A HISTORY OF METABOLISM 73 



in Munich, have, however, historical interest. Voit (g), incensed by the 

 biting criticism of Pfliiger, adds a signed postscript to an article by Max 

 Gruber (1881) which concludes as follows: "It is to be regarded as 

 self-understood that I cannot enter into a method of dispute which is 

 so unworthy, a method which I can only despise. In science one should 

 seek to establish the truth by demonstrating the validity of one's opinions 

 after quiet and searching consideration and it is indeed an evil sign 

 when one goes as far as Pfliiger has gone in his polemic and uses lan- 

 guage which would not be tolerated in good society and would not be 

 regarded as permissible even in excited political debate. Such treatment 

 of scientific problems cannot possibly promote science but only hurt it, 

 and I am sure that many others think as I do, others who through honest 

 endeavor have shown that science was their primary interest, men who 

 have been able to open up new paths therein. It is fortunate that 

 Pfliiger, who has no sense of justice, is not the arbiter of the accom- 

 plishments of science but rather the future and those contemporaries who 

 can dispassionately estimate the work of others. I declare that I turn 

 away from this hateful discussion with loathing and cannot copy Pfliiger 

 in behavior." 



To this Pfliiger (t) answers : "The unvarnished truth of my exactly 

 critical reply has seized Voit so that he was thrown into a paroxysm of 

 raving passion, and setting aside a real answer, he has poured upon me the 

 most insulting invective" (1881). 



Answering this in the only purely polemical article he ever wrote, 

 Voit(c) replies: "Gruber completely refuted the criticisms of Pfliiger 

 concerning our work and clearly explained Pfliiger's continual misrepre- 

 sentation of the same. It only remained for me to rebutt his groundless 

 accusations against the work put out from my laboratory. This could 

 only have been accomplished, not as Pfliiger says, in passion and raving, 

 which are foreign to me and hated by me, but rather by quietly explaining 

 in the postscript that I would not reply to remarks of mistrust and cal- 

 umny, which I can only despise" (1882). 



Criticism is invaluable. Pfliiger later in life wrote, "Criticism is the 

 mainspring of every advance, therefore I practice it." But the quality of 

 it must not descend to billingsgate. Barker has aptly quoted from 

 "Truthful James," 



"I hold it is not decent for a scientific gent 

 To say another is an ass at least to all intent ; 

 Nor should the individual who happens to be meant 

 Reply by heaving rocks at him, to any great extent." 



Among the problems with which ^ 7 oit concerned himself was the con- 

 version of starch into fat and of protein into fat and into sugar. His 

 earlier conception was that protein was largely convertible into fat, and 



