JUNE 21, 1912] 
As medicine progresses, all phases appear more 
clearly as varied manifestations of the same under- 
lying biological science, and only when this is 
realized will the clinical and laboratory work be 
more closely knitted together. 
As for the student, it is suggested that he 
work out everything for himself by the method of 
discovery. This applies not only to the original 
observations, but also to the latter process of 
reasoning, whereby we proceed from particular 
data to general conclusions, and thence to rational 
action. The method of self-activity may therefore 
be expressed in a negative way by the following 
practical rules: Never tell a student anything he 
can observe for himself; never draw a conclusion 
or solve a problem which he can be led to reason 
out for himself; and never do anything for him 
that he can do for himself. 
There are, of course, limitations to the 
application of this method, as lack of time, 
an overcrowded curriculum, inability on 
the part of the teacher to fully grasp the 
situation, and failure to always maintain 
sustained effort on the part of the student, 
but its value over the lecture system is so 
great that it should be followed in ‘‘so far 
as practicable’’ (Jackson) and should be 
supplemented by demonstrations and con- 
ferences or recitations rather than by lec- 
tures, if one truly seeks to prepare prop- 
erly for the practise of medicine. 
Influence of the Spirit of Investigation. 
—But aside from this training the univer- 
sity has another duty to the prospective 
practitioner of medicine. This is its duty 
in the encouragement of investigation, 
which is indeed a double duty, a duty to its 
students and a duty to the community it 
serves. 
The question of allowing undergraduates 
to undertake independent original investi- 
gation is, I know, a debatable one. Cer- 
tainly in most schools our overcrowded cur- 
riculum renders such work impossible un- 
less a wise arrangement allows elective 
studies, as at Harvard in the fourth year, 
or as at Johns Hopkins in each year. My 
SCIENCE 
949 
remarks on this subject are therefore based 
on the assumption that an elective system 
is possible in every school. 
As every teacher knows, each class con- 
tains a considerable number of men who 
desire to pursue work, to a greater extent 
than the conventional course allows, on cer- 
tain subjects or by special methods, or less 
frequently, perhaps, they desire, and are 
usually well qualified to undertake, minor 
investigative work. To the former, as well 
as to the latter, any effort spent in work 
beyond that given the entire class becomes, 
necessarily, for them, the acquirement of 
the methods of research and as this means 
a knowledge of the exact, painstaking 
methods by which the realms of the un- 
known are explored, it is an exercise which 
prepares the student for the daily routine 
research work of the physician who truly 
practises his profession. As a training for 
future work, its value is definitely known 
and the increased zest and enthusiasm ex- 
hibited toward their medical work by men 
who have had this opportunity are always 
evident. Pedagogically, therefore, it would 
seem advisable that every student should 
have the opportunity for minor investiga- 
tive effort, in order that he may become 
acquainted at first hand with the careful 
methods of experimental medicine. The 
bearing of the tangible results of his work 
on the subject investigated is a matter of 
little or no importance; the vital thing is 
the increased power which he himself ac- 
quires. 
There is another way in which the en- 
couragement of research aids the student, 
but which is possible only to those schools 
following the wise policy of appointing to 
professorial chairs, teachers who are like- 
wise investigators. The influence of such 
teachers in the development of independent 
and resourceful practitioners is the secret 
of the great success of our better schools. 
