Choosing to leave behind the spiritual qualities administered to ferments by van Helmont, Willis decided to explain ferments in a manner more befitting the natural sciences. Willis observed that blood could separate into different components when left to stand. When the watery substance that emanated from the blood was put into a flame, it transformed into white solids. Hence, he theorized that blood must be a ferment. Comparing the action of yeast in dough to the ferment of blood, Willis stated that sulfur, salt, spirit and earth were disconnected from each other and from the corpuscles (where they were all held together), as a result of a heating in the heart. Willis declared that blood was in a constant ferment, unlike those of beer and dough.
Once again dismissing van Helmont’s spiritual based theory, Willis claimed that fevers were caused as a result of distortion of fermentation of the blood. This caused the blood’s particles to become more agitated than normal. This in turn, resulted in the blood boiling violently and its pounding against vessels leading to an increase in body temperature and pulse. Willis was so enthralled with fermenting, that he equated doctors to vintners when it came to the curing hand handling of patients.
Willis intertwined Harvey’s anatomy, van Helmont’s alchemy and Boyle’s theory of corpuscles to eventually create a branch of science that would come to be known as biochemistry. Although Willis’ theories were questioned by a number of his colleagues (such as Boyle), he’s book regarding fevers was slowly circulating among the scientific community and was poised for publication. However, despite the highs in Willis’ own life, the lives of many in Oxford were coming to a painful end as diseases, such as meningitis and smallpox, overwhelmed the town. Nonetheless, this caused an exponential increase in the number of patients that Willis attended to, allowing him to clandestinely invent and administer a number of drugs.
As Willis profession took off, he wed Mary Fell who was the daughter of a dean to the Christ Church prior to the war. When Willis’ book was released in 1659, it was circulated throughout Europe and he became a very well-known doctor, whose theories of corpuscles being the source of explanation for the workings of diseases were viewed as questionable by some. Willis’ work created a stir, as he discredited Aristotle’s theory of the four elements and Galen’s four humors. However, despite Willis’ novel and more rational ideas regarding fevers, he made few advances in changing they ways in which they were treated. He continued to use the treatment of purging the body of heat in order to rid it of fever.
Willis disregarded the Puritan notion of everyone’s fate being predetermined. He claimed that in order for one to ascend into heave, life had to be lived in a obedient and dutiful manner. This, however, would not be possible for a number of his patients who were inflicted with diseases that distorted the mind and destroyed one’s intellect.
Hence, Willis began to place more emphasis on the idea of animal spirits, which he believed to be the most active. He began to compare the structure of and protrusions from the brain to apparatuses used in chemistry. This led Willis to theorize that the spirits were “distilled” from the blood as it rose to the brain. They were then taken up by the brain and entered the organ. Willis fascination with the brain ultimately led to him discovering that imperfections in the diaphragm were not responsible for distortions of the mind. In addition, Willis also discovered that the pictures provided by Vesalius were grossly inaccurate. Hence, he set out to thoroughly study the brain and the nerves. However, his research did not pick up speed for a number of years as it would have eventually led him to question firmly held notions regarding the soul. This would have been a perilous task to undertake during the late 1650s, which was witnessing a string of political unrests and disruptions following the death of Oliver Cromwell. Hence, Willis’ research of blood was not interrupted and he, along with his friends, went on to developed microscopes, preservatives and injections.
Willis took a gifted young man, Richard Lower under his wing during the years of political upheaval in England. Lower aided Willis in a number of experiments and even made discoveries himself (which, however, Willis took credit for). One of the questions Lower helped Willis attend to was regarding the red color of blood. Through research, Willis decided that the red color of blood was due to a fermenting fluid in the heart which transformed the blood in the same ways as wine or beer would be fermented. The components of blood (spirit, sulfur and salt) were responsible for the red color of blood.
However, Boyle and Hooke theorized that Willis was not completely accurate. This eventually led to the assumption that it is air that plays a vital role in the “blood’s power.” This, in turn, led to the barometer being put to important use by the Oxford Circle in order to study the weight of air. Despite the craze around barometers, it was observed that they did not provide any significant aid in calculating the weight of air. Hence, Boyle used an altered version of a pump built by Otto Guericke (a German burgomaster) to demonstrate that air was lighter than water by many fold, leading to the discovery that the atmosphere was extremely far above the Earth. This eventually led to Willis’ colleague, Ralph Bathurst, being influential in Boyle’s admittance to lungs not being responsible for cooling blood or ridding the body of fumes.
Christopher Wren was another important figure during this time. He was instrumental in building giant telescopes and asserting to the presence of “arms” (rings) around Saturn. He was fascinated with carrying our complex experiments, one of which would change the perception of the spleen forever.
A number of theories regarding the function of the spleen were floating around and Wren decided to undertake an experiment, whereby he would remove the spleen form a dog and close off the severed arteries. After Wren performed the surgery, both he and Boyle observed that the dog was not affected at all. In addition to performing one of the first operations involving the removal of the spleen, Wren also began to perfect the use of injections and, along with Boyle, postulated that alcohol would be an ideal for keeping organs fresh.
During Wren’s astounding work, Owen Cromwell succumbed to cancer and his son, Richard Cromwell took over the leadership position. However, he was eventually overthrown and sent back to the country where he had grown up. General George Monck then took over leadership, ultimately transferring it back into the hands of King Charles.
Critique:
Chapter 7 was very engaging and not as unwieldy as some of the previous chapters. I was glad to learn that Willis was putting aside archaic theories previously presented by Aristotle and Galen and replacing them with slightly more reasonable ones. I found Willis theory regarding blood being a ferment to be very interesting as I had not heard of this notion before. I also thought his comparing a physicians handling of patients to a vintner’s handling of wine creative (albeit, a little crude). I was surprised to learn that Willis was responsible for the development of biochemistry, as this was a fact that I was not previously aware of. It helped me understand the scope of his contributions to our perception of science today. Despite Willis’ brilliant discoveries and proposals regarding the source of fevers, I found it rather puzzling that he did not change his treatment of the diseases.
I found it equally interesting that Willis was responsible for the disintegration of the notion that the diaphragm was a barrier to the “lower soul.” Damage to the diaphragm was thought to cause delirium and frenzies, which Willis discredited. I was disappointed that the political unrest and spiritual beliefs of Willis' time placed restrictions on his carrying out continual research on the brain. This would have allowed him to venture into questioning and investigating the soul, which would have, no doubt been intriguing to read about. However, it was due to these restrictions that Willis and his colleagues developed a number of instruments, such as microscopes and injections and I definitely also appreciate them for those accomplishments.
Zimmer went on to elucidate Christopher Wren’s achievements in Chapter 7. I could not fathom as to why and how Wren abstained from keeping a clear account of his experimental findings as he carried out immeasurable experiments to “pass time” (163). This signifies his brilliance (though he seemed to be rather impatient as well). It was fascinating to read about Wren “perfecting” the use of injections, right up to a point where he could hold veins in his hands while avoiding damaging them.
Overall, this chapter was definitely a worth-while read, as I can finally understand the extent of Willis’ contributions. Wren and Boyle also played a pivotal role in spearheading a number of great discoveries that we take for granted today. I never thought about who was responsible for the “creation” of biochemistry or invention of the injection. Hence, this chapter was very eye-opening for me.
* For a biography of and collection of essays from Thomas Willis:
http://www.cerebromente.org.br/n06/historia/willis_i.htm
*For a biography of Christopher Wren, including his architectural works:
http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Biographies/Wren.html
* A Brief History of the barometer:
http://www.barometer.ws/history.html
* Information on Boyle’s air pump:
6 comments:
Despite its length, this particular chapter was truly engaging. Like Suba, one of the most interesting parts of this chapter for me was Willis’ ability to integrate the practices of Boyle, Harvey, and Van Helmont to formulate a “new” branch of science that would inevitably become biochemistry. Up until this point, Zimmer discusses the works of various scientists that have contributed to seemingly unrelated components of science. It was interesting to see where these theories finally coalesced.
Equally fascinating were Wren’s surgical experimentations with the dog. I share Suba’s intrigue regarding Wren performing such work for the sake of passing the time. Although I admire his scientific curiosity, I simply cannot believe that he neglected to formulate any conclusions based on his data. Nonetheless, Wren’s splenectomy and his work with intravenous injections were truly groundbreaking. However, I would have liked to know more about the dog’s health after his spleen was removed, considering that the organ plays a role in an organism’s immune response.
Finally, Zimmer introduces us to certain scientists who I associated with different discoveries. In the previous chapter, he brought in Robert Boyle, whom—up until this chapter—I failed to recognize as a prominent figure in chemistry. His work on pressure has contributed to the development of the Ideal Gas Law. With his work appropriately named Boyle’s Law, Boyle found that at a constant temperature, the pressure and volume of a gaseous substance are inversely related. Closely associated with him in this chapter was Robert Hooke, a physicist whom I recognized from his work with the elasticity of springs. His most famous conclusion is what we now know as Hooke’s Law, which states that the force exerted by a spring onto an object is proportional to the distance by which it is stretched of compressed (F=-kx, where k is a spring constant).
Going along with the discussion on barometers was the work of Evangelista Torricelli. What is interesting about him is that his work with this topic is commemorated with the eponymous unit of pressure, torr. In the realm of physics, Torricelli is also known for his work with the nature of fluids. His work, now called Torricelli’s result, states that the velocity at which a fluid travels from a small hole in its container is equivalent to the square-root of 2 times acceleration due to gravity, g, and the distance from the surface of the liquid down to the hole, D (vefflux=√2gD).
For more information on:
1) The effects of a splenectomy: http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/002944.htm
2) Robert Boyle and Boyle’s Law: http://www.woodrow.org/teachers/chemistry/institutes/1992/Boyle.html
3) Robert Hooke and Hooke’s Law: http://www.roberthooke.com/
4) Evangelista Torricelli and Torricelli’s result: http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/history/Biographies/Torricelli.html
I agree with both ynaling and suba; this chapter was quite lengthy but very interesting. Reading about how Willis discovered the science of biochemistry was interesting. I find it neat how he was not only responsible for neurobiology but now we know his interest and thus findings about biochemistry ultimately became the basis for his interest in neurobiology.
With as intrigued Willis was with fevers, I too, like Suba, was disappointed that he did not change his way of dealing with the fevers once he made his proposals and discoveries. One would have thought that he would have changed something up with his intelligence to expand his horizons on dealing with the healing and sources of the fevers.
It seemed as if every chapter we learn about one prominent figure in the history of science as we continue to build upon our knowledge of Willis. This streak continued even to this chapter. We continued with Boyle and learned about Wren's work. He was a brilliant scientist. For someone to use experiments to pass time and to not write down his procedures is unremarkable, especially in the beginning stages of science. One would think he would have written down every single step in order to make sure generations after him knew his work etc.
Christopher Wren:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Wren
Robert Boyle and gas laws:
http://www.physchem.co.za/Kinetic/Gas%20Laws.htm
“In his synthesis of Harvey’s anatomy, van Helmont’s alchemy, and Boyles corpuscles, Willis helped to invent something that would ultimately become biochemistry” (149).
I, like Suba, found it very surprising to learn that Willis was responsible for the development of biochemistry. I would not have thought this.
I was also delighted to hear that Willis’ book finally came out in 1659 after so much dedication and so much time had elapsed. I was pleased that “it was popular not only in medical circles in England but across much of Europe as well” (151). Though “he became a controversial, celebrated doctor striking a powerful blow against Aristotle’s four elements and Galen’s four humors by demonstrating that corpuscles could explain the most important threat to human life,” (151) he was still praised by others for his “challenge to conventional wisdom” (151).
When the book says, “Willis proved to be a backward-looking revolutionary: he preserved the old medicine within the new science”, I (like Suba) was puzzled by the fact that he did not change his treatment of the diseases even with new and brilliant discoveries about the source of fevers.
Another interesting fact is that Willis in the midst of the meningitis outbreak, “rejected the Puritan creed that everyone’s fate was predestined, believing instead that salvation came only to those who lived well- with repentance, obedience, and duty. And those who lacked their reason couldn’t live out this sort of existence and might not get to heaven. (152). It was also interesting that Willis “worried over the souls of his patients” and believed that “medicine was valuable because it could prolong the life of mortally ill people long enough to convert and find eternal life” however, “if diseases robbed his patients of their rational minds, they would be lost” (152).
It was interesting that “deliriums and frenzies were thought to be caused by a damaged diaphragm” (154), and Willis had discovered a hole in the diaphragm of a man whose mind had been sound his entire life” (154) thus disproving this theory.
Suba says she was disappointed that the political unrest and spiritual beliefs of Willis’ time placed restrictions on his carrying out continual research on the brain. I agree to a certain extent because I also feel that Willis’ own belief restricted himself from carrying out continual research on the brain. As the book says, “he would inevitably have been led into an investigation of the soul” (154) and no man of his high status could take the risk of being discriminated and ridiculed by the society. Overall, it was best that he delayed research on the brain because Willis and his colleagues “developed much of the technology” (156) needed to study the brain such as “preservatives, microscopes, and injections (156).”
I found it humbling of Richard Lower to allow Willis to take credit for the discovery of a spring near the village of Astrop “that spurted water with healing powers and in later years the sick would flock there to drink it” (157). And I found it very respectable for Willis to return the favor by “speaking highly of him whenever he had the chance” (157) and “declaring his gratitude for the edge of both Lower’s knife and his wit” (157).
I found it surprising that Wren had such a steady hand when performing a splenectomy on Boyle’s dog. I was fascinated the most that Wren “liked to conduct spectacular scientific research to pass the time” (164). In agreement with Suba, Wren was a brilliant man and it fascinated me that “he discovered how to hold veins in his fingers so that he no longer needed to use a plate to avoid tearing them” (165). On the other hand, I feel that Wren was apathetic to writing and maintaining a clear account of his experimental findings. I feel that he was just a curious man who wanted to educate himself and answer his own inquiries; therefore, there was no need to keep any reports (thus, no need to explain his results to others). And the accounts that we do have of Wren are from those who accompanied him, “his friends” (163) during his experiments. Overall, I feel that his associates were the ones he enjoyed sharing his accounts because he wasn’t looking for fame just people who shared his interests.
Information on Richard Lower:
http://www.cornwalls.co.uk/history/people/richard_lower.htm
http://www.faqs.org/health/bios/40/Richard-Lower.html
Information on Evangelista Torricelli:
http://www.nndb.com/people/605/000087344/
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14784a.htm
Information on Otto Guericke:
http://www.corrosion-doctors.org/Biographies/GuerickeBio.htm
Chapter 7 was a very interesting chapter and went into more detail about Thomas Willis’ life. Like Suba, I am also happy that Willis dismissed Aristotle and Glen’s “archaic theories,” and replaced them with more logical theories. As the chapters progress it has been interesting to read how scientists and philosophers have observed through scientific development the flaws and misconceptions of philosophers like Aristotle that were held to such high esteem by the scientific community but also by the church.
I also have not heard of Thomas Willis’ theory concerning the fermentation of blood. Very fascinating! Like Suba and Jamawa, I too am surprised that Willis did not change his treatment of diseases or fevers. You would have thought that will all his proposals and discoveries concerning fevers he would have determined a form of treatment. However, with all of his contributions to science, including being responsible for the development of biochemistry, I really can’t complain too much.
The political unrest during Willis’ time was disappointing, since it caused did not allow him to fully research the brain to determine the soul’s connection to the brain. Even though Willis was restricted from that research he and his colleagues were still able to brilliantly develop instrumentation that we still use today. And I also appreciate their accomplishments!
I also wanted to mention that I never knew that Wren "prefected" the use of injections. As Suba even said, it's very fascinating that he could even able to hold veins in his hand without even damaging them. Amazing! If only doctors and nurses who are not as handy with a needle could read up on Wren's technique. I have had many bad experiences with injections. When I have been stuck with a needle more than five times in one sitting because the person giving the injection cannot find my vein. I just hope someday I will be more successful with injections compared to my own experiences.
Interesting and short information about Christopher Wren:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/wren_christopher.shtml
Scientific Work:
http://www.arct.cam.ac.uk/personal-page/james/phd/wren/science.html
I agree with Suba that Chapter 7 was very interesting, that is, it made me wonder where and how did Willis came up with the idea that blood can be fermented. It’s remarkable that Willis was the founder for the development of biochemistry. I am surprised and disappointed that Willis’ discoveries about the source of fevers was changed, that is, he lost the attention in formulating any change in the treatment for the disease.
The part where Suba mentioned about Willis’ explanation of how the diaphragm functions made me a bit confused, because Willis’ believed that the “diaphragm was a barrier to the lower soul.” And so, from what I’ve noticed as I read each chapter is that its interesting to see many scientists, and philosophers back then has somehow associate the soul with human organ parts (“it is to account for its religious nature in nonreligious terms“). And that how each can’t function without the other is quite interesting to know on what explanations and theories that he or she (scientist and/or philosopher) would come up with next in their discoveries. It was exciting to know at how Wren handled a procedure well in holding the veins in his hands without damaging them, thinking that he had experienced on this to which I was surprised.
Related Links:
Have the Social Sciences Been Converted?
http://www.jstor.org/view/00218294/ap050081/05a00080/0?searchUrl=http%3a//www.jstor.org/search/BasicResults%3fhp%3d25%26si%3d1%26gw%3djtx%26jtxsi%3d1%26jcpsi%3d1%26artsi%3d1%26Query%3dreligion%2band%2bscience%26wc%3don&frame=noframe¤tResult=00218294%2bap050081%2b05a00080%2b0%2c1E&userID=435c1661@loyola.edu/01cce4405ca7e3115c0eaf68d&dpi=3&config=jstor
Sir Christopher Wren, P.R.S.
http://www.jstor.org/view/00359149/ap020023/02a00100/0?searchUrl=http%3a//www.jstor.org/search/BasicResults%3fhp%3d25%26si%3d1%26gw%3djtx%26jtxsi%3d1%26jcpsi%3d1%26artsi%3d1%26Query%3dChristopher%2bWren%2527s%2bdiscoveries%26wc%3don&frame=noframe¤tResult=00359149%2bap020023%2b02a00100%2b0%2cFF03&userID=435c1661@loyola.edu/01cce4405ca7e3115c0eaf68d&dpi=3&config=jstor
I too would have to agree with Perusal in reference to the ideas and discoveries of this chapter being even more intriguing than former chapters. I believe that it plays a big part and it was necessary for Willis to focus else were in order to bring the world this newer invention and a better working models. If he was to make the connection between the brain and the soul yes it would have been great but not as profound as the tools he did focus on which has helped others to go on this upward progression of knowledge and discovery that has greatly benefited society as a whole. Unlike Perusal I can see why Christopher Wrens did not seek notoriety for his achievements. During that day and age people educated themselves for the mere pleasure of knowing “knowledge for the sake of knowledge.” Learning was not a chore but more of a past time. All the thing that we find today to be laborious was to some joyful. When you think about the joy that comes from inventing existing because there are no protocols or regiments to follow but reinventing a replica is what is so pain staking about the process. I also consider the fact that we seek knowledge in order to progress in society as individuals. Where as people like Wren and Willis have status and wealth so another discovery is not about advancement but more so embellishment to their lapel.
Post a Comment