Dr. Emil Holmgren and the liver cell / by E.A. Schäfer.

  • Sharpey-Schäfer, E. A. (Edward Albert), Sir, 1850-1935.
Date:
1903
Catalogue details

Licence: In copyright

Credit: Dr. Emil Holmgren and the liver cell / by E.A. Schäfer. Source: Wellcome Collection.

Provider: This material has been provided by The University of Glasgow Library. The original may be consulted at The University of Glasgow Library.

    5/8
    observation is not unique. Long ago Asp noticed appearances in in- jected preparations which showed that in some way or another the injection material used by him penetrated from the blood-vessels into the interior of the liver-cells, and the brothers Feaser^) were, later, able in the frog to inject passages within the liver-cells communicating directly with the blood-vessels. Nor do the preparations which I have described come only from one liver but from two, and in both cases the whole liver is equally injected, almost every cell in the organ exhibiting the anastomosing canaliculi filled with the material which had been used for injecting the blood-vessels. With regard to the fact of the existence of these canals and of the possibility of injecting them from the blood-vessels there is not and cannot be a shadow of doubt. As Professor Browicz truly says the injection appearances are nothing less than ideal (Anat. Anz., Bd. 22, p. 161). But as to the exact meaning of the fact each person who sees the specimens will naturally exercise his own judgment, especially as regards the manner in which the canaliculi have become fiUed with injection and it would indeed seem from what has already appeared in print upon the subject that the old adage Quot homines, tot sententiae is as applicable to this as to most other questions of interpretation. No one therefore can blame Dr. Holmgren if he puts upon the appearances in dispute a meaning which fits in best with the ideas he has formed regarding the structure of secreting cells. But Dr. Holmgren has raised a question of an entirely different nature, viz: is it justifiable to publish an observation relating to a matter of fact if the interpretation of the fact be difficult or if the fact itself seems to ride counter to received opinions upon the subject? I gather at least from his remark — Ich stimme mit dem hin- geschiedenen Professor Rutherford vollkommen uberein (i. e. in his refusal to permit Dr. Carlier to describe the preparations) that in his opinion Professor Carlier in desiring to publish this observation and I in having, with Professor Carlier's permission, ultimately published it have been guilty of a grave error of judgment; and that, seeing that the observation was difficult to reconcile with current ideas regarding the structure of the liver-cell and its relation to the hepatic capillaries, we should have acted more wisely if we had agreed to suppress its publication. I venture to believe, however, that on this question of ethics there will not be found many to agree with Dr. Holmgren. 1) Journ. Anat. and Physiol., Vol. 29, p. 240, 1895.