ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON PSYCHOLOGY 223 



capable, rank-and-file workers, who shall thoroughly work out the 

 multitude of problems handed down to us from the second half of 

 the nineteenth century- ; that the work before us, on lines already 

 laid down, will occupy at least two human generations, and that it 

 would be unwise to allow for or to trj^ to envisage the progress of 

 psychology' beyond this point. 



These matters arc, however, extremely debatable. Fortunately, 

 the present conditions of p53'chology practically dictate to us, irre- 

 spective of our personal beliefs, what is the first thing to be done 

 with a Carnegie grant. 



2. We must, in the first place, have a share in a subsidi?:ed estab- 

 lishment for printing, engraving, lithography, etc. There should 

 be no interference with the integrity of existing journals ; but we 

 ought to be able to have articles prepared for publication, on the 

 mechanical side, as cheaply as is possible on the continent of Eu- 

 rope. The establishment should have skilled proofreaders, such as 

 are attached to the larger German printing houses — technically 

 trained readers. I have not mj'self felt the need of trained com- 

 puters and statisticians, such as are required in some forms of ge- 

 netic work and in work on mental tests, but I see no reason why this 

 same establishment should not have a .staff of computers also. The 

 need of them is certainly pressing m some departments of psychol- 

 ogy. At any rate, the need of printers and engravers is impera- 

 tively pressing m all departments. 



I am, then, entirely clear on the point that, whether we are to 

 have one thing or many, we must have this. It is now hardly con- 

 ceivable that our share in the establishment will exhaust our share 

 of the funds. What is to be done v/ith the rest ? 



3. If the funds admit, I should here make the compromise spoken 

 of just now. I should sink all the rest of the money in a central 

 psychological institution; 'but it must be understood that this institu- 

 tion is not to duplicate, or slightly to improve upon, existing labo- 

 ratories. It must be an over-laboratory . It must be able to perform 

 work which for any sort of reason — time, expense, difficulty, num- 

 ber of observers, necessity of pathological material — can not be per- 

 formed in a regular university laboratory. It must make full and 

 adequate provision for work in comparative psychology, perhaps by 

 granting the use of zoological collections, perhaps by way of an ex- 

 periment farm, perhaps by arrangements with existing biological 

 laboratories, or by all of these means together. It must be repre- 

 sentative of the whole of psychology ; which implies that, while it 



