MEMOIRS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES. 269 



Referring t" the above-named reviews of the subject," and especially to that of Rosemann 

 for details and references to the original memoirs, it will suffice here to summarize t lie results. 

 It appears that: 



1. A large number of early experiments have brought conflicting results, some implying 

 the protection of protein by alcohol; others the opposite. Of the former class those of Mogili- 

 an-ki are of especial interest. Of the latter those of Miura, made under the direction of Van 

 Noorden, and those of Schmidt and of Schoeneseiffen, under the direction of Rosemann, have 

 been much quoted. The general plan of experimenting- followed by these three investigators 

 consisted in giving the subject an ordinary diet for a time and observing the nitrogen balance. 

 Thereafter, during a period of four to six days, alcohol was used. In Mima's case the alcohol 

 was substituted for carbohydrates in a diet which had been adequate for maintaining nitrogen 

 equilibrium; but with the alcohol the excretion of nitrogen increased and the body lost nitrogen. 

 With Schmidt, alcohol was added to a diet with which nitrogen equilibrium had been maintained: 

 the alcohol did not diminish the excretion of the nitrogen and the equilibrium continued. With 

 Schoeneseiffen, alcohol was added to an inadequate diet with which there was loss of nitrogen; 

 the loss continued with the alcohol. 



These experiments have furnished the chief basis for the contention that alcohol can not 

 protect protein. In Miura's case the increase of nitrogen excretion with the alcohol was as large, 

 and. indeed, in one instance very slightly larger, than when the carbohydrates were removed and 

 no alcohol was used in their place. Miura, and after him Rosemann and others, inferred that 

 alcohol was unable to protect protein from disintegration, and went so far as to ascribe to it 

 a positive disintegrating action and to apply to it the term "proteid poison." 



2. Neumann, in 1899, made experiments on a similar plan, save that the alcohol period was 

 continued for sixteen days, during which part of the fat of the normal diet was replaced by 

 alcohol. He found that during the first four days of the alcohol period there was no evidence of 

 protein protection; the nitrogen excretion was increased and was as large as during another 

 period when the ordinary ration was reduced and no alcohol was used in its place. Thereafter 

 the nitrogen excretion diminished, and during the remaining twelve days of the alcohol period it 

 was the same as with the normal ration. When the alcohol was removed and nothing substituted 

 the excretion of nitrogen increased as before. Neumann concludes that in his own case the 

 failure of the alcohol to protect protein at first was probably due to a specific though temporary 

 action by which it tended to increase the disintegration of protein so that the tendency to protein 

 protection was counteracted. Later this special action disappeared and the protecting action 

 came into full play. 



Neumann's interpretation of his experiments was questioned by Rosemann. who has been a most 

 vigorous opponent of the theory that alcohol can protect protein, and a keen critic of the experi- 

 ments which have seemed to favor this view. He maintained the disintegrating-, but questioned 

 the protecting action of the alcohol, alleging defects in the plans of Neumann's experiment-. 

 Neumann, without replying, repeated his experiments in such ways as to meet Rosemann's objec- 

 tions, and found conclusive evidence of the protecting power of the alcohol, these later results 

 being published early in 1900. In 1901, Chotzen. working under the direction of Rosenfeld. and 

 in 1901, Clopatt. each published results of inquiries which agreed with Neumann's. Meantime 

 Rosemann made several series of experiments of his own. the outcome of which, to his surprise, 

 clearly demonstrated the protecting power of alcohol, and confirmed the views maintained by 

 Neumann. He has taken the pains to prepare an extensive summary of the experimenting in 

 this field. b in which he assents fully to the interpretation placed by Neumann. Rosenfeld, Chotzen. 

 and Clopatt upon their experiment-: believes that the protection of protein is shown by other 

 experiments, as those of Mogilianski; considers it fully demonstrated by his own experiments; and 



"Rosemann interprets two of our experiments, Nos. 7 and 10, the only ones then published, as not showing the 

 protection of protein; an interpretation from which we should not dissent, since No. 7 was exceptional, ami two 

 experiments could hardly suffice for the establishment of the principle. 

 1 See page 261. 



