144 



SCIENCE 



[Vol. LV, No. 1415 



hospital to laboratory, but in larger part to 

 a failiu-e to provide in sufa.eient measure those 

 conditions that serve to attract able thinkers 

 and men of action to the work. One can not 

 in this connection avoid asking as to whether 

 or not the American mind really possesses 

 the qualities that make for scientific acumen. 

 There can be no question but that it does. If 

 proof of this is needed it is furnished by the 

 development of astronomy in the United States. 

 Astronomy is a science that appeals stronglj' 

 to the popular mind and on that account early 

 won the support of American philanthropies. 

 That this confidence was not misplaced is in- 

 dicated by Pickering's figures which show that 

 of the six American men of science who, as 

 has been said, are members of two or more 

 foreign scientific academies, three, or one-half 

 the number, are astronomers. If Americans 

 can become prominent in astronomy, why not 

 in medical science also? 



In explanation of the present difficulties it 

 has been suggested that we are not provid- 

 ing a suitable course of training for those who 

 otherwise are adapted to a career in medical 

 science. This is entirely aside from the sub- 

 ject discussed above of the quality of present 

 day teachers. The training calculated to give 

 the best preparation for the pursuit of medi- 

 cal science is so different for the several 

 sciences that within the limits of this paper 

 it will be possible to discuss the subject in 

 general terms only. In preparation for any of 

 the sciences, with the possible exception of 

 pathology, the training may be either medi- 

 cal or philosophical. In most of our bettor 

 universities, either of these preparations may 

 be and has been pursued, with the result that 

 there are today in the chairs of our more 

 prominent laboratories of physiology, for ex- 

 ample, almost as many doctors of philosophy 

 as doctors of medicine. There is nothing ob- 

 vious in the careers of the two groups thus 

 differently trained that leads to the conclusion 

 that one set has had any decided advantage 

 over the other. To be sure, those entering the 

 field of preclinical science tkrough the medi- 

 cal gateway, are less apt to have received in- 

 struction in physical chemistry or in advanced 



mathematics and physics, subjects which are 

 helpful in all types of experimental work, 

 especially in physiology. But at the risk of 

 making a trite remark, it may be said that 

 training does not end upon the receipt of a 

 degree. All of us in the course of om- careers 

 have seen young men of talent rise to the 

 occasion and acquire the mathematics or the 

 physics, or what not, that happened to be neces- 

 sary' to provide them with the power to solve 

 the problems of their choosing. It seems ob- 

 vious, therefore, that it is more the quality 

 of the brain than any particular training that 

 makes for success in investigation. 



In connection with the establishment of re- 

 search laboratories for physiology, chemistry, 

 biology, etc., manned by full time investigators, 

 in direct connection with the clinics, the ques- 

 tion of the advisability of a division of labor 

 has arisen. At one extreme it has been main- 

 tained (Cole) that these clinical laboratories 

 must be complete in every detail, and abso- 

 lutely independent of the departments of the 

 "contributing sciences" — "anatomy, physiology 

 and pharmacology" though if necessary "to 

 give advice .... specialists in the vari- 

 ous branches of science can always be em- 

 ployed (italics mine) .... to give ad- 

 vice": while at the Other extreme are those 

 (Henderson) who feel that these clinical 

 laboratories should be in direct charge of the 

 fundamental departments after which they are 

 named. It would seem, however, that the best 

 policy to pursue is not to adopt any particular 

 system, but merely to provide equal opportu- 

 nities for the two groups of workers, one in- 

 terested primarily in the fimdaments, the other 

 in their clinical applications. Neither group 

 should nor would be debarred from poaching 

 on the other's domains; there is no devotee to 

 pure science who knowingly would fail to at 

 least point out any practical application of 

 the results of his investigations ; neither should 

 a clinical scientist be frowned upon if per- 

 chance his research should lead him intp the 

 realm of general principles. But in general, 

 and in the interests of a helpful division of 

 labor, a fuU time sm-geon, for instance, would 

 be expected to devote himself to surgery, per- 



