THE REFORM OF THE MEDICAL CURRICULUM 637 



rule-of-thumb methods. Dr. Armstrong has himself frequently 

 contributed to such discussions, and his views are so well 

 known that it is inconceivable that he should advocate in 

 medicine the very principles against the application of which 

 in other technical occupations he has so often protested. His 

 strictures as to the alleged irrelevancy of the chemical teaching 

 in medical schools relate, it is clear, to a bygone period, too 

 remote to serve as the basis of an authoritative expression of 

 opinion ; their only effect could be to lend weight to antiquated 

 views of the most retrograde description. In direct opposition 

 to what he would have us believe, chemistry in the London 

 medical schools is now taught with direct reference to its 

 scientific application in physiology and in medicine ; the cur- 

 riculum laid down for medical students has been specially 

 constructed, and, except in the purely elementary parts, is 

 essentially different from that laid down for chemical students. 

 And when we come to consider how chemistry is to be 

 taught, and to what extent it is to be taught, we find that 

 Prof. Armstrong's allegations as to the unsuitability of our 

 methods are again vitiated by what the writer cannot help 

 feeling, with all respect, is an inability to divest himself of old 

 memories, and an unwillingness to pay attention to the views 

 of those whose ideas as to progress may not altogether coincide 

 with his own. The teaching of chemistry has improved enor- 

 mously within the writer's own recollection. Twenty years 

 ago, as Dr. Armstrong must surely remember, laboratory teach- 

 ing was confined to a summer course of test-tube " analysis," 

 and training in chemical method was non-existent. The section 

 of chemistry most intimately connected with physiology and 

 medicine — namely, that dealing with the carbon compounds — 

 was taught by means of blackboard demonstrations, without 

 experimental illustration, and the student was afforded no 

 opportunity of verifying his teacher's statements. Such teaching 

 was absolutely destructive of the scientific spirit, and teachers 

 who, like Dr. Armstrong, worked under these depressing con- 

 ditions must naturally find it difficult to realise that others 

 under happier circumstances have obtained correspondingly 

 happier results. Prof. Armstrong's contentions on this point 

 cannot be maintained ; at the present day they are devoid of 

 foundation. Much progress has been made both in method and 

 in material since he was actively engaged in teaching medical 



41 



