150 



SCIENCE 



[Vol. LVI, No. 1441 



riage and it is quite possible for married 

 women to do scientific work or public health 

 work of a high order if they have the ability 

 and the training, so there is no reason why 

 the responsibility to the community for using 

 expert training should not be forcibly pre- 

 sented to our students. Indeed, one of the 

 next steps in the feminist movement is for edu- 

 cated married women to claim and to carry on 

 a share of professional work. 



I desire, however, to speak this morning on 

 a subject of more general interest in medical 

 education, a subject which it may be possible 

 to apply only to medical schools connected 

 with univerrsities at the present time but one 

 of such general importance to the medical pro- 

 fession that I most earnestly bespeak for it 

 your sympathetic interest. I refer to the ex- 

 tension of the so-called full-time scheme to the 

 clinical branches. 



About thirty years ago, the full-time plan 

 of teaching was introduced into the pre-clinical 

 departments of our medical schools. At that 

 time the pre-clinical sciences were unproduc- 

 tive servants of the clinical branches and were 

 taught by practicing physicians as a side issue; 

 they are now represented by professional anato- 

 mists, phj'siologists, chemists and pathologists. 

 No one questions the value of the change. The 

 idea was but the extension into the medical 

 training of the fundamental principle that 

 teaching is a highly specialized profession. It 

 has not been very long since the presidents of 

 our colleges were ministers, now they are pro- 

 fessional educators. The thought that it was 

 now time to apply the same principles of edu- 

 cation to the clinical branches that had 

 wrought so much progress elsewhere can be 

 traced, I think, to the late Professor Mall and 

 Mr. Abraham Plexner. The experiment is now 

 being tried in several of our medical schools 

 which are a part of universities, but the plan 

 is having an even more difficult time to win 

 support than did the earlier experiment with 

 the scientific side. It is not yet clearly under- 

 stood by our students and has therefore not 

 yet won their enthusiastic sympathy; and it is 

 still actively opposed by some of tlie medical 

 profession. The reasons for these difficulties 

 are threefold: first, the failure to keep the 



fundamental principles involved distinct from 

 personalities; second, the greater complexity 

 of the actual scientific problems involved, and 

 third, certain practical difficulties in putting 

 the plan into effect. 



The fundamental principle, as I see it, is a 

 recognition of the value of education to the 

 community. It states boldly that a great edu- 

 cator in clinical medicine is as great an asset 

 to the co mm unity as a great practitioner of 

 medicine. To set any great value on teaching 

 runs counter to popular belief. If you are 

 accustomed to look facts in the face you will 

 admit this to be true. You all know the 

 phrase, "he who can, does; he who can not, 

 teaches." You all remember that the most fre- 

 quent criticism of Wilson was that his train- 

 ing had been only that of a teacher. In Wells' 

 history there is a statement of the exact truth 

 about education; that we treat it in a beg- 

 garly, niggardly way. The funds for edu- 

 cation are in part an endowment that is givea 

 by a few people; and, in part, they have been 

 won from unwilling and uncomprehending 

 legislatures. What a pitiful contrast do the 

 sums we spend on teaching make with the 

 sums we spend on war! 



In studying the problem, it is first essential 

 to analyze the relation of research to teaching. 

 On the scientific side, it is now established 

 with sound wisdom that all teachers should be 

 engaged in research. It is based on the idea 

 that universities shall be the home of intellec- 

 tual progress; that they should have a double 

 function, the advancement of knowledge and 

 the training of those who shall carry it on. 

 Research is the teacher's own professional 

 work, it is that which he does; it makes plain 

 to his students and to his colleagues the quality 

 of his mentality and it is his contribution to 

 the knowledge of his day. Only to minds of 

 feeble comprehension does the carrying on of 

 research mean any lessening of the value of 

 teaching; research lifts teaching to a higher 

 plane. It is perhaps better to say that no one 

 can be a really great educator unless he is him- 

 self an investigator, either in the subject mat- 

 ter or in the methods of education, and can 

 lead students, in part, into research, and, in 

 part, to carry into all work the spirit and 



