Perspectives in Biology and Medicine

LETTERS TO AND FROM THE EDITOR Dear Sir: Professor J. H. Quastel has written a very interesting and informative review of biochemistry in Britain in the Spring 1974 issue ofPerspectives [I]. However, it is unfortunate that Professor Quastel not only failed to include the work of Dr. Casimir Funk, pioneer in vitamin chemistry and originator of the name "vitamine ," but even failed to mention Funk's name in his review. It is indeed ironical, since Dr. Funk's pioneering work on the chemistry of the vitamins was done at the Lister Institute in London from 1910 to 1915. In 1911 he published his classic paper "On the Chemical Nature of the Substance Which Cures Polyneuritis in Birds Induced by a Diet of Polished Rice" in the BritishJournal of Physiology. To this substance he gave the name "vitamine" since it contained nitrogen in amine form and was essential to life. Funk published a number of additional papers in British biochemicaljournals in the next 2 years, from which papers he prepared a thesis for which he received the coveted doctor of science degree from the University of London. Funk also postulated that other diseases, and he referred to scurvy, rickets, and pellagra, were caused by the absence of a vitamin in the diet. Funk thus opened the door to a new era in the investigation and research in nutrition and diseases resulting from the absence of a natural chemical substance in the diet of man and other living creatures. Indeed he founded a new science as well as a billion-dollar industry. During his 5 years' work in London Funk met and conferred with many of the leading biochemists and physiologists, including F. G. Hopkins, Sir Charles Martin, Sir Jack Drummond (who later became Funk's assistant), Harden, MeIlanby , and others. Thus it is evident that Funk and his work were fully integrated in the evolvement of biochemistry in one of the most productive periods in British science. REFERENCE 1. J. H. Quastel. Perspect. Biol. Med., 17:317, 1974. Louis Freedman, Ph.D. 139 East 63d Street New York, New York 10021 Perspectives in Biology and Medicine · Winter 1975 | 297 Dear Sir: I agree with Dr. Freedman that I should have mentioned the work of Dr. Funk in my short review, though I understood, at the time I wrote my article, that the subject of British contributions to nutrition would be handled separately in the Woodward-Wellcome Symposium (1970) in British Contributions to Medical Science. I did point out, in a general consideration of Hopkins's pioneer investigations, where I refer only briefly to his work on vitamins, that "although there were prior publications indicating the existence of accessory food factors or vitamins, Hopkins's work represented a fresh and independent attack on the problem." In the very limited time at my disposal for the lecture on British contributions to biochemistry, I am afraid that I was obliged to omit reference to a number of names that might have been mentioned, but I hope to rectify this later in a more comprehensive review. J. H. Quastel Laboratory of Neurological Research University of British Columbia Vancouver, B.C., Canada V6T IW5 Dear Editor: For a biomedical journal to set itself up as a model to be emulated for excellence in composition and articulate expression is audacious indeed. By winning several medical writing awards it did appear that the journal had pulled it off. Could it be that we have said it often enough for people to believe it—with or without the evidence? With the institution of the "Perspectives Writing Award" we now wish to establish ourselves as the arbiters as well. "If in thejudgment of the editorial board no essays meets the standards ?? PBM, no award will be made" [I]. To say the least, our slip is showing! REFERENCE 1. Perspect. Biol. Med., 18:147, 1974. Managing Editor 298 I Letters to and from the Editor ...