Cited by T. Quick, 'Disciplining Physiological Psychology: Cinematographs as Epistemic Devices, 1897-1922', Science in Context 30 (4), pp. 423-474.
Description:

In 1913, Oxford appointed a new Waynflete Professor of Physiology, Charles Scott Sherrington. In 1906, a year before the emergence of Creative Evolution, Sherrington had published a monograph, The Integrative Action of the Nervous System, that would become an exemplary study to twentieth-century physiologists. [note: 'On Sherrington see Smith 2003; idem 2001b; idem 2000; idem 1992, 179-190; Swazey 1969, esp. 1-29.']

'Starting in 1884, Sherrington gradually built up a reputation as one of degeneration's most acute and productive proponents. His approach, which came to be known as 'successive degeneration', was simple: first, identify the areas of a body that a particular reaction could be electrically stimulated from; and second, systematically cut the nerves leading away from these areas, applying further stimulation as each nerve is cut (Swazey 1969, 57-60 and 63-66). By monitoring changes in the reactions of the animals subject to this technique, it would (experimental physiologists believed) be possible to identify the specific nerves responsible for the instigation of specific bodily activities. Bodily functions, it seemed, could be linked to the structure of the nervous system with hitherto unobtainable accuracy.'

 

'For the first two decades of his career, Sherrington presented his degeneration studies as cautious contributions to the gradual accumulation of evidence regarding the mechanical nature of nervous life. He focused almost exclusively on the simpler forms of nervous existence (especially those associated with antagonistic muscular actions such as the 'knee jerk') (Swazey 1969, 52-55).'

 

'The variability of antagonistic reactions, Sherrington found, was dependent on the initial posture of the animal, the extent to which stimulation had previously been applied, and the strength of the stimulus. Particularly notable were situations in which two reactions would alternate between one another (Swazey 1969, 84-90).'

 

'Perhaps unsurprisingly given his physical physiological commitments, Sherrington invested significantly in Macdonald's research [note: 'See e.g. letter from C.S. Sherrington to H. Cushing dated January 22 1902 and C.S. Sherrington to H. Cushing dated July 7 1905 (Sherrington Collection, Box WCG 1-37. WCG 32.6 and WCG 32.13). This investment has been little-noticed: for example Smith's major study of the term does not address Macdonald's work. Cf. Swazey 1969, 73-74.'].'

 

'Sherrington had spent the previous two decades building up a reputation as one of the most productive physiologists in Britain, and identified Oxford as a place in which he might further his own physiological goals (he had unsuccessfully sought appointment there in 1895. Swazey 1969, 18-19). Burdon-Sanderson could thereby be sure that his expression of uncertainty regarding Sherrington's intellectual commitments would be well attended to.'