For the Nashville meeting of the American Assoiniciation and Associated Societies there has been arranged as a general session, a symposium on the broad subject of publicity for science; that is, the broad problem of furnishing to the people the information I that they wish and to which they are entitled. Those taking part in the symposium, which will probably Occupy both forenoon and afternoon of Wednesday, December 28, are to discuss the subject from the points of view of: (1) the worker in pure science, (2) the publisher of standard scientific books, (3) the publisher of popular scientific books, (4) the editor of popular scientific magazines, (5) the editor of a commercial scientific journal, (6) the newspaper syndicate, (7) the feature writer, (8) the local newspaper, and (9) Science Service. FOR ENC ENC Another general session at the approaching Nashville meeting will be devoted to an address on "Science and the Newspapers," to be given by Dr. William E. Ritter, organizer and till recently director of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography at La Jolla, California. Dr. Ritter is well known to zoologists and to biologists generally. He will discuss some fundamental aspects of the question of newspaper diffusion of scientific knowledge. AUSTIN H. CLARK, News Manager for the Nashville Meeting THE THOUSAND-DOLLAR PRIZE TO BE AWARDED AT NASHVILLE AN interesting feature of the annual meetings of the American Association and Associated Societies is the award of the American Association Prize. This award attracts the attention of the intelligent public generally as well as of professional science workers and other people specially interested in the advancement of knowledge. If not quite peculiar, it is at least unusual, for eligibility to consideration consists solely in presenting a noteworthy contribution at the annual meeting in convocation week and there are no restrictions as to subject. The prize is surely a very valuable thing in American science. The funds by which it is made possible have been given to the American Association by a very generous member who does not wish his name made public. Its concrete purpose is to help toward further scientific accomplishment some research workers who have already made a really noteworthy contribution. It is hoped that this financial help may make it possible for prize winners to continue their work on a high plane of scientific scholarship. Four annual awards have been made: Cincinnati, 1923–24; Washington, 1924-25; Kansas City, 1925-26; Philadelphia, 1926-27. The fifth award will be made at the close of the approaching Nashville meeting. The following rules for the award of the prize have developed from the experience of four years. They have been approved by the executive committee of the association and are in effect for the Nashville award. 1. To be considered by the Committee on Prize Award a paper must have been read at a session of one of the several sections or at a session of one of the organizations meeting with the association at the annual meeting at which the award is made. 2. Any paper is to be considered only on the basis of work already accomplished, as represented by a finished manuscript, but it may be in part or in whole a summary of work that has been recently published elsewhere. 3. Secretaries of sections and secretaries of organizations meeting with the association are asked to send in to the Committee on Award, as early in the meeting as possible, nominations or suggestions as to what paper or papers of their respective programs should be considered by the committee. These suggestions are to be in writing and are to be sent in to the registration office, from which they are to be immediately transmitted to the committee. 4. A paper may have the recommendation of a section committee, or of a special committee organized by a section, for the consideration of worthy papers. 5. The prize-winning paper should represent a noteworthy contribution to the advancement of science. The Committee on Award is not to make any special attempt to select the best paper presented at the meeting. 6. Authors of papers considered need not be members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, nor members of any associated organizations. 7. It is generally undesirable that the prize go to the same field of science, or to closely related fields, in two consecutive years. 8. Younger workers are to be generally considered before workers who are already well known for scientific research. 9. Under no circumstances is the prize to be divided; it is a single prize of $1,000. 10. The Committee on Award is to report the award to the permanent secretary either on the evening of the next to the last day of the meeting period or on the last day. (Usually there are very few sessions held on the last day, which is often Saturday.) The report is to be in writing, signed by the chairman of the Committee on Award. Under no circumstances is the award to be reported to the permanent secretary later than the last day of the meeting period, which is to be Saturday for the second Nashville meeting. 11. During the deliberations of the Committee on Award, and until public announcement is made by the permanent secretary, the utmost secrecy is to be maintained. Even slight hints regarding possible prize winners are not to be released in any way before the award is announced. Announcement is made to all news agencies at once, by the permanent secretary through the news manager for the meeting. The Committee on the Award of the Nashville prize consists of the members named below: William H. Roever, chairman; professor of mathemat- William Duane, professor of biophysics, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass. Charles Schuchert, professor of paleontology, Yale University, New Haven, Conn. Robert J. Terry, professor of anatomy, Washington BURTON E. LIVINGSTON, SCIENTIFIC APPARATUS AND LABORATORY METHODS AN AGAR MEDIUM FOR PLATING L. ACIDOPHILUS AND L. BULGARICUS EXPERIENCE has demonstrated that L. acidophilus grows poorly in ordinary peptone sugar agar and that many strains of typical L. bulgaricus will not develop at all in this medium. Rettger and Cheplin1 (1921) employed whey agar in their experiments. The addition of galactose to this medium has been found2 (1922) to increase its value. The author3 (1924) developed a casein-digest, milk powder-digest, galactose agar which proved to be quite satisfactory for colony study. Further investigation has indicated that some strains of L. acidophilus and L. bulgaricus attain the best colony development in whey-galactose agar, while others reach their optimum growth in digest-galactose medium. As a rule, L. bulgaricus grows best in di 1 Rettger, L. F., and Cheplin, H. A., 1921, "The Transformation of the Intestinal Flora, with special reference to the Implantation of Bacillus Acidophilus," Yale University Press. 2 Rettger, L. F., and Kulp, Walter L., 1922, "A Note on the Choice of Culture Media for the Study of Lactobacillus, with special reference to the Carbohydrates employed,' ," Abstracts of Bacteriology, Vol. 6, p. 24. gest galactose agar. In order to insure satisfactory results, it has been necessary to employ both kinds of media in the study of L. bulgaricus colonies. From the standpoint of the dairy laboratory, or of any laboratory, where occasional platings of these species are carried out, some objection has been raised to both the whey and the digest media because their preparation is rather difficult. A more simple medium and one which is easily prepared has appeared quite desirable. While studying the effect of tomato juice upon the growth of different bacterial species, the author found that the addition of tomato extract to whey-galactose agar brought about a marked increase in the size of L. acidophilus colonies grown on the medium, and that it accentuated the x type colony characteristic. Further investigation showed that a medium containing tomato juice, peptone and agar fostered the development of as good colony growth as the more complicated media. Experiments were carried out with the object of determining what proportions of peptone and tomato juice were necessary for optimum colony development. The tomato juice was secured by filtering the liquid portion of canned tomatoes through filter-paper. Media were prepared containing 0.5 per cent. and 1 per cent. peptone and varying proportions of tomato juice. The agar was prepared in the following manner: Formula: The results of this experiment and several others of like nature indicate the following: 1. Agar plating of L. acidophilus and L. bulgaricus made with an agar containing the proper concentra 4 Kulp, W. L., 1926, "The Determination of Viable Lactobacillus Acidophilus," SCIENCE, Vol. 64, pp. 304 306. 2. Incubation in an atmosphere containing approximately 10 per cent. CO2 is desirable for agar platings of both species. 3. Two hundred to four hundred cc. tomato juice per liter plus 1 per cent. Difco peptone produces the most satisfactory medium. 4. Agar platings of L. bulgaricus strains which are very exacting in their growth requirements should be incubated for 72 hours. No satisfactory explanation can be offered for the growth-stimulating effect of tomato juice upon L. acidophilus and L. bulgaricus unless it be in the light of an "accessory substance or substances." Both of these species require carbohydrate for growth. The amount of sugar in tomatoes varies from two to four per cent.; it is made up chiefly of hexoses. Two hundred to four hundred cc. of tomato juice per liter fully satisfy the carbohydrate requirements of these organisms. However, L. acidophilus develops poorly in ordinary nutrient agar containing added hexoses, and many strains of L. bulgaricus will not grow at all in such a medium, no matter what sugar is present. There must be some other factor in tomato agar, therefore, in addition to the carbohydrate, which stimulates the growth of these organisms. WALTER L. KULP LABORATORY OF GENERAL BACTERIOLOGY, YALE UNIVERSITY SPECIAL ARTICLES THE ORIGIN AND DISTRIBUTION OF THE fourth edition of the Biographical Directory of American Men of Science, which will be published in December, contains an appendix describing the methods that were used to select the scientific men who are designated in the book as those whose contributions to science have been of the greatest value. There were added in the third and fourth editions (1921 and 1927) 601 names to the thousand first selected in 1903 and reselected in 1909. In the book there will be given a statistical study of the origin and distribution of these scientific men, and it may be worth while to print in SCIENCE Some of the data. In the production of the 601 scientific men New York leads with 67, followed by Ohio with 49, Massachusetts with 48, Illinois with 45 and Pennsylvania with 41. The group of states next following consists of Iowa 27, Wisconsin 24, Missouri 21. The position of the North Central States is noteworthy, and is further emphasized by the situation in states having a productivity between 10 and 20, namely, Indiana 18, Connecticut 16, Minnesota 14, Maryland 13, Michigan 13, California 11, Kansas 11. The number of scientific men coming from the South Atlantic, South Central and Western divisions is small, though there has been some gain since 1903. Of the leading thousand scientific men selected in 1903, Massachusetts produced 134 and Connecticut 40. At the time of their birth Boston was the intellectual center of the country. New York in proportion to its population had then produced about half as many scientific men as Massachusetts and Connecticut, the North Central States about one third as many. The situation had changed for the list of 1910. Reduced to comparable figures the birth rate of leading scientific men per million of population had fallen in Massachusetts from 109 to 85, in Connecticut from 87 to 57. In Michigan it had increased from 37 to 74, in Minnesota from 23 to 59, in Wisconsin from 45 to 54. The intellectual fecundity of the North Central States, as compared with New England, has now further increased, extending westward and southward to Iowa, Missouri and Kansas. If the 601 scientific men are increased to 1,000 proportionately distributed, which is approximately the result that would have been obtained if 1,000 had been selected, the gains or losses of each state may be found. The situation in New England is ominous for the future. Every state has lost and it appears that the rural population is becoming intellectually sterile. Of the thousand leading scientific men in 1903, Maine had produced 29, of whom 19 ranked in the first 500. Of 601 scientific men mostly born less than 50 years ago, the state has produced six; if a thousand had been selected the most probable number would have been ten. It has consequently lost 19, two thirds of its productivity. Massachusetts has lost 54. Analogous conditions obtain in all the New England States and southward along the Atlantic. The losses of New York, New Jersey and Maryland, in spite of, or it may be because of, their enormous increase in wealth, are startling. Pennsylvania and Delaware remain nearly stationary; there are small gains in most of the South Atlantic and South Central States. The losses of the eastern states are counter-balanced by the gains of the central states, notably Illinois, Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, Kansas and Nebraska. All the central states have gained except Michigan, though the gains in Ohio and Indiana are small. These three are the most eastern of the states and appear to be following in the wake of the Atlantic seaboard. Further to the west there tend to be moderate gains which predict a large future development. So indeed westward does the course of science take its way, but it is not gratifying if the eastern states do not equal the cultural nations of Europe before losing their leadership. This may indicate a waning of the world's great era in science. Ten of the scientific men on the list of 1921 have died, giving an annual death rate of 4.7 per thousand, which is about normal for men of that age. Of the 591 remaining on the lists of 1921 and 1927, 122 live in New York, 57 in Massachusetts, 52 in Illinois and 47 in California. If the numbers are increased to 1,000 and proportionately distributed, it appears that in comparison with the thousand of 1906 Massachusetts has lost 49, whereas Illinois has gained 24 and California 23. Every New England state, as also New Jersey, Maryland, Virginia and North Carolina, have a smaller proportion of these leading scientific men than they had 21 years ago. New York has gained 11: Pennsylvania has lost two. Next to Illinois and California, Minnesota has the largest gain. The smaller gains or losses in other states show the real situation at the time and are significant, especially in view of the grouping by regions. When we compare the birth places and residences we find that New York has acquired 55 more of the scientific men than it has produced, the individuals of course not always being the same. Massachusetts has gained 9, Connecticut 4, New Jersey 10 and Maryland 10, these representing men called to the universities. Illinois for the same reason has gained 7, Michigan 5 and Minnesota 4. In the other central states the loss has been large. One hundred and sixty, more than one fourth, of the scientific men were born in them and only 55 reside there. There are but few scientific men born in Washington while many are employed in that city by the government. Of the new group, three were born in the District of Columbia and 76 reside there. Eighty-six of the scientific men were born abroad, so they more than supply the excess in Washington and the balance remains nearly even for the different states. In 1906 one half (501/1,000) of the leading scientific men of the United States resided in the North Atlantic States and somewhat more than one half (518/993) had been born there. In the short period of 26 years the proportion of those born in these states has fallen to one third (200/598) and the percentage of those residing there to 44.5 per cent. (263/591). The cities of the eastern seaboard depend in large measure on Europe for their population, on the central west for their wealth and for their leaders. They will face a difficult situation when immigration is nearly cut off and centers of wealth and culture develop toward the west. It might be supposed that as wealth increases in the hands of a plutocracy, so scientific and other culture would increase in its centers. There has obviously been no change in native ability in the course of a few years. The only suggestion here made is that the state universities and denominational colleges of the central and western states are more nearly in touch with the people than the privately controlled universities of the east and have proved to be the better agencies for the selection and training of those having ability and ideal interests. The eastern universities provide education for more men who become leaders in science than the states produce. As American students formerly went to Germany for advanced work, so in a later period they tended to congregate in the endowed universities of the Atlantic seaboard. The first degree of doctor of philosophy in the United States was given by Yale University in 1861, the first scientific man to receive it being Josiah Willard Gibbs in 1863. Prior to 1876, Yale had given 18 doctorates in the sciences, Harvard 4, Columbia and Cornell 2 each. Then was established the Johns Hopkins University, opening a new era of higher education and scientific research in the United States. In the following 20 years the Johns Hopkins conferred 179 doctorates in the sciences and 84 of the recipients (some had died) were on the list of 1,000 scientific men of 1910. During this period Columbia conferred 67 such degrees, Harvard 66, Yale 56, Cornell 33, Pennsylvania 22, Clark (opened in 1888) 21, Chicago (opened in 1892) 8, all other universities 66.1 Up to and including 1910, the universities of the United States had conferred 2,513 doctorates for work in the sciences, the distribution being: Johns Hopkins 434, Chicago 276, Yale 271, Columbia 268, Harvard 267, Cornell 222, Pennsylvania 172, Clark 150, all others 453. Thus eight endowed universities awarded more than four fifths of these degrees. In 1926 according to data compiled for the National Research Council by Callie Hull and Clarence J. West there were 740 doctorates conferred in the sciences, the numbers for the leading institutions being: Chicago 78, Wisconsin 53, Johns Hopkins 50, Columbia 49, Illinois 44, Cornell 43, California 38, Yale 38, Har 1 These statistics concerning doctorates in the sciences are from an unpublished study. From 1898 to 1915 there was printed each year in SCIENCE an article on doctorates conferred by American universities, including the names of the recipients and the subjects of the theses in the natural and exact sciences. frvard 35, Washington 32, Minnesota 30, Iowa 28, Ohio State 25. Thus Chicago in the central west is far in advance of the eastern privately controlled universities and the seven eastern universities which had conferred prior to 1910 nearly three quarters of all the degrees in 1926 conferred fewer than seven state unihaversities of the north central states and California. Of the institutions from which the 601 scientific men received their degrees, Harvard with 41 bachelors, 62 ala doctors of philosophy and three doctors of medicine, stands foremost as it did in 1903. It is, however, now it surpassed by Chicago in the number of doctorates, sas it was by the Johns Hopkins at the earlier period. After these three universities comes Columbia, followed by Yale, Pennsylvania, Cornell and California. The institutions whose graduates are in the twenties are Michigan, Minnesota, Princeton and the Massachusetts Institute; ranging from 18 to 12 are Wisconsin, Stanford, Indiana, Kansas, Illinois and Ohio State. The privately endowed universities still lead in the number of scientific men for whose education they were responsible usually some twenty to twentyfive years ago. They probably do not do so for the men graduated to-day, but we must wait another twenty years before the figures will be at hand. Many of the 41 bachelors who received degrees from Harvard and the 15 from Columbia and from Yale went to these universities from other institutions after they had planned their careers and the influence of the eastern endowed universities in the creation of scientific men is not large. The private colleges are also losing the influence that they formerly had. In the thousand of 1906 there were 23 graduates of Princeton and of Amherst, 16 of Wesleyan, 14 of Williams, 10 of Dartmouth and of Oberlin. For the contemporary list of 601 men the numbers are: Wesleyan 8, Princeton, Dartmouth and Williams 5, Amherst 4, Oberlin 2. Another change that can not be regarded as wholly auspicious is the small number of the younger scientific men who have studied at foreign universities. In so far as this means such advance in our own institutions that it is needless to go abroad for special work it is gratifying. But it may result in lesser devotion to the ideals of scholarship and research that had their florescence in the German university of the nineteenth century. Of the thousand of 1906, 117 had studied in Berlin, 84 in Leipzig, 69 in Göttingen, 56 in Heidelberg, and a large proportion had received degrees from these and other German universities. Of the contemporary 601 only one has a degree from Berlin, none from Leipzig. This refers, of course, to men working in the period preceding the war. Perhaps now the various systems of unattached fellowships may lead to a larger international interchange of students. Before graduate students can afford to study abroad, we must, however, find a method by which younger scientific men receive positions in accordance with their ability rather than through the influence of the professors with whom they work. The majority of scientific men still find their careers in universities. 358.5 (the decimal here and elsewhere referring to a divided position) of the 591 men hold academic positions and in the main earn their salaries by teaching. There are 95 connected with the research institutions that are the most notable development in scientific investigation of the present century. Sixty-two are engaged in industrial work, largely in the research laboratories of the corporations, where their work is not confined to applied science and will doubtless be more and more extended to the fundamental problems whose cultivation and by-products have an economic value far beyond their cost. Such work is besides only a proper return to society for the wealth acquired by monopoly. A public service corporation such as the American Telephone and Telegraph Company, whose profits are limited only by legal regulations, could easily and properly support and give the best facilities to scientific men engaged in research in physics, chemistry, mathematics and psychology. 74.5 of the men are employed by the government. Here again the work is largely but not wholly in applied science, and here again the most beneficial use of money collected by taxation would be the support of research that of all services is the most important for the nation and for the world. Of these scientific men 60.7 per cent. hold academic positions as compared with 73.8 per cent. of those in the list of 1910. It has been recognized that there has been since the war a movement of scientific men from the universities to the research and industrial laboratories and we have here a measure of its extent. If the numbers are, as above explained, increased to a thousand we find that of this younger group the universities and colleges have lost 133. The research institutions have gained 88.5; the industrial laboratories and applied science 46; the government services 14.5. There is only one who may be classed as an amateur in the present list, as compared with 18 in 1910. We have never had in America a group of men, such as was represented in England by Darwin, Galton, Rayleigh and Huggins, who devoted themselves to scientific work without occupying a scientific position. The specialization of science and democratic institutions have now led to the practical disappearance of those who contribute significantly to the advancement of science without being professionally engaged in scientific or educational work. But we now have men who are professionally engaged in research. |