TIBS 20 - JANUARY 2 99,5
the hi~to~y of science. (Fo~ further bio-
°..
Schrod nge s What/s L fe
a 50oyear reflection
Erwin Schr6dingefs What bs Life?
(Cambridge University Press, 1944) is
one of the most talked about books in
tv,r,.nt~,.~,,o,.,.,,t
" "~" . . . . . .,,,. .~, .~,.l,.l'~C,..
"~"""
came under intense scrutiny at the
centenary of Schrhdinger's birth in 1987
(reviewed in Ref. 1) and was revisited
at a recent symposium (see Ref. 2).
Discussion has focused largely on its
impact on the early development ol our
understanding of chromosomal struc-
ture and of the concept of the 'genetic
code'. Reflecting on the course of the
scientific unity of physics and biology
over the 50 years since its publication,
one might ask, 'Does the fixation on the
historical role of What is Life? in the
birth of molecular genetics represent a
myopic view of the author's philosophi-
cal intent and shortchange the book's
biophysical legacy? Were the book's
ideas original? Was Schrfdinger merely
applying physics as a tool to analyse a
biological object; or, rather, was he pon-
dering an expanded natural philosophy
that would provide a physicalist basis
fi)r biology?' The fiftieth anniversary of
the publication o[ What is Life? serves
as a fitting opportunity to (re)examine
the significance of the biophysical
issues raised by Schrhdinge~:
A biogcaphlcalprelude
Schr6dinger was certainly not the
only theoretician from the golden
period of physics in the early twentieth
century to delve into the science of
biology. Niels Bohr, whose father was
a physiologist, is a notable example;
but of the pioneers from that ger-
minal realm of relativity and quan-
tum physics, I would suggest that
Schrfdinger had perhaps the deepest
interest in the physicalist ramifications
of the life sciences. His appreciation of
biology can be traced to frequent child-
hood discussions with his father, whose
avocation was botany. (What is Life?
is dedicated to the memory of his
parents.) Schrfdinger read Darwin's
The Origin of Species at an early age and
became enthralled by the mechanistic
view of the living world.
Schrfdinger entered the University
of Vienna in 1906, hoping to pursue
physics under the great Ludwig
© 1995,ElsevierScienceLtd 0968.--0004/95/$09.50
¢ . ?:
BoRzmann. The untimely death of
Boltzmann dictated a course of study
for Schrhdinger under the master's
The book capable proteges. His closest friend
from those days in Vienna was Franz
('Fr~inzer) FrimmeL a botany student
with whom he had long late-night dis-
cussions about the meaning of life.
Together, they read Richard $emon's
1904 book, Die Mneme als erhaltendes
Frinzip (The Mneme as Conservative
Principle), which left a lasting im-
pression on the young SchrhdingeL
Semon was a pupil of Ernst Haeckel and
the atomistic 'plastidular' view of living
systems. Semon's Die Mneme was de-
rived from a psycho-lamarckian analogy
between memory and inheritance. It is
probably more than coincidence tha~
Lamarck's Philosophic Zoologique was
one of the few books Schrhdmger
retained from his father's library (the
remainder having been sold owing to
financial necessity).
From the writings, lectures and per-
sonal contacts of his later life as a
world-famous physicist, it is evident
that Schrodinger maintained a sideline
interest in biology. Much of his thinking
comes to a head in What ~ Life?, which
was based ~)n a series of public lectures
at Trinity College in Dublin. The text is
an amalgam of the statistical physics
and thermodynamics of the author's
turn-of-the-century training in Vienna,
the quantum physics of his latter-day
profession, and his early conviction
towards biological order, evolution and
hea'edity as deterministic Darwinian
processes.
The Dublin lectures were very popu-
lar. However, the book elicited con-
troversy even before its publication.
In preparing the written version,
Schr6dinger added an epilogue 'On
Determinism and Free Will', which con-
tained a denunciation of Western phil-
osophy/religion and an espousal of
Vedantic beliefs. Objection to this
attack on the Church resulted in a col-
lapse in the original plan for Cahill &
Co. in Dublin to publish the book.
Through a friend, the physical chemist
Frederick Donnan, Schr6dinger got the
text published by Cambridge University
Press; and thus did What is Life? enter
REFLECTIONS
graphical details, see Rds 3-5.)
I do not intel~d here to review the
many commentaries on What is Lifp?
would, howeve{; like to address (and
hopefully give some redress to) the
question of the originadity of his central
ideas - a subject that has attracted
much attention and that, some wou~d
argue, is the basis of the book's legacy.
The maiorit3, of the book's content is, at
face value, devoted to the molecular
aspects of genetic action, as the author
regarded the chromosome as the funda-
mental directing element in the gener-
ation of life's order. Accordingly, most
of the commentaries on the book have
concentrated on the genetic aspects o:
its historical status. Max Perutz 6, foc
example, has professed cogently that
What is Life? contains a considerable
amount of textbook information on
hereditary mechanisms and mutations,
that the book's 'backbone' is simply
a paraphrase of a 1935 article
by Timof~eff-Ressovsky, Zimmer and
Delbriick7 (.entitled 'The Nature of
Genetic Mutations and the Structure of
the Gene'), and that Schr6dinger's lack
of knowledge of the relevant literature
invalidates the originality of his views.
The legitimacy of such claims aside,
many commentators (reviewed in Re[s
1, 3-5, 8) have argued that the book,
with its elegantly written, although
speculative, popularist style, was influ-
ential in attracting the early attention of
physicists and chemists, as well as biol-
ogists, to the paramount biological
problem of the molecular basis of gene
action. James Watson 9, for example,
recalled '...I came back to the
University of Chicago and spotted the
tiny book What is Life? by the theoreti-
cal physicist Erwin Schr6dinger. In that
little gem, Schr6dinger said that the
essence of life was the gene. Up until
then I was interested in birds. But then
thought, well, if the gene is the essence
of life, ! want to know more about it.
And that was fateful because, other-
wise, ! would have spent my life study-
ing birds, and no one would have heard
of me.'
Moving away from the oft-discussed
role of What is Life? in the history of
genetics, I should like to consider in
some depth Schr6dingefs application of
statistical physics and thermodynamics
to biology. His position was that 'it is in
relation to the statistical point of view
that the structure of the vital parts of
45
 S "rIBS 20 - JANUARY .~995

SchrSdlnger's concentration on the that 'it is dangerous to apply thermo-

rationality of ordered cellular process- dynamic arguments directly' to cellular
es from the standpoint of statistical processes. Instead, Peters suggested
physics was incisive, but (at the risk of that 'owing to the micro-heterogeneous
imparting a whiggish historiography*) nature of the system, surface effects
we now see his analysis as more appro- take precedence over ordinary statisti-
priate to the molecular characteriz- cal, mass action relationships, and
ation of the phenotype rather than to become in the ultimate limR respon-
that of the genotype. In Schr6dinger's sible for the integration of the whole
day, little was known empirically about and therefore the direction of activi-
the structural organization of cellular ties.' Crossing paths with Schr6dinger,
metabolism. Also, we should be Peters, taking 'the "gene" theory as a
reminded that biologists (especially in guide,' speculated that, 'if we isolate in
the early twentieth century and, to thought the instant...at which the
some extent, et,en today) tend to "gene" first commences to exert its
regard subcellu|ar processes according directive effect .... ' we should find that
to simplistic nineteenth-century physi- the protein-based cellular order begins
cochemical notions based on dilute, with the 'protamine' portion ()f the
weak-electrolyte aqueous solutions and chromatin.
Rgure 1 on gas-phase kinetics. Even so, early in We now know that larger eukaryotic
A portrait of Schr6dinger,taken by Lotte the twentieth century a number of theor- ceils are, indeed, laced with a dense
Meitner-Graf(c. :I.935). The Professor is
shown smoking his favorite Peterson eticians from such areas as biochem- array of fibrous proteinaceous elements,
pipe from Dublin. Reproduced from istry, cell biology and developmental as well as with spacious lipoprotein
Ref. 3 with permission from Cambridge biology were already contemplating membrane surfaces; and a multitude of
UniversityPress. seriously the ideas of spatial order and metabolic pathways has been found to
microenvironmentai deviation in the be associated with this cytomatdx ~3.
cellular machinery (reviewed in Refs The theoretical issue of m~croenviron-
living organisms differs so entirely from 11-13). In particular, the crystal mental statistical variation in metabolic
that of any piece of matter that we metaphor was being used at this time phenomena has continued to draw
physicists and chemists have ever as a 'field' concept by developmental interest even in later years (see, for
handled...'. Schr6dlnger illustrated his biologists (see Ref. 11). example, Ref. 15). Perh~,ps the most
biological concern by reference to the An interesting parallel to succinct way of characterizing local
so-called '~/n rule', whereby physlco- SchrSdinger's quest for understanding biochemical flow processes in living
chemical laws manifest an inaccuracy of the physical basis of cellular order, cells is to refer to them in a modified
with a relative error of the order of but on the phenotyplc rather than the 'probabllistic' manner, as a diffusion
l/~ln, where n Is the number of mol. genotyplc side, may be seen in an early under a bias, where the bias is rendered
ecules resl~aslble for the process. As paper entitled 'Surface Structure tn the by the ambient structural setting (see
most physical laws deal with systems Integration of Cell Activity', published Ref. 13). Such a specific designation
entailing very large numbers of par- in 1930 by the Oxford biochemist, was, In fact, suggested in 1925 by the
ticles, the error in predictability is Rudolph Peters =4.Akin to Schrfdlnger's mathematical biologist Alfred Lotka ~.
usually insignificant. Whence, he won. motivation, Peters felt that 'the prob- Schr~dinger also examined the gl,~bal
dered how the gene (or chromosome) - a lem of greatest significance Is that pre- problem of accounting for the or~,. "z-
single macromolecule - could deter- sented by the orderly, continuous and ation of the living state within the con-
mine dynamically 'the very orderly and coordinated direction of chemical pro- text of the second law of thermodynam-
lawful events within a living organism'. cesses' in the living ceil. With only ics. He maintained that such internal
Sehr6dinger's resolution to the para- limited cytological evidence available at order must be 'paid for' at the expense
dox led him to propose that life's the time, he argued for a =nechanism of degradation of substrates - 'negative
spatiotemporal order must be due, ulti- of 'directed chemical change' executed entropy' (or 'negentropy') - from the
mately, to the Inherent structural by enzyme populations associated with surroundings. In the immediate after-
properties of the chromosome, which a reflexive proteinaceous network ex- math of the publication of What is Life?,
he conceptualized as a heat-stable tending throughout the cell. Based on Sehr6dinger was criticized for not being
'aperiodic crystal', involving a 'minia- simple numerical calculations for the explicit with the technical details of the
ture code' for a one-to-one correspon. putative microcompartments posed by nature of open systems and with the
dence with the organismic plan. Thus, such ultrastructure, Peters pictured significance of Gibbs free energy in re-
he said, 'we are here obviously faced how fluctuations about some measured lation to negentropy. He retorted that
with events whose regular and lawful average value of cellular concentration the book was directed to a lay audience
unfolding is guided by a "mechanism" can be of great kinetic consequence for and that he was deliberately short on
entirely different from the =probability the localized biochemical events, in a detail, although in a later edition he
mechanism" of physics'. Schr6dinger's similar vein to Schr6dinger, he asserted provided an addendum on this point.
longstanding romance with biology While Schr6dinger lacked knowledge of
seems to reach a crescendo here, as he *As phrased by Ernst Mayrt°, 'whiggish' is the term some of the relevant biology, we can
mused over such a 'fantastic descrip- applied to that kind of biased, hindsighted history rest assured that, from his academic
tion, perhaps less becoming a scientist of science, 'in which every scientist is judged by the
extent of his [s/c] contribution toward the establish- upbringing under the shadow of
than a poet'. ment of our current interpretation of science.' Boltzmann in Vienna, he was well aware
T~BS 20 - JANUARY 1 9 9 5
of the overall thermodynamic nature oi
the matter.
Schr6dinger's thermodynamic reason-
ing here was perspicacious. Although
the basic principles had begun to
appear in physics/chemistry textbooks
(see, for example, Ref. 17) at the time,
the subiect ol nonequilibrium thermo-
dynamics was not well known, especially
in the science of biology. Today, the
thermodynamics of nonequilibrium pro-
cesses has generated a well-defined
scientific edifice that deals implicitly
with the idea of negentropy as free-
energy exchange across the boundary
of open systems and internal dissi-
pation (see, for example, Reis 18, 19).
Perhaps Schr6dinger's view came from
Boltzmann who, in the late nineteenth
century, had lectured and written of liv-
ing organisms as evading the second
law of thermodynamics by feeding on
negative entropy (see Ref. 20). The
bioenergetic significance of BoRzmann's
depiction had been identified (and duly
cited), long before What is Life?, by
Lotka (see Ref. 13). In 1940, Ludwig yon
Bertalanffy (respected by many as the
father of 'general systems theory'),
independently had characterized living
systems in virtually the same terms as
Schr6dinger (see Ref. 21).
The central ideas in What is Life?,
when considered individually, would
not seem all that original. Nevertheless,
Schr6dinger's unique synthesis and
physicalist insight gave notice, to a
wide and diverse scientific audience, of
a number of important, but relatively
obscure, biophysical (as well as genetic)
issues. This role, in itself, is sufficient to
ensure a venerable position for the
book in the history of science.
Fr0m ideas i0 ih0ughts
The true legacy of What is Life? is to
be realized by reflecting not so much on
the author's 'ideas' but on the back-
ground 'thoughts' that may have driven
him to associate the ideas. At present,
there is a communal feeling of unity
(perhaps a fin-de.stale euphoria?)
amongst many scientists, especially
those of a theoretical bent. As the twen-
tieth century (and an old millennium)
comes to a close, bookshops are replete
with titles beginning with The End of...,
from all fields of human endeavor. Many
prominent physicists are now boldly
asserting that a 'theory of everything'
(the so-called 'TOE') is at hand. One has
only to open the pages, for example, of
Paul Davies' book The New Physics
(Cambridge University Press, 1989), to
iee] the exciting hotism i~ presentoday
physics and the urgency in its unifi-
cation with biology.
These hoiistic times stimulate many
thinkers to cross the barriers separat-
ing the individual intellectual disci-
plines and to engage in liberai analogi-
cal thinking between them. 5chrSdinger
was a perceptive and inquisitive stu-
dent of science during a similar period
some 100 years ago. ! agree with the
biographical speculation of W~lter
Moorea, that What is Life? had its
origins in the author's student days in
Vienna, in those late-night biological
discussions with Frlinzel FrimmeL As
the nineteenth century turned into the
twentieth century, there was an abun-
dance of books hailing the unity of sci-
ence (reviewed in Ref. 13), among them
some by biologists such as Ernst
Haeckel, of whom we know SchrOdinger
was aware (see Ref. 3). Moreover, the
physicist Boltzmann, Schr6dinger's sci-
entific idol from his university period,
was a Darwin enthusiast and had given
considerable notice to biological issues
in the late nineteenth century (see
Ref. 20).
Moore a suggests that Schr6dinger's
incentive for interdisciplinary transcen-
dence came from the Naturphilosophie
spirit of Goethe, in whom he was well
versed. The polymathic credo in
Goethe's On Generql Thc:ory tells all: 'If
you desire to reach out into the infinite,
move in all directions in the finite.'
Goethe and Lamarck (whom, as noted
above, Schr6dinger also read) were two
of the greatest universalists in the mod-
ern history of science (see Ref. 22).
What is Life? is not really about
genes, nor is it about entropy.
Schr6dinger, in [act, declares his pur-
pose in the opening pages. After empha-
sizing 'the keen longing for unified, all-
embracing knowledge' and apologizing
to the reader for his 'second-hand and
incomplete knowledge' of biology in the
Preface, he states on the first page of
the first chapter his focus, 'at the risk of
making fools of ourselves,' on the fun-
damental question: 'How can the events
in space and time which take place
within the spatial boundary of a living
organism be accounted for by physics
and chemistry?' (Schr6dinger's italics).
The true significance of What is Life? is
to be understood within the realm of
physicalism, a philosophical program, of
unification that accords a special rela-
tional privilege to physics (see Ref. 23).
Within this paradigm, the natural world
is not analysed by merely reducing
REFLECTIONS
maierial substance to ,+~imp~ephysical
objects; ratheL ti~: t~eoe+eticai characo
ter of space-time ~sociations for pro-
cesses to a physical foemat is reduced.
Schr6dinger was, of course, caught in
the beginning of the ~mo!ecc~!arbiology'
era, whictt comme~:.e(~ '-' , ih e a r n e s t
shortly after the tu~r~,~-&e-century
rediscovery of MendeFa wm-k. Yet his
concern was not wit~ the nah~re of
genes per se; rather, he w~i:ed to L~ow
the causal, dynamical basis of 'events'
(such as structures, organization arm
hereditary transitions) in the ii~'ing
state. SchrSdinger's famous 'aper,:oaic
crystal' metaphor for chromosomal
structure should be interpreteO in this
dynamical sense. To a theoretical physi-
cist, the idea of a 'crystal' immediately
conjures up mathematical symmetry
groups. A hallmark of relativity and
quantum physics in this century has
been the elucidation of symmetry/
asymmetry as the dynamical principle
underlying all the forces of Nature (see
Ref. 24). Pierre Curie 25, in the late 1800s,
used the concepts of crystal symmetry
groups in a dynamical manner (prob-
ably unknown to Schr6dingeO that,
today, provides the theoretical basis for
our understanding of many kinds of
coupled thermodynamic flow process
in living cells (see Refs 13, 18). While we
cannot thank Schr6dinger solely for the
appearance of this paradigm in biology,
the prescience of his analogical thinking
is historically noteworthy.
• In looking at the plethora of works on
the theoretical foundation of the unifi-
cation of biology and physics being
written today, SchrSdinger would surely
smile contentedly. Not only should he
be revered for his fundamental role in
the physics revolution of the twentieth
century, but he should be remembered
in the history of science as one of the
first pioneers from the early stage of
that revolution to extend the physical-
ist implications ('albeit,' as he said,
• 'with secondLand and incomplete
knowledge') to other areas.
Despite the phenomenal successes
of theoretical physics and of molecular
biology, we are, alas, no closer to
answering the ultimate question What is
Life? than in Schr6dinger's day. With
time, the explanation becomes more
elusive and metaphysical. Dare we infer
that the author sensed the uncertainty
himself, in adding the controversial epi-
logue? As voiced by Lotka16, a contem-
porary of Schr6dinger, '(in) searching
for the essential characteristics of life,
those that should finally and conclusively
47
 : i _ ~ _
BOOKREVIEW
distinguish ~he living from the non-
living, are we not just searching for the
thing in nature that should correspond
to a word in our vocabulary? Are we not
hunting the Jabberwock?'
A©know~lgemnt
I am grateful to D. B. Kell and J. A.
Witkows~J for helpful comments.
References
i Welch. G. R. (1989) BioEssays1L 187-190
2 Gnaiger, E. et aL (1994) What is Controlling
Life?, ;nnsbruck University Press
3 Moore, W, (1989) SchrSdinger:Life and
Thought, Cambridge University Press
4 Yoxen, E. J. (1979) Hist. Sci. 17, 17-52
5 Witkowski, J. A. (1986) Trends8iochem. Sci.
11, 266-268
6 Perutz, M. F. (1987) Nature326, 555-558
7 TimoE.=eff-Ressovsky,N. W., Zimmer, K. G. and
Delbn3ck, M. {1935) Nachrichten aus tier
B,ologie der Gese#schaflder Wissenschaften
G6ttingen 1, 189-245
.... L
The teenage weakling and
other stories
Biochemistry for the Medical
Sciences: An Integrated Case
Approach
edited by S. J. Higgins, A. J. T~tmer and
E. J. Wood, Longman, i 9 9 4 . £ 1 4 , 9 9
(xiii + 20:t pages) ISBN 0 5 8 2 1 0 1 2 9 8
This is a self-study book that should
attract the interest of students in the
health sciences, it might help them
develop problem-solving skills and
curiosity, and allow them to avoid the
traditional barriers between basic science some being more usefu! than others, but
disciplines and between basic versus
clinical departments.
it is now quite clear that the emphasis
in medical education has charged. Gone
axe the 'day-long' lectures and the passive elements with respect to the questions.
style of education. The responsibility for
education is now translerred, to a large
degree, from the faculty to the student,
Further, there is a great need for
introducing clinical relevance and
motivation for students to seek
information, in this light, this text seems
very timely. The medical school faculty
must search for or create new ways to
present the basic sciences, ways that
capture the potential enthusiasm of the
student while avoiding over-burdening
the student initially. Concepts and
thinking patterns, rather than fact
overload, are on everyone's minds.
Nevertheless, there are few texts available that each case is very 'thin'; it does not
to achieve these aims.
Biochemistry for the Medical Sciences is
a large step in the right direction. It is well relatively unrelated, case synopses. I do
written, clearly presented, concise and
48
8 Symonds, N. (1986) O. Rev. Biol. 61,
221-226
9 Watson, J. (1993) Science261,
1812-1813
10 Mayr, E. (1982) The Growth of BS.ological
Thought, Harvard University Press
11 Haraway,D. J. (1976) Crystals, Fabrics, and
ReMs: Metaphors of Organicismin Twentieth-
Century DevelopmentalBiology,Yale University
Press
12 Witkowski, J. A. (1987) Medical History 31.
247-268
13 Welch, G. R. (1992) Prog. Biophys. Mot. Biol.
57, 71-128
14 Peters, R. A. (1930) Trans. FaradaySoc. 26,
797--822
,t5 Smeach, S. C. and Gold, H. J. (1975) J. Theor.
Biol. 51, 59-96
16 Lotka, A. J. (1925) Elementsof Physical Biology,
Williams & Wilkins
17 De Donder, T. and Van Rysselberghe, R (1936)
ThermodynamicTheoryof Affinity, Stanford
University Press
18 Caplan, S. R. and Essig, A. (1983)
Bioenergetics and Linear Nonequilibrium
Thermodynamics,Harvard University
Press
has an appropriate number of clear
illustrations to make the points that the
authors have in mind. Other strengths
include its breadth, clinical relevance,
and the mostly up-to-date, clear
explanations. Students in the health
sciences should certainly lind it highly
instructive and interesting. I do not think
students or faculties should be, or will be,
'put off' by the selection of cases, some of
which describe rare diseases.
Before discussing my interpretation of
the weaknesses, a brief comment about
the layout. The cases are presented
succinctly. An introduction to the
pi :)blem is provided in usually less than
one page. This is followed by a concise
outline of the problem, including all the
relevant data. Questions are then asked,
most are pertinent. The authors choose
(wisely in my opinion) not to p=ovide
specific answers, but provide a
commentary that addresses all the key
To stimulate the student, further
(unanswered) questions are provided.
Many of these require detailed
information, but are, nevertheless,
important questions, in the final section,
the authors attempt to encourage
integration, both horizontally between
the basic sciences and vertically to more
clinical areas; this is the only area that is
not sufficiently developed to the high
level of the remainder of the book. Finally,
excellent introductory references are
provided.
The strengths of this book are also its
weaknesses. It covers so wide an area
cover any subject in depth, and reads
like a collection of interesting, but
not find this to be a major detraction
TIBS 2 0 - JANUARY 1 9 9 5
19 Westerhoff, H. V. and Van Dam, K. (1987)
Thermodynamicsand Control of Biological Free-
Energy Transduction, Elsevier
20 Broda, E. (1983) LudwigBoltzmann:
Man-Physicist-Philosopher,
Ox BOWPress
21 Davidson, M. (1983) UncommonSense:
The Life and Thoughtof Ludwig yon Bertalanffy,
]'archer
22 Welch, G. R. 'Goethe's Gestalt, Bi/dung, and
Urph&nomenin Biology: A Twentieth-Century
Physicalist View,' in GoetheScienziato(Grieco,
A., ed.), Einaudi (in press)
23 Poland, J. (1994) Physicalism:
The PhilosophicalFoundations,
Oxford University Press
24 Pageis, H. R. (1985) Perfect Symmetry,
Simon & Schuster
25 Curie, P. (1908) Oeuvresde Pierre Curie,
Gauthier-Villars
G. RICKEY WELCH
Department of Biological Sciences, University
of New Orleans, New Orleans, LA 70148,
USA.
because, if the book were much, much
longer, it wo_,dd look like a traditional text
and lose its appeal. It is a distinct
advantage to be able to put the book
down for a period of time and pick it up
later to read any of the cases that one
may find interesting at that time.
There are, however, some points I
would have wanted stressed in a book
that should 'make students think'. For
example, quantitation is underdeveloped.
in case one, the teenage weakling, it is
necessary to know that tlux through
pho~vholructokinase-1 has to be 18-fold
higher to regenerate the same amount of
ATP anaerobically versus aerobically. If
the student appreciated this, it would
help explain why the patient doesn't have
symptoms at rest or during aerobic
exercise. Moreover, in areas where I have
more detailed knowledge, i was less
happy about some of the discussion (for
example, case ten, acid excretors), but
this again is not a major criticism.
As one who has a great interest in
teaching basic sciences to medical
students, and one who has attempted to
achieve a somewhat similar aim l, overall 1
am very enthusiastic about this book. !
would recommend it highly to teaching
faculties to help ~elect and develop case
material, i v,ould make students aware of
this book and encourage them to read it.
Reference
1 Halperin, M. L. and Rolleston, F. S. (1993)
Clinical Detective Stories: A Problem.Based
Approach to Clinical Cases in Energyand
Acid-Base Metabolism, Portland Press
MITCHELL L. HALPERIN
is the co-author of Clinical Detective Stories and is
at St Michael's Hospital, 38 5huter Street, Toronto,
Ontario, Canada M5B 1A6.