To understand the role of history in crafting health policy, this paper analyzes a historicist debate that played out in the
late 19th century over “father of vaccination” Edward Jenner and compulsory vaccination laws. Between 1888 and 1896,
the Royal Commission on Vaccination Laws heard arguments from a variety of perspectives. Within this time, three different
histories of Jenner were published. Despite using the same primary sources, they came to different conclusions on
who Jenner was. The British Medical Journal’s
portrayed Jenner as a hero, upholding both his scientific credibility and personal credibility. Edgar Crookshank, an antivaccinator who was also a professor of bacteriology, emphasized Jenner's failing as a scientist as a reason both Jenner and
vaccination should be rejected. Another anti-vaccinator, William White, constructed a version of Jenner that was selfish and
suggested that his invention could therefore not be trusted. Ultimately, the BMJ’s account was effective at reaching
policymakers while White’s narrative influenced the public. Through this analysis, the role of presentism in health policy can
be understood to be influential.