It is not my intention to go into any great detail in this matter. I shall not attempt to make a complete list of the glaring omissions6 of our scientists or to set down anywhere near all of the lesser7 British scientists who are discussed liberally and con4 amore in the Britannica. Such a record were unnecessary. But I shall indicate a sufficient number of discrepancies8 between the treatment of American scientists and the treatment of English scientists, to reveal the utter inadequacy9 of the Britannica as a guide to the history and development of our science. If America did not stand so high in this field the Encyclop?dia’s editors would have some basis on which to explain away their wanton discrimination against our scientific activities. But when, as I say, America stands foremost among the nations of the world in biological chemistry and also holds high rank in surgery and medicine, there can be no excuse for such wilful10 neglect, especially as minor11 British scientists are accorded liberal space and generous consideration.
First we shall set down those three earlier pathfinders in American medicine whose names do not so much as appear in the Britannica’s Index:—John[150] Morgan, who in 1765, published his Discourse12 Upon the Institution of Medical Schools in America, thus becoming the father of medical education in the United States; William Shippen, Jr., who aided John Morgan in founding our first medical school, the medical department of the University of Pennsylvania, and gave the first public lectures in obstetrics in this country, and who may be regarded as the father of American obstetrics; and Thomas Cadwalader, the first Philadelphian (at this time Philadelphia was the medical center of America) to teach anatomy13 by dissections, and the author of one of the best pamphlets on lead poisoning.
Among the somewhat later important American medical scientists who are denied any mention in the Britannica are; John Conrad Otto, the first who described hemophilia (an abnormal tendency to bleeding); James Jackson, author of one of the first accounts of alcoholic14 neuritis; James Jackson, Jr., who left his mark in physical diagnosis15; Elisha North, who as early as 1811 advocated the use of the clinical thermometer in his original description of cerebrospinal meningitis (the first book on the subject); John Ware16, who wrote one of the chief accounts of delirium17 tremens; Jacob Bigelow, one of the very great names in American medicine, whose essay, On Self-Limited Diseases,[151] according to Holmes, “did more than any other work or essay in our language to rescue the practice of medicine from the slavery to the drugging system which was a part of the inheritance of the profession”; W. W. Gerhard, who distinguished18 between typhoid and typhus; Daniel Drake, known as the greatest physician of the West, who as the result of thirty years of labor19 wrote the masterpiece, Diseases of the Interior Valley of North America; Caspar Wistar, who wrote the first American treatise20 on anatomy; and William Edmonds Horner, who discovered the tensor tarsi muscle, known as Horner’s muscle.... Not only are these men not accorded biographies in the “universal” and “complete” Encyclop?dia Britannica, but their names do not appear!
The father of American surgery was Philip Syng Physick, who invented the tonsillotome and introduced various surgical21 operations; but you must look elsewhere than in the Britannica for so much as a mention of him. And although the history of American surgery is especially glorious and includes such great names as: the Warrens; Wright Post; J. C. Nott, who excised22 the coccyx and was the first who suggested the mosquito theory of yellow fever; Henry J. Bigelow, the first to describe the Y-ligament; Samuel David Gross, one of the chief surgeons of the nineteenth[152] century; Nicholas Senn, one of the masters of modern surgery; Harvey Cushing, perhaps the greatest brain surgeon in the world to-day; George Crile, whose revolutionary work in surgical shock was made long before the Britannica went to press; and William S. Halsted, among the greatest surgeons of the world,—as I have said, although America has produced these important men, the Encyclop?dia Britannica ignores the fact entirely23, and does not so much as record one of their names!
Were all the rest of American medical scientists given liberal consideration in the Britannica, it would not compensate24 for the above omissions. But these omissions are by no means all: they are merely the beginning. The chief names in modern operative gynecology are American. But of the nine men who are the leaders in this field, only one (Emmet) has a biography, and only one (McDowell) receives casual mention. Marion Sims who invented his speculum and introduced the operation for vesicovaginal fistula, Nathan Bozeman, J. C. Nott (previously mentioned), Theodore Gaillard Thomas, Robert Battey, E. C. Dudley, and Howard A. Kelly do not exist for the Britannica.
Furthermore, of the four chief pioneers in an?sthesia—the practical discovery and use of which[153] was an American achievement—only two are mentioned. The other two—C. W. Long, of Georgia, and the chemist, Charles T. Jackson—are apparently25 unknown to the British editors of this encyclop?dia. And although in the history of pediatrics there is no more memorable26 name than that of Joseph O’Dwyer, of Ohio, whose work in intubation has saved countless27 numbers of infants, you will fail to find any reference to him in this “unbiased” English reference work.
One must not imagine that even here ends the Britannica’s almost unbelievable injustice28 to American scientists. John J. Abel is not mentioned either, yet Professor Abel is among the greatest pharmacologists of the world. His researches in animal tissues and fluids have definitely set forward the science of medicine; and it was Abel who, besides his great work with the artificial kidney, first discovered the uses of epinephrin. R. G. Harrison, one of the greatest biologists of history, whose researches in the growth of tissue were epoch-making, and on whose investigations29 other scientists also have made international reputations, is omitted entirely from the Britannica. S. J. Meltzer, the physiologist30, who has been the head of the department of physiology31 and pharmacology at Rockefeller Institute since 1906, is not in the Britannica. T. H. Morgan, the[154] zo?logist, whose many books on the subject have long been standard works, is without a biography. E. B. Wilson, one of the great pathfinders in zo?logy and a man who stands in the front rank of that science, is also without a biography. And Abraham Jacobi, who is the father of pediatrics in America, is not mentioned.
The list of wanton omissions is not yet complete! C. S. Minot, the great American embryologist, is ignored. Theobald Smith, the pathologist, is also thought unworthy of note. And among those renowned32 American scientists who, though mentioned, failed to impress the Encyclop?dia’s English editor sufficiently34 to be given biographies are: John Kerasley Mitchell, who was the first to describe certain neurological conditions, and was one of the advocates of the germ theory of disease before bacteriology; William Beaumont, the first to study digestion35 in situ; Jacques Loeb, whose works on heliotropism, morphology, psychology36, etc., have placed him among the world’s foremost imaginative researchers; H. S. Jennings, another great American biologist; W. H. Welch, one of the greatest of modern pathologists and bacteriologists; and Simon Flexner, whose work is too well known to the world to need any description here. These men unquestionably deserve biographies in any encyclop?dia[155] which makes even a slight pretence37 of completeness, and to have omitted them from the Britannica was an indefensible oversight—or worse.
The editors of the Encyclop?dia Britannica cannot explain away these amazing omissions on the ground that the men mentioned are not of sufficient importance to have come within the range of their consideration; for, when we look down the list of British medical scientists who are given biographies, we can find at least a score of far less important ones. For instance, Elizabeth G. Anderson, whose claim to glory lies in her advocacy of admitting women into the medical profession, is given considerably38 over half a column. Gilbert Blane, the introducer of lime-juice into the English navy, also has a biography. So has Richard Brocklesby, an eighteenth-century army physician; and Andrew Clark, a fashionable London practitioner39; and T. B. Curling; and John Elliotson, the English mesmerist; and Joseph Fayrer, known chiefly for his studies in the poisonous snakes of India; and J. C. Forster; and James Clark, an army surgeon and physician in ordinary to Queen Victoria; and P. G. Hewett, another surgeon to Queen Victoria; and many others of no more prominence40 or importance.
In order to realize the astounding41 lengths of injustice[156] to which the Britannica has gone in its petty neglect of America, compare these English names which are given detailed42 biographical consideration, with the American names which are left out. The editors of this encyclop?dia must either plead guilty to the most flagrant kind of prejudicial discrimination against this country, or else confess to an abysmal43 ignorance of the history and achievements of modern science.
It might be well to note here that Luther Burbank’s name is mentioned only once in the Britannica, under Santa Rosa, the comment being that Santa Rosa was his home. Not to have given Burbank a biography containing an account of his important work is nothing short of preposterous44. Is it possible that Americans are not supposed to be interested in this great scientist? And are we to assume that Marianne North, the English naturalist45 and flower painter—who is given a detailed biography—is of more importance than Burbank? The list of English naturalists46 and botanists47 who receive biographies in the Britannica includes such names as William Aiton, Charles Alston, James Anderson, W. J. Broderip, and Robert Fortune; and yet there is no biography or even discussion of Luther Burbank, the American!
Thus far in this chapter I have called attention[157] only to the neglect of American scientists. It must not be implied, however, that America alone suffers from the Britannica’s insular48 prejudice. No nation, save England, is treated with that justice and comprehensiveness upon which the Encyclop?dia’s advertising49 has so constantly insisted. For instance, although Jonathan Hutchinson, the English authority on syphilis, receives (and rightly so) nearly half a column biography, Ehrlich, the world’s truly great figure in that field, is not considered of sufficient importance to be given biographical mention. It is true that Ehrlich’s salvarsan did not become known until 1910, but he had done much immortal50 work before then. Even Metchnikoff, surely one of the world’s greatest modern scientists, has no biography! And although British biologists of even minor importance receive biographical consideration, Lyonet, the Hollander, who did the first structural51 work after Swammerdam, is without a biography.
Nor are there biographies of Franz Leydig, through whose extensive investigations all structural studies upon insects assumed a new aspect; Rudolph Leuckart, another conspicuous52 figure in zo?logical progress; Meckel, who stands at the beginning of the school of comparative anatomy in Germany; Rathke, who made a significant advance[158] in comparative anatomy; Ramón y Cajal, whose histological research is of world-wide renown33; Kowalevsky, whose work in embryology had enormous influence on all subsequent investigations; Wilhelm His, whose embryological investigations, especially in the development of the nervous system and the origin of nerve fibres, are of very marked importance; Dujardin, the discoverer of sarcode; Lacaze-Duthiers, one of France’s foremost zo?logical researchers; and Pouchet, who created a sensation with his experimentations53 in spontaneous generation.
Even suppose the Britannica’s editor should argue that the foregoing biologists are not of the very highest significance and therefore are not deserving of separate biographies, how then can he explain the fact that such British biologists as Alfred Newton, William Yarrell, John G. Wood, G. J. Allman, F. T. Buckland, and T. S. Cobbold, are given individual biographies with a detailed discussion of their work? What becomes of that universality of outlook on which he so prides himself? Or does he consider Great Britain as the universe?
As I have said, the foregoing notes do not aim at being exhaustive. To set down, even from an American point of view, a complete record of the inadequacies which are to be found in the Britannica’s[159] account of modern science would require much more space than I can devote to it here. I have tried merely to indicate, by a few names and a few comparisons, the insular nature of this Encyclop?dia’s expositions, and thereby54 to call attention to the very obvious fact that the Britannica is not “an international dictionary of biography,” but a prejudiced work in which English endeavor, through undue55 emphasis and exaggeration, is given the first consideration. Should this Encyclop?dia be depended upon for information, one would get but the meagrest idea of the splendid advances which America has made in modern science. And, although I have here touched only on medicine and biology, the same narrow and provincial56 British viewpoint can be found in the Britannica’s treatment of the other sciences as well.
点击
收听单词发音
收听单词发音 |
1
Partisanship
|
|
| n. 党派性, 党派偏见 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
2
resentment
|
|
| n.怨愤，忿恨 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
3
experimentation
|
|
| n.实验，试验，实验法 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
4
con
|
|
| n.反对的观点，反对者，反对票，肺病；vt.精读，学习，默记；adv.反对地，从反面；adj.欺诈的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
5
advancement
|
|
| n.前进，促进，提升 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
6
omissions
|
|
| n.省略( omission的名词复数 )；删节；遗漏；略去或漏掉的事（或人） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
7
lesser
|
|
| adj.次要的，较小的；adv.较小地，较少地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
8
discrepancies
|
|
| n.差异，不符合（之处），不一致（之处）( discrepancy的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
9
inadequacy
|
|
| n.无法胜任，信心不足 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
10
wilful
|
|
| adj.任性的，故意的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
11
minor
|
|
| adj.较小(少)的，较次要的；n.辅修学科；vi.辅修 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
12
discourse
|
|
| n.论文，演说；谈话；话语；vi.讲述，著述 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
13
anatomy
|
|
| n.解剖学，解剖；功能，结构，组织 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
14
alcoholic
|
|
| adj.（含）酒精的，由酒精引起的；n.酗酒者 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
15
diagnosis
|
|
| n.诊断，诊断结果，调查分析，判断 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
16
ware
|
|
| n.(常用复数)商品，货物 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
17
delirium
|
|
| n. 神智昏迷,说胡话;极度兴奋 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
18
distinguished
|
|
| adj.卓越的，杰出的，著名的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
19
labor
|
|
| n.劳动，努力，工作，劳工；分娩；vi.劳动，努力，苦干；vt.详细分析；麻烦 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
20
treatise
|
|
| n.专著；(专题)论文 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
21
surgical
|
|
| adj.外科的，外科医生的，手术上的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
22
excised
|
|
| v.切除，删去( excise的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
23
entirely
|
|
| ad.全部地，完整地；完全地，彻底地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
24
compensate
|
|
| vt.补偿，赔偿；酬报 vi.弥补；补偿；抵消 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
25
apparently
|
|
| adv.显然地；表面上，似乎 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
26
memorable
|
|
| adj.值得回忆的，难忘的，特别的，显著的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
27
countless
|
|
| adj.无数的，多得不计其数的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
28
injustice
|
|
| n.非正义，不公正，不公平，侵犯（别人的）权利 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
29
investigations
|
|
| （正式的）调查( investigation的名词复数 )； 侦查； 科学研究； 学术研究 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
30
physiologist
|
|
| n.生理学家 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
31
physiology
|
|
| n.生理学，生理机能 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
32
renowned
|
|
| adj.著名的，有名望的，声誉鹊起的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
33
renown
|
|
| n.声誉，名望 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
34
sufficiently
|
|
| adv.足够地，充分地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
35
digestion
|
|
| n.消化，吸收 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
36
psychology
|
|
| n.心理，心理学，心理状态 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
37
pretence
|
|
| n.假装，作假；借口，口实；虚伪；虚饰 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
38
considerably
|
|
| adv.极大地；相当大地；在很大程度上 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
39
practitioner
|
|
| n.实践者，从事者；(医生或律师等)开业者 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
40
prominence
|
|
| n.突出；显著；杰出；重要 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
41
astounding
|
|
| adj.使人震惊的vt.使震惊，使大吃一惊astound的现在分词) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
42
detailed
|
|
| adj.详细的，详尽的，极注意细节的，完全的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
43
abysmal
|
|
| adj.无底的，深不可测的，极深的；糟透的，极坏的；完全的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
44
preposterous
|
|
| adj.荒谬的，可笑的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
45
naturalist
|
|
| n.博物学家(尤指直接观察动植物者) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
46
naturalists
|
|
| n.博物学家( naturalist的名词复数 )；（文学艺术的）自然主义者 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
47
botanists
|
|
| n.植物学家，研究植物的人( botanist的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
48
insular
|
|
| adj.岛屿的，心胸狭窄的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
49
advertising
|
|
| n.广告业；广告活动 a.广告的；广告业务的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
50
immortal
|
|
| adj.不朽的；永生的，不死的；神的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
51
structural
|
|
| adj.构造的，组织的，建筑（用）的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
52
conspicuous
|
|
| adj.明眼的，惹人注目的；炫耀的，摆阔气的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
53
experimentations
|
|
| 实验，实验的方法( experimentation的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
54
thereby
|
|
| adv.因此，从而 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
55
undue
|
|
| adj.过分的；不适当的；未到期的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
56
provincial
|
|
| adj.省的，地方的；n．外省人，乡下人 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
| 欢迎访问英文小说网 |