JULY 7, 1899.] 
by the breadth of their sympathies and by 
their manifold interests. Thisis the natural 
consequence of their having to deal con- 
stantly, for themselves and for others, with 
the problem of conduct in all its aspects. 
In contrast with all these liberal quali- 
ties we find too commonly an attitude to- 
ward pure science and toward biology 
which seems to me much the reverse of lib- 
era]. I must go farther and say frankly 
that this prevailing attitude marks an im- 
portant limitation of the medical profession, 
‘and that it points to defects in our system 
of medical education. Courageous acknowl- 
edgment of our needs is the first step to- 
wards satisfying them. I shall now en- 
deavor to convince you that the criticism 
made is not only just, but that it discovers 
the way for vast educational progress, and 
I trust that in the end you will feel the 
point of view to be both friendly and helpful. 
- The mental attitude, the modification of 
which seems to me so desirable, reveals it- 
self by distrust of pure science and by 
ignoring the relations of medicine to biol- 
ogy. Let us consider the case in its two 
phases. 
First, then, as to science. To the academic 
proposition that science is the basis of medi- 
cine every one would assent, but, none the 
less, a great many practitioners still draw a 
sharp line between ‘ theoretical’ and ‘ prac- 
tical’ doctors. Those who think this dis- 
tinction are, of course, ‘practical’ men, 
and they are guilty of a triple error: first, 
that scientific is theoretical; second, that 
theoretical is impractical ; third, that prac- 
tical is superior to theoretical. This mis- 
‘conception still exerts influence, although it 
is certainly waning. Make it your part to 
‘hasten its extermination. 
The feeling against medical science as 
‘impractical has been very strong in Amer- 
ica, probably stronger than anywhere else 
in the world. Our colonial ancestors had 
to help themselves in every thing, and we 
‘of many here present. 
SCIENCE. 3 
have apparently inherited the belief that 
any way is the best way, and that expert 
capacity is a luxe de trop. We must remem- 
ber, too, that medicine grew up as an art, 
not as a science, and that such progress 
as it made until this century was well along 
was chiefly by empirical experience. 
It is only for about fifty years that re- 
search, properly so-called, has been an im- 
portant factor, only about twenty-five years 
that it has been the leading factor in med- 
ical progress. It is, therefore, not to be 
wondered at that older practitioners, espe- 
cially if without intercourse with university 
centers, are unconscious of the full measure 
of the change. The change is momentous, 
yet it has been so rapid that it falls largely 
within the period of the medical experience 
Another curious 
factor in establishing and maintaining the 
notion that science is unpractical was the 
conventional idea of a scientific man, which 
prevailed even within thirty years, and 
which I can perfectly recall as a half-ac- 
cepted standard when I decided to choose 
science for my career. This conventional 
scientist was a man past middle life, who 
wore an unfashionable hat, large spectacles, 
ill-fitting clothes, who was more or less ab- 
sorbed in abstruse ideas and in studies of 
no practical use, really learned, very absent- 
minded and more rather than less in need of 
being looked after by somebody with com- 
mon sense. It was almost necessary for a 
scientific man to cultivate absence of mind 
in order to sustain his reputation. It would 
certainly be an interesting study to trace 
the history of this phase of American sci- 
ence, since it was a phase, though a quaint 
one, of the eternal assertion that the best 
science is independent of immediate utilita- 
rian consideration. 
Resuming the direct course of our thought, 
we may say that on the one side the notion 
that ‘scientific’ is synonymous with ‘un- 
practical ’ has its historical justification, but 
