1) all living organisms (plants and animals) consist of cells;
2) plant and animal cells are similar in structure, chemical composition and the functions performed.
Rudolf Virchow
(1821-1902)
Matthias Schleiden
(1804-1881)
Theodor Schwann
(1810-1882)
M. Schleiden and T. Schwann believed that cells in the body arise through neoplasm from a primary non-cellular substance.
In 1858, the German anatomist Rudolf Virchow in his book “Cellular Pathology” refuted this idea and proved that new cells always arise from previous ones by division - “cell from cell, everything living only from a cell” - (omnis cellula a cellula) . An important generalization by R. Virchow was the statement that the greatest importance in the life of cells is not the membranes, but their contents - protoplasm and nucleus. Based on cell theory, R. Virchow bet on scientific basis doctrine of diseases. Having refuted the prevailing idea at that time, according to which the basis of diseases lies only in changes in the composition of body fluids (blood, lymph, bile), he proved great importance changes occurring in cells and tissues. R. Virchow established: “Every painful change is associated with some pathological process in the cells that make up the body.” This statement became the basis for the appearance of the most important section modern medicine – pathological anatomy.
Virchow was one of the founders of the study of life phenomena on cellular level, which is his indisputable merit. However, at the same time, he underestimated the research of the same phenomena at the level of the organism as an integral system. In Virchow's view, an organism is a state of cells and all its functions are reduced to the sum of the properties of individual cells.
In overcoming these one-sided ideas about the body great value had works by I.M. Sechenov, S.P. Botkin and I.P. Pavlov. Domestic scientists have proven that the body represents the highest unity in relation to cells. The cells and other structural elements that make up the body do not have physiological independence. Their formation and functions are coordinated and controlled by the entire organism with the help of complex system chemical and nervous regulation.
A radical improvement in the entire microscopy technique allowed researchers by the beginning of the 20th century to discover the main cellular organelles, elucidate the structure of the nucleus and patterns cell division, decipher the mechanisms of fertilization and maturation of germ cells.
In 1876, Eduard Van Beneden established the presence cell center in dividing germ cells.
In 1890, Richard Altmann described mitochondria, calling them bioblasts, and put forward the idea that they could reproduce themselves.
In 1898, Camillo Golgi discovered an organelle named the Golgi complex in his honor.
In 1898, chromosomes were first described by Karl Benda.
A major contribution to the development of the study of the cell in the second half of the 19th – early 20th centuries. contributed by domestic cytologists I.D. Chistyakov (description of the phases of mitotic division), I.N. Gorozhankin (study cytological foundations fertilization in plants), S.G. Navashin, who discovered in 1898. the phenomenon of double fertilization in plants. Advances in the study of cells led to the fact that the attention of biologists increasingly focused on the cell as the main structural unit living organisms.
A qualitative leap in cytology occurred in the 20th century. In 1932, Max Knoll and Ernst Ruska invented electron microscope, giving an increase of 106 times. Micro- and ultramicrostructures of cells invisible in a light microscope were discovered and described. From that moment on, the cell began to be studied at the molecular level.
Thus, advances in cytology are always associated with improvements in microscopy techniques.
Virchow(Virchow) Rudolf Ludwig Karl (10/13/1821, Schiefelbein, Pomerania - 09/05/1902, Berlin), German pathologist, anthropologist, archaeologist and politician. Primary education received in the family and in private schools. In 1839 he entered the University of Berlin, choosing the topic of his essay: A life full of labor and struggle is not a yoke, but a blessing. In 1843 he defended his doctoral dissertation, and in the same year he began working at the Charité clinic in Berlin. In 1847 he became a professor University of Berlin. Founded the journal Archive of Pathological Anatomy and clinical medicine(Archiv fur pathologische Anatomie, Physiologie und fur klinische Medizin).
In 1848 Virchow was sent to Silesia to study the typhus epidemic. 53 years later, he wrote that it was then that he became convinced that the issues were connected practical medicine With social reforms. From these positions Virchow tried to illuminate medical problems in the journal Medical Reform. In 1849, due to anti-monarchist activities, he lost his position in the clinic and was forced to move from Berlin to Würzburg (Bavaria), where he became head of the department of pathological anatomy at the University of Würzburg. In 1856 he accepted the offer of the University of Berlin to occupy the newly created department of pathological anatomy; at the same time he became director of the Institute of Pathological Anatomy. In 1958, Virchow’s lectures were published in a separate book entitled “Cellular Pathology” (Die Cellularpathologie), in which any organism was considered as a collection of living cells, organized like a state. The personification of the cell and the idea of the organism as a cellular federation, the sum of individual cells, diverged from the views of the organism as whole system and met with numerous objections. It was also unacceptable to deny the role of humoral and nervous factors in pathology. Despite this, Virchow's works about morphological basis diseases played important role in the development of ideas about their nature and subsequently laid the foundation for modern pathological research.
Among Virchow’s works are studies of pathology and epidemiology of infectious diseases, pathological anatomy, and the development of autopsy methodology. Virchow is the author of the theory of germ plasm continuity.
As a member of the Berlin municipality, Virchow pushed for a number of sanitary and hygienic measures (water supply, sewerage, etc.). In 1861 Virchow became a member of the Prussian Diet (Landtag). After Franco-Prussian War temporarily withdrew from politics, although he remained a member of the Landtag. I was studying educational activities: for 33 years he published popular science collections on ethnology, anthropology and archeology. Together with the famous German archaeologist G. Schliemann, he took part in the excavations of Troy and carried out a systematization of the skulls found there. He was the editor of an ethnological journal, and in 1873 he participated in the founding of the German Anthropological Society, the Berlin Society of Anthropology, Ethnology and ancient history. From 1880 to 1893 he was a member of the Reichstag.
In 1843 he graduated from the Berlin Friedrich-Wilhelm Medical Institute, then worked at the famous Berlin Charité clinic. In 1847 he founded the journal “Archive of Pathological Anatomy and Physiology” (now known as the Virchow Archive). In 1848 he participated in liberation movement, But scientific activity didn't interrupt. At the same time he headed the department of pathological anatomy at the University of Würzburg. In 1856-1902 he served as director of the newly established Pathological Institute in Berlin.
In 1855, in his journal “Archive...” he published an article “Cellular Pathology”, and in 1858, under the same title, a book in which he argued that the cell theory should be extended from the field of histology and normal physiology also on pathology (hence a disease of the body is a disease of its constituent cells), that the Schleiden-Schwann theory of cell formation is erroneous, since cells arise only through reproduction - division, that the greatest importance in the life of cells is played not by their membrane, as was then believed, but contents, i.e. protoplasm and nucleus. But along with this, Virchow’s teaching also contained erroneous statements. Thus, he believed that cells are independent individuals, and thereby came to deny the integrity of an organism built from cells, taking it as a sum of autonomous units. This approach of the scientist had a negative impact on the development of medicine, since diseases of various organs were often treated in isolation from the condition of the body as a whole.
Virchow's cell theory quickly spread and became generally accepted in biology (morphology and physiology) and medicine. His work “Cellular Pathology” was immediately translated into many languages (its Russian translation was published in 1859).
In 1858, the scientist published his theory of cellular pathology, which was based on the physiological independence of each individual cell. Despite the fallacy of some of the provisions, Virchow's work significantly advanced cell theory and laid the foundation for numerous research in medicine.
The theory of “Continuity of Germ Plasma” is also associated with the name of the scientist. Continuity, as the scientist argued, exists only between germ cells, because only they have the germ plasm, which is invariably transmitted to the offspring in the process of heredity; all other cells of the body play the role of a kind of “case” for the germ plasm.
Denying the theory of evolution and the teachings of Darwin, Virchow tried to refute the facts known in his time related to human evolution. Fossils primitive people(Pithecanthropus, Neanderthal, etc.) he classified as pathological forms.
Virchow is also known for his work on the study of diseases caused by deprivation and hunger, his participation in the construction of hospitals, schools, etc. Great place his life was occupied by socio-political activities, he took an active part in municipal government Berlin, was repeatedly elected as a member of parliament, from whose rostrum he spoke on the most pressing socio-political issues. Russian medical scientists especially owe a lot to Virchow and his institute.
Rudolf Ludwig Karl Virchow(German: Rudolf Ludwig Karl Virchow; October 13, 1821, Schiefelbein, Pomerania - September 5, 1902, Berlin) - German scientist and politician of the second half of the 19th century centuries, doctor, pathologist, histologist, physiologist, one of the founders cell theory in biology and medicine, founder of the theory of cellular pathology in medicine; was also known as an archaeologist, anthropologist and paleontologist.
Biography
He was born on October 13, 1821 in the town of Schiefelbein in the Prussian province of Pomerania (now Polish city Svidvin).
After completing a course at the Friedrich-Wilhelm Medical Institute in Berlin in 1843, Virchow first became an assistant and then became vice-rector at the Berlin Charité hospital.
In 1847 he received the right to teach and, together with Benno Reinhard († 1852), founded the journal Archiv fr pathol. Anatomie u. Physiology u. fr clinic. Medicin”, now known worldwide under the name of the Virchow Archive.
In 1891, the 126th volume of this publication was published, containing more than 200 articles by Virchow himself and representing a living half-century history of the most important acquisitions of medical science.
At the beginning of 1848, Virchow was sent to Upper Silesia to study the epidemic of famine typhus that prevailed there. His report on this trip, published in the Archive and having a large scientific interest, painted at the same time political ideas in the spirit of 1848. This circumstance, as well as his general participation in the reform movements of that time, caused the Prussian government to dislike him and prompted him to accept the ordinary chair of pathological anatomy offered to him at the University of Würzburg, which quickly glorified his name.
In 1856 he returned to Berlin as professor of pathological anatomy, general pathology and therapy and director of the newly established pathological institute, where he remained until the end of his life. This institute soon became a center of attraction for young scientists of all educated countries. Russian medical scientists especially owe a lot to Virchow and his institute.
Since 1866, together with Professor August Hirsch, he published “Jahresbericht ber die Fortschritte und Leistungen in der Medizin”.
He was buried in Berlin, Schöneburg.
Advances in biology and medicine
Virchow is the founder of the so-called cellular (cellular) pathology, in which disease processes are reduced to changes in the vital activity of the smallest elementary parts of the animal body - its cells. The views of this scientific theory in connection with the successes of chemistry and physiology, they forever freed medicine from various kinds of speculative hypotheses and constructions and closely connected it with the vast field of natural science.
As a pathologist, and especially a histologist, Virchow independently for the first time established the histological and physiological essence of many painful processes of leukemia, thrombosis, embolism, amyloid degeneration of organs, English disease, tuberculosis, most neoplasms, trichinosis, etc. Virchow explained normal structure many organs and individual tissues; showed the presence of living and active cells in connective tissue different types; found that pathologically altered organs and neoplasms consist of ordinary types of tissue, established the contractility of lymphatic and cartilage cells; found out the structure of mucous membranes and intermediate tissue nervous system; proved the possibility of neoplasm gray matter brain, explained the dependence of the shape of the skull on the fusion of sutures, etc.
As an anthropologist, Virchow contributed a lot with his work to the establishment of the anatomical features of races; as a biologist in general, he resisted the fascination with the exclusively mechanical views on the phenomena of life, so widespread during his youth, and had the courage to defend the idea of the isolation of the element of life as a sui generis principle. This is where his famous thesis “omnis cellula e cellula” comes from (a cell comes only from a cell), which ended a long debate among biologists about the spontaneous generation of organisms. As a figure in the field of public hygiene, Virchow is known for his work on the study of epidemics accompanied by deprivation and hunger, as well as leprosy, and for his participation in public hygienic activities for the construction of hospitals, schools, etc.
The establishment of the idea of cell formation by division and the overthrow of Schwann's theory of cytoblastema is usually associated with the name of Virchow, an outstanding representative of German medicine of the last century.
We have seen that the recognition of this position was already largely prepared by the work of a number of researchers, in particular Kölliker, and especially Remak. Therefore, the statement that Virchow established the principle of cell division is incorrect. But Virchow contributed to the recognition of cell division as the only way their reproduction; after his work, this position became a solid property of biology and medicine.
Virchow(Rudolf Virchow, 1821-1902), like a number of outstanding scientists we met in the last century, was a student of the school of Johannes Müller, but his interests early turned towards the study of pathology. From 1843 to 1849 Virchow worked at the famous Charite hospital in Berlin and quickly gained fame for his work on pathology circulatory system. In 1845 at the 50th anniversary Medical Institute Virchow gives a speech “On the necessity and correctness of medicine based on mechanical point vision." Introducing the then progressive mechanistic concept into medicine, Virchow was a fighter for the elemental materialist understanding of nature, which was not sufficiently widespread in the 40s. When, after a trip to the typhoid epidemic of 1848, Virchow comes to the conclusion that the basis for the spread of typhus is the social conditions in which malnourished people live working population, publicly comes out with demands to change these conditions and takes part in the revolution of 1848, then he falls among the “unreliable”. Virchow was forced to leave Berlin and become a professor of pathological anatomy in Würzburg, where he remained until 1856. Virchow’s work on cellular pathology dates back to the end of the Würzburg period. Virchow returns to Berlin already in a halo of glory, a special institute is created for him, where he widely develops scientific work and reappears in the public and political arena. In the 60s, Virchow still spoke out in opposition to the government, but later his “revolutionary” sentiments gave way to moderate liberalism, and after the Franco-Prussian War, Virchow’s speeches began to be clearly reactionary in nature. This evolution political views Virchow was reflected in his attitude to Darwinism. Although initially welcoming the teachings of Darwin, Virchow in his later years became an ardent anti-Darwinist. Outstanding figure Soviet health care N. A. Semashko (1874-1949) in biographical sketch, dedicated to Virchow, wrote: “Virchow’s social (and scientific) star has dimmed in old age. But this in no way detracts from the real merits that Virchow has before humanity” (1934, p. 166).
As a type of scientist Virchow represented complete opposite Schwannu. An ardent polemicist, a tireless fighter for the ideas expressed, Virchow, through his propaganda of cell theory, contributed greatly to attracting attention to cellular teaching and consolidating it in biology and medicine.
In 1855, Virchow, in the “Archive of Pathological Anatomy and Physiology” he founded, published an article entitled “Cellular Pathology,” where he put forward two main points. Any painful change, Virchow believes, is associated with some pathological process in the cells that make up the body - this is Virchow’s first basic position. The second point concerns new cell formation. Virchow categorically speaks out against the theory of cytoblastema and proclaims his famous saying “omnis cellula e cellula” (every cell comes from another cell). In 1857, Virchow gave a course of lectures, which he used as the basis for his famous book, which revolutionized medicine. This book, entitled “Cellular Pathology Based on the Physiological and Pathological Study of Tissues,” was published in 1858, and the second edition was published the following year, 1859. How quickly Virchow's ideas captured the minds of scientists is evident from the spread of Virchow's teachings in Russia. In Moscow, even before the appearance of Virchow’s book, only on the basis of his articles, professor of pathological anatomy A. I. Polunin (1820-1888) began to present cellular pathology in his lectures, and in 1859 a translation into Russian of Virchow’s book was published, published Moscow medical newspaper.
What did Virchow’s work give for cellular science? First of all, cellular teaching, which had already penetrated into anatomy, physiology and embryology, under the influence of Virchow, spreads to new area- pathology, penetrates into medicine and becomes the main theoretical basis for understanding painful phenomena. Schwann, in his first report in January 1838, noted that the cell theory should also be applied to pathological processes. This was pointed out by Johannes Müller, Henle, and later Remak. Attempts to apply cellular theory to pathology were made by the English anatomist and pathologist Tudsir (John Goodsir, 1814-1867) back in 1845; he viewed cells as “centers of growth,” “centers of nutrition,” and “centers of power.” However, the then dominant humoral theory of Rokitansky (Carl von Rokitansky, 1804-1878), which explained diseases by spoilage of juices, seemed unshakable. Only Virchow managed to overthrow the teachings of the humoralists and with his book promoted and unshakably consolidated the doctrine of the cell in the field of pathology. This sharply emphasized the importance of the cell as elementary unit body structure. Since the time of Virchow, the cell has been placed in the center of attention of both the physiologist and the pathologist, the biologist and the doctor.
But Virchow’s book not only promotes the cell theory and expands the field of its application. She also notes some fundamentally new points in the concept of the cell. This concerns primarily the principle “omnis cellule e cellula”.
Although Remak, as we have seen, came to a similar conclusion before Virchow, Virchow deserves the credit for the final introduction of this principle into science. Virchow's winged formula has won universal recognition for the doctrine of the emergence of new cells through division. “Where a cell arises, a cell must have preceded it (omnis cellula e cellula), just as an animal comes only from an animal, a plant only from a plant” (1859, p. 25), Virchow declares. Thanks to Virchow, by the beginning of the 60s, cellular science was finally freed from the theory of cytoblastema and the idea of the free formation of cells from structureless matter. For both plant tissues and animal tissues, a single method of cell formation is established - cell division.
One more positive side of Virchow's book should be noted. His Cellular Pathology clearly marks the shift that has occurred in the understanding of the components that make up a cell. Virchow points out that “in most animal tissues there are no shaped elements that could be considered as equivalents plant cells in the old sense of the word, that, in particular, the cellulose membrane of plant cells does not correspond to animal cell membranes and that the latter, as containing nitrogenous substances, do not represent a typical difference from the former, as not containing nitrogenous substances” (1858, p. 7). According to Virchow, the usual membranes of animal cells correspond to the so-called primordial sac (parietal layer of protoplasm) of plant cells.
The term “nitrogen-containing substance” (stickstoffhaltige Substanz) was introduced by Nägeli and denoted the protein content of cells, in contrast to the “nitrogen-free substance” that makes up the cell membrane. The term “primordial sac” was introduced by Mohl.
Virchow considers, first of all, the nucleus to be essential for the life of cells. According to Schleiden and Schwann, the nucleus is the cytoblast, the maker of the cell. In the formed cell, the nucleus is reduced and disappears; Schleiden believed so, and this opinion, however, is less strongly supported by Schwann. On the contrary, for Virchow the nucleus is the center of cell activity. If the nucleus dies, the cell also dies. “All those cellular formations that lose their nucleus are already transient, they die, they disappear, die, dissolve” (1858, p. 10). This is a new, and, moreover, significant, moment in the idea of the cell, a significant step forward in the destruction of the old idea of \u200b\u200bthe primacy of cell membrane. The “contents” of the cell for Virchow are not secondary deposits of the cell walls, as Schleiden and Schwann looked at the cytoplasm. " Special properties, which cells reach at special places, under the influence special conditions, are generally associated with the changing quality of cellular contents,” wrote Virchow (p. 11). This is a big shift in the way we think about the cell. It ended with the collapse of the old “shell” theory of cells and the creation of a new “protoplasmic” theory of the cell.
All of this was positive points, developed by Virchow. At the same time, his “Cellular Pathology” marked a sharp strengthening of the mechanistic interpretation of the cell theory, which subsequently led to that metaphysical interpretation of it, which was characteristic of the second half of the last and the beginning of the current century.
The germ of a mechanistic interpretation of cell theory was already present in Schwann when he wrote that the basis of all life manifestations of the organism lies in the activity of cells. But for Schwann, this mechanistic moment did not yet have the self-sufficient significance that it acquired later, and receded into the background before the greater positive significance of Schwann’s teaching. All this takes on a different color in Virchow’s works.
The starting point of Virchow’s concept is the idea of complete autonomy of the cell, as a kind of structural unit of the organism closed in itself. Virchow “personifies” the cell, endowing it with the properties of an independent being, a kind of personality. In one of his program articles, Virchow wrote: “...everyone new success knowledge brought us new and even more compelling evidence that the vital properties and powers of individual cells can be directly compared with the vital properties and powers of lower plants and animals. A natural consequence of this understanding is the need for a certain personification of the cell. If the lower plants themselves, the lower animals, represent the genus of personality (Person), then this feature cannot be denied in relation to the individual living cells of a complex organism” (1885, pp. 2-3). And so that the reader does not have any doubts, Virchow pathetically declares: “A cell that feeds, which, as they now say, digests, which moves, which excretes - yes, this is precisely a personality, and, moreover, an active, active personality, and its activity there is not just a product external influence, but the product internal phenomena related to the continuation of life” (p. 3).
Naturally, with such a personification of the cell, the integrity of the organism, its unity, completely disappears. Virchow, without hesitation, declares: “the first need for a correct interpretation is that one must discard the fabulous unity, one must have in mind the individual parts, the cells, as the reason for existence” (1898, p. 11). Thus, the organism was completely decomposed into cells and turned into a collection of “cellular territories.” “Every animal,” says Virchow, “represents the sum of vital units, each of which has the full quality of life” (1859, p. 12). Moreover: according to Virchow, “every component a living organism has a special life, its own vitam propriam” (1898, p. 10). “A fully developed organism is built from one and different parts; their harmonious activity gives the impression of the unity of the whole organism, which in fact does not exist,” teaches Virchow (1898, pp. 20-21), trying to destroy any attempt to consider the organism as a whole. Virchow considers the vital activity of an organism only as the sum of the lives of its constituent cells: “since the life of an organ is nothing more than the sum of the lives of individual cells that are connected in it, then the life of the whole organism is collective, and not independent function"(1898, p. 11).
Since, according to Virchow, “life is the activity of a cell, its peculiarity is the peculiarity of a cell” (1858, p. 82), then everything that does not have a cellular design, from Virchow’s point of view, does not deserve attention. Virchow decisively excludes the intercellular substance, which in a number of tissues makes up the bulk, from the consideration of the biologist and pathologist. “The cell,” he declares, “is truly the last morphological element of all living bodies and we have no right to look for life activity outside of it” (1859, p. 3). Therefore, according to Virchow, “inter- or extracellular substance should be considered as a by-product, and not as a factor of life. Such parts which arise originally from cells, but whose cells have died, must be excluded from the field of biological consideration” (1898, p. 13). Equally, under the influence of Virchow, the qualitative specificity of syncytial and symplastic structures, i.e., tissues where the separation of cellular territories is not expressed, remained outside the field of view of researchers.
The mechanistic interpretation of cellular theory given by Virchow had not only theoretical negative value. The program of the pathologist’s activity and the program of the clinician’s approach to the patient also flowed from Virchow’s concept. Refusing to see the whole in the body, destroying the unity of the organism, Virchow sees only a local phenomenon in any pathological process. “Cellular pathology,” he declares, “requires above all that treatment be directed against the affected areas themselves, whether the treatment is therapeutic or surgical” (1898, p. 38). This localistic principle in pathology, approved by the authority of Virchow, delayed the study of systemic diseases, diverting the attention of pathologists and clinicians only towards the study of local phenomena. Virchow ignores the importance of such systems as the nervous and humoral in the correlation of body parts. One cannot but agree with Winter (K. Winter, 1956) that from Virchow’s doctrine of cells as equal beings that determine the life of the whole organism, it logically follows that cells are endowed with a kind of “consciousness” (although Virchow himself does not make this conclusion).
Virchow's authority was exceptionally great in his time. But F. Engels noted long ago negative aspects Virchow's teaching. In the preface to the 2nd edition of Anti-Dühring, Engels wrote: “...Many years ago, Virchow was forced, as a result of the discovery of the cell, to decompose the unity of the animal individual into a federation of cellular states, which had a progressive rather than a natural-scientific and dialectical character.” In one of the fragments of “Dialectics of Nature”, Engels, speaking about the theoretical helplessness of natural scientists who do not understand the meaning of dialectics, cites Virchow’s “Cellular Pathology” as an example, where common phrases must ultimately cover up the author’s helplessness.” Taking into account the reactionary significance of Virchow’s concept, leading to the “theory of the cellular state,” Engels, in his draft general plan“Dialectics of Nature” is outlined in the form of a special chapter “Cellular State - Virchow”; Unfortunately, this chapter, like some other parts of Engels’ remarkable book, remained unwritten.
Among our domestic scientists, Virchow's teaching early met with decisive opposition. The founder of Russian physiology, Ivan Mikhailovich Sechenov (1829-1905), in the theses attached to doctoral dissertation, published just two years after the appearance of Virchow’s book, wrote: “6) an animal cell, being an anatomical unit, does not have this meaning physiologically; here it is equal to the environment - the intercellular substance. 7) On this basis, cellular pathology, which is based on the physiological independence of the cell, or at least its hegemony over environment, as a principle, is false. This teaching is nothing more than an extreme stage in the development of the anatomical direction in pathology” (1860). In these words, I.M. Sechenov gives an extremely apt description of the depravity of Virchow’s ideas, which overestimate the autonomy and significance of cellular structures in the body. A number of other pathologists and clinicians criticized Virchow's cellular pathology in Russia.
For recent years the assessment of Virchow's significance in our literature has been very controversial. From Virchow’s apologetics, which was characteristic of his assessment in the first decades of our century, in the 50s many authors went to the other extreme and began to deny any positive value Virchow's works. So, for example, S. S. Weil (1950) wrote: “Unfortunately, even now one still hears statements that Virchow was once progressive, that his theory was once progressive and only now, today, it harmful. This is not true. She was harmful from the very beginning” (p. 3). Such a nihilistic assessment, crossing out “all of Virchow,” distorts the historical perspective and the current state of the problem. In reality, Virchow's work had both positive and negative sides; there is no reason to cross out some and artificially exaggerate others. Recently, the question of the significance of Virchow’s cellular pathology was reconsidered by I. V. Davydovsky (1956), who came to the conclusion that “to the credit of both cell theory and cellular pathology, we have quite a few achievements representing both general biological and specifically medical interest” (p. 9), although a number of Virchow’s provisions undoubtedly need to be re-evaluated and decisively criticized.
Summarizing the above, we will try to formulate positive and negative points Virchow's works related to the development of cell theory. TO positive aspects First of all, we must include the fact that Virchow’s “Cellular Pathology” asserted the importance of cell theory not only in the field of physiological phenomena, but also in pathology, thereby extending the application of cell theory to all life phenomena. Virchow, with his works, completes the collapse of the Schleiden-Schwann theory of cytogenesis and shows that division is a method of cell formation common to animals and plants. Finally, Virchow shifts the center of gravity in the concept of a cell from the shell to its “contents” and puts forward the meaning of the nucleus as a constant and the most important structure in a cage. All this cannot but be considered an asset of Virchow’s teaching. At the same time, a number of aspects of this teaching played negative role V further development cell theory. This is the “personification” of the cell, endowing the cells with the meaning of autonomous beings that build the body multicellular organism. Virchow denied the integrity and unity of a multicellular organism, reducing its vital activity to the sum of the independent lives of individual cells. Virchow denied the vital properties of intercellular substances, considering them passive, dead, and excluding these substances from the field of biological consideration. Virchow did not take into account that although cells represent the main structural element fabrics, they are not the only form tissue structure. Finally, Virchow gave a false interpretation of the problem of the relationship between parts and the whole, shifting all attention to the parts of the organism and thereby cutting off the path to understanding the integrity of the organism. These fundamental mistakes of Virchow led to the line of development of cellular teaching, which was expressed in cellular physiology and the “theory of the cellular state.”
