Walter B. Cannon. Volume 2: Science and society

recognized method of taking notes from the distinguished Professor of Physiology was to follow in his manual and cross out whatever he did not say.") By the early twentieth century, the pre-clinical school at Cambridge occupied a position of national prominence, enjoying funding, patronage, and prizes. As well, an ambitious new generation of medical faculty sought to establish a complete clinical school at Cambridge, to stem the migration to London. In 1884, a series of clinical lectureships were established in seeming fulfilment of this ambition. But the clinical school never prospered and, from the turn of the century, clinical posts were left vacant or abolished altogether. The clinicians could not get a proper foothold in the hospital, which was run by charitable laymen. Therefore, leading British clinicians refused Cambridge appointments. The very success of the preclinical school also hindered the development of the clinical school. The scientists waged a successful battle for autonomy and control of the curriculum, blocking the clinicians' ambitions. In 1884, when the two schools supported rival candidates for the chair of pathology, the scientists won, ensuring that this strategic discipline remained in the hands of a physiological pathologist. Even after clinical research became established in the London teaching hospitals, Cambridge clinicians were too weak to introduce it on the Cam. The account breaks off in 1940 when the Regius Professor of Physic, John Ryle, quit in disgust over the rejection of his plans for a clinical research school. Weatherall draws on recent scholarship which, by revealing struggles between clinicians and scientists to control medical practice, tempers traditional accounts of the triumphant march of medical science. Weatherall, however, largely ignores practice and focuses on University administration, understanding administration as the arena for formal confrontation over the control and meaning of the curriculum. This approach may exaggerate the importance of intention and agency among the faculty waging their administrative battles. Weatherall notes that the shortage of bodies was one practical restraint upon expansion in the early years; did laboratory or clinical or examination practices impose others in later years? As a contested site, pathology gets some attention, but other straightforwardly medical or scientific fields such as midwifery do not. The reader is left to wonder about the extent to which these other fields were organized around administrative, or pedagogical, or research agendas. This caveat aside, Weatherall's lively and well-written account makes an important contribution to the history of medical education in Britain.