- Email: [email protected]
THE RELATION BETWEEN CANCER AND TUBERCULOSIS.
880 PRINCIPALS AND LOCUM TENENTS. To the Editor
of THE LANCET. SIR,—Some misunderstanding appears to exist with regard to the protection which the two English
Examples of restricted (= somatic) segregation are to be found not only in bacterial variation, but also in bud variation in higher plants and probably in acquired immunity to some diseases in higher animals, and in non-parasitic tumours. (4) You write : " The theory as a whole rests on
defence societies afford their members when threatened a slender basis, it postulates somatic segregation .... with proceedings owing to the acts of locum tenents. the of recessive mutations by environproduction The Council of the Medical Defence Union passed the ment and non-viable dominants." following resolution on Jan. 21st, 1926 :For a good example of somatic segregation in higher " That from and after the date of this resolution the see the case of mosaic seed capsules in the plants Council may in its discretion assume responsibility for any between Datura stramonium and D. lœvis.3 hybrid in of act or omission claim made upon a member the respect dominants.--Since writing the paper under Non-viable of any registered medical practitioner, whilst temporarily review I have on one occasion found a homozygous employed as locum tenens for such member." in subculture from a thoroughly The Council of the London and Counties Medical dominant, paracolon, mutabile. purified heterozygote, and Protection Society passed an identical resolution, I have almost completed a paper which elaborates the position of the two societies in this respect is and continues the subject under review. precisely the same.—We are, Sir, yours faithfully, I am. Sir. vours faithfullv. HUGH WOODS, JAMES NEAL, F. H. STEWART, General Secretary, London and General Secretary, Medical Major, I.M.S. (retd.). Counties Medical Protection Defence Union, Ltd., Society, Ltd., Victory House, 49, Bedford-square, W.C. **** It is obviously impossible to discuss briefly Leicester-square, W.C. Oct. 13th, 1926. whether Dr. Stewart is right in considering Mendelian variation and mutation to be the same as adaptive variation and acquired heritable characters. In that MENDELIAN VARIATION IN BACTERIA. he raises one of the great biological proposition To the Editor of THE LANCET. problems, and we hope that his further researches will SIR.—Your annotation of Sept. 25th (p. 660) with convince everyone that he has solved it.-ED. L. this title raises four points which call for reply. (1) You write : " Technically such experiments ought to begin with a single cell isolated with all the THE RELATION BETWEEN CANCER AND certainty which is available. Dr. Stewart seems to TUBERCULOSIS. have taken no particular precautions about the purity ’ of his cultures." To the Editor of THE LANCET. Burri’s single cell culture to which you refer has SIR,—In the annotation on this subject in your been extensively tried in this class of research. issue of Oct. 16th it is stated that Dr. T. Cherry, Bernhardt1 reports on it as follows : While we used of recalled an observation made by Mr. Melbourne, Burri’s single cell culture for the confirmation of our that when several members of a W. Williams R. in our on results first experiments dysentery bacteria, had died of family phthisis the survivors were very we have at a later stage satisfied ourselves in agreeAs an insurance medical officer to die of cancer. apt could that we achieve ment with the other workers, several and one who has had, of years’ experience, the same results by the usual methods of bacteriology of studying many therefore, great opportunities (efficient dilution of the initial material, laying out family histories, I have been frequently struck-prior We have, therefore, abandoned a series of plates). to Mr. Williams’s the concurrence of observation-by a is waste of Burri’s method, which tiresome, time, and not always applicable. My technique has con- these two complaints in members of families at I have questioned whether the sisted of the usual methods of bacteriology outlined different ages. to be found in the fact of a mere is explanation in this quotation. coincidence or of the different age incidence of the assume You is also to write : " It necessary (2) non-viable recessives .... if mutabile on ordinary two diseases, or whether possibly there is some deep real connexion between the two. As Mr. Williams media is really a heterozygote." But my argument is that mutabile will not segregate stated, a further inquiry is needed. I am, Sir, yours faithfully, without the stimulus of the specific sugar, and thereARTHUR T. DAVIES, 2 fore this assumption is not necessary. Chief Medical Officer to the North British and Variations "have of the bacteria (3) Oct. 18th, 1926. colon typhoid Mercantile Insurance Co. been discussed as examples of mutations, adaptive variations, acquired heritable characters .... Dr. Stewart gives another explanation." EOSINOPHILIA AND ACIDOSIS. I, on the contrary, consider Mendelian variation and mutation to be the same as adaptive variation To the Editor of THE LANCET. and acquired heritable characters, all four arising SIR,—When views are imputed to an author by a from segregation of allelomorphs. The type of of his book there is excuse to take segregation studied in bacteria, which is best called misunderstanding restricted segregation, I consider to be related to note. In a notice of my book on Asthma (THE LANCET, 25th, p. 654) your reviewer says : " When the gametic segregation in the following manner. In Sept. restricted segregation a single sharp-pointed external author discusses theory he often becomes too hypostimulus (e.g., lactose) impinges on one pair of allelo- thetical, as when he suggests that the large number of cells are present in asthma in order to morphs only, and causes that pair alone to segregate eosinophil absorb acid and so preserve the alkalinity of the in adaptation to the stimulus. In gametic segregation, blood." I did not suggest that these cells are present on the other hand, a complex mass of external stimuli bears on the germ-cells, and causes segregation of in order to absorb acid, but I did suggest that their in such number might be the result of the many, if not of all, the allelomorphs. This mass of presence external stimuli consists of the hormones of the parent chloride shift known to occur in cases of acidosis. in their adult condition (senility in protozoa, see So far as I am aware no other explanation of eosinoGametic segregation is philia has been given ; at any rate, it is a feasible Calkins and Woodruff ). for the degree of possibly also adaptive and represents the reaction explanation isandin fits the case, proportion to the persistence of of the germ-cells to the maturity (senility) of the parent, eosinophilia reaction and adaptation being equal and opposite. the asthma and is an excellent guide to prognosis. I admit, however, that I am not conversant with the 1 Ueber Variabilität pathogener Bakterien, Zeitschr. für 3 Darwin: Animals and Plants under Domestication, i., 392; Hygiene, 1915, lxxix., 241. and Bateson: Mendel’s Principles. 2 See also Dobell, Jour. Genetics, 1912, ii., 343. ....
of THE LANCET. SIR,—Some misunderstanding appears to exist with regard to the protection which the two English
Examples of restricted (= somatic) segregation are to be found not only in bacterial variation, but also in bud variation in higher plants and probably in acquired immunity to some diseases in higher animals, and in non-parasitic tumours. (4) You write : " The theory as a whole rests on
defence societies afford their members when threatened a slender basis, it postulates somatic segregation .... with proceedings owing to the acts of locum tenents. the of recessive mutations by environproduction The Council of the Medical Defence Union passed the ment and non-viable dominants." following resolution on Jan. 21st, 1926 :For a good example of somatic segregation in higher " That from and after the date of this resolution the see the case of mosaic seed capsules in the plants Council may in its discretion assume responsibility for any between Datura stramonium and D. lœvis.3 hybrid in of act or omission claim made upon a member the respect dominants.--Since writing the paper under Non-viable of any registered medical practitioner, whilst temporarily review I have on one occasion found a homozygous employed as locum tenens for such member." in subculture from a thoroughly The Council of the London and Counties Medical dominant, paracolon, mutabile. purified heterozygote, and Protection Society passed an identical resolution, I have almost completed a paper which elaborates the position of the two societies in this respect is and continues the subject under review. precisely the same.—We are, Sir, yours faithfully, I am. Sir. vours faithfullv. HUGH WOODS, JAMES NEAL, F. H. STEWART, General Secretary, London and General Secretary, Medical Major, I.M.S. (retd.). Counties Medical Protection Defence Union, Ltd., Society, Ltd., Victory House, 49, Bedford-square, W.C. **** It is obviously impossible to discuss briefly Leicester-square, W.C. Oct. 13th, 1926. whether Dr. Stewart is right in considering Mendelian variation and mutation to be the same as adaptive variation and acquired heritable characters. In that MENDELIAN VARIATION IN BACTERIA. he raises one of the great biological proposition To the Editor of THE LANCET. problems, and we hope that his further researches will SIR.—Your annotation of Sept. 25th (p. 660) with convince everyone that he has solved it.-ED. L. this title raises four points which call for reply. (1) You write : " Technically such experiments ought to begin with a single cell isolated with all the THE RELATION BETWEEN CANCER AND certainty which is available. Dr. Stewart seems to TUBERCULOSIS. have taken no particular precautions about the purity ’ of his cultures." To the Editor of THE LANCET. Burri’s single cell culture to which you refer has SIR,—In the annotation on this subject in your been extensively tried in this class of research. issue of Oct. 16th it is stated that Dr. T. Cherry, Bernhardt1 reports on it as follows : While we used of recalled an observation made by Mr. Melbourne, Burri’s single cell culture for the confirmation of our that when several members of a W. Williams R. in our on results first experiments dysentery bacteria, had died of family phthisis the survivors were very we have at a later stage satisfied ourselves in agreeAs an insurance medical officer to die of cancer. apt could that we achieve ment with the other workers, several and one who has had, of years’ experience, the same results by the usual methods of bacteriology of studying many therefore, great opportunities (efficient dilution of the initial material, laying out family histories, I have been frequently struck-prior We have, therefore, abandoned a series of plates). to Mr. Williams’s the concurrence of observation-by a is waste of Burri’s method, which tiresome, time, and not always applicable. My technique has con- these two complaints in members of families at I have questioned whether the sisted of the usual methods of bacteriology outlined different ages. to be found in the fact of a mere is explanation in this quotation. coincidence or of the different age incidence of the assume You is also to write : " It necessary (2) non-viable recessives .... if mutabile on ordinary two diseases, or whether possibly there is some deep real connexion between the two. As Mr. Williams media is really a heterozygote." But my argument is that mutabile will not segregate stated, a further inquiry is needed. I am, Sir, yours faithfully, without the stimulus of the specific sugar, and thereARTHUR T. DAVIES, 2 fore this assumption is not necessary. Chief Medical Officer to the North British and Variations "have of the bacteria (3) Oct. 18th, 1926. colon typhoid Mercantile Insurance Co. been discussed as examples of mutations, adaptive variations, acquired heritable characters .... Dr. Stewart gives another explanation." EOSINOPHILIA AND ACIDOSIS. I, on the contrary, consider Mendelian variation and mutation to be the same as adaptive variation To the Editor of THE LANCET. and acquired heritable characters, all four arising SIR,—When views are imputed to an author by a from segregation of allelomorphs. The type of of his book there is excuse to take segregation studied in bacteria, which is best called misunderstanding restricted segregation, I consider to be related to note. In a notice of my book on Asthma (THE LANCET, 25th, p. 654) your reviewer says : " When the gametic segregation in the following manner. In Sept. restricted segregation a single sharp-pointed external author discusses theory he often becomes too hypostimulus (e.g., lactose) impinges on one pair of allelo- thetical, as when he suggests that the large number of cells are present in asthma in order to morphs only, and causes that pair alone to segregate eosinophil absorb acid and so preserve the alkalinity of the in adaptation to the stimulus. In gametic segregation, blood." I did not suggest that these cells are present on the other hand, a complex mass of external stimuli bears on the germ-cells, and causes segregation of in order to absorb acid, but I did suggest that their in such number might be the result of the many, if not of all, the allelomorphs. This mass of presence external stimuli consists of the hormones of the parent chloride shift known to occur in cases of acidosis. in their adult condition (senility in protozoa, see So far as I am aware no other explanation of eosinoGametic segregation is philia has been given ; at any rate, it is a feasible Calkins and Woodruff ). for the degree of possibly also adaptive and represents the reaction explanation isandin fits the case, proportion to the persistence of of the germ-cells to the maturity (senility) of the parent, eosinophilia reaction and adaptation being equal and opposite. the asthma and is an excellent guide to prognosis. I admit, however, that I am not conversant with the 1 Ueber Variabilität pathogener Bakterien, Zeitschr. für 3 Darwin: Animals and Plants under Domestication, i., 392; Hygiene, 1915, lxxix., 241. and Bateson: Mendel’s Principles. 2 See also Dobell, Jour. Genetics, 1912, ii., 343. ....