In recent years, many editorials in leading North American medical jou
rnals have argued that medical practice is seriously flawed. Often, de
cision-support techniques are mentioned as a potential solution to thi
s problem. I argue that these recent calls embody a specific reconcept
ualization of medical practice and its problems. Within the postwar me
dical literature, divergent discourses on the virtues and troubles of
postwar medical practice can be found. Through a focus on medical edit
orials, I demonstrate the existence of several different notions of th
e 'scientific nature' of medical action. Comparing the more recent of
these images to those dominating earlier medical journals, one main sh
ift is apparent. While, earlier, medical action was often described as
an artful application of scientific knowledge, only mildly tainted by
external, social problems, recent conceptualizations often locate bot
h the scientific nature of medicine and the causes of its problems in
the physician's brain. Even within this new discourse, however, scient
ific rationality does not always speak with the same voice, as reflect
ed in the existence of different decision-support techniques. I argue
that these different techniques, which are presented as solutions to t
he flaws of medical practice, lay at the root of the development of th
e cognitivist image(s) in the first place.