250 THE JOURNAL OF PHARMACOLOGY. 



zyme), and accordingly Fischer and Thierf elder conceive the hypoth- 

 esis that between the enzymes and those substances which they attack 

 there must exist a correspondence in molecular configuration, which 

 they compare to that of a lock and its key. 



And again, of two isomeric sugars closely allied (e.g., glucose and 

 xylose), one (gluclose) may be oxidized in the body or converted into 

 glycogen, whereas the other (xylose) may pass unaltered through the 

 system. 



All these various methods of investigation are to be welcomed by 

 us as tending to aid in the unravelling of pharmacological problems. 

 Yet, although we shall ever strive to combine science with practice, we 

 need not run away with the notion that pharmacology will surely in- 

 augurate the golden era of therapeutics, and enable us to give a satis- 

 factory reason for each medicine we prescribe. 



In the future, as at present, it will probably always hold true that, 

 in order to meet the complex and shifting needs of the daily practice of 

 our profession, pharmacology must be wedded to careful and well- 

 balanced clinical observation, and practical therapeutics not infre- 

 quently outruns pharmacology, for, as Dr. Cuming well remarked in his 

 scholarly jiresidential address at the Belfast meeting in 1884, "The true 

 dignity as well as the great attraction of our studies lies in their prac- 

 tical usefulness."' And Bacon has said — "They be the best physi- 

 cians which, being learned, incline to the traditions of experience, or, 

 being empirics, incline to the methods of learning." 



But here we are constantly made to feel our difificulties and limita- 

 tions, and the wise physician is not addicted to boasting of his thera- 

 peutic successes. In therapeutics, as in theology, opposite conclusions 

 can be drawn from the same text. 



What are we to say to such a fact as this ? 



In the Practitioner some months ago there appeared a highly in- 

 teresting series of papers upon pneumonia and, its treatment. Yet, 

 upon a definite, and apparently simple point — viz., the administration 

 of opium in acute pneumonia, two men, whose powers of observation 

 have been developed to the highest possible degree by constant exercise 

 for more than half a century, expressed diametrically opposite opinions. 

 While Sir Samuel Wilks announced his firm belief in opium. Sir Wil- 

 liam Gairdner was of opinion that in most cases opium in pneumonia 

 is a remedy to be entirely distrusted, and even severely proscribed. 



A PROTEST. 



One word in conclusion. The flood tide of discovery of new syn- 

 thetic chemical remedies has, together with a few treasures which have 



