402 



NA TURE 



[August 23, 1894 



at all it is that the Section of Physiology has ceased to appear 

 for many years. 



The British Association was founded at York in 1S31 ; and 

 at the subsequent meeting, which was held in this very city of 

 Oxford, amongst other Sections which were established, was 

 one for Anatomy and Physiology. Now, when we consult the 

 records of this Section we are struck with the fact that Medicine 

 early sho»s a marked preponderance. Thu>, in 1833 a 

 physician is selected as President for the Section, with iwo 

 surgeons as secretaries ; one of them, be it noted, being Mr. 

 Paget. This preponderance soon came to be recognised in the 

 designation of the Section, for in 1835 we find it entitled 

 Section E, Anatomy and Medicine. 



.\s time went on the interests of medical men became 

 gradually more absorbed in the rapidly growing British Medical 

 Association ; and in 1S4I the medical title was dropped, and 

 the Section came to be called simply Physiology, which title it 

 retained until 1847. Under that designation the Section has 

 now been revived. 



The fact that Physiology as a separate section in this 

 Association was allowed to lapse for so long a period is not 

 remarkable when we remember that during the first half of this 

 petiod Physiology as a science was practically non-existent in 

 this country. The teachers of Physiology were, almost without 

 exception, practising physicians and surgeons, and even when a 

 professor was expected to devote the whole of his time to the 

 teaching of Physiology he was not expected to devote part of 

 that lime to the prosecution of physiological research. During 

 all these years, from 1S33 to 1847, we do not find amongst the 

 officers of the Section any actual working physiologists. Most 

 of the officers were distinguished medical men, with an anato- 

 mist here and there amongst them. Far be it from me to say 

 that there wa.s no actual work being done in Physiology at this 

 time ; for Charles Bell and Marshall Hall were engaged in 

 elucidating the functions of the nervous system ; whilst Bowman, 

 Wharton Jones, and others were producing good and permanent 

 work in various other departments of Physiology. Their 

 labours, however, were isolated, and formed but oase; in the 

 Sahara of neglect into which the pursuit of Physiology had 

 fallen in this country ; and this during a period when it was 

 being pursued with signal success and activity both in Germany 

 and France. 



After 1847 a revival of Physiology began to manifest itself 

 even here ; and this was followed by the establishuieni, from 

 time to time, of a sub-section to Second D, which was devoted 

 to Physiology, and had a special President. Whether, how- 

 ever, owing to their subordinate character, or from some other 

 reason, these sub-sections had not usually any great measure of 

 success, and for the last twelve years they have been wholly 

 dropped. During that petiod Physiology h.is only twice been 

 represented in the chair of Section D, and has usually had ni> 

 secretarial representation. This decadence of Physiology in the 

 British Association during the last eleven or twelve years is the 

 more remarkable because it is obviously not due to any want of 

 outside activity in regard to the subject ; for during this period 

 we find an extraordinary revival of interest in physiological 

 research, a revival which in its most active stage dates from 

 about twenty-five years ago, but still some twenty or thirty 

 years later than the corresponding revival in France and 

 Germany. I have taken the trouble to prepare a list of 

 prominent physiological workers who flourished during the 

 thirty years prior to 1870. .My list comprises, in all, thirty. 

 Of ihese four arc Knglish, five French, and twenty-one German 

 or Dutch. Of the four Knglish working physiologists not 

 one \s a teacher of Physiology. Of the five P'rench and twenty- 

 one German all arc recognised teachers. It was not, in fact, 

 until it came to be understood ihit teaching and work in 

 Physiology, as in all branches of science, ought in the main, to 

 !« successful, to go hand in hand, that the science had any 

 possibility of revival. 



Let ui glance for a moment at the history of the revival of 

 Physiology in this country as clmpared with its revival in 

 Germany. In each country the revival may be said to have 

 been largely due to the influence of one teacher. In Germany 

 the leicher was Johannei Muller ; in ihli country, William 

 Shapey. Both of these remarkable men were pupils of 

 Ru'lolphi, who wa.s professor of Anatomy and Physiology in 

 Berlin until 1833. It ij staled regarding Rudolphi that "he 

 was an enemy to subjective speculation in biological science: 

 he lofjked on the so-called philosophy as mistaken anri futile in 



NO. 1295, VOL. 50] 



its application to the phenomena of the animal economy, and 

 based his physiology chiefly, and perhaps rather exclusively, on 

 the study of the animal structure." The influence of Rudolphi 

 is apparent in both Miiller and Sharpey. 



Miillerwas born in iSoi, Sharpey in 1S02 ; they were therefore 

 of about the same age. But Muller's scientific and intellectual 

 development was more rapid than that of his coiitempoiary. 

 Thus we find that already in 1826, when he was but twenty-five 

 years old, Midler attained so great a reputation as to be made 

 Professor lixtraordinary in the University of Bonn ; and before 

 very long he was promoted to the grade of Ordinary Professor 

 there. In 1S33, whilst still a young man, he was called to the 

 chair of Anatomy and Physiology at Berlin, which had just 

 become vacant by the death of his master and friend, Rudolphi. 

 Sharpey, on the other hand, occupied himself until 1S29 with 

 perfecting both his general and his special anatomical education. 

 It was not until 1S30 that he published his first essay in 

 anatomical and physiological research entitled "On a PeculLar 

 Motion excited in Fluids by the Surfaces of Certain Animals" 

 — observations which were preliminary to the discovery of the 

 exi^tence of cilia in vertebrates. .\nd it was not until 1S36 

 that he was called to the newly instituted professorship of 

 -Vnatoinyand Physiology in University College, London, which 

 he filled for so many years with such signal success. Both of 

 these distinguished men owed, there is no doubt, their success 

 as teachers of Physiology to their early anatomical training. 

 The general anatomical bent of Johannes Miiller is evidenced 

 by the fact of his scientific work being turned so much in the 

 direction of comparative Anatomy and Physiology. .\nd 

 Sharpey, although great, and deserveily great, as a teacher of 

 Physiology, remained to his dying day, above all, an anatomist. 

 Physiologists of this school are rare at the present day : but it is 

 probable that in some respects the progress of Physiology may 

 sutler thereby. Helmholtz began his public career as professor 

 of Anatomy ; but it would be unfair to attach too much weii;ht 

 to this particular incident in the case of so many-sided a man 

 as the great Berlin Professor of Physics. Nevertheless, the 

 necessity of a close and careful training in .-Vnatomy for those 

 who are afterwards to work at or to teach Physiology is so 

 important that I do not hesitate to say that the younger 

 physiologists who neglect the study of Anatomy will find that 

 before very long they must abandon the pursuit of many byways 

 of Physiology which might otherwise be followed up with 

 manifest advantage. 



The influence of Johannes Miiller upon the revival of the 

 pursuit of scientific Physiology in Germany, and indeed 

 generally, cannot be over-estimated. We have only to look at 

 the names and eminence of his pupils in order to recognise the 

 immense influence which his teaching has exerted upon the 

 progress of Physiology ever since his time. .Some of these 

 pupils arc still amongst us, others have joined the ninjority. 

 But the pupils of these men, again, are now great names in 

 many departments of our science, and through them we cannot 

 fail to recognise the influence which was exerted by this truly 

 great man. 



We may say the same in almost identical words of William 

 Sharpey. The practical pursuit of Physiology in this country 

 has mainly r.adialed from the centre where Sharpey taught. 

 Michael Foster was his pupil. The physiological investigations 

 of Hurdon. Sanderson were assisted and encouraged by him. 

 From Sharpey, therefore, we may trace the rise of the great 

 school of Physiology at Cambridge, and we have only to look 

 at the magnificent laboratory which' has been erected here to 

 observe a monument of the influence of the same teacher. And 

 there have emanated either directly from the physiological 

 school established by Sharpey at University College, or 

 indirectly from those at Cambridge and Oxford, many of the 

 most active teachers and workers in Physiology in the kingdom. 



In these respects there is much in common between the re- 

 vival of Physiology in Germany and in this country. Inother re- 

 spects, however, thetwo cases have been entirely under different 

 conditions. There its revival, in common with that of science 

 generally, has been assisted and stimulated by the active and 

 beneficent co-operation of every German .State. Here, also, in 

 common with science generally, it has h.ad to make its way 

 against every conceivable obstacle ; ami almost without assist- 

 ance, either moral or material, from the Government or from 

 public bodies. But not only has it not met with assistance, 

 there have been actual obstacles placed in the way of teaching 

 and work in Physiology. Some have been unintentional, others 



I 



I 



