« AnteriorContinuar »
mals? In my opinion, the professor of medicine must be prepared to study the symptoms and the more superficial manifestations of disease as seen in patients, as well as to carry on complicated laboratory investigations. It is chiefly through the observations of patients that clues are obtained as to the proper direction the more complicated studies should take. It is true that much knowledge concerning disease has been obtained by bedside study alone. In the present state of the science of medicine, however, this method of study is now relatively unproductive, and unless combined with more elaborate and complicated methods is likely to result chiefly in the elaboration of theories. While theories are of importance in the study of disease, just as they are in all scientific inquiry, they are of little value, until tested by experiment.
An additional reason why professors of medicine should have a wide knowledge of disease as it occurs in man is that they will themselves have to be responsible for the care and treatment of human beings sick of disease. It is essential not only that no harm come to the patients who are the objects of study but that everything possible be done to bring every one to a state of health, or as near that as possible.
To avoid the necessity of having as teachers of the science of medicine only such men as have enjoyed a wide experience with disease in all its forms and who possess a knowledge of the craft or art of practise, two makeshifts have already been attempted. One expedient has been to have men skilled in practical medicine take over the actual care of the patients, while the real studies are made by those who have special knowledge of one of the sciences, but who have no knowledge of practise, possibly no knowledge of disease. For instance, the physiologist is invited into the clinic to make observations or studies on certain cases. In some instances this method has no doubt led to advances in knowledge. It has distinct limitations, however. Oftentimes the facts accumulated in this way have very little immediate practical significance, whereas if the observations had been made by persons properly trained in medicine, possibly only a slight
modification in the methods employed would have made the data obtained of great practical value. Combined investigation such as this has made little impression on the method of study of disease or on the men who are constantly engaged in the study or practise of medicine. Indeed it has a blighting effect on the scientific aspirations or scholarly ambitions of the men in the department of medicine. Specialists in the various branches of science can always be employed in the university department of medicine to give advice, to assist, and even to share in investigations, but the department will reach its greatest effectiveness only when the men engaged in teaching medicine and in investigating disease have not only a wide knowledge of disease as it occurs in man, but special training in one or more of the so-called contributing sciences as well.
The second expedient is to establish in connection with the medical school a department of experimental medicine, or research medicine. This is neither sound in theory nor effective in practise. It is better than nothing, but its establishment in a medical school means that the teaching of medicine will go on in the same old way, although a certain amount of reputation may accrue to the school from the fact that investigations are carried on within its walls. The employment of this makeshift has arisen from a disinclination to make any fundamental change in the old order, while recognizing that change is necessary. It arises from the recognition by those already engaged in teaching that they are not prepared to adopt new methods. These teachers do not object, however, to grafting a new department on the old one, so long as they personally retain their old prestige and perquisites. In certain schools, both in this country and in Europe, it has been proposed to divide the medical school clinics into several units, one or more of these units to retain their old character, more or less obviously, one or more to be organized into socalled full-time or university clinics, the latter term being the one which I prefer because it puts the emphasis upon the character of the work. If certain schools want to try out this method, one can not object. It is very doubt
ful, however, whether the need for reform can be met in this manner and it seems that the reorganization of the medical teaching in such a half-hearted way is almost bound to result in failure.
It will be noted that up to the present I have not mentioned full-time or part-time employment as applied to teachers. With the conception of a department such as I have tried to present, this question settles itself. To make scientific progress requires all of the time of the most able-bodied and able-minded men that we now possess. We are not discussing a practical trade school, but a scientific university department dealing with one of the most interesting, the most important and the most complex branches of human knowledge. Could any teacher engaged in this great work want to neglect it to engage in a practical pursuit for money? If so, he has no place in this institution. If public humanitarian appeals should sometimes call him away from his hospital and laboratory, probably that would be good for him. In any case, it does not seem that we need to worry that this will interfere too much with his work, unless human nature changes.
The very important question may now be raised whether the proposed plan would not have exactly the opposite effect on the development of the science of medicine from that intended. If men in the departments of physiology and anatomy and the other contributing sciences should no longer engage in the solution of medical problems, would not the result be disastrous? It is not intended, however, that the organization of the department of medicine in the manner described would prevent men in any other department of the university from undertaking the solution of medical problems. Men in the department of physiology have been known to contribute to anatomical knowledge and the investigations in the department of anatomy are not infrequently directed toward the solution of physiological questions. It is to be hoped and expected that in the future as in the past all the departments of biological and physical and chemical science will bring contributions to
medicine. The fact that the department of medicine is itself investigating the problems of disease need have no deterring influence on these other departments; indeed this fact would undoubtedly increase the interest of the other departments in medical science. On the other hand, the university medical clinic might itself become a contributor to these other sciences. For instance, it will not infrequently happen that in order to approach its own problems, the medical clinic may first have to undertake the solution of problems which are commonly studied in the chemical laboratory or the physiological laboratory, and so on. Indeed, under certain circumstances it may be necessary to devise new bacteriological or chemical methods or new physical apparatus. Neither the student of medicine nor the student of any other branch of science should be restricted in his methods; though the student of medicine may not lose sight of the fact, that however far off his goal, his ultimate concern is with the problems of disease.
I firmly believe that if a department of medicine such as has been described were established in a first-class university, a greater advance would be made in medical teaching and in medical science and practise than was made in this country twenty-five years ago.
The one essential premise is that there exists or can be created such a thing as a science of medicine. If this is true, this science can best be fostered by giving it a place in which it can grow unhampered by the restrictions of practise. Medicine must be regarded as a real science, not an "applied science." The proper applications are important but in this place they should not dominate.
Let us labor to place the teaching of medicine in its true position. Let us emancipate the student, and give him time and opportunity for the cultivation of his mind, so that in his pupilage he shall not be a puppet in the hands of others, but rather a self-relying and reflecting being. Let us ever foster the general education in preference to the special training, not ignoring the latter, but seeing that it be not thrust upon a mind uncultivated or degraded. Let us strive to encourage every means of large and liberal education in the true sense of
the term, and so help to place and sustain our noble profession in the position which it ought to occupy. (William Stokes, 1861.)
RUFUS COLE HOSPITAL OF THE ROCKEFELLER INSTITUTE, NEW YORK CITY
RAYMOND B. EARLE1
WE unveil this portrait of Professor Earle, the gift of his wife to Hunter College, not because those of us who were so fortunate as to know him, ever need any portrait to keep his memory living in our hearts. That beloved memory is too securely enshrined. We have no need for ourselves, to recount his successes or his charm. But for the sake of those who did not know him, memory lingers now a moment to view some of the sources and manifestations of his power.
Born in Massachusetts of an old and honorable line, his first ancestor here, Ralph Earle, came from England in that stirring seventeenth century which planted this new-world republic, and that name is still borne in the family by his brother Ralph Earle, now almost 300 years later.
In his youth our Professor Raymond Earle felt the charm of nature; began to make collections of specimens; and pressing on to College, studied geology at Harvard under the inspiration of Professor Shaler, an influence which never left him, and was always an ideal. Taking his A.B. degree at Harvard in 1900, his Sc.B., 1901 he followed with his Sc.M., 1912 and Sc.D., 1913, at New York University, after a period spent as a lawyer and economist geologist.
At New York University he taught, 19111913, in the department of geology under Professor J. E. Woodman. To Hunter College he came in 1913, becoming associate professor of geology, and building up what became by 1917 one of the largest of geology departments among colleges for women. He had just begun his sixth year here, in the prime of vigor
1 Memorial address at Hunter College, New York City, by Edward S. Burgess, on the unveiling of a portrait of his associate, Professor Earle, March 1, 1920.
and only the forty-first year of his age, at the time of his sudden death of pneumonia, November 10, 1918.
He was equally at home in geology or in physical or economic geography. His research specialty had been in iron ores, with other investigations local to the Hudson. He was especially successful as a teacher in arousing and sustaining the enthusiasm of his students in his subject. He also carried over the benefits of his legal training and practise into the applications of his science. He was an extensive traveller, alone, or later with parties, conducting the latter with the purpose of giving scientific and educational views of our country, particularly in California and Alaska. He kept up his interest in a wide field of nature; his collections of birds' eggs is now at Hunter College, and many anthropological collections of Indian stone tools and weapons, pigmy bird-points of exquisite work, etc.
He was an organizer and the first director of the summer session of Hunter College, and a founder of the Physiographer's Club of New York City. He also gave public lectures here and elsewhere through the State.
A reader and forceful speaker, a skilled organizer, an intuitive discerner of human nature, Professor Earle was an unusually happy combination of the qualities which insure sucTo them he added the attraction of his frank, genial, sociable, daily life at college; and at home there followed the fitting seal to his day, when in true fulfilment of his quiet but deep religious nature he gathered his little family around the evening table, and gave thanks to the Divine Giver for the blessings of the day.
RESOLUTIONS ON THE DEATH OF MEMBERS OF THE MELLON INSTITUTE
THE following resolutions have been adopted by the Robert Kennedy Duncan Club, the organization of the Industrial Fellows of the Mellon Institute of Industrial Research of the University of Pittsburgh, on the death of three members of the Institute, viz.: Dr. David Shepard Pratt (d. Jan. 28), for three
years, until January 1, 1920, an assistant director; Dr. Francis Clifford Phillips (d. Feb. 16), emeritus professor of chemistry at the University of Pittsburgh; and Dr. Leonard Merritt Liddle (d. Feb. 21), since 1913 an industrial fellow.
WHEREAS, Dr. David Shepard Pratt, recently an assistant director of the Mellon Institute, was intimately associated with the work of many of us and was our true friend and adviser, and
WHEREAS, Dr. Pratt has faithfully employed his talents in our behalf and has made his breadth of knowledge, his fertile imagination and his keenness of perception of great practical assistance to us both by active cooperation in the laboratory and by helpful suggestion; therefore be it
Resolved, That we, the members of the Robert Kennedy Duncan Club, take this opportunity of expressing our sense of sorrow at his untimely death.
Be it further resolved, That we deplore the loss of one who was utilizing his many talents for the good of American industry.
WHEREAS, Dr. Francis Clifford Phillips, our distinguished colleague, was loved by us because of his kindly and genial ways, his unselfish consideration of others and his humor, and
WHEREAS, Dr. Phillips has brought fame both to himself and to the University of Pittsburgh, by his scholarship, his ability as a teacher and his remarkable contributions to the advancement of science, and
WHEREAS, Dr. Phillips has been an inspiration to all who knew him by reason of his personal qualities and his devotion to science. Therefore be it Resolved, That we, the members of the R. K. D. Club, express our sadness at the close of his beautiful life of service.
Be it further resolved, That we believe that American science has lost a most sincere student and investigator.
WHEREAS, Dr. Leonard Merritt Liddle has been a friend and associate among us for the past eight years and has endeared himself to each of us by his spirit of helpfulness, his kindliness and his good fellowship, and
WHEREAS, Dr. Liddle has stood out as leader in the Institute in scientific ability, in untiring energy, in devotion to his chosen profession and in loyalty to the best ideals of the Mellon Institute. Therefore, be it
Resolved, That, we, the members of the R. K. D. Club, wish to express our profound sorrow at the loss of our comrade and sincere friend, who has
been cut down thus early in his useful career. We also deeply regret the removal of one who was devoting his life to the betterment of American industry by the application of science to the solution of its problems.
MEMORIAL TO SIR WILLIAM OSLER'
A PUBLIC meeting was held in the University Museum, Oxford, on March 6, to initiate a memorial to the late Sir William Osler, Bart., Regius professor of medicine in the university for the past fifteen years. The vice-chancellor presided. Sir Clifford Allbutt, who introduced the proposal, paid a feeling and eloquent tribute to the memory of Sir William Osler, to the wide range of his intellect, and to the singular charm of his
character. He referred to his international reputation and to the binding influence he had on the medical profession in many lands, to his love of peace and goodwill, and to the extraordinary power he exerted in diffusing without diluting friendship. The president of Magdalen, Sir Herbert Warren, mentioned the many-sidedness of Osler's interests and activities, the breadth and accuracy of his scholarship, and the clear and steady optimism with which he regarded life and its progress in all ages. Sir William Church, who introduced the specific proposal that the memorial should take the form of an Osler Institute of General Pathology and Preventive Medicine, stated that such a memorial as that suggested would be a singularly appropriate tribute to the outlook and ideals that Osler had kept before him in his life-work Professor Thomson emphasized the need of new laboratory accommodation in Oxford for teaching and research. The dean of Christ Church and Sir It was anArchibald Garrod also spoke. nounced that the honorable secretary, Professor Gunn, had received expressions of sympathy with the proposed memorial from a large number of people representing many interests, and that a collateral committee had been formed in America to aid in raising the memorial.
1 From Nature.
THE CORNELL UNIVERSITY ENTOMOLOGICAL EXPEDITION TO SOUTH AMERICA
UNDER the leadership of Professor J. Chester Bradley the Cornell University Entomological Expedition to South America of 1919-20 is carrying on entomological investigation and making collections in various South American countries.
Dr. Bradley sailed for Brazil early in September last on the steamship Vestris; owing to a fire developing in one of the holds of the steamer, a delay of thirteen days occurred at the Island of Santa Lucia, where interesting and unexpected collecting was done. At Rio de Janeiro he was joined by a volunteer assistant, Mr. R. Gordon Harris.
After spending some time in Rio de Janeiro, a trip was made in company with Brazil's foremost entomologist, Dr. Adolph Lutz, to the State of Minas Geraes in the north, as far as to Pirapora, the head of navigation on the Sao Francisco River; some days were spent at Lassance on the Rio das Velhas as guests of the Institute Oswaldo Cruz. It was at this place that Dr. Chagas first worked out the details of the transmission by a Redwing bug (Conorhinus) of a trypanosome causing a very serious endemic disease of the region. Some days were also spent on the alpine
meadows at Diamantina, Brazil's highest city, and also as guests of the State of Minas Geraes at the Capital, Beldo Horizonte.
Returning to Rio de Janeiro, the party proceeded to cross the States of São Paulo and Matto Grossa by sail to Corumba on the Paraguay River, and thence to Urucum. Interesting collecting was encountered at various points along this trip, but especially at Urucum, 20 kilometers from Corumba, on an isolated mountain range at an elevation of 2,200 feet, at the upper limit of a tropical forest. Here, despite continuous rainy weather, a very interesting and abundant fauna was encountered.
From Corumba they proceeded by rail via São Paulo to Uruguayana on the Uruguay River, at the Argentinean frontier, a distance of 2,500 miles; from there they were about to
proceed, when last heard from, to the Falls of the Iguazu on the Alta Parana River.
The plans of the party contemplate spending a brief while in Argentina, at Buenos Aires, La Plata, Cordoba, Mendoza and possibly Tucuman, a visit to Montevideo, and then to spend from six weeks to two months in Chile, visiting several places, to as far south as Chiloe Island; thence to Oruro, Cochabamba and La Paz in Bolivia, and to Lima in Peru. At Lima Dr. W. T. M. Forbes and Jesse Williamson will join the expedition, which will, if conditions prove favorable, cross the Andes via the central route and down the Pichis, Pachitea, Ucayalli and Maranon Rivers to Iquitos; stopping at favorable points on the eastern side of the Andes. The party will return to New York in September next.
The expedition is entrusted with the delivery of extensive collections of North American insects and of vertebrates to four scientific institutions in South America. While not neglecting general collecting, Dr. Bradley is devoting especial attention to the collection of Hymenoptera, especially of the aculeates, and is endeavoring to obtain series of nests of Vespida with their inhabitants. Mr. Harris is doing general collecting of insects. Dr. Forbes will devote his attention
primarily to Lepidoptera, and relieve the other members of the necessity of devoting attention to this time-exacting group after he joins the expedition. Mr. Williamson will collect Odonata.
ST. LOUIS MEETING OF THE AMERICAN CHEMICAL SOCIETY
THE spring meeting of the American Chemical Society will be held with the St. Louis and University of Missouri Sections in St. Louis, April 13 to 16, inclusive. Every indication points to the fact that the meeting will be one of the largest and most interesting ever held in the West by the American Chemical Society. St. Louis is the center of the rapidly growing Middle West and contains large and varied chemical interests. It has always been the leading drug center of the West, and leads the country in the production