BY WILLIAM HENRY HOWELL 



[William Henry Howell, Professor of Physiology, Johns Hopkins University, 

 and Dean of the Medical Department, b. February 20, 1860, Baltimore, Mary- 

 land. A.B. Johns Hopkins University, 1881; Ph.D. 1884; M.D. University of 

 Michigan, 1890; LL.D. Trinity College, 1901; Post-graduate, Johns Hopkins 

 University, 1881-84. Professor of Physiology and Histology, University of 

 Michigan, 1889-92; Associate Professor of Physiology, Harvard University, 

 1892-93. Member of the National Academy of Sciences; the American Philo- 

 sophical Society; the American Association for the Advancement of Science; 

 American Physiological Society; American Society of Naturalists; Society for 

 Experimental Biology and Medicine, etc. Editor of The American Text-Book 

 of Physiology; American Journal of Physiology, etc.] 



MOST of the masters in physiology have attempted in one way or 

 another to lay before their fellow craftsmen their ideas concerning the 

 right methods to be used in physiology, its natural boundaries, and 

 its future development. We read these utterances sometimes with 

 admiration, sometimes with doubt, but always with interest, and also, 

 alas, with disappointment. For it has not been given to any of our 

 saints or prophets to pierce very far into the uncertain future, and 

 one seeks in vain for a fundamental thought or principle which shall 

 illuminate the mystery of life. Our greatest men have, in fact, been 

 wise enough to teach us by example rather than by precept; the 

 chief lesson that one may learn from their lives and writings is that 

 we must continue to investigate, to observe, and to experiment, and 

 that in this way only can sure progress be made toward the goal of 

 which we all dream. The time seems not yet ripe for the master-mind 

 to gather the scattered data and mold them into great generalizations 

 or laws such as have been achieved in other sciences. We must, per- 

 haps, admit that the philosophical basis of physiology, its general prin- 

 ciples and quantitative laws, have been borrowed in large part from 

 other departments, and that the subject has not as yet fully repaid 

 this indebtedness by contributions derived solely from its own re- 

 sources. We have no names to which science as a whole owes as much 

 as it does to Galileo, Lavoisier, Newton, Mayer and Joule, Darwin or 

 Pasteur, 1 and since we may claim that our greatest physiologists 

 rank with the first intellects of their age, their failure to penetrate 

 farther into the causation of vital phenomena must be attributed 

 to the intrinsic difficulties and complexity which the subject offers 

 to the human mind. None of us can change this condition, and 

 those who desire to forecast the future must be content, therefore, 

 to view the subject from the standpoint of past experience and the 



1 While two of the names quoted have a right to be classed among physiologists 

 (Lavoisier and Mayer), the contributions made by them which have been so funda- 

 mental to all sciences were in the departments of chemistry and physics. 



