in an address to the Abernethian ' Society under this title, published in the November number of the St. l3artkolomenj's Hospital Journal, states that he was led to select the consideration of the scientific spirit in medicine as his subject after reading the report upon Medical Education in Europe, written for the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching by Mr. ABRAHAM FLEXNER. Mr. FLEXNER'S report certainly contained the suggestion that there was a lack of the scientific spirit and

more »

... atmosphere in our British schools of medicine, ,and Dr. GARROD points out the fundamental importance of scientific method in all branches of medical science, scientific method differing from scientific spirit, in that the latter does not rest content with applying that which is already known, but, in addition, serves the double purpose, first of stimulating advance by pressing forward into the regions of the unknown, and second of restraining hasty, unchecked, and uncontrolled conclusions. He rather happily compares the scientific spirit to the hormones which stimulate the growth and activities of the parts of an organism. He admits tha,t the organisation of research into medical subjects is more efficient in Germany than in our own country, and points out that a large proportion of the great discoveries of the past of which British science is so justly proud have been the outcome of individual .effort, emanating from men not holding academic posts. In this country we do not make the use we should of the guidance of our scientific leaders. There are probably few who would not agree that Dr. GARROD has here laid bare 'one of the chief defects of British methods in matters relating to medical research, or who would quarrel with his contention that what is chiefly needed nowadays is organised collective effort under inspiring guidance, each man sharing in the task and contributing his share by cultivating a larger or smaller field of his own." But there are other difficulties in our way. If we in this 'country are falling behind our brethren in other lands in scientific medicine, it is in no small measure due to the fact that our workers are confronted with so great an array of popular sentiment and prejudice, not only in regard to vivisection, but also in the readiness to believe evil of hospitals and their methods, and in the increasing difficulty in obtaining subjects for dissection. The influence of the scientific spirit in the practical application of the results obtained to clinical medicine and surgery is, of course, -only indirectly influenced by these drawbacks, and a more serious danger lies in the disassociation that is threatened of laboratory and clinical work. We are glad to find Dr. GARROD opposed to the system whereby those examinations which are comprised under the general heading of clinical pathology are likely to pass out of the hands of those working in the wards, and thus in close relation with the patients ; such a departure must be regarded as a grave misfortune and one which the German system obviates, since there the clinical laboratories are distinct from the pathological institute, and are under the control of the head of the klinik." " The application of scientific method and spirit to therapeutics and the replacement of empiricism by the rational employment of the means of cure are marked examples of the progress of medicine with us to-day, but here Dr. GARROD, with considerable breadth of view, pays tribute to the services of empiricism, affirming that even now it is by no means dead or useless. It is a fact that must be admitted that empiricism finds a useful application, for example, in the trial of new remedies, introduced on scientific grounds for a special object, in the hope that some benefit may result. The scientific spirit imposes caution and enjoins judicious examination of evidence in these cases, as well as the careful weighing even of traditional and apparently well-established teachings. But the caution may be displayed at the risk of the medical man's reputation for wisdom with the public. The difficulties which may be encountered owing to the vague character of popular notions in regard to medical questions are very serious. The public is too apt to mistake scientific caution in statement for evidence of incompetence, and to estimate a ready dogmatism above a reasoned uncertainty. The Mutual Amenities of Surgeons and Anæsthetists. As with many other questions of medico-legal and medicoethical importance, there are few "leading cases" or judicial decisions to guide those who would seek to lay down settled principles for the legal relations of surgeon, anaesthetist, and patient. It is presumable that should such issues some day arise before a legally constituted tribunal, the result will depend on the ordinary common law applied to the merits and circumstances of each individual case. In attempts, therefore, to define the legal responsibilities of those who take part in operations or examinations conducted under ansesthesia, only general lines have been indicated by those authors who have dealt with this subject ; and this is a necessary attitude, since the opinions which judges and juries may form on various contingencies, not in themselves very uncommon or remote, are as yet matters of pure conjecture. Both the surgeon and the anaesthetist of the present day are individually, and in their mutual connexion with each other and their patient, on a very different footing from that which obtained when surgery and anaesthesia were nascent sciences. For many years after the introduction of general anaesthesia the surgeon was allowed by general consent control over the actions of the anaesthetist, and his position was quite justifiable. He assigned to the anaesthetist the same status of tutelage as that of his assistant ; and the corollary to this was that he accepted