January 14, 1916] 



SCIENCE 



71 



difference as 90 per cent, between some 

 strains. 



In Section TV. the various hypotheses con- 

 cerning the origin of cancer and in a second 

 chapter the predisposing causes are discussed, 

 Ehrlich's " atreptic theory " ought to have 

 been included in the first chapter; it is, as far 

 as the etiology of cancer is concerned, a mere 

 hypothesis and not one of the " predisposing 

 causes." Long-continued action of Roentgen 

 rays might almost be considered as " essen- 

 tial " and not merely a " predisposing " cause, 

 if we bear in mind the great number of early 

 Eoentgen-ray operators who developed cancer 

 of the exposed skin. The argumentation of 

 C. P. White, apparently refuting as unthink- 

 able a parasitic origin of cancer, is given in 

 detail. !N"otwithstanding this argumentation, 

 certain sarcomata of fowl which in their be- 

 havior seem to be distinguishable from human 

 sarcomata, may perhaps be caused by micro- 

 organisms. 



The section in histopathology contains a 

 series of clear drawings. The description is 

 of necessity brief. The purely local origin of 

 cancer is emphasized. The origin of rodent 

 ulcer is declared to be still uncertain, despite 

 the fact that recent investigations have un- 

 doubtedly shown that in certain cases at 

 least it originates in the epidermis. 



Section VI. deals with " Cancer Research — 

 a Resume of the World's Work." The author 

 has in view especially experimental research. 

 Thirty-six pages are devoted to this chapter. 

 Here we have to deal mainly with a resume of 

 the work of the English Cancer Research Fund. 

 American work is to a great extent ignored. 

 Not rarely when a fact established by an 

 American author is mentioned, the author's 

 name is not mentioned, so that a reader un- 

 familiar with the history of cancer research 

 would be inclined to attribute the work to 

 the English cancer research and to conclude 

 that A m erican research played a very sub- 

 ordinate part in this field. Such an assump- 

 tion, however, would be incorrect, and it is to 

 be deplored that much of the important work 

 of Tyzzer, G-aylord, Flexner and Jobling, 

 Weil, Levin, Sweet, Corson- White and Saxon, 



Eleisher and others is not mentioned. Peyton 

 Rous's name is omitted in the brief reference 

 to his work in this chapter. The early work 

 on Chicago rat sarcoma is entirely omitted, 

 although the survival of the tumor cells after 

 transplantation had been demonstrated at an 

 early period of this investigation. 



It is not possible to go into a detailed 

 criticism of some of the views expressed in 

 this chapter; we may mention, however, a 

 few statements with which issue might be 

 taken. Bashford's and Murray's views as to 

 the rhythm of tumor cells is accepted as 

 proven; the work of other investigators 

 (especially M. S. Eleisher) who arrived at 

 different conclusions, is ignored. It is taken 

 for granted that tumor cells differ from or- 

 dinary tissue cells in their potential power of 

 unlimited growth, while on the contrary this 

 characteristic is common to both kinds of cells 

 and the difference consists essentially in the 

 increase in cell multiplication in the case of 

 tumor cells, as the reviewer pointed out many 

 years ago. The fact that animals can, 

 through immunization, be protected against 

 successful inoculation with foreign, but not 

 with their own tumors, is erroneously as- 

 stmied to prove that no external element can 

 be concerned in the origin of cancer, while 

 this fact merely proves that an organism 

 usually can be immunized much more readily 

 against foreign cells than against its own, and 

 also that in the first origin of tumors other 

 factors are concerned than in the continued 

 growth of established tumors. "No conclusion 

 can be drawn from this fact as to the 

 presence or absence of parasites within the 

 tumor cell. The work of Uhlenhuth which 

 to a great extent disposes definitely of the 

 hypothesis of athrepsia, is not mentioned. 



In the second part, dealing with the clinical 

 aspect of cancer, the clinical course of the 

 disease, diagnosis, prophylaxis, treatment by 

 surgical and non-surgical means, are dis- 

 cussed. Various quack treatments are also 

 described. Especial attention is given to 

 Handley's work dealing with the extension of 

 mammary cancer, to the fulguration treat- 

 ment and thermoradiotherapy of de Keating 



