ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON PSYCHOLOGY 223 



capable, rank-and-file workers, wlio shall thoroughl}^ 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 try to envisage the progress of 

 psychology beyond this point. 



These matters are, however, extremely debatable. Fortunately, 

 the present conditions of psychology 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 subsidized 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 myself 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 in some departments of psychol- 

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

 tively pressing in all departments. 



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

 have one thing or many, w^e 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 with 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 



