Address to the Sub-Section of Physiology of the British Association, Birmingham, 1865 / delivered by the President, Henry W. Acland.
- Acland, Henry W. (Henry Wentworth), 1815-1900.
- Date:
- 1865
Licence: Public Domain Mark
Credit: Address to the Sub-Section of Physiology of the British Association, Birmingham, 1865 / delivered by the President, Henry W. Acland. 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.
10/14 (page 6)
![known and acknowledged. There can be no just ground of objection to conclusions based on hypothesis so long as the promoters are ready to accept, on proper and reasonable evidence, new elements oi calculation. I spoke also of the Passive prejudices of mankind in respect of Biology, A curious chapter might be wi-itten on the slovniess with which physiological principles have been generally received (I cannot say they are even now accepted by us) as the basis on which to secure public and private health. England is but even now awakening to these questions. The Registi-ar-General, the Army and Navy Departments, the Health Department of the Privy Council, the vaidous Drainage Commissioners and Committees, and many other bodies are all engaged in collecting, disseminating, and in using physiological knowledge under various aspects. It it must be admitted that evidence as to what is and what is not favom-able to the con-ect performance of the functions in men and other animals is even now often conflicting. It was said just now that the pure Physiologist is too apt to disregard the processes 2:)rceparantes ad mortemso also he is too apt to look on Health Questions as problems of Practice or Art, and not of Science. Yet the highest scientific qualities are requisite for determining with precision any problems aifecting, for instance, Nuti-ition, and the consequent Capa- city for labour of a population, viewed as a whole or as individuals: witness the investigations of your last year's President (now, happily, employed by the Govern- ment), and many of the important papers in Mr. Simon's valuable yearly Reports, and such memoirs as that of Professor Haughton of Dublin on Work. In such cases, I will not say Theoi-y, but knowledge precedes, and regulates, and compels practice. Sunilar considerations apply to the relation of Physiology to Practical Medicine. This art or science is undergoing re^dsion under the influence of Physiology, a re- vision somewhat indeed retarded by popular prejudice, but certain. In looking back on the history of medicine we are at a loss to say which is the more curious, the sagacity of the older physicians and sm'geons, considering the scantiness of their physiological knowledge, or their folly, considering the extent of it. The explanation lies in the intermixtm'e of empirical (that is, of accepted, ti-aditional, unquestioned) belief with really ascertained fact; and we ai-e not now-a-days without danger of undervaluing the eminent artistic power and gi*eat practical shrewdness of former physicians, in the presence of our more precise, but sometimes also less practically valuable scientific knowledge. Dr. Stokes, the eminent Dublin Professor, has lately spoken on this topic in a timely and earnest The business of Physiology and of an Association like this, as I just now said, is therefore not only to add new knowledge, but to destroy iucon-ect or imperfectly cor- rect statement and belief The incorporation of advancing Physiology with Medicine every year adds certainty to the latter, while it fm-nishes data as well as tests to the former. Experiment properly applied in Medicine under trained physicists and chemists will not only eliminate gradually all remaining en-or, but wiU malve more definite the properties of therapeutical agents. In illusti-ation it is suflicient to refer to some of tlie investigations of Claude Bernard, from whose great sldll, combined with philosophic power, much may be expected. Yet it may be doubted if the importance ot this alliance between Science and Medicine to the community at large is yet fully understood by the Legislature. Under the recent Medical Act, the whole expense of constructing a National Pharmacopojia was thrown by Parliament on the existing Practitioners of Medicine, and the cost of its future maintenance was charged on the Students of ]\Iedicine: the national funds ai-e to contribute nothing towards the great benefit^ a benefit accruing to eveiy one at some period of life, of a genuine and philosophical revision of known, or the discovery of new, curative agents. Experiment alone can decide conclusively on the mode of operation of various agents on the human body and on animals. These experiments are always difficult, often costly. The Government, as I said, do not acknowledge the duty of pronding funds. Perhaps the Medical Council might. It is indeed charged with the administration of the only Public Funds that are applicable to keeping on a level with modern science the National Catalogue of Remedial Agents and the mode of preparing them. If it could be induced to expend £1000 a year, as under](https://iiif.wellcomecollection.org/image/b2228669x_0010.jp2/full/800%2C/0/default.jpg)
