June 6, 1913] 



SCIENCE 



853 



chemists, physiologists, pathologists or re- 

 search workers. The whole body of stu- 

 dents should not be compelled to spend a 

 disproportionate amount of time and 

 energy upon topics which will be of use to 

 a few only. Opportunity should be given 

 to those who wish to pursue any subject 

 beyond that given as part of the general 

 instruction, but unfortunately our rigid 

 curriculum prevents it. The student's 

 time is too fully occupied to allow of elec- 

 tives or to take extra work in subjects in 

 which he is interested, without neglecting 

 obligatory courses. It has been well said 

 that our system is a "lock-step" one. 



The student should be so instructed in 

 the fundamental principles of the science 

 subjects that after graduation he may keep 

 pace intelligently and be able to utilize 

 further discoveries of these sciences as ap- 

 plied to scientific medicine. Beyond this 

 we can not go. 



In our attempt to make our student sci- 

 entific we are defeating our object by in- 

 sisting on too great detail, before he can 

 understand the principles. The teaching 

 of a subject as a pure science, without ap- 

 plication to clinical subjects, causes him to 

 have no motive or interest in it and to 

 throw it overboard as soon as examinations 

 are past. 



While all agree that the inductive 

 method is the proper one, when pushed to 

 the extreme the method breaks down. 

 This is a woeful waste of the students' time 

 in the "work it out for themselves" 

 method of some teachers. 



The statement is frequently made that 

 students do not carry with them beyond 

 the examination period that general knowl- 

 edge of anatomy, chemistry, physiology 

 and pathology which should be a lifelong 

 possession. 



The reason that the students do not have 



a better grasp on the science subjects is 

 because medical education has become less 

 homogeneous. Under the old system, the 

 primary or science subjects were taken at 

 the same time that the clinical ones were. 

 The student thus gained an inkling of the 

 relation of his science subjects to his clin- 

 ical work. At the present time, this rela- 

 tion is not apparent to the student unless it 

 is pointed out to him. The science years 

 are becoming more and more divorced 

 from the clinical, and the fact should be 

 recognized and the tendency corrected. 



From my study of the methods of in- 

 struction given in many of the medical 

 schools, I believe that teachers of the sci- 

 ence branches are largely to blame for 

 this. That the science subjects should be 

 taught by specialists is conceded by all, 

 and they are rightly in charge of the 

 years devoted to their subjects. They 

 have had a hard fight to gain recognition 

 and are hostile toward any movement to 

 introduce into these years any clinical 

 work, and many have gone so far as to in- 

 sist that it is not their function to give 

 any definite application to the subject. 

 This has made necessary the introduction 

 of applied courses in the different subjects 

 to bridge the gap between the science and 

 clinical years. Too often these courses 

 when given have to be taught by teachers 

 not connected with the science subjects. 

 The science teachers, especially if engrossed 

 in research work, are too apt to teach only 

 the more scientifically interesting features 

 and consider that they have done their 

 duty when they have given the lecture 

 courses of their subject, and leave to their 

 assistants the more important laboratory in- 

 struction. The majority of these giving 

 the laboratory courses are young and inex- 

 perienced teachers who have not had the 

 advantage of a medical training, and their 



