« PreviousContinue »
can be ranked in that class, however. majority of investigators must be content to be journeymen rather than master builders on the edifice of science and the rate of progress of the structure depends very largely on the persistent, conscientious work of the ordinary investigator. The advance of science as a whole is, after all, a rather prosaic affair, including a vast amount of drudgery and requiring patient "plugging" rather than genius.
Furthermore, the problems of more immediate importance to mankind are often the less fundamental ones or those near the middle of the series. It is for the more superficial or practical problems and for the ordinary investigator that organized cooperation seems most promising. It is investigators of this type, possessing varying degrees of initiative and inspiration, who can profit most largely by mutual association, particularly in connection with the more superficial problems, while it is in this type of investigation that the initiative and inspiration of the individual is at once most significant and most in danger of being suppressed. They, more than the genius, need the inspiration and stimulus to initiative which comes from close contact with their fellow workers.
Another class of problems in which cooperation seems especially called for are those requiring the application of diverse branches. of science. Such was notably true of many war problems and is perhaps particularly the case with the larger agricultural problems of a more or less practical nature especially regional problems such as the development of farming in the semi-arid regions, the study of plant diseases or, in a different field, such questions as sewage disposal.
In brief the teaching of our war experiences, as I see it, is that our rate of future scientific progress will depend, not exclusively upon cooperation on the one hand nor upon individualism on the other but upon a wise combination and adjustment of the two in varying proportion according to the nature of the problem attacked and the abilities of the investigators concerned.
Granting the truth of this view, a second
fundamental question is, "How can cooperative effort, where desirable, be most efficiently organized?"
Substantially three things are to be effected. First, that effort shall be directed to really significant and fundamental problems. The issues of civilization are too vast for us to lapse into dilettanteism. Second, that the methods employed shall be sound, so that effort may not be frittered away in empirical experiments leading nowhere. Third, to secure that stimulus to zeal and persistence which comes from association in a common
How can these objects be realized? How can we gain the advantages of association and cooperation without sacrificing that initiative of the individual upon which, in the last analysis, the efficiency of even practical research depends. I think we should all agree that this can not be effected by any such bureaucratic or even military organization as would seem to be contemplated by the words of some writers-notably by Mr. Root in the passages which I have quoted. Let me repeat a single phrase:
That the effective power of a great number of scientific men may be increased by organization just as the effective power of a great number of laborers may be increased by military discipline.
Such expressions as these, like a certain notorious report on academic efficiency, if taken at their face value, betray an almost ludicrous misconception of the conditions of productive scientific activity and are particularly surprising in a man of Mr. Root's breadth of view, who in the same statement has shown so clear an appreciation of the value of abstract research. Organization of this sort may serve for a works laboratory doing routine control work or perhaps for the law offices of a great firm but we can not stimulate scientific investigation by strangling personal initiative. The question is how investigation can be coordinated without destroying the individuality of the investigator. This can not be done by laying down hard and fast plans involving any sort of factory system of division of labor.
And yet, as I have tried to make clear, reasonable cooperation and coordination in research offer possibilities for greatly increasing the rate of scientific progress. Individualism and cooperation must not be antagonists but yokefellows in the chariot of science. What then shall be the binding force which shall fuse these two ideas? Precisely the same that held together the various groups of scientific men during the war, viz.; the tie of a common interest and a common purpose. I have compared the great body of investigators to journeymen but this does not mean that they are merely "hands." They are self-directed workers and therefore any organization of them must be democratic. They are all partners in the enterprise and sharers in its profits. The men who worked together almost night and day to devise efficient gas masks or means of submarine detection or methods of sound ranging were not workmen under the orders of a superior, but free associations of scientists with training in common or related fields of research and under the inspiration of a common patriotism. Precisely this is what is needed to achieve the victories of peace. Effective cooperation can not be imposed from above by administrative authority but can only come by free democratic action of investigators themselves. In saying this I am not charging administrators with either indifference or incompetency. The difficulty lies in the nature of things. There must be the will to cooperate.
We may, I think, distinguish two distinct forms of cooperative organization which we may call for convenience institutional organization and subject-matter organization.
In the agricultural field, at least, much emphasis has been laid in the past upon institutional cooperation as between different experiment stations, between the stations and the U. S. Department of Agriculture, and to some extent at least between some of the bureaus of the latter department. Much anxiety has been expressed over the real or supposed duplication of work by the state stations and Section 3 of the Hatch Act seems to contemplate more or less coordination of experiments. It is within the memory of
some present, too, that the first conception of the Office of Experiment Stations was that of a central directing agency. While this idea was early abandoned, numerous voluntary efforts toward the coordination of projects have been attempted through committees of the Association of Colleges and Experiment Stations, one recent suggestion, that of a sort of Agricultural Research Council, constituting more or less of a reversion to the early conception of the Office of Experiment Stations.
On the whole, however, it may be doubted whether the results reached in this way have been commensurate with the conscientious and praiseworthy efforts put forth by the experiment stations and the Department of Agriculture. These institutions and to a large degree the individual bureaus largely go their own way, with the exception in the case of the stations of the restrictions involved in the approval of projects by the Office of Experiment Stations, and this condition seems likely to continue.
Meantime the various forms of war work have afforded striking illustrations of the success of the second type of cooperative effort, viz., cooperation by subject-matter. The significant lesson of war-time organization is the efficiency with which scientific men in the same field have got together, largely independent of institutional or administrative subdivisions. I believe that this same principle can be applied to the more fundamental research problems-that scientific men may to advantage organize in this way, forming group or regional conferences which might be especially profitable for those living in somewhat isolated localities and not in such ready contact with their fellows as is the case with those situated on the Atlantic seaboard. Such free conferences, formulating the common judgment of workers in identical or related fields can scarcely fail to furnish both guidance and inspiration for the progress of research. In brief, I believe we can very effectively promote research by consultation and conference of those interested in particular subjects or groups of subjects. We should thus have a loose organization at right
angles, so to speak, to the administrative organization, which would bring the collective judgment of experts to bear upon the choice of scientific problems and upon the adoption of adequate methods for their solution and which would not be in any sense antagonistic to the official organization.
Much progress has already been made in this direction. For example The American Society of Animal Production has formulated a valuable set of standard methods for the conduct of feeding experiments, while the very effective work of the War Board of the American Society of Phytopathologists is familiar to us all and still another illustration is the Association of Southern Agricultural Workers. But the most significant and comprehensive achievement in the organization of American research is one which has been prominently before the scientific public and with which we are all familiar, viz; the National Research Council. From the point of view advocated in this paper its organization is peculiarly significant because it was effected by the voluntary initiative of the investigators themselves and because, therefore, it is thoroughly democratic in form and has been careful both in its initiation and development to conserve the individuality of the research The past successes of this wise combination of organization and individualism demonstrate its essential soundness and constitute the best guarantee of its future achievements.
HENRY PRENTISS ARMSBY THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE COLLEGE
CONFERENCE OF BRITISH RESEARCH
A CONFERENCE of research associations-the second of a series-organized by the British Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, was held according to Nature on December 12 in the lecture-theater of the Institution of Civil Engineers. The Right Hon. A. J. Balfour, Lord President of the Council, appropriately presided, the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research
being a committee of the Privy Council. Mr. Balfour, who was warmly greeted on his first public appearance in his capacity of head of the department, delivered a short introductory address on the national need for scientific research, especially in its application to industry. Three points emphasized by Mr. Balfour were that, though man does not live by bread alone, the amelioration of the material lot of mankind can come only through progress in scientific knowledge; that we must not imitate, but follow the example of the Germans in realizing a helpful and close alliance between science and industry; and that in the prosecution of this aim the paramount interests of pure science must not be overlooked. Papers were afterwards read by Major H. J. W. Bliss, director of the British Research Association for the Woollen and Worsted Industries, on 66 "Research Associations and Consulting Work and the Collection and Indexing of Information," and by Dr. W. Lawrence Balls on "The Equipment of Research Laboratories." There was a general discussion on the subject-matter of the two papers, from which it was clear that, although there is a large common measure of agreement among the different associations, there is also enough variety of circumstance and character to make it desirable for each association to work out its own salvation in many problems of organization and method. It is the intention of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research to continue periodically these conferences of research associations. As the department, in fostering the associations, is engaged in a novel adventure in government enterprise, the research associations have to set sail on uncharted seas, without maps or precedent experience to guide them, and these periodical conferences must be of great help to them in mapping out their courses and taking their soundings.
THE MEDICAL STRIKE IN SPAIN THE Journal of the American Medical Association states that the town of Jerez de la Frontera, which has a world reputation on account of its famous wines, has just witnessed the first general strike of physicians. This
strike originated because the municipal authorities, disregarding all statutory provisions and trusting to political influence, failed to keep their pledges, and the salaries due the employees finally amounted to 1,000,000 pesetas (about $200,000). When the physicians became tired of seeing that, in this period of better compensation for labor, they were the only ones who could bring home the wages they had earned, they unanimously decided to go out on strike. The mayor and the members of the town council were very indignant at this action, their arguments running somewhat as follows: "It is very strange that the physicians should be so rebellious, and especially now, when the town council has just spent several thousand dollars for celebrations and bull fights, thus showing our desire to please the people and attract foreigners. The physicians do not bear in mind the fact that we can not pay their salaries, since to do so would be to show partiality in their favor; in a place where no one is paid, it is an imposition to ask for money. If we have spent so much for festivals it has been only because the bull fighters and actors would not have come otherwise; but every one understands that if we could have got out of paying them, we would not have paid them either." These reasons did not influence the physicians, who suspended all official relations with the municipal authorities, and who, while continuing their care of the poor, refused to submit any reports, would not sign any official certificates, or attend the municipal dispensaries, and let public opinion and the government decide the matter. At first the local authorities threatened the physicians, at whose head was Dr. Aranda, one of the most prominent surgeons of Andalusia. The physicians proved adamant against all kinds of pressure that was brought to bear on them for over a month. At last the government decided to enforce the law; it dismissed the municipal council and appointed new counselors so as to help solve the situation. The result has been that the physicians will immediately receive one half of the amount due them, and the balance very shortly. This is the first medical strike that ever took place in Spain. It has received
support not only in the country in general, but also at the hands of the government.
RESOLUTIONS OF THE ANTHROPOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF WASHINGTON
THE attention of the Anthropological Society of Washington having been called to an open letter published in The Nation of December 20 by Dr. Franz Boas under the title Scientists as Spies," and after said article was read and duly considered, the following resolution was adopted and ordered to be submitted to the American Anthropological Association at its meeting in Boston; to Section H of the American Association for the Advancement of Science meeting in St. Louis; and to the Archeological Institute of America at its meeting in Pittsburgh, with a request that suitable action be taken by these associations. Also, that a copy of this resolution be sent to The Nation and SCIENCE, with a request for its publication.
Resolved: That the article in question unjustly criticizes the President of the United States and attacks the fundamental principles of American democracy;
That the reflections contained in the article fall on all American anthropologists who have been anywhere outside the limits of the United States during the last five years;
That the information thus given is liable to have future serious effects on the work of all anthropologists outside the boundaries of the United States; and
That the accusation, given such prominent publicity and issuing from such a source, will doubtless receive wide attention and is liable to prejudice foreign governments against all scientific men coming from this country to their respective territories, particularly if under government auspices; there
Be it resolved, that in the opinion of the council of the Anthropological Society of Washington, the publication of the article in question was unwarranted and will prove decidedly injurious to the interests of American scientists in general; that the author has shown himself inconsiderate to the best interests of his American colleagues who may be obliged to carry on research in foreign countries; and that his action, therefore, deserves our emphatic disapproval.
BIOLOGICAL SURVEYS OF STATES BY THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE DURING 1919
WORK in biological investigations of birds and mammals by the Bureau of Biological Survey, U. S. Department of Agriculture, and cooperating institutions, while somewhat interrupted by the war, is rapidly getting back to normal. The work falls into three principal divisions, namely, investigations of habits, distribution, migration, and systematic studies of birds, investigation of the habits and relationships of mammals, and natural history surveys of the states. This note deals with work under the latter head only.
In Wisconsin the State Geological and Natural History Survey is cooperating with the United States Department of Agriculture in the work, which is in charge of Dr. Hartley H. T. Jackson for the Department of Agriculture, and Professor George Wagner of the University of Wisconsin for the State of Wisconsin. Work was begun May 15 and continued until September 20. The principal field of cooperation was the northwestern part of the state, special attention being devoted to the Apostle Islands in Lake Superior. Mr. Harry H. Sheldon for the Biological Survey, and Mr. Arthur J. Poole for the Wisconsin Survey assisted throughout the season.
In Montana, Mr. Marcus A. Hanna, assisted by Mr. Harry Malleis, worked the valley of the Missouri and the bordering plains and mountains from the mouth of Milk River westward, under the general direction of Mr. Edward A. Preble. The Little Rockies, Moccasin Mountains, Big and Little Belt Mountains and Castle Mountains were visited during the latter part of the summer. Victor N. Householder was a member of the party during the early part of the season.
The biological survey of Florida was continued by Mr. Arthur H. Howell. Field studies were carried on during March and April over a large part of Lee County and in the region around Lake Okeechobee. The collections in the Florida State Museum were examined and the specimens carefully identified. A collection of bird records from Florida, both published and unpublished,
shows approximately 390 species and subspecies recorded from the state.
Cooperating at different times with the Biological Survey in field work in the state of Washington were the following: Professor William T. Shaw, State College of Washington, Pullman; Professor H. S. Brode, Whitman College, Walla Walla; Professor J. W. Hungate, State Normal School, Cheny; Professor J. B. Flett, National Park Service, Longmire; Mr. William L. Finley and Mrs. Finley, Portland, Oregon; and Stanton Warburton, Jr., of Tacoma. The Biological Survey was represented for a part of the time by Mr. Stanley G. Jewett, Pendleton, Oregon; and throughout the season by Mr. George G. Cantwell, Puyallup, Washington, and Dr. Walter P. Taylor, of the Biological Survey, the last named in charge of the work. Investigations were made in the Blue Mountains area of extreme southeastern Washington, in which occurs an unusual mixture of Rocky Mountain and Cascade Mountain types; and in Mount Rainier National Park, in connection with which the circuit of Mount Rainier was made for the first time, so far as known, by any vertebrate zoological expedition.
In North Dakota Mr. Vernon Bailey worked through September and October to get data on the hibernation of mammals and on the stores of food laid up for winter by nonhibernating species. He has returned with many valuable notes to be added to his report on the mammals of the state, and with an interesting collection of live rodents for study of habits in captivity.
SCIENTIFIC NOTES AND NEWS
SIR WILLIAM OSLER, regius professor of medicine at Oxford University, died on December 29, aged seventy years.
DR. L. O. HOWARD, chief of the Bureau of Entomology of the United States Department of Agriculture and for twenty-two years permanent secretary of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, was elected president of the association at the St. Louis meeting. Dr. Edward L. Nichols, who last