Ernest Starling was very much a product of British nineteenth century medicine; it was a century that witnessed profound changes in both medicine and medical research. Reviewing three relevant themes—medical education, the development of University College London, and the growth of physiology— provides us with a useful backdrop to Starling’s life and times. They are themes that pervade his professional career and, not surprisingly, often reemerge in this book.
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Ashton R. 2000. G.H. Lewes—An Unconventional Victorian. London: Pimlico Edition, p. 3. Lewes was one of the founder members of the Physiological Society in 1875, though he subsequendy had little to do with the organization. It is likely that Lewes attended medical lectures at UCL, but took no exams (p. 14 in Ashton). “Dilettante” and “polymath” merge imperceptibly in Lewes’ character.Google Scholar
- Clarke E. 1972. Marshall Hall’s entry in Dictionary of Scientific Biography. New York: Scribner.Google Scholar
- Cope Z. 1966. Private medical schools of London (1746–1914). In: The Evolution of Medical Education in Britain, Ed. Poynter FNL. London: Pitman Medical Publishing Co. Ltd.Google Scholar
- Desmond A. Huxley: From DeviVs Disciple to Evolutions High Priest. New York: Penguin Books, 1997. This marvellous biography includes a lot of detail of the social conditions in Victorian England and of a young doctor’s attempts to cope.Google Scholar
- Eccles JC. 1971. British physiology—some highlights, 1870–1940. In: British Contributions to Medical Science, Ed. Gibson WC. London: Wellcome Institute for the History of Medicine.Google Scholar
- Harte N and North J. The world of UCL 1828–1990. London: UCL, 1991. Many of the subsequent details of the history of UCL are provided by Harte and North.Google Scholar
- Huxley T. 1978. On elementary instruction in physiology. In: Science and Education: Essays. London: Macmillan, 1893a, pp. 294–302. Huxley was also organizing practical biology courses at the School of Mines in South Kensington. See: Geison GL. Michael Foster and the Cambridge School of Physiology. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
- -. The state and the medical profession. In: Science and Education: Essays London: MacMillan, 1893b, pp. 323–346. Many of Huxley’s essays–especially on medical education—have an extraordinary prescience. He proposes, for example, that preclinical medicine in London should best be taught in two or three large institutions—a suggestion that took about a century to be fulfilled (see Chapter 3).Google Scholar
- Robb-Smith AHT. 1966. Medical Education at Oxford and Cambridge prior to 1850. In: The Evolution of Medical Education in Britain. Ed. Poynter FNL. London: Pitman Medical Publishing Co. Ltd.Google Scholar
- Sanderson JB. From a copy of the letter in the original minute book of the Physiological Society 1867, Library of the Wellcome Institute, London Contemporary Medical Archives Centre (CMAC): SA/PHY.Google Scholar
- Sharpey-Schafer E. History of the Physiological Society during its first Fifty Years 1876–1926. London: Oxford University Press, 1927, p. 1. The only account of the personalities of the society, most of whom were known personally by Sharpey-Schafer.Google Scholar
- Sykes AH. 2000. Foster & Sharpey’s tour of Europe. Notes and Records of the Royal Society of London 54(1): 47–52. Michael Foster’s memoir, written in 1880, is a revealing account of Sharpey’s knowledge of European physiologists. The two made their five-week tour in 1870; the document was written in response to Allen Thompson, Professor of Anatomy in Glasgow, who began to write a biography of Sharpey, but never finished it.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Tansey EM. 1993. In Women Physiologists, Eds. Bindman L., Brading A., and Tansey T. London: Portland Press, pp. 3–16. The first formal proposal for women to be admitted to the Physiological Society was made by JS Haldane in Jan 1913. Starling opposed this for a rather original reason. The society, he said, was primarily a dining society, “and it would be improper to dine with ladies smelling of dog—the men smelling of dog that is.” Was this genuine concern for women’s finer feelings? It hardly matters, for women were formally permitted to join the society in January 1915, when they might even have smelted of dog themselves.Google Scholar