704 



NATURE 



[June .3, 1922 



IS appropriately prefaced by an appreciation of the 

 author's work by Sir Lewis Beaumont, who himself 

 did heroic service in leading one of the sledge parties 

 "from the Discovery nearly half a century ago. 



Hugh Robert Mill. 



Modern Tendencies in Physiology. 



(i) Practical Physiological Chemistry. By Dr. J, A. 

 . Milroy and Prof. J. H. Milroy. Third edition. Pp. 



ix + 449 + ii pis. (Edinburgh: W. Green and Sons, 



Ltd., 1921.) 215. net. 



(2) Biological Chemistry. By Dr. H. E. Roaf. Pp. 

 xvi + 216. (London : Methuen and Co., Ltd., 1921.) 

 105. 6d. net. 



(3) An Introduction to Biophysics. By Dr. D. Burns. 

 Pp. xiii + 435. (London: J. and A. Churchill, 

 1921.) 215. net. 



THE curricula of most universities represent 

 Natural Science as being made up of a number 

 of subjects : geology, mineralogy, chemistry, physics, 

 zoology, botany, human anatomy, and physiology, 

 astronomy being grouped rather with mathematics 

 than with natural science. Twenty years ago such 

 a classification represented not only the scaffold on 

 which the standard of departmental teaching and 

 examination was erected, but it also represented the 

 current conception of the limits between subject and 

 subject. Where will these limits be twenty years 

 hence } Everywhere the boundaries are disappearing ; 

 the physicist has made far-reaching additions to the 

 basal conceptions of chemistry, the zoologist has 

 •largely forsaken animal morphology for fatherless 

 frogs and the inheritance of sex characteristics. Of 

 no department of science have the boundaries become 

 less distinct than they have of physiology. One phase 

 of the change which is taking place is emphasised by 

 the publication of the three books, the titles of which 

 stand at the head of the present article. 

 ' (i) " Practical Physiological Chemistry " written 

 •jointly by Prof. J. H. and Dr. J. A. Milroy, has already 

 had a long and honourable career, and is now in its third 

 edition. It represents the first phase in the change — 

 that in which organic chemistry commenced to play 

 a prominent part in physiology. In the present edition 

 considerable additions have been made, especially in 

 the direction of physical chemistry, but the book 

 ■essentially stands for what it always did, namely, for 

 physiology seen from the angle of the organic chemist, 

 %nd as such its value is fully maintained. 



(2) Dr. Roaf's book, "Biological Chemistry," re- 

 presents a much more fundamental change. It deals 

 with something wider than the mere chemical aspect 

 X)i vertebrate physiology. As its title suggests, it em- 

 NO. 2744, VOL. 109] 



braces the chemical aspect of life generally, hence it 

 includes not only invertebrate physiology, but botany 

 in its bracket. The subject-matter of the book, 

 therefore, covers parts of what formerly were regarded 

 as three biological subjects, namely, physiology, 

 zoology, and botany. It inevitably raises the question, 

 " What are the real boundaries of physiology ? " The 

 question is a vital one in the teaching of science and 

 medicine. Concrete instances of the transition which 

 is taking place may be found in the organising of any 

 medical school, and that of Cambridge may be cited 

 as an example. Just before the war, the department 

 of physiology was reorganised, a new laboratory was 

 erected with much greater accommodation than the 

 old one,' yet at the same time experimental psychology 

 and biochemistry were both recognised as new subjects 

 and given laboratories of their own. In Manchester, 

 where the subject of physiology has also been re- 

 organised, the cleavage has taken place at a different 

 point. Biochemistry remains a part of the subject, 

 but histology has been handed over to the department 

 of anatomy. What then remains as the essence of 

 physiology ? If it is to lose histology, experimental 

 psychology, including a large part of the study of the 

 organs of special sense, and biochemistry, what is to 

 remain ? What justification is there for a department 

 of physiology at all } 



In discussing this matter a couple of years ago, a 

 well-known physiologist took up the position that 

 what remained was biophysics. Turning then to Dr. 

 Burns's volume (3), " An Introduction to Biophysics," 

 it was a matter of peculiar interest to ascertain the ex- 

 tent to which it bore out the definition of being what 

 remained of physiology after that subject had parted 

 with biochemistry and experimental psychology. 



Dr. Burns's book — incidentally we would remark 

 that it is very nicely got up, being pleasant both to 

 hold and to read — will well repay perusal, and should 

 be read by both teachers and the more reflective class 

 of students. The title of the book, however, seems 

 to embrace less than the covers, but even granting 

 that there is more in the book than is legitimately 

 -covered by the term biophysics, there still remains 

 much of physiology which is not there. 



The question then, what is left of physiology after 

 biochemistry, biophysics, and experimental psychology 

 have been taken from it, remains unanswered. The 

 answer in our view is simply this — physiology remains. 

 Biochemistry and biophysics are the apparatus of 

 physiology, but they are not physiology. To the 

 physiologist they aire all-important, for to him every 

 advance which is made in biochemistry is vital, because 

 it gives him a new machine with which to explore his 

 own department of knowledge. 



