An Introduction to the Study of
Experimental Medicine
by Claude Bernard
Overview
Bernard’s Thesis
Bernard’s objective in writing this is to compare organic and inorganic being and make the claim that there’s no significant difference in these two categories, thus there’s no moral condition to not experiment with organic beings as long as it is aimed to its study.
“I propose, therefore, to prove that the science of vital phenomena must have the same foundations as the science of the phenomena of inorganic bodies, and that there is no difference in this respect between the principles of biological science and those of physico-chemical science.” (page 60)
Internal and External Environment
The distinction between the experimentation of organic and inorganic bodies, says Bernard, is that in the inorganic bodies we have to take into account only one environment, which is the external. In the organic bodies, we have to consider at least two environments, the external or extra-organic and the internal or intra-organic.
Now, one must ask what the obvious difference between a lower level animal like an ant and the highest of all, that is man. In this respect, Bernard says that here the difference is the level of independence from the external environment. The inorganic bodies are fully dependent on the external environment (that’s the only one they have), but the organic bodies would gain more independence from the external environment in the measure of the complexity of their internal structure or environment. Even though man is very independent from the external environment, he would still be in some level dependent of it.
The Aim of Experimentation
Bernard says that the aim of experimentation is the same in the study of organic and inorganic bodies. His claim is that the aim of the physicist and the physiologist is to study the immediate cause of their subject, and this end up being the same, that is the material and physico-chemical conditions that appear in the body.
“We shall therefore define physiology thus: the science whose object it is to study the phenomena of living beings and to determine the material conditions in which they appear.” (page 66)
“To sum up, the object of science is everywhere the same: to learn the material conditions of phenomena.” (page 67)
The Necessary Conditions are Absolutely Determined
Again, Bernard is making his point that organic and inorganic bodies are conditioned by the material and physico-chemical reactions, thus they only differ in complexity. By doing this, he is justifying that we can experiment with organic bodies.
“Now in the phenomena of living bodies as in those of inorganic bodies, it is only through experimentation, as I have already often repeated, that we can attain knowledge of the conditions which govern these phenomena and so enable us to master them.” (page 68)
“Determinism thus becomes the foundation of all scientific progress and criticism.” (page 69)
Bernard says that if we really know the conditions and behavior of a body, we are able to predict it. If this prediction fails, it might be because the conditions are not the same. He also says that the experimenters create nothing and are only observers of the laws of nature.
To sum up, Bernard writes,
“It appears, at first sight, as if man and the higher animals must escape from its power to change, because they seem freed from the direct influence of the outer environment. But we know that vital phenomena in man, as in the animals nearest him, are connected with the physico-chemical conditions of an inner organic environment. But we know that vital phenomena in man, as in the animals nearest him, are connected with the physico-chemical conditions of an inner organic environment. This inner environment we must first seek to know, because this must become the real field of action for physiology and experimental medicine.” (page 86)
Is Bernard Right? Some questions to analyze…
Bernard’s perspective of organic and inorganic bodies is a total determinism. If we were to apply this to other areas other than experimenting, we would be faced with some issues that would cause some trouble.
One of them is that if we believe in determinism, then morality could not exist. All actions of any individual can be justified by saying that they were only physico-chemical reactions or electrical impulses that made him or her do the action. It doesn’t matter whether it’s scratching the nose or killing fifty people. Morality in this sense would disappear.
This view also leaves out free choice and the capacity to do what we believe is best for us, since all our thoughts and actions would be determined by our physical structure.
To me, this doesn’t make sense. At least not in totality. I believe our internal structure limits us in some things, but not with respect to our decision making. It limits us in the sense that we have certain biological needs, for example eating, but still, we can decide what we want to eat.
Bernard’s Thesis
Bernard’s objective in writing this is to compare organic and inorganic being and make the claim that there’s no significant difference in these two categories, thus there’s no moral condition to not experiment with organic beings as long as it is aimed to its study.
“I propose, therefore, to prove that the science of vital phenomena must have the same foundations as the science of the phenomena of inorganic bodies, and that there is no difference in this respect between the principles of biological science and those of physico-chemical science.” (page 60)
Internal and External Environment
The distinction between the experimentation of organic and inorganic bodies, says Bernard, is that in the inorganic bodies we have to take into account only one environment, which is the external. In the organic bodies, we have to consider at least two environments, the external or extra-organic and the internal or intra-organic.
Now, one must ask what the obvious difference between a lower level animal like an ant and the highest of all, that is man. In this respect, Bernard says that here the difference is the level of independence from the external environment. The inorganic bodies are fully dependent on the external environment (that’s the only one they have), but the organic bodies would gain more independence from the external environment in the measure of the complexity of their internal structure or environment. Even though man is very independent from the external environment, he would still be in some level dependent of it.
The Aim of Experimentation
Bernard says that the aim of experimentation is the same in the study of organic and inorganic bodies. His claim is that the aim of the physicist and the physiologist is to study the immediate cause of their subject, and this end up being the same, that is the material and physico-chemical conditions that appear in the body.
“We shall therefore define physiology thus: the science whose object it is to study the phenomena of living beings and to determine the material conditions in which they appear.” (page 66)
“To sum up, the object of science is everywhere the same: to learn the material conditions of phenomena.” (page 67)
The Necessary Conditions are Absolutely Determined
Again, Bernard is making his point that organic and inorganic bodies are conditioned by the material and physico-chemical reactions, thus they only differ in complexity. By doing this, he is justifying that we can experiment with organic bodies.
“Now in the phenomena of living bodies as in those of inorganic bodies, it is only through experimentation, as I have already often repeated, that we can attain knowledge of the conditions which govern these phenomena and so enable us to master them.” (page 68)
“Determinism thus becomes the foundation of all scientific progress and criticism.” (page 69)
Bernard says that if we really know the conditions and behavior of a body, we are able to predict it. If this prediction fails, it might be because the conditions are not the same. He also says that the experimenters create nothing and are only observers of the laws of nature.
To sum up, Bernard writes,
“It appears, at first sight, as if man and the higher animals must escape from its power to change, because they seem freed from the direct influence of the outer environment. But we know that vital phenomena in man, as in the animals nearest him, are connected with the physico-chemical conditions of an inner organic environment. But we know that vital phenomena in man, as in the animals nearest him, are connected with the physico-chemical conditions of an inner organic environment. This inner environment we must first seek to know, because this must become the real field of action for physiology and experimental medicine.” (page 86)
Is Bernard Right? Some questions to analyze…
Bernard’s perspective of organic and inorganic bodies is a total determinism. If we were to apply this to other areas other than experimenting, we would be faced with some issues that would cause some trouble.
One of them is that if we believe in determinism, then morality could not exist. All actions of any individual can be justified by saying that they were only physico-chemical reactions or electrical impulses that made him or her do the action. It doesn’t matter whether it’s scratching the nose or killing fifty people. Morality in this sense would disappear.
This view also leaves out free choice and the capacity to do what we believe is best for us, since all our thoughts and actions would be determined by our physical structure.
To me, this doesn’t make sense. At least not in totality. I believe our internal structure limits us in some things, but not with respect to our decision making. It limits us in the sense that we have certain biological needs, for example eating, but still, we can decide what we want to eat.