THE REFORM OF THE MEDICAL CURRICULUM 547 



one is at once struck with the great preponderance of papers 

 and books which have a chemical bearing. Chemistry is coming 

 to be recognised more and more as one of the foundations of 

 physiology and a mainstay of the art of medicine." 



Indeed, the physiologists see quite clearly that lack of 

 chemical technique is at present the greatest hindrance to 

 progress from which they suffer. The problems they have 

 to solve are the most difficult problems in chemistry. Let 

 there be no misunderstanding therefore : medical men require 

 a far deeper, more intimate knowledge of chemistry than that 

 they possess at present. From this point of view, the resolution 

 moved in the London Senate was a mistaken one and it was 

 properly defeated : there must be no shortening of the time 

 devoted to the study of the subject. But behind the resolution 

 was the just feeling that the present course is a totally unfit 

 preparation for medical practice — this is the feeling which we 

 have to meet and provide for. 



I saw that such was the case even when I first began 

 to teach and adopted a somewhat unconventional course in 

 consequence — but it was scarcely possible until recently to 

 formulate a course which satisfied most requirements : our 

 knowledge was too vague ; the directions in which attention 

 could be turned with advantage were not clear ; in fact, the 

 issues were scarcely before us. 



Many things must now be done without further loss of time 

 to secure the needed reforms. 



Huxley's highly developed ' homoceatic ' sense led him to 

 assert that it was a mere affair of mechanical arrangement 

 to provide the remedy for the shortcomings in medical 

 education the existence of which he deplored — or, as he put 

 it, "for that imperfection of our theoretical knowledge which 

 keeps down the ability of England in medical matters " (he 

 should have said, in all matters). 



He urged that the theoretical branches of the profession — 

 "the Institutes of Medicine," he called them — should be taught 

 in not more than three central institutions. We are still 

 talking of taking this step but doing very little towards making 

 it an accomplished fact. The next thing to be done, Huxley 

 said — he should have said to be done at the same time — was to 

 go back to primary education and to insist upon the teaching 



