- Email: [email protected]
Tools of the trade
DISSECTING ROOM
Tools of the trade
glass bottle swung perilously from a hook in the administrator’s lapel. Much Junker’s inhaler vapour delivered to the patient more seriously, however, the afferent hat happened to by tubing and face mask. This and efferent tubes might easily be anaesthesia after method meant more accurate connected the wrong way round, resultthe excitement of and economical doses were ing in liquid chloroform entering the its initial discovery in 1846? obtained than with many prepatient’s mouth. F W Hewitt, anaesEarly controversies over vious methods, such as dropthetist at The London and Charing who should get anaesthetics, and which ping chloroform on a glove or nightcap. Cross Hospitals, circumvented this agent to use, gradually settled down. In Instrument makers Krohne and problem by sheathing the efferent tube the UK and much of Europe many Seseman introduced various modifiwithin the afferent one. But incorrect practitioners preferred chloroform—an cations, including a little cage with a assembly of unmodified Junker’s inunfortunate choice since in cerhalers continued to cause deaths. tain circumstances chloroform W J Foster destroyed all he could Rights were not granted to could kill. Anaesthetic researchers find in his hospital after liquid began to search for an alternative. chloroform killed a boy as late as include this image in electronic Ether, though popular in the 1927. Despite these problems, media. Please refer to the printed USA, was regarded as less potent the inhaler was one of the most journal. and less pleasant than chloroform popular mechanical ways to in the UK. In 1867, F E Junker administer chloroform until the of the Samaritan Free Hospital, end of the 19th century. But not London, UK, devised an inhaler everyone took to it. One physician for bichloride of methylene. in 1905 thought the device, all of Widely adopted, especially for 15 cm high, too cumbersome for use with the chloroform that the country doctor who “cannot bichloride of methylene had been be expected to go his rounds with intended to replace, it became a Krohne inhaler in his pocket”. one of the most popular inhalers Junker’s inhaler Presumably this doctor still of the Victorian age. preferred the simple gauze masks Junker’s inhaler used a new method: feather added to the face mask to serve on wire frames that could be “carried the bubble through technique, which as a breathing indicator. Other anaesin the pocket, hat or case”. became a mainstay of anaesthetics. Air thetists produced their own versions, Ghislaine Lawrence was pumped through a graduated botbecause the original had several drawClinical Medicine, The Science Museum, tle of anaesthetic liquid via tubing with backs. For a start, the inhaler occupied Exhibition Road, London SW7 2DD, UK a rubber hand pump, and the resultant both the anaesthetist’s hands, and the Science Museum/ Science & Society Picture Library
W
Reinventing invention The Greatest Inventions of the Past 2000 Years John Brockman, ed. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 2000. Pp 192. £14.99. ISBN 0297645757. ohn Brockman casts his net wide in his attempt to identify the greatest inventions of the past 2000 years— as well one might. The concept is an endearingly absurd invention in itself. The book was built on the success of his website Edge (www.edge.org) that seeks “a third culture of those scientists and other thinkers in the empirical world who, through their work and expository writing, are taking the place of the traditional intellectual in redefining who and what we are”. Now if that is not ambitious, what is? And when was there ever a traditional intellectual? The great drawback, as a book, is in the format, derived as it is from an e-mail inquiry sent to the website. In book form, these articles retain the nature of e-mail responses—rambling, enigmatic, epigrammatic, but not usually polished. Of course, e-mail and internet technology might prove itself the greatest invention of the past 2000 years, as Brockman hints. But communication
J
THE LANCET • Vol 358 • October 6, 2001
must communicate, and there are those who do not have access to it. Nevertheless, this is a fascinating book, both in the choices made and the insights that it gives to those who made them. One can agree; disagree violently; chortle; mentally measure some respondents for straight-jackets; and throw the book violently at the wall in fury at omissions (of which there are many). Probably one to be borrowed from the library, or taken on holiday. But gems abound: organised science is offered as an invention (when was it ever organised?); flying machines; the Indo-Arab counting system (probably predating the 2000 years); the plow (or plough), likewise; democracy and social justice (ancient Athens might have a view on this time period); the realisation of our place in the cosmos (have we?); the contraceptive pill; and Gödel’s incompleteness theory (surely something missing here). Medicine does not get much of a
look-in. The discovery of insulin, penicillin, digoxin, thyroxine, antimalarial drugs, vaccines, and many others do not get much space. Philosophical scepticism is offered, and wisely. Editors, and those who work with them, will be grateful for the mention of the printing press. Classical music is a bonus. There is also a persuasive argument of the most boring invention, the “economic man”, and for “disbelief in the supernatural”. And the eraser must be a clear winner. Einstein and Darwin don’t really feature, although theories are not facts. The point is, however, that Brockman does make one think about the nature of scientific discovery, and whether one invention or discovery matters more than a hill of beans. My personal feeling is that, although calculus is mentioned, Sir Isaac Newton should have appeared as the discoverer of mild apple-induced concussion, along with the theory of gravity (neither of which appear). Mark Powlson 2A Read Road, Ashtead, Surrey KT21 2HS, UK
1191
For personal use. Only reproduce with permission from The Lancet Publishing Group.
Tools of the trade
glass bottle swung perilously from a hook in the administrator’s lapel. Much Junker’s inhaler vapour delivered to the patient more seriously, however, the afferent hat happened to by tubing and face mask. This and efferent tubes might easily be anaesthesia after method meant more accurate connected the wrong way round, resultthe excitement of and economical doses were ing in liquid chloroform entering the its initial discovery in 1846? obtained than with many prepatient’s mouth. F W Hewitt, anaesEarly controversies over vious methods, such as dropthetist at The London and Charing who should get anaesthetics, and which ping chloroform on a glove or nightcap. Cross Hospitals, circumvented this agent to use, gradually settled down. In Instrument makers Krohne and problem by sheathing the efferent tube the UK and much of Europe many Seseman introduced various modifiwithin the afferent one. But incorrect practitioners preferred chloroform—an cations, including a little cage with a assembly of unmodified Junker’s inunfortunate choice since in cerhalers continued to cause deaths. tain circumstances chloroform W J Foster destroyed all he could Rights were not granted to could kill. Anaesthetic researchers find in his hospital after liquid began to search for an alternative. chloroform killed a boy as late as include this image in electronic Ether, though popular in the 1927. Despite these problems, media. Please refer to the printed USA, was regarded as less potent the inhaler was one of the most journal. and less pleasant than chloroform popular mechanical ways to in the UK. In 1867, F E Junker administer chloroform until the of the Samaritan Free Hospital, end of the 19th century. But not London, UK, devised an inhaler everyone took to it. One physician for bichloride of methylene. in 1905 thought the device, all of Widely adopted, especially for 15 cm high, too cumbersome for use with the chloroform that the country doctor who “cannot bichloride of methylene had been be expected to go his rounds with intended to replace, it became a Krohne inhaler in his pocket”. one of the most popular inhalers Junker’s inhaler Presumably this doctor still of the Victorian age. preferred the simple gauze masks Junker’s inhaler used a new method: feather added to the face mask to serve on wire frames that could be “carried the bubble through technique, which as a breathing indicator. Other anaesin the pocket, hat or case”. became a mainstay of anaesthetics. Air thetists produced their own versions, Ghislaine Lawrence was pumped through a graduated botbecause the original had several drawClinical Medicine, The Science Museum, tle of anaesthetic liquid via tubing with backs. For a start, the inhaler occupied Exhibition Road, London SW7 2DD, UK a rubber hand pump, and the resultant both the anaesthetist’s hands, and the Science Museum/ Science & Society Picture Library
W
Reinventing invention The Greatest Inventions of the Past 2000 Years John Brockman, ed. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 2000. Pp 192. £14.99. ISBN 0297645757. ohn Brockman casts his net wide in his attempt to identify the greatest inventions of the past 2000 years— as well one might. The concept is an endearingly absurd invention in itself. The book was built on the success of his website Edge (www.edge.org) that seeks “a third culture of those scientists and other thinkers in the empirical world who, through their work and expository writing, are taking the place of the traditional intellectual in redefining who and what we are”. Now if that is not ambitious, what is? And when was there ever a traditional intellectual? The great drawback, as a book, is in the format, derived as it is from an e-mail inquiry sent to the website. In book form, these articles retain the nature of e-mail responses—rambling, enigmatic, epigrammatic, but not usually polished. Of course, e-mail and internet technology might prove itself the greatest invention of the past 2000 years, as Brockman hints. But communication
J
THE LANCET • Vol 358 • October 6, 2001
must communicate, and there are those who do not have access to it. Nevertheless, this is a fascinating book, both in the choices made and the insights that it gives to those who made them. One can agree; disagree violently; chortle; mentally measure some respondents for straight-jackets; and throw the book violently at the wall in fury at omissions (of which there are many). Probably one to be borrowed from the library, or taken on holiday. But gems abound: organised science is offered as an invention (when was it ever organised?); flying machines; the Indo-Arab counting system (probably predating the 2000 years); the plow (or plough), likewise; democracy and social justice (ancient Athens might have a view on this time period); the realisation of our place in the cosmos (have we?); the contraceptive pill; and Gödel’s incompleteness theory (surely something missing here). Medicine does not get much of a
look-in. The discovery of insulin, penicillin, digoxin, thyroxine, antimalarial drugs, vaccines, and many others do not get much space. Philosophical scepticism is offered, and wisely. Editors, and those who work with them, will be grateful for the mention of the printing press. Classical music is a bonus. There is also a persuasive argument of the most boring invention, the “economic man”, and for “disbelief in the supernatural”. And the eraser must be a clear winner. Einstein and Darwin don’t really feature, although theories are not facts. The point is, however, that Brockman does make one think about the nature of scientific discovery, and whether one invention or discovery matters more than a hill of beans. My personal feeling is that, although calculus is mentioned, Sir Isaac Newton should have appeared as the discoverer of mild apple-induced concussion, along with the theory of gravity (neither of which appear). Mark Powlson 2A Read Road, Ashtead, Surrey KT21 2HS, UK
1191
For personal use. Only reproduce with permission from The Lancet Publishing Group.