I want to reiterate the cordial words that Dr. Safirstein extended to all of you on this very moving occasion where we pay tribute to Tom Andreoli, and obliquely, to academic medicine in its finest manifestation.

In 1967, Hans Krebs published a remarkable article in the journal Nature entitled "The Making of a Scientist." He began his article by asking a question which had often been posed to him when he interacted with students. The question was this: "How does one become a Nobel Laureate?" If you knew Dr. Krebs, you would know that he was a somewhat retiring and modest man, a demeanor that stands in contrast to the question, which seems abrasive and arrogant. It wasn't. The question was designed to direct attention to how academic achievement comes to pass. He points out that Warburg's laboratory had five Nobel Laureates among the faculty. He further called attention to the fact that Nobel prizes and other honors were bestowed on individuals from only a few laboratories. Warburg's laboratory was a good illustration; the British Medical Research Council Laboratory was another; perhaps Harvard and The Rockefeller are the third and fourth. And beyond that, there were very few individuals awarded Nobel prizes from elsewhere, using the Nobel Prize simply as a surrogate for academic excellence. Krebs concludes that although intrinsic talent is important, equally important is the quality of the environment that is provided in a great laboratory. Although there are people in the world, such as Einstein, whose gifts may transcend the requirements of environmental support, such individuals are rare and exceptional. Most of us are weaker, no matter how talented, and need the sustenance of an environment that provides the tools, the questions, and the intellectual stimulation necessary to achieve scientific excellence.

I turn now to Tom Andreoli, who has had an academic career in several institutions. He has been a faculty member at the University of Alabama School of Medicine, the University of Texas Medical School at Houston, and the University of Arkansas College of Medicine. In all these institutions, I think it is fair to say that he established, from a very modest base, institutional arrangements of the highest quality. The individuals who came out of his laboratory have served the country as outstanding academic leaders and distinguished investigators.

Dr. Andreoli is a gifted biomedical scientist who can deploy formidable concepts of physics and mathematics with an easy grace to the elucidation of biomedical processes. His studies have focused on the biophysical understanding of the systems governing the transport of water and electrolytes in the kidney, probing these processes to the most basic level. In recognition of the high quality of his research, he has received the most distinguished awards in his discipline: The Homer W. Smith Award of the American Society of Nephrology in 1995, the David M. Hume Memorial Award of the National Kidney Foundation in 1997, and the Robert W. Berliner Award of the American Physiologic Society in 2000.

It is particularly noteworthy that the scientific achievements of Dr. Andreoli were not done in a sequestered environment, carefully insulated from students, house staff, and clinical responsibilities. Quite the contrary, his investigations were carried out when he was Director of Nephrology in the Department of Medicine at the University of Alabama from 1970 to 1979, Chairman of the Department of Medicine at the University of Texas Medical School at Houston from 1979 to 1988, and Chairman of the Department of Medicine at the University of Arkansas College of Medicine from 1988 to 2004.

Given Dr. Andreoli's commitment to basic biomedical research, it is not unreasonable to ask how he fulfills his primary appointment as Chairman of a Department of Medicine. There is a widespread cynicism these days about the necessary qualifications for the position of a clinical department chairman. Such an individual is often viewed as a medical manager, competent in financial and administrative matters, but far removed from biomedical science, and often remote from teaching and clinical care, as well. The classic model of the clinical scholar, committed to teaching and clinical medicine, as well as biomedical research, is regarded as obsolete and unattainable.

Tom Andreoli is a moving refutation of this skepticism. He is a dedicated clinician competent in the broad field of internal medicine, no less than in the specialty area of nephrology. He is a splendid teacher, as evidenced in part by his 35 teaching awards in clinical medicine. He has been able to master the central core of clinical medicine, not as an intrusion on his academic responsibilities, but as part and parcel of an integrated program that befits an academic scholar and a chairman of a clinical department.

By embodying a dedication to basic physiologic science wedded at the same time to a commitment to teaching and clinical medicine, Tom Andreoli generates an atmosphere of academic excitement and penetrating scholarship that attracts students, fellows, and colleagues to his program.

The scientific program assembled today in Dr. Andreoli's honor ranges all the way from the basic foundations of molecular transport to clinical problems of nephrology. The subjects range widely over broad areas of clinical medicine, often quite remote from renal physiology. The participants are students, fellows, and colleagues who have worked with Dr. Andreoli in three different institutions. They are among the most distinguished scholars in their fields. They are mute testimony that the climate of scholarship generated by Dr. Andreoli, constituting a union of basic research and clinical medicine, furnishes an ideal environment for attracting and nurturing medical science.

This is an achievement of which the University, and Tom himself, may well be proud.