When Dr. Darby asked me to participate in the launching of the Annual Review of Nutrition by contributing a few paragraphs for use in the introductory volume, I felt singularly honored. I experienced a rosy sort of feeling that was soon replaced by fear and trembling: I know all too little about the modern science of nutrition. Furthermore, as the ravages of age manifest themselves, some of us who were once much younger become cynical, pessimistic, and unpleasantly negative about the happenings in this increasingly complicated world. Had I been turned loose on organizing and structuring this new Annual Review, much of the space would probably have been devoted to attacks on food faddism and tirades against the pseudo-scientific and nutritional nonsense to which the media constantly expose us. And then there are the many who urge that our great uncle in Washington guarantee for us an environment that is totally risk-free, including the food we eat, the water we drink, and the air we breathe. I doubt that even Heaven provides a risk-free haven.

Fortunately, the Editorial Committee and the authors, whatever they may choose to do about the dispensers of such nonsense, will harvest much from the ever-expanding literature of science that will be of inestimable value to all who are seriously interested in the science of nutrition.

Recently, in thumbing through the 49 volumes of the Annual Review of Biochemistry that have thus far appeared, I was astonished by two discoveries that are relevant and significant. Each of the first 29 volumes contained a chapter on human nutrition. Volume 31 contained a review on germ-free animal research, and Volume 40 brought us up-to-date on nutritional methodology in metabolism research on rats. In a few of the first 15 volumes some bits of wisdom are to be found on the nutritional requirements of bacteria, protozoa, insects, chicks, monkeys, pigs, and cattle. But beyond this, and with only a single exception, the word "nutrition" does not even appear in the subject index of any volume from 32 in 1963 to 49 in 1980. Horribile dictu! It is, indeed, high time for the science of nutrition to gain the special recognition that it deserves through the Annual Review of Nutrition. I wish this new publication well. The first volume deserves a special salute by the biochemical community, for it appears during the Golden Jubilee year of the Annual Review of Biochemistry and the 75th anniversary of the birth of the Biochemical Journal.

Why was nutrition as a subject appropriate for review dropped from the Annual Review of Biochemistry? In part, the omission must be attributed to the "spin-off" to which the Editorial Committees of years gone by were dedicated as a means of countering the onset of obesity which has threatened the Annual Review of Biochemistry from its infancy. Thus, the advent of the Annual Review of Physiology in 1946 permitted the biochemists to give the kidneys, liver, nerve, and brain to the physiologists. In 1950 almost the whole of plant biochemistry was transferred to the fledgling Annual Review of Plant Physiology.

As for nutrition, it seems to have merely faded away. But not quite. I think that two things contributed to its disappearance from the Annual Review of Biochemistry. More and more of nutritional research was on vitamins, which has continued to be a lively field of investigation and an important topic in the Annual Review of Biochemistry. And secondly, much of the remainder was reviewed in the ever-recurring chapters on metabolism (of carbohydrates, lipids, amino acids, and inorganic elements).

But now the early 1960s are in the distant past. The judgments of today's science are not those of yesterday's. Convinced that nutrition, as an active and thriving scientific discipline, has never ceased to be of worldwide inter- est and importance, I welcome the Annual Review of Nutrition. Eventually it may be threatened with the obesity that has plagued its parent but, of all people, those of you who are contributing to the science of nutrition will surely know how to maintain the pristine beauty and health of this new Annual Review.

J. Murray Luck

Founder, Annual Reviews Inc.

___________________________________________________________________

The decision by the Board of Directors of Annual Reviews Inc. to initiate this new series, Annual Review of Nutrition, is one that nutrition scientists widely applaud. The responsibility placed upon the Editorial Committee offers an opportunity, indeed a challenge, to define better the limits of the science of nutrition through judicious selection of the topics reviewed and assuring that the reviews are critically prepared to reflect scientific advances and that they consolidate and place in appropriate perspective the significance of current research.

Contrary to much popular misconception, nutrition as a subject has been of serious interest and concern to centuries of natural philosophers, physicians, and scientists. Interest in food and health and the state of nutrition (nutriture) is abundantly evident in the aphorisms of Hippocrates, in the writings of Celsus, as well as in the legacies of ancient cultures such as early records from China and ancient Egypt. The curative properties of fruits and fresh vegetables in combating scurvy were recognized by many European physicians who preceded James Lind. It was Lind, however, who proved through neatly designed and executed clinical experiments, the antisorbutic property of citrus fruits that he described in his classical "Treatise on the Scurvy," published in Edinburgh in 1753. This study remains a classic not only in the field of nutrition, but also in clinical investigation as the first precisely designed therapeutic experiment in medicine. Subsequent physiologic studies of animal heat and respiration (oxidation) by Lavoisier and the discovery of oxygen by Joseph Priestley and Carl Scheele 200 years ago are widely regarded as the events marking the beginnings of the modern science of nutrition.

However, the science of nutrition did not suddenly emerge as a separate discipline; rather it was nurtured within the disciplines of physiology, pathology, medicine, organic chemistry, and agricultural chemistry, only gradually to emerge as a scientific discipline. Similarly, some 100 years ago, "physiological chemistry" emerged from physiology as a recognized discipline in the United States with the establishment of the Yale laboratory under Russell H. Chittenden. In so doing, it embraced as a major interest much of nutrition. Evidence of this is seen in the table of contents of the Journal of Biological Chemistry, the Biochemical Journal, and other scientific journals from then through the early 1940s. Volume 1 of the Annual Review of Biochemistry 50 years ago carried a chapter on nutrition. Subsequent volumes likewise reviewed this field in a special chapter, and usually contained as well other papers basic to nutrition, on subjects such as water-soluble vitamins, fat-soluble vitamins, amino acids, protein, lipid, and mineral metabolism, and the like. The last separate treatment of "nutrition" was in Volume 31, 1964, although a chapter on "Nutritional Methodology in Metabolic Research with Rats" appeared in Volume 40, 1971. This changed content of Annual Review of Biochemistry reflected the intensity of development of biological and medical research, especially as related to biological chemistry and molecular and cellular biochemistry. It did not indicate a decrease in research activity pertaining to nutrition. Hence, there has existed a void in the coverage and synthesis of the scientific advances of nutrition—a void that this new series is designed to fill.

It is significant that this year, 1981, marks the 75th anniversary of the passage of the Pure Food and Drug Act and the Meat Inspection Act, as well as the 40th anniversary of the founding of The Nutrition Foundation, which immediately thereafter established the monthly review journal Nutrition Reviews.

The enormous growth of the scientific literature of nutrition and the penetration of research in, and practice of, the science into all disciplines of medicine, the biological sciences, and even into economics, sociology, anthropology, paleontology, and various applied fields (public health, food technology, household science, and government services) have created a need for this annual series of critical, authoritative surveys of the original literature describing the current developments in the science of nutrition. The selection of papers for inclusion will be guided by the principle that critical analysis and resumes of selected aspects of topics discussing the most significant contributions will serve the reader better than superficial mention and hasty identification of most of the papers appearing during the period covered by the review. The advances in some subject areas will justify reviewing annually; advances in other areas will warrant review only at intervals. The distribution of topics between "basic," "clinical," and "applied" will vary from year to year, but always in adherence to the principle of disciplined scholarship and science. In fact, as underscored by Sir Harold Himsworth, research in nutrition represents a continuum from the mission-oriented clinical extreme to unspecialized basic biology. Hence, classification as basic, clinical, or applied represents no true distinction in terms of rigid scholarship or disciplined approach—in fact, often methods of study are so combined that separate classification is patently impossible.

The societal concern for foods and nutrition cannot be ignored in this series, but these will be examined with the same standard of scholarly deliberation as characterizes critiques of "hard science." The opening essay of this first volume of Annual Review of Nutrition, "The Moral Dimension of the World's Food Supply," is by a humanist, Professor Samuel E. Stumpf, a philosopher long concerned with ethical considerations pertaining to medicine, food use, and regulatory decisions. It is anticipated that this essay will set the tone for future introductory essays.

The Editors are grateful for the opportunity of initiating this series which we trust will serve those concerned with the science of nutrition and its application as valuably and effectively as does the prestigious 50-year-old series, the Annual Review of Biochemistry.

We are especially pleased that J. Murray Luck, who initiated Annual Review of Biochemistry and served as its first Editor, and who is a longtime friend of the Editors, has written the Foreword to this new series. The Editorial Committee congratulates J. Murray Luck upon the 50th anniversary of the remarkable institution that he launched, Annual Reviews Inc., and the great service that he has thereby rendered to the broad scientific community.

The Committee wishes also especially to thank the staff of Annual Reviews Inc. for their efficient efforts to bring this volume to fruition within shortly over a year since the decision was finalized to initiate the series. This would have been impossible without the remarkable cooperation of the authors of the 18 chapters. To these authors both Editors and staff extend their deeply felt appreciation.

William J. Darby

Harry P. Broquist

Robert E. Olson