This article examines the history of Japanese encephalitis (JE) research and disease control in South Korea from the post-liberation era through the 1990s, focusing on the gap between the accumulation of scientific knowledge and its translation into effective public health policy. Drawing on epidemiological reports, government documents, medical journals, and newspaper sources, this study analyzes three interconnected dimensions of Korea’s JE history. First, it traces how knowledge about JE was produced through transnational networks—including U.S. military medical laboratories, the World Health Organization’s malaria eradication program, and Korean scientists trained abroad. As such, this body of knowledge was externally structured, rather than through an independent domestic research infrastructure, and thus it failed to translate consistently into government prevention policy. Second, this study examines how DDT-centered vector control became the principal instrument of JE prevention, and how the repeated limitations of insecticide-based interventions helped produce a discourse that attributed outbreaks to rural backwardness. This narrative deflected attention from the structural deficiencies of the prevention system itself. Finally, this study shows that vaccination—long anticipated as the solution to JE—also faced its own institutional obstacles. The failure to secure adequate funding, the privatization of vaccine production, the shift to fee-based individual vaccination, and the absence of mandatory vaccination requirements collectively delayed stable preventive coverage until the mid-1980s, when rising vaccination rates finally produced a sustained decline in JE incidence. Taken together, this history demonstrates that the management of JE in modern Korea was shaped less by the availability of scientific knowledge or biomedical technology than by the presence or absence of the institutional foundations necessary to operationalize it.

Recently, most bone cancers have shown a dismal prognosis even though they were managed with amputation. In the 1970s, anticancer drugs began to be used for bone tumor treatment as adjuvant agents, with the hope of survival improvement, while keeping the limb preserved. The 5-year survival of osteosarcoma patients increased up to 70% with anticancer chemotherapy and limb-salvage surgery. Limb salvage surgery includes all surgical procedures performed to accomplish resection of a malignant bone tumor and reconstruction of the skeletal system with an acceptable oncological and functional outcome. Currently, surgeons can choose a variety of reconstruction methods, including osteoarticular allograft, allograft-prosthesis composite, and metallic tumor endoprosthesis. However, complication rates are still high. The advancement of implant technology, adjuvant chemotherapy, and radiologic imaging modality has contributed to the evolution of limb salvage surgery. Nevertheless, there are still many barriers that have yet to be addressed to move further.