4
E . N . W I L L M E R
for the study of cancer. Thus, by 1914, Tissue Culture was seen as a
method which in the space of seven or eight years had not only solved
many of the problems connected with the neurone theory of the nervous
system, with the myogenic theory of the heart-beat (Burrows having
seen the contraction of isolated cardiac muscle cells in 1912) but also
answered many questions and raised others on cytological structure,
cell movement, cell shape and cell division. Furthermore, Thomson
(1914 a, b) had shown that embryonic organ rudiments could continue
to enlarge and differentiate more or less normally in vitro, and it seemed
likely that Tissue Culture would throw considerable light on the major
human problem of cancer. The future was indeed rosy.
It was probably not by chance that Carrel, a highly skilled surgeon,
well versed in the strict regimen of aseptic surgical technique, should be
the one to initiate many of the basic methods of tissue culture. His
training in surgery meant that he had the necessary experience and
knowledge to overcome the technical problems of avoiding infection
and of handling living tissues, but it also caused the method to be
wrapped up from the beginning in a considerable cocoon of mumbojumbo, derived from the practices that were prevalent at that time in
the operating theatres of the world. Thus Tissue Culture, though a
delicate and exacting technique and one in which rigorous asepsis is
absolutely essential, gained a spurious and unfortunate reputation for
difficulty and almost for mysticism, while at the same time it was
clearly of tremendous importance as a means of investigating, and
perhaps eventually combating, the great scourge of cancer. Tissue
Culture and Cancer Research were thus early linked together, both
practically by the research workers themselves and also in the public
mind. In consequence, Tissue-Culture laboratories were set up here,
there, and everywhere throughout the world and an immense quantity
of time and money was squandered on ill-directed research by adventurers who had climbed upon the band-waggon. It also meant that
much of the effort in tissue culture was expended in trying to make cells
grow fast and in the unorganized and rather abnormal way that they
do in some malignant growths and in which they were found to do
when suitably stimulated in tissue cultures. What was happening to the
cells in the original tissue of the explant was at that time of minor
interest as compared with the visible growth and division of the cells
that moved out into the medium or onto the supporting surfaces provided. Though much of importance in our concepts of cellular behaviour has emerged from such studies of unorganized growth, the
problem of malignancy is still with us and so also are many problems
of cell differentiation, organization and function, for the solution of
which Tissue Culture could have been used at a much earlier time and
E . N . W I L L M E R
for the study of cancer. Thus, by 1914, Tissue Culture was seen as a
method which in the space of seven or eight years had not only solved
many of the problems connected with the neurone theory of the nervous
system, with the myogenic theory of the heart-beat (Burrows having
seen the contraction of isolated cardiac muscle cells in 1912) but also
answered many questions and raised others on cytological structure,
cell movement, cell shape and cell division. Furthermore, Thomson
(1914 a, b) had shown that embryonic organ rudiments could continue
to enlarge and differentiate more or less normally in vitro, and it seemed
likely that Tissue Culture would throw considerable light on the major
human problem of cancer. The future was indeed rosy.
It was probably not by chance that Carrel, a highly skilled surgeon,
well versed in the strict regimen of aseptic surgical technique, should be
the one to initiate many of the basic methods of tissue culture. His
training in surgery meant that he had the necessary experience and
knowledge to overcome the technical problems of avoiding infection
and of handling living tissues, but it also caused the method to be
wrapped up from the beginning in a considerable cocoon of mumbojumbo, derived from the practices that were prevalent at that time in
the operating theatres of the world. Thus Tissue Culture, though a
delicate and exacting technique and one in which rigorous asepsis is
absolutely essential, gained a spurious and unfortunate reputation for
difficulty and almost for mysticism, while at the same time it was
clearly of tremendous importance as a means of investigating, and
perhaps eventually combating, the great scourge of cancer. Tissue
Culture and Cancer Research were thus early linked together, both
practically by the research workers themselves and also in the public
mind. In consequence, Tissue-Culture laboratories were set up here,
there, and everywhere throughout the world and an immense quantity
of time and money was squandered on ill-directed research by adventurers who had climbed upon the band-waggon. It also meant that
much of the effort in tissue culture was expended in trying to make cells
grow fast and in the unorganized and rather abnormal way that they
do in some malignant growths and in which they were found to do
when suitably stimulated in tissue cultures. What was happening to the
cells in the original tissue of the explant was at that time of minor
interest as compared with the visible growth and division of the cells
that moved out into the medium or onto the supporting surfaces provided. Though much of importance in our concepts of cellular behaviour has emerged from such studies of unorganized growth, the
problem of malignancy is still with us and so also are many problems
of cell differentiation, organization and function, for the solution of
which Tissue Culture could have been used at a much earlier time and