Between the 1930s and 1960s Puerto Rico was transformed from a marginal United States territory into an industrialised ‘showcase of development’. This article investigates the organisation of milk station programmes on the island during this crucial period and how these reflected the circulation of child welfare knowledge, nutrition expertise and public health practices. During the Depression, these perspectives fostered a recast of the eugenic regeneration ideologies motivating medical assessments of and sanitary interventions with Puerto Rico’s rural poor since the nineteenth century. Innovations in nutrition knowledge and an emerging rural hygiene movement highlighted the negative health effects of the island’s monocrops economy. In this context, the nourishment of children’s bodies assumed symbolic and instrumental significance for the reconfiguration of colonial and developmental models promoted by the new Popular Democratic Party (PPD). The experience of public health professionals in relief work during the 1930s contributed to the articulation of food and nutrition as key elements of this party’s populist discourse. Programmes like milk stations became part of strategies to rear and manage the labour force needed in the industrial development model promoted by the PPD. From the perspective of poor Puerto Ricans, however, they were part of the materialisation of its promise of social justice for the poorer classes.

The link between science, medicine and public trust has been much discussed. Surgery shared in the public confidence in the efficacy of scientific medicine and the good intentions of its practitioners. This does not seem to have been directly linked to evidence of either. Harry Marks has argued that drug manufacturers were not included in the trust accorded to medical practitioners. Regulations and restrictions on the introduction of new drugs in America from the late 1930s were linked to widespread suspicion of commercial motives. The motives of surgeons were not suspected in the same way, and surgery in the 1930s was not subjected to the same tests of safety (or efficacy) that were beginning to be applied to drugs. Surgeons were free to adopt, adapt, or invent any surgical procedure as they saw fit. Was their surgery based on what Marks has called “the vagaries of clinical opinion”, and Christopher Lawrence the “incommunicable knowledge” behind clinical judgment? Or were surgeon citizens of “the republic of science”, basing their practice on what was considered at the time to be acceptable evidence?

This article explores the programme of national health planning carried out in the 1960s in West and Central Africa by the World Health Organization (WHO), in collaboration with the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). Health plans were intended as integral aspects of economic development planning in five newly independent countries: Gabon, Liberia, Mali, Niger and Sierra Leone. We begin by showing that this episode is treated only superficially in the existing WHO historiography, then introduce some relevant critical literature on the history of development planning. Next we outline the context for health planning, noting: the opportunities which independence from colonial control offered to international development agencies; the WHO’s limited capacity in Africa; and its preliminary efforts to avoid imposing Western values or partisan views of health system organisation. Our analysis of the plans themselves suggests they lacked the necessary administrative and statistical capacity properly to gauge local needs, while the absence of significant financial resources meant that they proposed little more than augmentation of existing structures. By the late 1960s optimism gave way to disappointment as it became apparent that implementation had been minimal. We describe the ensuing conflict within WHO over programme evaluation and ongoing expenditure, which exposed differences of opinion between African and American officials over approaches to international health aid. We conclude with a discussion of how the plans set in train longer processes of development planning, and, perhaps less desirably, gave bureaucratic shape to the post-colonial state.