4 SCIENCE. 
on the other side it is now only a survival, 
an unjust opinion, a prejudice to be sur- 
rendered unconditionally. The prejudice 
against science has been very influential. 
Even fifteen years ago a young physician 
could not afford, no matter how much leisure 
he might have, to work in a scientific 
laboratory, because he would have been 
stigmatized as ‘theoretical’ and patients 
would have been turned away. I speak by 
chapter and verse, for I know many in- 
stances of young men beginning good re- 
search work, and then soon being compelled 
to give it up, by the force of professional 
opinion. We now know that this opinion 
was in large part a prejudice, the disappear- 
ance of which removes the final barrier 
across the entrance to the new era, which 
it has taken our entire century to open, 
The establishment of science in its rightful 
place has been going on steadily for a long 
period, but within five years it has rushed 
towards its culmination. We owe the com- 
plete medical recognition of the value of 
pure science to Bacteriology. Listen to the 
following dates. In 1879 Koch introduced 
the method of solid cultures; in 1882 he 
published his monograph announcing the 
discovery of the bacillus of tuberculosis. 
In 1884 came Loffler’s paper on the bacillus 
of diphtheria. In 1891 appeared Council- 
man’s account of the amceba of dysentery- 
At the International Medical Congress in 
1893 Roux described the use of antitoxine 
in diphtheria, and about the same time 
McFadyean secured recognition for the 
value of mallein in the diagnosis of glanders. 
In 1896 came Vidal’s reaction for identify- 
ing the germs of typhoid fever. 
Here were results entirely beyond the ken 
of the practitioner, laboratory discoveries 
which he could only accept but not verify 
for himself, although in their application he 
could furnish dramatic proof of their value. 
No wonder that science now receives her 
meed. 
[N.S. Von. X. No. 236. 
It is safe to prophesy that hereafter medical 
science and medical practice will be both 
more sharply divided and more intimately 
correlated than heretofore. We already 
note that the experience of the clinician can 
rarely do more than effect improvements in 
methods, while the new principles come 
from the laboratories. The clinician may 
ask good questions, but he now depends so 
much upon the scientific worker for his an- 
swers that there is a sudden demand for 
laboratories in connection with every hospi- 
tal. This demand marks the final uncon- 
ditional surrender of the practitioner to 
pure science. The end is not yet. It is 
not enough that the value of scientific re- 
search is at last acknowledged, but the prac- 
titioner must also adopt the scientific 
method for himself. 
What doI mean by the scientific method ? 
There is much vague misconception con- 
cerning it, based upon the erroneous as- 
sumption that it is a peculiar method be- 
longing toscience. Itis really only the right 
method of ascertaining the objective truth- 
It is in the classic words of von Baer, 
Beobachtung und Reflexion, observation and 
reasoning. The student at the microscope 
looking at nuclei and protoplasm and de- 
riving therefrom a correct conception of the 
nature of a cell uses the scientific method, 
-and he uses the scientific method again 
when he observes the symptoms of patients 
and reasons therefrom. There is nothing 
to distinguish the scientific method from 
the methods of every-day life except its 
precision. It is not a difference in kind or 
quality, but a quantitative difference, which 
marks the work of the true scientist and 
gives it validity. The definition of the 
scientific method seems simplicity itself, 
nevertheless it takes years upon years of 
the severest discipline to give even a par- 
tial mastery of the method, because to ob- 
serve correctly and reason correctly are the 
most difficult accomplishments a man can 
