Problems of physiology of the present time / by William Henry Howell.

  • Howell, William H. (William Henry), 1860-1945.
Date:
[1905-1907]
Catalogue details

Licence: In copyright

Credit: Problems of physiology of the present time / by William Henry Howell. Source: Wellcome Collection.

Provider: This material has been provided by The Royal College of Surgeons of England. The original may be consulted at The Royal College of Surgeons of England.

    2/20 (page 2)
    history of other sciences whose field of work has presented appar- ently less formidable difficulties. In what may be termed the golden period of physiology, that is, the latter two thirds of the nineteenth century, the period during which the subject became established definitively as an experimental science, the rich and abundant harvest of facts gathered by the first workers who adopted exclusively experimental methods awoke enthusiasm and brightest anticipations. The workers in physiology were ani- mated by a confident belief that their science was on the highroad to a successful solution of the nature and properties of living matter. Now, however, at the beginning of the twentieth century, one hears frequently the voice of dissatisfaction and criticism. Although the workers are more numerous, and the methods and appliances are more complete, the harvest of facts is not so rich nor so significant. There- fore to many it would seem that the methods used are at fault; there is need at least for a new point of view. It requires but little reflection to become convinced that some of the implied or expressed criticism directed toward recent work in physiology is unjust and is founded upon a misconception of its true nature and development. I refer particularly to the belief so frequently expressed that much of the current investigation in physiology is sterile as regards its immediate applicability to practical medicine, and the further statement that the subject itself has become isolated in a measure from the other bio- logical sciences.1 I do not contest the accuracy of these statements, but both results must be regarded as a necessary outcome of the nor- mal and healthy development of the science of physiology. The general history of physiology is known to us all; it is not necessary to enter into details. It arose out of medicine and developed in intimate rela- tions with the study of anatomy. But even in its earliest history its most significant results were obtained by the use of the experimental method, and in the nineteenth century its separation from the purely observational sciences was clearly recognized. The establishment of physiology as an experimental science is usually attributed to Jo- hannes Muller and his pupils or their contemporaries who fell under his influence. But as I read its history, its modern characteristics, whether for good or for evil, owe their origin as much to the French as to the German school. Johannes Muller himself was not preeminent as an experimenter, — he made use of anatomical rather than physio- logical methods; but his contemporary Magendie was a typical modern physiologist, and whatever may have been the extent of his personal influence during life, there can be no question that his methods of work and his points of view are the ones that were subsequently 1 Meltzer, Vitalism and Mechanism in Biology and Medicine, Science, vol. xix, p. 18, 1904. Verworn, Einlcitung, Zeiischrift fur Allgemcine Physiologie, i, p. 1, 1902.