648 SCIENCE PROGRESS 



inspectors were to report, as they did not so long ago with 

 certain of the licensing examinations in the curricula of 

 which the teachers of science have little or no voice, that 

 the standard in chemistry was below the minimum they could 

 recognise. 



To conclude: Prof. Armstrong's contention that chemistry 

 is not taught in the medical schools with a proper sense of 

 its applications is not warranted by the facts, and could apply 

 only to his experience of twenty years ago ; his experience 

 of the teaching of the present day is far too limited to give 

 authority to his sweeping generalisations. For the present, 

 and probably for many years to come, the curriculum must be 

 framed on the assumption that the student on commencing his 

 medical course has no knowledge of science ; and whether this 

 science is taught in London in institutions connected with 

 hospitals, or in separate institutions as at Oxford and Cambridge, 

 the same course must be followed. Prof. Armstrong's 

 proposals as to the elimination of examinations and the re- 

 arrangement of the chemical curriculum are certainly not 

 practicable at present, and it is doubtful whether, in the nature 

 of things, they ever can be. The chemical curriculum cannot 

 be lengthened as Prof. Armstrong proposes, nor can it be 

 shortened without injuriously affecting the remainder of the 

 course. The necessary training in chemistry must be given by 

 expert teachers, for the day is long past when clinical teachers 

 or others not engaged in working at the advancement of 

 pure chemistry could be entrusted with it. Despite Prof. 

 Armstrong's statements, our progress has been steady and con- 

 tinuous, and the teaching of the medical sciences at the present 

 day is as far removed from that of twenty years ago as this, in 

 turn, was from that of the purely anatomical era. 



The future of medical teaching depends on co-operation 

 between the professional teachers of science and the teachers 

 of clinical work, such as for many years it has been the good 

 fortune of the present writer to enjoy. Without long and 

 friendly discussion with his colleagues this would indeed have 

 been impossible, and their broad and generous spirit is grate- 

 fully acknowledged. Would that it were universal ! By 

 quietly discussing their points of difference, medical men and 

 men of science would then arrive at a common standpoint, and 

 controversies such as these would no longer be possible : it is 



