January 12, 1917] 



SCIENCE 



31 



The problem I have given you is one of 

 the simplest with which we have to deal. 

 Conceive of the far greater complexity if 

 we introduce an immune serum against the 

 staphylococcus in such an experiment de- 

 signed to increase the resistance of the rab- 

 bit to which it is given, and you will 

 imagine where the real complexity of our 

 science begins. Such a serum differs in its 

 potency with the individual animal that 

 has produced it, with its age after with- 

 drawal from the animal body, and with the 

 method by which it has been conserved; 

 in other words, it introduces another vari- 

 able factor. I may again define our mode 

 of experimentation as differing from that 

 of chemistry in requiring the introduction 

 of simultaneous, external controls, the ob- 

 ject of such controls being simply to de- 

 fine the effect of those conditions which we 

 recognize as contributing to a given result. 



Such differences as these, then, lead me 

 to think that even great experience in one 

 type of experiment will not fit one directly 

 for experimentation of another sort. I do 

 not mean to intimate that training in 

 methods of precision is not of value, how- 

 ever different the conditions may be, but 

 the best training for a given end lies in 

 work and more work with the intrinsic 

 materials involved, not so much as leading 

 to greater technical accuracy as tending 

 towards the establishment of an essentially 

 specialized experimental viewpoint. 



We come now to mention the value of 

 multiple scientific experiences as fitting one 

 for the larger synthesis or generalization 

 in a given science. I have not reached that 

 age where such generalizations as I mean 

 appeal to me as the more important field 

 in the experimental sciences, although I 

 recognize that they are eventually neces- 

 sary to present our work as a whole and in 

 its practical aspects to the world at large. 

 Such generalizations do, of course, imply 



factual knowledge of the wider sort, and I 

 must confess to being awed at times by the 

 aptness of apparent analogies between the 

 better-known conditions which exist in one 

 science in explaining formative theories in 

 another science. Personally, I also usually 

 doubt the rigorous exactness of the conclu- 

 sions drawn in respect to the significance 

 of any one science by one who handles 

 freely the data of several sciences. I sus- 

 pect at once the reportorial viewpoint, the 

 existence of second or third hand, and ever 

 so slightly garbled information. I am in- 

 clined to trust the solution of my problems 

 to a combination of specialists rather than 

 to the superman. Here again I plead for 

 collaboration. 



In our great, vital and complex science 

 of medicine we can see, I think, an illus- 

 tration of the ultimate value of intensive 

 specialization and of deliberate or chance 

 collaboration. Out of indefinite, specula- 

 tive, empirical, bedside methods of the 

 practitioner, have emerged, through the 

 stimulus of the exact sciences, a growing 

 number of increasingly accurate and effec- 

 tive laboratory branches. These labora- 

 tory sciences have become of practical 

 value in the diagnosis, prevention and cure 

 of disease, precisely as they have become 

 separate entities and have fallen into the 

 hands of whole-souled and intensive spe- 

 cialists. I make no mention here of the in- 

 tellectually satisfying value of a concrete 

 body of similar facts which constitutes a 

 science. The relatively rapid applicability 

 of the data of laboratory medicine to hu- 

 man welfare is at once an enormous stim- 

 ulus to accomplishment and also a poten- 

 tial danger, owing to the possibility of too 

 rapid generalization and application to 

 meet a practical need. There are many 

 who are impatiently waiting with indi- 

 vidual needs in mind to apply any method 

 of apparent value we may devise, and it 



