출처: Mary Brown Bullock (1980). An American Transplant: The Rockefeller Foundation and Peking Union Medical College. University of California Press.
※ 발췌 (excerpts): p.134, p.
Chapter 6_ John Grant, Medical Bolshevik
It is far more important to support Chinese efforts that are
60% efficient than western ones that are 100%.
─John Grant, "Diary of Shansi Trip," 1922
John Grant differed in many ways from his colleagues among Peking-bound PUMC entourage aboard the ^Empress of Asia^ in 1921. For one thing, Grant was returning to the land of his birth, China. For another, his temperament and viewpoints were soon to earn him the appellative "medical bolshevik," hardly a typical nickname for one of the staff of the prudent Rockfeller Foundation.[n.1] More importantly, he had the unusual intellectual flexibility necessary for adapting medical practice and pedagogy to the overwhelming needs of China.
Grant's adult sojourn in China was to last for 17 years, 1921-1938, 14 of which he spent as Professor of Public Health at PUMC and 3 as Co-director of the Rockfeller Foundation's progressive rural China program. A leading Chinese economist years later attributed any accomplishments in social medicine during the Republican period to the leadership of this same John Grant, concluding that he was the "spirit of public health" for modern China.[n.2]
( ... ... )
John Grant had undoubtedly known Selska M. Gunn, Vice-President of the Rockfeller Foundation in Europe, before the latter made his trip to China in 1931, for both were members of the RF's International Health Board. Whatever their previous relationship, Grant came to serve as Gunn's primary guide to medical, agricultural, economic, and public health projects in Nationalist China.[n.81] When Gunn proposed a creative interdisciplinary approach to China for the Foundation, Grant elected to participate:
( ... )
The China Progam, inaugurated formally by the Foundation in 1935, bears the stamp of John Grant almost as much as it does that of its principal author, Selska Gunn. Grant's critique of earlier Rockfeller programs contributed to the raison d'etre for the new program:
( ... )
He outlined an alternative medical policy which would be directly related to the non-medical aspects of Chinese life he had so frequently mentioned:
The development of such a medical policy is, however, so dependent upon the progress in other fields of community activity, such as industry, agriculture, education and transportation, that it should be closely coordinated with a program of national planning. Future Foundation medical policy therefore should be limited to those projects which are a part of a unified medical program which in turn should constitute one aspect of a larger plan of social reconstruction.[n.84]
( .... )