John Snow vs. William Farr: Cholera and the Scientific Method
This paper examines the contrasting scientific methodologies of John Snow and William Farr in their investigations of nineteenth-century cholera outbreaks in London. Snow, a physician and epidemiologist, developed a focused hypothesis linking cholera to contaminated water and tested it through targeted field experiments. Farr, Superintendent of the General Register Office, took a broader data-gathering approach, ultimately concluding — incorrectly — that cholera spread through airborne "zymotic" particles. Drawing on analyses by Eyler and Morabia, the paper argues that both approaches were essential: Snow's dogmatic hypothesis-testing drove the correct conclusion, while Farr's epidemiological infrastructure provided the statistical evidence that made that conclusion persuasive.
- Introduction: Two Approaches to a Public Health Crisis: Context for Snow and Farr's cholera investigations
- John Snow's Hypothesis and Methods: Snow's waterborne hypothesis and field experiments
- William Farr's Epidemiological Approach: Farr's data-first method and miasma theory
- Comparing Snow and Farr: Strengths and Limitations: Scholarly debate on rigor and methodology
- Defending Snow's Methods: Rebuttal of criticisms against Snow's approach
- Conclusion: The Complementary Value of Both Scientific Styles: Both scientific temperaments necessary for discovery
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- It uses two historical figures as a genuine intellectual contrast, allowing the paper to explore a broader methodological debate rather than simply narrating events.
- The paper draws on multiple secondary scholarly sources — Eyler and Morabia — and uses them to present competing interpretations of the same figures, adding analytical depth.
- The conclusion avoids a simple winner/loser framing, instead arguing that both scientific temperaments are necessary, which gives the essay a nuanced thesis.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates comparative analysis using secondary historiography. Rather than relying solely on primary accounts, the author cites two scholars (Eyler and Morabia) who themselves disagree on how to characterize Snow and Farr, and uses that interpretive tension to build the paper's argument. This models how academic writers can use disagreement among sources productively, rather than treating sources as simple fact-providers.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens with Snow's hypothesis and methods, then introduces Farr's contrasting approach, before moving into a direct comparison. The middle sections weigh the limitations of each scientist's methodology, and the conclusion synthesizes the debate into a broader claim about the value of complementary scientific styles. This structure — introduce, contrast, complicate, synthesize — is a reliable model for comparative analytical essays at the undergraduate level.
Introduction: Two Approaches to a Public Health Crisis
The nineteenth-century debate over the causes of cholera provides one of history's most instructive case studies in scientific methodology. Two of its central figures — John Snow, a Victorian epidemiologist and physician, and William Farr, Superintendent of the General Register Office — pursued the same epidemic using strikingly different approaches. Snow began with a focused hypothesis and tested it through targeted field investigation. Farr cast a far wider net, accumulating data across many variables before attempting to draw conclusions. Their disagreement about the cause of cholera — contaminated water versus airborne "zymotic" particles — ultimately resolved in Snow's favor, but the debate raises enduring questions about how science best proceeds: through the disciplined pursuit of a specific hypothesis, or through broad, impartial data collection. As scholars Eyler and Morabia have shown, both approaches contributed indispensably to the final answer.
John Snow's Hypothesis and Methods
John Snow constructed his hypothesis that cholera epidemics were caused by poor sanitation and "morbid material" in sufferers' guts based on his analysis of the disease's physical manifestations and progression. The disease was marked by pain, vomiting, diarrhea, and dehydration, and it responded to conventional treatments for gut-related disorders. All of this suggested that the sources of cholera entered the body through swallowing. Additionally, examining water quality in areas with known outbreaks led Snow to conclude that cholera mortality was fourteen times higher in areas supplied with contaminated or poorly filtered water (Eyler 2001: 225).
Snow's deployment of the scientific method involved a series of experiments using different types of evidence. He reconstructed how the water supply of a row of seventeen houses could have become contaminated from cesspools and surface-water drains. He then "examined a specimen of water from an outbreak center" and noted that it "smelled like privy soil and contained bits of undigested food that had clearly passed through the alimentary canal" (Eyler 2001: 226). Combined with the epidemiological evidence compiled by William Farr, Snow confirmed his belief that contaminated water was the source of cholera outbreaks.
Snow also analyzed the natural experiment created when one London water-supply company, the Lambeth Company — but not the Southwark and Vauxhall Company — moved its water inlet to a less polluted area of the Thames. His hypothesis was that if cholera was related to consuming water contaminated by human waste, then mortality rates should be greater among those who drank the contaminated water supplied by the Southwark and Vauxhall Company. Determining the exact purity of the water supply at any given point in time proved difficult, however, and this made it harder for Snow's thesis to rule out other possible causes of the observed differences (Eyler 2001: 227–228).
William Farr's Epidemiological Approach
William Farr, Snow's contemporary, also attempted to trace the cholera epidemic over time and geographically across the city. Farr investigated the roles of sex, age, season, day of the week, and soil elevation, and how each correlated with cholera transmission. Unlike Snow, Farr did not begin with a single hypothesis or focus on one source of transmission; he simply tried to gather as much evidence as possible. Based on what he learned, Farr proposed a formula "that could predict in mathematical terms human mortality from cholera according to soil elevation" (Morabia 2001: 223).
Unfortunately, Farr's so-called law was based on a fundamentally flawed view of disease transmission. The conventional wisdom of the time held that almost all diseases were caused by airborne molecules — the miasma theory. While Farr conceded that the water in areas of cholera outbreaks was quite dirty, he believed this merely confirmed that cholera was "caused by zymotic (that is, produced by fermentation) factors" emanating from the water's surface (Morabia 2001: 223). Farr thought that fumes from sewage-contaminated water were to blame, not the ingestion of the cholera bacterium itself. He admitted that some particles might be ingestible, but still maintained that most of the toxic material entered the body through the lungs (Eyler 2001: 228).
Conclusion: The Complementary Value of Both Scientific Styles
Eventually, after more careful consideration, Farr began to change his mind and concede that waterborne transmission of cholera was possible (Eyler 2001: 230). But without Snow's dogmatism, it is unlikely that such a view would have gained wider acceptance — just as it is equally true that without Farr's statistics, Snow might never have developed his thesis in the first place. The Snow versus Farr debate suggests that the world of science needs both types of researcher: the broad, data-based accumulator and the passionate, hands-on tester of specific theories. Both are necessary to get to the bottom of disease causation, given the profound challenges that establishing causality poses to scientific investigators of disease-related phenomena.
References
Dallal, Gerard E. (2008, September 12). Cause and effect. The Little Handbook of Statistical Practice. Retrieved August 30, 2010 from http://www.JerryDallal.com/LHSP/cause.htm.
Eyler, J.M. (2001). The changing assessments of John Snow's and William Farr's cholera studies. Soz Praventiv Med, 46(4): 225–232.
Morabia, A. (2001). Snow and Farr: A scientific duet. Soz Praventiv Medicine, 46(4): 223–224.
Schoenbach, Victor. (1999). Causal inference. EPID. 168, 285.
Snow, S. (2004). Cholera, chloroform, and the science of medicine: A life of John Snow. The New England Journal of Medicine, 350(1): 90.
Wilson, E. Bright. (1952). An Introduction to Scientific Research. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Department of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, UCLA. (2001). William Farr: Campaigning statistician. Retrieved August 30, 2010 from
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.