomas Debevoise, advised Gates that binding contracts were unnecessary: "Most of the schools which receive money from the board come back at least a second time, and the possibility of their needing additional help should lend all the inducement necessary to make them follow the ideas of the board."
Evidence: Exhibit 031, Exhibit 033, Exhibit 034, Exhibit 032, Exhibit 043
Mechanism: Philanthropic steering
The Rockefeller boards also required matching money. According to Brown, they "required virtually all recipients to raise an amount equal to, or as much as four times greater than, the grant." By 1925 the General Education Board had given $60 million to college endowments and required $140 million in matching funds.
1.7 What the foundations wrote about why
Gates set out the purposes of Rockefeller medicine in letters to Rockefeller and in memos to the General Education Board's trustees. The purposes were a productive labor force, a medical profession that no longer set its own prices, and a medicine that located the sources of poverty, crime and vice in disease. The president of the Rockefeller Foundation described its medical work abroad in comparable terms.
Frederick Gates justified Rockefeller medical philanthropy in internal memos by worker productivity, control of physicians' fees, and social order.
On 12 December 1910 Gates explained to Rockefeller why Southern cotton mills in heavily infected counties produced less: "the inefficiency in the labor is due to the infection by the hookworm which weakens the operatives." He calculated that such counties needed "about 25 percent more laborers to secure the same results," which was "why the stocks of such mills are lower and the profits lighter." On 26 February 1925 he told the Board's trustees that physicians' fee-setting "is the greatest present American obstruction to the usefulness of the science of medicine. For it confines the benefits of the science too largely to the rich."
Evidence: Exhibit 036, Exhibit 039, Exhibit 038, Exhibit 037, Exhibit 041, Exhibit 043
Mechanism: Philanthropic steering
| Document | Date | Words |
|---|---|---|
| Gates to Rockefeller | 12 Dec 1910 | Hookworm "weakens the operatives"; infected counties need "about 25 percent more laborers" |
| Gates, address on the Rockefeller Institute's tenth anniversary | 1911 | The Institute is a "theological seminary, presided over by the Rev. Simon Flexner, D.D."; science promulgates "new moral laws and new social laws" |
| Vincent, Rockefeller Foundation review of 1917 | 1918 | Medical care in the Philippines has "some advantages over machine guns" |
| Gates, "Philanthropy and Civilization" | 1923 | Disease is "the main source of almost all other human ills, poverty, crime, ignorance, vice, inefficiency, hereditary taint, and many other evils" |
| Gates, memo to the General Education Board | 26 Feb 1925 | Physicians' fee-setting is "the greatest present American obstruction to the usefulness of the science of medicine"; business sponsors preventive care "because health is found in a variety of ways to be profitable" |
| Debevoise to Gates | 7 Oct 1925 | Repeat grants "should lend all the inducement necessary to make them follow the ideas of the board" |
George E. Vincent, president of the Rockefeller Foundation, wrote the "machine guns" sentence about a Foundation-supported hospital ship for the Moro population of the southern Philippines. A Foundation newsletter of August 1916 called the ship's work "an entering wedge for permanent civilizing influences." Brown observes that the domestic programs had "exactly the same ends, though Gates and others were far more circumspect in discussing them."
Brown reads the documents as a record of class interest. Brown, who assembled them from the Rockefeller and Carnegie archives, rejects an investment motive: "The Rockefellers did not have any significant investment in Southern textile mills. Rather their extensive and widespread investments gave them a concern for the productivity of the entire economy." The programs abroad, he writes, were not "intended to prop up specific Rockefeller investments" and were aimed at each country's work force. Brown grants that Gates had "genuinely humanitarian motivations." Brown's book is the source of every quotation in this section, and his notes give the archival locators.
Exhibit 039 · Memorandum
Frederick T. Gates, "Concerning Private Gifts to States and a Medical Policy"
Gates tells the GEB trustees that physicians' fee-setting "is the greatest present American obstruction to the usefulness of the science of medicine. For it confines the benefits of the science too largely to the rich." In the same memo he writes that big business sponsors preventive medicine "because health is found in a variety of ways to be profitable."
- Source
- Frederick T. Gates, memorandum to the General Education Board
- Date
- 26 February 1925
- Grade
- Primary record
- Document
- https://archive.org/details/rockefellermedic00browrich
- Accessed
- 2026-11-09
- Cited by
- Findings citing this exhibit
- Note
- Known through E. Richard Brown, Rockefeller Medicine Men (1979), pp. 113 and 158; wording checked against Brown. Archival locator from Brown's notes 29 and 31 (p. 254) and 68 (p. 260): Gates collection, Rockefeller Foundation Archives.
1.8 A divided board
Gates did not command the General Education Board. On 26 February 1925 the Board approved a University of Chicago contract that let full-time clinical faculty continue private practice outside the university's hospitals, with Gates dissenting. In September 1925 the Board's executive committee allowed Johns Hopkins, Vanderbilt, Washington University and Yale to modify their full-time contracts, and Gates asked to have his negative vote recorded. The Board also set aside his rule against funding state universities, beginning with $2.5 million toward a $4.5 million medical center at the University of Iowa. Gates resigned from the Board's executive committee in October 1925.
The founder disagreed with his managers on homeopathy. Rockefeller wrote to his staff in December 1916: "I am a homeopathist. ... I desire that homeopathists should have fair, courteous, and liberal treatment extended to them from all medical institutions to which we contribute." In 1919, while considering the $45 million gift, he wrote that "Homeopathic teaching should not be excluded ... it should be provided for, the same as Allopathic." His son and his staff replied that "scientific medicine has rendered obsolete the former distinctions between the so-called Homeopathic and the so-called regular or Allopathic schools." The gift went to the full-time plan.
The AMA and the foundations also parted. Bevan wrote to Pritchett in 1921 that the Rockefeller philanthropies had become "a disturbing influence by dictating the scheme of organization of our medical schools" and that "Their position has become a real menace to sound development." Brown's summary of the early period is that "it was the profession that defined the goals and the strategy."
Exhibit 042 · Correspondence
John D. Rockefeller Sr. to Starr J. Murphy, 29 December 1916
According to E. Richard Brown's Rockefeller Medicine Men, John D. Rockefeller Sr. wrote to Starr J. Murphy on 29 December 1916 that he was a homeopathist and wanted homeopaths to receive fair, courteous and liberal treatment from the medical institutions to which the family contributed.
- Source
- John D. Rockefeller Sr.
- Date
- 29 December 1916
- Grade
- Primary record
- Document
- https://archive.org/details/rockefellermedic00browrich
- Accessed
- 2026-11-09
- Cited by
- Findings citing this exhibit
- Note
- Known through E. Richard Brown, Rockefeller Medicine Men (1979), p. 109; wording checked against Brown. Archival locator from Brown's note 18 (p. 253): Rockefeller Family Archives, record group 2.
1.9 Who was closed out
| Year | Schools | Source |
|---|---|---|
| 1904 | 166 | Brown, p. 85 |
| 1907 (AMA Council ratings) | 160 | 82 class A, 46 class B, 32 class C; Brown, p. 140 |
| 1910 (Flexner's survey, United States and Canada) | 155 | Bulletin Number Four; recommended 31 |
| 1910 | 133 | Brown, p. 85 |
| 1915 | 104 | Brown, p. 85 |
| 1929 | 76 | Brown, p. 85 |
The closures began before the report and continued at the same rate after it. Between 1904 and 1915, 92 schools closed or merged: 44 in the six years to 1909 and 48 in the six years to 1915. State licensing boards did the closing. Barbara Barzansky's centenary review finds that their refusal to recognize poor schools sealed those schools' fate. Foundation grants went to the schools that survived.
Five of the seven Black medical schools closed after the reform, and women remained under 5 percent of medical graduates until the Second World War.
Flexner's chapter on the medical education of Black Americans counted seven schools. He judged five of them "ineffectual" and named only Howard and Meharry as "worth developing." He wrote that "A well-taught negro sanitarian will be immensely useful; an essentially untrained negro wearing an M.D. degree is dangerous," and that the Black doctor's practice "will be limited to his own race." The five disapproved schools closed. In 1910 there was one Black physician for every 2,883 Black Americans; by 1942 there was one for every 3,377. Flexner attributed women's falling enrollment to "a decreasing inclination" to enter medicine and recommended coeducation over separate schools for women. Women remained under 5 percent of medical graduates from 1900 until the Second World War.
Evidence: Exhibit 026, Exhibit 043
Mechanism: The middleman
Exhibit 026 · Foundation report
Medical Education in the United States and Canada (Bulletin Number Four)
A well-taught negro sanitarian will be immensely useful; an essentially untrained negro wearing an M.D. degree is dangerous.
Flexner's survey of the 155 medical schools of the United States and Canada. It recommends reducing them to 31 (p. 154). It judges five of the seven medical schools for Black students "ineffectual" and names only Howard and Meharry as "worth developing" (pp. 180–181). It says women "show a decreasing inclination" to enter medicine and recommends coeducational schools over separate schools for women (pp. 178–179). Pritchett's introduction, dated 16 April 1910, thanks Simon Flexner "of the Rockefeller Institute," Arthur D. Bevan as chairman of the AMA council, and the council's secretary, N. P. Colwell (p. xvii).
- Source
- Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching (Abraham Flexner)
- Date
- 1910
- Quoted from
- Chapter XIV, "The Medical Education of the Negro," p. 180
- Grade
- Primary record
- Document
- https://archive.org/details/medicaleducation04flexuoft
- Accessed
- 2026-11-09
- Cited by
- Findings citing this exhibit
The General Education Board supported Meharry Medical College from 1916. Vanderbilt, the Board's "strategic point" in the South, received $17.5 million by 1960, and Meharry received less than half that sum. Through its annual grants the Board installed full-time teaching at Meharry in the 1930s, "with approved white faculty members in charge and a hand-picked white president."
Homeopathic and eclectic schools were in decline before the report. According to Miller and Weiss, their students fell from 17 percent of all American medical students in 1880 to 6 percent in 1910. Brown counts 31 homeopathic and eclectic schools in 1910, a third fewer than in 1900. Bevan recalled in 1932: "We were, of course, very grateful to Pritchett and to Flexner" for enabling "us to put out of business" the homeopathic and eclectic schools that existed in 1910.
1.10 The rural cost
Flexner addressed physician supply directly. Reducing 155 schools to 31, he wrote, "would threaten no scarcity of physicians until the country's development actually required more than 3500 physicians annually, that is to say, for a generation or two, at least."
Graduates of more rigorous medical schools were less likely to practice in rural areas, and the closure of a medical school within 300 miles reduced physicians per capita.
Moehling, Niemesh, Thomasson and Treber found in 2020 that graduates of more rigorous medical schools were less likely to practice in rural areas, and that the chance a new graduate located in a rural area fell 40 percent between 1900 and 1920. Clay, Miller, Portnykh and Schmick found in 2025 that the closure of a medical school within 300 miles, mostly between 1905 and 1915, reduced physicians per capita by 4 percent after allowing for migration and delayed retirement. They also report effects on mortality.
Evidence: Exhibit 046, Exhibit 047
Mechanism: The middleman
1.11 Three institutions, one plan
The AMA's Council wrote the standards and placed its members on the licensing boards that closed schools. The Carnegie Foundation lent the Council's campaign an outside name and agreed in writing to minimize the Council's part. Rockefeller's General Education Board financed the surviving schools, bound them to its full-time plan by contract, and kept them in line afterward through the prospect of further grants.
Frederick Gates, the man who designed the Rockefeller medical program, wrote down its purposes: labor productivity in the hookworm counties, an end to physicians setting their own fees, and a medicine that located the sources of poverty and crime in disease. His board outvoted him on tactics in 1925, and the founder who paid for the program was a homeopathist. Brown judges that Gates's position nonetheless "became the established foundation direction in medicine for half a century."
Key findings
- Rockefeller money was committed to laboratory medicine before the Flexner Report, through the Rockefeller Institute and the hookworm commission (1.1).
- The AMA's Council on Medical Education started the Flexner study; the Carnegie Foundation paid for and published it (1.2).
- The Foundation and the AMA agreed to keep their collaboration out of public view, and Pritchett called the report "ammunition" for the AMA (1.3).
- The General Education Board spent $94 million on 25 schools between 1913 and 1929 and tied its money to the full-time plan (1.5).
- The Board enforced the plan by contracts requiring the return of endowments, then by the leverage of repeat grants (1.6).
- Gates's memos justified the program by worker productivity, control of physicians' fees and social order (1.7).
- Five of seven Black medical schools closed, and women stayed under 5 percent of graduates until the Second World War (1.9).
- Graduates of more rigorous schools less often practiced in rural areas, and a nearby school closure reduced physicians per capita (1.10).