Dale and the development of pharmacology. Lecture given at Sir Henry Dale Centennial Symposium, Cambridge, 17-19 September 1975.

Abstract

The title of my lecture, ‘Dale and the development of pharmacology’, seems entirely appropriate in view of Dale's fundamental contributions to the subject; but it also contains a paradoxical element since Dale did not really consider himself a pharmacologist. He considered himself a physiologist, as he was by training and inclination. He trained in physiology with Langley and Gaskell in Cambridge, and after completing his medical course at Barts continued working as a physiologist with Starling as Sharpey Scholar. When at the age of 29 he became a pharmacologist by joining the Wellcome laboratories, he did not seem entirely happy at the transition, as is apparent from his writings in which he refers to the ergot ‘morass’ which he had entered, although he extracted some marvellous nuggets from it. Dale was atypical in his attitude of cautious reserve towards the drug receptor idea which has become so dominant a feature of pharmacology. He did not explain in terms of receptors the adrenaline reversal by ergot and although he knew of Langley's postulated ‘receptive substances’ he tended to emphasize our total ignorance of their nature. Interestingly though, in his 1919 Croonian Lecture he argued that the one receptive substance of which we knew something (because it could be studied apart from the cell) was the anaphylactic antibody, suggesting that its reaction with a specific antigen might provide an opportunity of studying drug-receptor interactions in a ‘test tube’. On a deeper level, Dale at times seemed almost surprised at the long range pharmacological-medical implications of his own discoveries. On one occasion, when discussing the early clinical uses of ganglion blocking drugs in hypertension he expressed astonishment that a symptomatic drug could be so effective in a chronic disease, probably reflecting the philosophy of Ehrlich who distinguished sharply between symptomatic and causal drugs. Yet, we know now from statistical evidence that treating the symptom hypertension, prolongs life. It can be said of Dale, as indeed of Ehrlich, that he was one of the great originators of pharmacology rather than a typical pharmacologist. Such people, by their very power and originality, cannot readily be accommodated within the framework of a restricted subject, though Dale's work is bound to exert a deep and lasting influence on the development and future of pharmacology.