Historian A: John Harris – Economic Perspective "John Harris argues that the development of Penicillin revolutionized medicine primarily from an economic standpoint. He emphasizes how it drastically reduced the costs associated with treating bacterial infections, leading to decreased hospital stays and less expenditure on prolonged treatments. Harris highlights that the pharmaceutical industry benefited greatly, as Penicillin became a profitable drug, encouraging further investment in antibiotics. He suggests that its economic advantages accelerated the growth of the pharmaceutical sector and contributed to economic recovery post-World War II. Overall, Harris sees Penicillin as a catalyst for economic growth in healthcare."

Historian B: Lisa Carter – Social Perspective "Lisa Carter presents Penicillin as a groundbreaking social advancement. She emphasizes how it transformed everyday life by reducing mortality rates from bacterial infections, saving countless lives that previously would have died from illnesses like pneumonia or scarlet fever. Carter underscores its role in improving public health standards and increasing life expectancy. She discusses how Penicillin changed societal attitudes towards medicine, fostering greater trust in scientific progress. Carter argues that Penicillin’s impact was primarily social, as it fundamentally improved quality of life and social well-being across different communities."

Questions:

1. Summarize each historian's view about the impact of Penicillin. (4 marks)

   • Marking:
     • Recognizes Harris’s economic focus
     • Recognizes Carter’s social focus
     • Summarizes main points clearly
     • Uses appropriate detail from the source
   • Model answer: Harris sees Penicillin as primarily an economic driver that reduced healthcare costs and boosted pharmaceutical profits, while Carter views it as a social revolution that greatly improved people's health and life expectancy.

2. Compare the perspectives of Harris and Carter on the significance of Penicillin. (6 marks)

   • Marking:
     • Identifies similarities and differences
     • Explains why Harris emphasizes economic benefits
     • Explains why Carter emphasizes social benefits
     • Uses evidence from both summaries
     • Provides a balanced comparison
   • Model answer: Harris focuses on the economic benefits of Penicillin, such as cost reduction and industry growth, whereas Carter emphasizes its social impact, including saving lives and improving health. Their differing perspectives reflect whether they view Penicillin primarily as an economic or social breakthrough.

3. Why might Harris and Carter have different views on Penicillin's impact? Explain your reasoning. (8 marks)

   • Marking:
     • Explains how their perspectives influence their views
     • Considers their backgrounds or focus areas
     • Discusses the type of evidence each might prioritize
     • Shows understanding of bias or perspective
     • Uses logical reasoning
     • Provides specific examples
     • Demonstrates critical thinking
   • Model answer: Harris’s economic perspective likely leads him to focus on the financial and industrial benefits of Penicillin, viewing it as a catalyst for economic growth. Carter’s social perspective makes her emphasize the health and societal improvements, such as reduced mortality. Their backgrounds and interests shape what aspects they highlight, leading to differing interpretations.

4. Evaluate which historian's view is more convincing about the overall importance of Penicillin. Justify your answer. (8 marks)

   • Marking:
     • Analyzes strengths of each interpretation
     • Considers the evidence provided
     • Explains which perspective offers a more comprehensive understanding
     • Uses critical reasoning
     • Supports opinion with evidence
   • Model answer: Both perspectives are valuable, but Carter’s social view is more convincing because it directly relates to the lives of ordinary people and the health improvements that made Penicillin a medical breakthrough. While Harris highlights economic benefits, these are secondary to the profound social and health impacts, making Carter’s interpretation more compelling overall.