« PreviousContinue »
its product and find new products to sell. The most advantageous solution of problems of this character can not be left to people who are busied with the routine problems of sales and production. They can best be handled by a staff, even if a very small one, set aside for this purpose. I want to suggest that any department having such functions may be called a research department, and that industrial research may be defined for any given establishment as all that class of work which enlarges the technical horizon of the establishment beyond what is necessary for the routine production and test of its product. You will note that this will make a sharp distinction between a research laboratory and a testing laboratory. I should not want to see a chemical laboratory, however large and elaborate its equipment or however highly trained its staff might be, called a research laboratory if its sole function happened to be routine analysis and check on the product. On the other hand, I should like to see any little room with even a very meager equipment and staff, perhaps only a single individual, called a research laboratory provided the functions of that individual and equipment were solely the improvement of processes, investigation of properties of materials new to the industry, development of new products, etc. And I should want to have it called a research department even if the research be chiefly carried on in libraries or other places for the purpose of bringing information, elsewhere well known, to an establishment to which that information happens to be new. This conception of research widely recognized might be the occasion for many small industries to start research departments, which these industries now regard as possible only for large capital. In this sense many small industries already have individuals with research functions who have other duties as well and do not clearly recognize their research functions.
these circumstances both the research and the other work suffer, and as the business develops research does not find the best relation to the work as a whole.
Research, development and technical control merge into each other at many points, and in
all but very large establishments can probably best be carried on by a group working under one head. Why attempt lines of demarcation? In order that research may find its fixed and recognized place in industry it is desirable that it be carefully planned and controlled, and that its results be carefully watched. So far as I know, these two conditions of the successful coordination of research with industry have not been discussed. Control in the sense of control of the research in the laboratory after it has been decided on has had discussion, and I do not refer to it but to the determination of the subjects which shall be investigated in the research department and the decision as to when the research is completed, or, in case it is one that does not lead to satisfactory results, when it shall be abandoned. For some five or six years this class of decisions in connection with our research department has been made by a committee of which the president of the company, the head of the research department, and representatives of the sales, engineering and production departments are members. This committee, called the research committee, meets once in two weeks, passes on all new subjects for the research department to handle, listens to reports on the progress of the work in hand and passes on recommendations in regard to the conclusion or discontinuance of work. In this way the work of the research department is well coordinated with the needs of the business as a whole. As a further factor in coordination the head of the research department is one of the board of directors and sits on the executive committee. The research committee has nothing to do with the internal administration of the department, which is left entirely to its own staff.
Records of the results of a research department can best be kept by the accounting department. It is just as important to know the cost of research as of any other department, and, as in other cases, the usefulness of the record depends to a very large extent on its subdivision. It is worth while to know what investigations contribute to business success and what ones do not.
Some years ago we worked out a plan of determining research cost and making credits to the department which has given us much valuable information. Each investigation undertaken has its cost record kept by the accounting department in the same way that a production order has. We of course do not ask our research men to register their time on a time clock or anything of that kind, but we do ask them to make a memorandum of the work on which they spend their time and turn in to the accounting department once a week a statement of the distribution of their time over the orders running in the department. Similarly, expenses and costs of materials are kept, and when an investigation is closed its total cost is determined. If it happens to be one that has to do with manufacturing processes, such as test of new materials, etc., or development of new methods, it is either charged to general expense or to the expense of some particular product. If, however, it is a piece of work which results in the development of a new instrument or product for sale, it is treated in the same way that a new instrument developed and brought in by an outsider would be. The research committee decides how much royalty can properly be charged to the cost of the instrument, and then as each instrument is made the royalty is added to its cost and is credited against its cost account in the research department. In that way a continuous record of the usefulness of the research to the business is available. In cases of minor importance it is customary to discontinue credits when the cost has been covered. In cases where new products result they are allowed to run on indefinitely. Successful developments accumulate royalties that more than pay for the cost of their research and offset the costs of work that leads to nothing. The diagram shows the relation of annual and accumulated costs of research to the annual and accumulated credits since the department was given a distinct place. In a little over six years the total credits had equalled the total charges and the balance went to the credit side. On the books the account is closed out each year to profit and loss. It is carried
conception and organization of research which
will allow it to emerge as a distinct department in any growing technical business and take its proper place just as sales, production and accounting do. Any technical business ambitious to grow and render worthy service must in some way avail itself of research. Kenneth Mees and others have pointed out how industry in the past has developed around invention and research, although the distinctiveness of these functions was not clearly recognized, and in many cases they were not directly associated with the business which profited by them. Certainly an enterprise will have a more worthy and norinal growth if its need for research is early and clearly recognized, and the research department will more easily find its proper relation to the business as a whole if it is established early and its place and functions are defined.
After a business has assumed large proportions, and research functions are distributed in scattered manufacturing and engineering departments, it is difficult to gather them together and coordinate them.
Let me remind those of you who may think this conception of research degrading that the present scientific limitation of the word is modern and confined to the exact sciences. The Century Dictionary gives its definitions in this order:
1. Diligent inquiry, examination or study, 2. Laborious or continued search after facts or principles,
and quotes from Cowper
He sucks intelligence in every clime
so I think that the definition which I propose does not violate good usage. Even if it did would not the possibilities of development and usefulness to industry which this definition allows justify it in the same way that Bryce, in his "American Commonwealth," writing of the third quarter of the last century, said that the application of the name "university" to many institutions, which were no more than colleges or in some cases high schools, was a favorable sign because it showed an aspiration, and that where the aspiration existed the reality would follow? We all know to what a large extent this forecast has come true.
MORRIS E. LEEDS
LEEDS & NORTHRUP COMPANY, PHILADELPHIA, PA.
THE NATURALIST'S PLACE IN HIS
BEFORE beginning discussion I may say that I am not trying to say anything new or original and that I am not quite sure that I shall be able to make myself entirely clear in the limited time at my disposal. I do think, however, that the points which I shall men1 Read at the meeting of the Bay Section of the Western Society of Naturalists, Stanford University, November 29, 1918.
tion should be more often opened to serious consideration.
Inasmuch as there are probably about as many different notions of "naturalist" as there are users of the word it may be necessary to say that by this term I now mean any one who is actively interested in living things as such.
In primitive societies most of the leaders are naturalists. In fact in most cases their leadership depends on attainments of that sort. The medicine man gains and holds his position very largely through his shifty use of knowledge of certain characteristics of animals in general and of his fellows in particular. The chieftain also usually bases his influence on successes derived from familiarity with activities of all sorts of animals. Certain women may gain indulgence or even general respect through exceptional familiarity with medicinal and food values of great numbers of plants and animals. It is, of course, easy to see that primitive leadership is thus conditioned because primitive man is individually in contact with the natural environment and appreciative of its mysteries; also because in an unspecialized social group all the members are sufficiently acquainted with every phase of activity to be able to understand and fairly to evaluate unusual skill and intelligence.
As society advances in complexity from the primitive stage and as more and more specialization occurs there are larger and larger numbers of individuals removed from natural to artificial conditions of existence. Not only so, but many of them are so far removed that they cease to have any knowledge of natural existence and so become entirely out of sympathy with those who retain some contact with and some interest in the natural order of things. This remoteness from nature may be physical as in the city dweller, or mental as in the rural resident who sees nothing but a pecuniary return through manipulation of same natural object. Thus it happens that the abilities of the naturalist tend to be obscured, ignored or derided in a complex society. His standing amongst his fellows is reduced to the lowest rank and his influence
nears the vanishing point. It requires peculiar devotion to a cause to face such obscurity and indifference hence those who chose to be naturalists under such conditions are often seclusive, reticent and even indifferent to interests of others.
In recent years there has been a good deal of discussion of the need of considering the wholeness of organisms, of organizations of various social groups, etc. Every one seems ready to concede that we do not know a thing until we know all its relationships and that we do not know an organism or an organization until we know all its component parts. Every one seems willing to concede in the abstract that an organism is not complete if even the smallest part be missing or the obscurest function impaired. Practically when it comes to cases this view is not fully sustained as is well illustrated in case of the naturalist whose talents are insufficiently used and whose valuable point of view is largely ignored. The community as a whole suffers material loss from his submersion.
At this point it may be well to raise the question as to the proper status of the naturalist in our own social order. Should he be expected to take the highest place in leadership? Or a secondary place? Or should he be denied any leadership at all? Intelligent answer to such questions requires some examination of the naturalist's worth to his community or to society at large. Typically a statement of this worth may be brought under the following heads. (1) He may make discoveries which will extend the sources for food, clothing, transportation and manufacture. (2) He may make discoveries which enable better preservation and greater conservation of resources in health and wealth. (3) He may make discoveries which will enable better understanding of the fundamental laws governing the activities of all living things.
(4) With his broad outlook he may so organize all available knowledge as to obtain better development of natural resources and better distribution and use of natural products. (5) He may so systematize useful information as to make essential features readily available for specialists with limited
time and restricted outlook. (6) He may so condense, simplify and popularize available information as to make it not only usable but to some extent tasteful to those unskilled in scientific thought. Thus the sympathy of his fellows may be extended and their positive support secured. (7) He may be on the lookout for young people with ability who need encouragement to proceed along lines of study in natural history and he may so encourage them. (8) Last, but not least, he may himself give time consistently and regularly to consideration of the problems of his community and of society at large and he may then exert his voice and influence for the things which from his broad viewpoint appear right. Thus he may to some extent act as a balancing power even though he may not have or care to exercise powers of aggressive leadership.
From the foregoing it must appear that the naturalist should be accorded and that he should be willing to assume a place of very considerable importance in our social order. The character of this place will vary materially with conditions. In a small community existing under very simple conditions a naturalist of even modern abilities might be expected in most cases to be dominant in leadership. In a larger, more complex community only one of exceptional ability might reach great prominence. In such a community the naturalist of moderate ability would probably be limited to exerting influence in various ways. His efforts might bring larger results and his life accomplish more than in the smaller community though obscured by his relatively less importance. Here and there are a few naturalists of sufficient general ability to assume leadership in national affairs. It is a matter of great importance that they should be encouraged to do so.
This paper must further concern itself mainly with the naturalist of moderate ability, limited opportunities and restricted field, that is to say the ordinary sort. It seems to me that he ought to be encouraged to think of himself as having an obligation to the community, an obligation beyond the direct results of his scientific work, the obligation of
personal activity and interest in community affairs. This interest might be manifested by public and private discussion of public problems and community affairs. In such discussions the naturalist is peculiarly equipped for seeing the necessity of complete analysis of a question since he himself is repeatedly confronted with complex situations due to a multitude of factors, all of which must be more or less accurately evaluated. He is also able to see the need of giving time for a situation to develop itself since he is so familiar with the fact that Nature is unhurried in her operations whether their duration be seconds or ages. He is able to see the need of caution and accuracy in procedure since he is so frequently confronted with errors due to the impossibility of eliminating chance combinations. That is to say, the naturalist is able to bring to the consideration of a problem those methods which tend to accuracy of judgment and clarity of vision. Certainly any individual who can do this in a community should exert a valuable influence.
Since the members of a highly specialized community have a marked tendency to become narrow, one-sided, and so, to a considerable degree, abnormal, it is very necessary to have some influence in the other direction. This, too, the naturalist may be able to supply to a great extent. Popular talks on natural phenomena in connection with schools, churches or other organizations may be made of value. Pictures may be largely used for this purpose. Ordinary conversations may often be turned to advantage along this line. Simple exhibits of various sorts may be possible. Any method which will induce even superficial acquaintance of the general public with the great world of life is of distinct advantage from the standpoint of the human community however it may be from the scientific standpoint. Note particularly in this connection that the beneficial effect is reciprocal, i. e., the narrow are broadened, the one-sided more rounded and the abnormal made more nearly normal on the one hand, while on the other hand the naturalist is stimulated, pleased and supported in his work, both financially and morally in a way not before possible.
Since there may be some who are still wondering what is the object of this paper I may call attention to the fact that we have to-day some very strong evidence pointing to the view that the day of individualism is rapidly passing and that the day of collectivism (of some sort) comes on apace. It is no more permissible for the man of science to shut himself up in his own interests and to assume an air of lofty indifference to the aims and aspirations of other people than it is for the business or professional man to do so. It is time for the man of science to take some cognizance of public affairs and to assume an active part therein, however small, no matter how much he may be tempted to go into his laboratory or his woods and fields and to ignore the general interests of humanity. It seems to me not at all beneath the dignity of such a body as this to consider ways and means of getting in closer touch with the people about us, of arousing their interest in us and our interest in them, and thus contributing our share toward the harmonizing of society as a whole. I feel certain that there are hundreds of people in this state who ought to have some interest in some or all of the things which we as individuals are doing. I think our state would be a better state if there were some understanding of that sort. It seems to me that we are too much disposed to let the especially able men like Dr. Jordan, Dr. Ritter, Dr. Evermann and others do what they can and to feel that we ourselves are thereby relieved of obligation. I do not think that is a correct attitude. If we want to have the general public respond as it should to the call for progress in scientific matters, we must each be willing to sacrifice some prejudice, some leisure and some effort for the good of the cause. I think too that we should collectively look over the field and consider the possibility of instituting or extending some activity that will help. What I have said simply indicates some of the lines along which I think activity might possibly be directed.
In conclusion, let me say that I think the naturalist ought to fill in his community a place of influence or of leadership, that be