January 26, 1917] 



SCIENCE 



81 



of the assumptions made are not very 

 plausible. 



At first thought, one might conclude that, 

 with ttie problem of asymmetric syntheses 

 as with the problem of life itself, the main 

 difficulty is to account for the initial step. 

 Given the unit living cell, all others might 

 have developed from this; likewise given 

 the unit asymmetric group, this might serve 

 as the "seed" from which all the countless 

 forms that exist in nature may have sprung. 

 Granting, however, that the formation of 

 the original asymmetric group or groups is 

 satisfactorily explained, another perplex- 

 ing question at once presents itself. For 

 with perhaps a single exception, in all the 

 partial asymmetric syntheses effected in the 

 laboratory, both forms have been produced. 

 In other words, the best we can do is to 

 synthesize the one form in excess of the 

 other and as a rule this excess is only slight. 

 On the other hand, out of all the infinite 

 variety of optically active compounds found 

 in nature, only in very rare instances are 

 both forms found. Ordinary lactic acid, 

 produced by the fermentation of lactose, 

 contains both forms, although in slightly 

 unequal amounts: dZ-limonene (dipentene) 

 occurs in certain turpentine oils, while levo- 

 asparagine is found in some plants along 

 with small amounts of the dextro compound. 

 In the laboratory, therefore, the production 

 of both forms is the almost invariable rule ; 

 in nature it is the marked exception. To 

 explain this difference upon the assumption 

 that the methods of nature like those of 

 the laboratory lead to the synthesis of 

 both forms, one of which is destroyed as 

 fast as generated, is, in the light of our 

 present knowledge, quite as unsatisfactory 

 as is the assumption that one form only is 

 produced. 



The assumption that there exists in the 

 living organism a vital or guiding force 

 which directs the changes that take place 



within the organism has never been a pop- 

 ular one among chemists. It is fortunate 

 that this is so, for to accept such a belief 

 would be to destroy the spirit of investiga- 

 tion, so far as it applies to a study of many 

 of the problems connected with the living 

 organism. However, the chemist, familiar 

 with the wonderful results that may be ac- 

 complished through the action of chemical 

 forces and recognizing that as yet we have 

 but little insight into the nature of these 

 forces, is apt to ascribe to them powers 

 that can not be justified in the light of the 

 knowledge at hand. 



The discovery of Wohler that urea can be 

 synthesized in the laboratory was of the 

 greatest importance; but neither the syn- 

 thesis of urea nor the synthesis of any other 

 of the almost countless number of com- 

 pounds effected in the laboratory actually 

 disproves the existence of a vital force in 

 the living organism. Likewise it is cer- 

 tain, to my mind at least, that while the 

 facts of asymmetric synthesis, so far as we 

 can discern at the present time, do not 

 prove the existence of such a force in the 

 living organism, neither do they present 

 any valid argument against the belief in its 

 existence. So far as they have a bearing 

 upon the question, life remains as it always 

 has been — the great mystery. 



William McPherson 

 Ohio State TJniveesitt, 

 Columbus, Ohio 



SCIENTIFIC EVENTS 



MINUTE ON THE LIFE AND SERVICES OF 

 HUGO MiJNSTERBERG 



The following minute on the life and serv- 

 ices of Professor Hugo Miinsterberg was 

 placed upon the records of the faculty of arts 

 and sciences of Harvard University at the 

 meeting of January 16, 1917: 



Hugo Muusterberg, professor of psychology, died 

 in Cambridge on the sixteenth of December, 1916. 

 He was born in Danzig, West Prussia, June 1, 

 1863. After leaving the gymnasium in his native 



