Abstract
I AM sorry Prof. Dakin (NATURE, February 3, p. 151) should think my letter (NATURE, January 13, P. 50) merely an attempt to open another discussion on evolution. I do not know how I could have expressed myself more clearly. Manifestly, a knowledge of such things as the anatomy of frogs and dog-fish cannot persist in the minds of medical students or be useful to them intellectually or professionally unless linked with other studies. They can be so linked only through truths about development, variation, heredity, and evolution. But here the naturalist is in conflict with the physiologists, psychologists, pathologists, and medical men into whose hands the students pass and whose opinions, abundantly supported by evidence, they always adopt.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Access options
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 51 print issues and online access
$199.00 per year
only $3.90 per issue
Buy this article
- Purchase on Springer Link
- Instant access to full article PDF
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
Similar content being viewed by others
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
REID, G. Medical Education. Nature 111, 324–325 (1923). https://doi.org/10.1038/111324a0
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/111324a0
Comments
By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.
