Causal inference · Module 1: Where the idea came from

1747: twelve sailors and a cure nobody could explain

What was James Lind’s scurvy experiment?

1.1 · 3 min 55 s · published

In May 1747, aboard HMS Salisbury, the naval surgeon James Lind took twelve sailors with scurvy, kept them in the same conditions and gave six pairs six different remedies. Within six days the pair on oranges and lemons were recovering. It was a controlled comparison: similar patients, the same conditions, different treatments.

Key points

  • A controlled comparison gives similar groups different treatments under the same conditions.
  • Lind’s comparison was fair but fragile: two sailors per remedy, and he chose who got what.
  • You can show that something works without knowing why: vitamin C wasn’t identified until around 1930.
  • Without the why, it’s easy to change the very thing that made it work, as the navy did with lemons and limes.

Chapters

  1. 0:00 Scurvy at sea
  2. 0:38 Lind’s six pairs
  3. 1:38 Fair, but fragile
  4. 2:07 An effect without a mechanism
  5. 2:58 What exactly is “it”?

Key terms

Controlled comparison
Giving similar subjects different treatments under the same conditions, then comparing the results, as James Lind did with twelve sailors with scurvy in 1747. If the groups start alike and are treated alike apart from the treatment, a difference at the end points to the treatment. Letting chance decide who gets what makes it stronger.
Randomisation
Letting chance decide which unit gets which treatment. Then no difference between units, known or unknown, can line up with the treatment except by luck, and statistics can say how big that luck might be. Ronald Fisher developed it for field trials at Rothamsted; it is the only method that handles confounders nobody has thought of.

Transcript

In the 1740s, the most dangerous thing on a long sea voyage wasn't the enemy. It was scurvy. Gums swelled and bled, old wounds reopened, and sailors grew too weak to stand. Commodore Anson's voyage round the world, which set out in 1740, lost most of its men to disease, much of it scurvy.

Everyone had a theory about the cause. Almost nobody tested one. In May 1747, a naval surgeon called James Lind was aboard HMS Salisbury. He took twelve sailors with scurvy, as alike as he could find. They slept in the same part of the ship and ate the same basic diet. Then he split them into six pairs and gave each pair a different remedy: cider; a few drops of dilute sulphuric acid, called elixir of vitriol; vinegar; sea water; two oranges and a lemon a day; or a medicinal paste.

Within six days, the pair on oranges and lemons were recovering, and one was fit for duty. The cider pair improved a little. The rest did not. What Lind did is called a controlled comparison: similar patients, the same conditions, different treatments. If the groups start alike and are treated alike apart from the remedy, a difference at the end points to the remedy.

It wasn't a perfect experiment. Two sailors per remedy is tiny: one unusual sailor could swing a result. And Lind chose who got what himself, so his own judgement could have crept in. Today we'd let chance decide, and use far more people. But the core idea was right, and it's the root of everything in this series. Don't ask whether people who happened to eat citrus did better. Give the remedies to similar people, and compare.

Here's the strange part. Lind didn't know why citrus worked. Nobody did: vitamin C wasn't identified until around 1930. Lind himself suggested preserving the juice by boiling it down, which we now know destroys much of the vitamin. The Royal Navy didn't make lemon juice a standard ration until 1795, nearly fifty years after the comparison.

Later in the 1800s it switched from Mediterranean lemons to West Indian limes, which carry far less vitamin C, and scurvy returned on long polar voyages. You can show that something works without knowing why. But without the why, it's easy to change the very thing that made it work.

For food and farming, that lesson keeps coming back. The variety, the soil, the storage, the processing: each can change what's in the food, even when the label stays the same. Throughout this series we'll keep asking two questions. Does it work? And what exactly is "it"?

Next: a philosopher who, a year later, wrote down what a cause actually is, and the century in which statistics tried to do without the idea.

Questions

Why wasn’t Lind’s experiment perfect?

Two sailors per remedy is tiny, so one unusual sailor could swing a result. And Lind chose who got what himself, so his own judgement could have crept in. Today we would let chance decide who gets which treatment, and use far more people. But the core idea, giving the remedies to similar people and comparing, was right.

Why did scurvy come back after the Royal Navy adopted citrus?

Later in the 1800s the navy switched from Mediterranean lemons to West Indian limes, which carry far less vitamin C, and scurvy returned on long polar voyages. Nobody yet knew why citrus worked, so it was easy to change the very thing that made it work.

Sources

  1. Lind, J. (1753). A treatise of the scurvy. Edinburgh: Sands, Murray and Cochran. archive.org/details/b30507054
  2. Carpenter, K.J. (1986). The history of scurvy and vitamin C. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. archive.org/details/historyofscurvyv0000carp
  3. Szent-Györgyi, A. (1928). Observations on the function of peroxidase systems and the chemistry of the adrenal cortex. Biochemical Journal, 22(6), 1387–1409. doi:10.1042/bj0221387
  4. King, C.G. and Waugh, W.A. (1932). The chemical nature of vitamin C. Science, 75(1944), 357–358. doi:10.1126/science.75.1944.357.b

All 30 films · Glossary · The Vitagri Academy

Follow the change in farming

Causal evidence is changing how farming is measured and rewarded. Leave your email and we will tell you when new films, courses and findings are published.

Prefer to read online? Vitagri also writes on Substack. See our privacy policy for how we use your email.