A. B. Macallum 75 



It would be difficult to say when the history of biochemistry 

 actually began, for all through the last Century a number of contri- 

 butions to chemistry were made which can now be regarded as con- 

 tributions to biochemistry. The history of biochemistry, however, 

 as a distinct department of knowledge, may be said to have begun 

 with Hoppe-Seyler in 1867 in the work from his laboratory, 

 which he subsequently published under the general title of "Medi- 

 cinische-Chemische Untersuchungen." The number of publica- 

 tions from all sources, which appeared annually during the seven- 

 ties, was small, and even in 1884 when I began to interest myself 

 in the subject it did not, all told, exceed more than three hundred a 

 year. It was possible for a biochemist then and for a few years 

 thereafter to keep in touch with all advances in his subject, but 

 eventually the number grew and in 1905 the year's Output of bio- 

 chemical publications of all kinds was estimated to be about three 

 thousand five hundred papers. It did not cease to grow and the 

 Output of 1913 was more than six thousand. 



The task of the Scientific Spirit in 1870, so far as the exercise 

 of relentless criticism was concerned, was easy, for the dozen or 

 more biochemists could supervise the whole field of production and 

 pronounce judgment. That function was carefully and deliberately 

 performed. It is on record that when Miescher, who had been for 

 some time a Student in Hoppe-Seyler's laboratory in Tübingen, 

 offered his paper, now classical, on nuclein for publication in the 

 " Medicinische-Chemische Untersuchungen," Hoppe-Seyler would 

 not publish it tili he himself had worked over the whole subject and 

 verified all the observations of Miescher. The publication of the 

 paper was, in consequence, delayed two years. 



What could be done in 1870 cannot be done now, when the 

 mass of literature being poured out in every department of b:o- 

 chemistry is so ov^erwhelming. It is still possible for the head of a 

 laboratory to censor its productions and a number of the leaders 

 exercise that function, but what they do in this subject ameliorates 

 the Situation only to a slight extent. There is still, as anyone can 

 see, too little criticism of value in the annual Output. One gets the 

 Impression in reviewing the literature on a subject, that the con- 

 tributors to it regard criticism as not within their province, and that 



