August 10, 1917] 



SCIENCE 



129 



groups. This difference is best explained by 

 the fact that of the four students whose scho- 

 lastic careers have been diagramed above, 

 B and D have usually placed most intensive 

 study on a very small field of science or art, 

 ■while A and have given less intensive study 

 to a relatively much broader field. Inciden- 

 tally also, A and are apt to have come more 

 closely in contact with living conditions, with 

 science in the making as it were, than have 

 B and D. The question is open to discussion 

 whether B and D may not have concentrated 

 too early and may not later suffer from lack of 

 a broad knowledge of the science in the narrow 

 field in which they have specialized and of 

 other sciences related thereto. Some of the 

 possibilities in this respect are pointed out by 

 Stephen Leacock in one of his delightful 

 " Essays and Literary Studies." Be this as it 

 may, certainly A and C at least should be 

 well able to see the broader relationship of 

 narrow lines of scientific investigation. The 

 question of present concern, however, is not the 

 breadth of their culture — which unfortunately 

 is usually all too narrow to enable them to get 

 the most real enjoyment out of life — but rather 

 the amount of their scientific ability, i. e., 

 their ability to utilize in new ways old scien- 

 tific truths and to discover, as well as to util- 

 ize, new scientific truths. 



his native ability or the amount of his pre- 

 medical and graduate study not represented by 

 formal schooling. But in comparing large 

 groups these factors may fairly be assumed to 

 approximately cancel each other. 



Turning then to the question in hand — 

 namely, the relative scientific ability of men 

 who have ended their schooling with the at- 

 tainment of the M.D. degree as compared with 

 those who have obtained the Ph.D. degree, we 

 may, I think, start with the premise that med- 

 ical science in America has at least kept 

 abreast with any other science during the last 

 quarter of a century. We might indeed be 

 within the truth in saying that it has led in 

 development, but for the purpose of the pres- 

 ent essay, it is but necessary to assume that 

 it has been equal to any other. The second 

 premise, which we may lay down without 

 question, is that the progress in medical sci- 

 ences has been made by the men who are in the 

 medical profession. It may further be postu- 

 lated that in the United States most of the 

 men who are responsible for the progress of 

 medical science are members of the various 

 medical societies whose membership is limited 

 to those who have attained some distinction in 

 some special field of medicine. It is presum- 

 able that there are instances of general prac- 

 titioners who are not members of any society 



TABLE 1 



Analysis of Scholastic Degrees of Memhers of Certain Clinical Medical Societies 



Name of Society 



American Surgical Association 



Association of American Physicians 



American Orthopedic Association 



American .■Association of Obstetricians and Gynecologists 



American Pediatric Society 



American Laryngological, Rhinological and Otological Society 



Totals 



Total 

 Number 

 Members 

 Whose De- 

 grees Were 

 Found 



169 



147 

 116 

 167 

 66 

 196 



100 

 100 

 100 

 100 

 100 

 100 



M.D. and 

 A.B. or 

 Eaulv. 



M.D. 

 and 

 Ph.D. 



861 



100 



56 



42 



The estimation of the relative scientific 

 ability of members of the various groups is 

 very difficult. Even if we could measure accu- 

 rately each individual's scientific accomplish- 

 ments we still might be in the dark concerning 



of the kind herein analyzed, and who yet have 

 added materially not only to the practise, but 

 also to the science of medicine. Such indi- 

 viduals, however, must be so few that their 

 omission would have relatively little to do with 



