130 THE MONTHLY BULLETIN". 



man discovers that the results of the former investigation may be used 

 to revolutionize some empirical formula of agriculture. The applica- 

 tion is made and the world applauds; but the applause is chiefly for 

 the second man, the practical man. Any analysis of the situation, 

 however, shows that to the practical result both men were of great 

 material service. The ratio that exists between these two types of 

 scientific men is unknown, but the first is much the more rare. 



Another illustration is needed as a corollary. In this case an investi- 

 gator, stimulated by the desire to serve the community, is attracted 

 by a problem. He succeeds in solving his problem, perhaps makes his 

 own application, and is satisfied. Later, some other scientific man dis- 

 covers that the results of the former may be used to revolutionize 

 certain fundamental conceptions of science. His statement is made 

 and the scientific world applauds; and this time the applaiLse is chiefly 

 for the second man, the pure scientist. The analysis of this case shows, 

 however, that to the scientific result both men contributed, and that 

 both men were of large scientific service. 



A third illustration is needed to complete the real historical picture 

 of progress in scientific knowledge and its practical applications to 

 agriculture. A practical man, not trained as an investigator, faces 

 the problem of obtaining some new and useful result with plants. His 

 only method is to apply empirically certain formulae that have been 

 developed by science, but with ingenuity and patience he succeeds, 

 although he is not able to analyze his results. And yet, his procedure 

 reveals to a trained investigator a method or certain data that lead to 

 a scientific synthesis of the first order. 



These illustrations represent the actual historical situation of the 

 mutual influence of botany as a science and agriculture. Now what 

 are the conclusions? 



It is evident that responsibility for the practical results of the science 

 of botany to agriculture is to be shared by those engaged in pure 

 science, those engaged in applied science, and those not trained in 

 science at all. The only distinction is not in the result, therefore, but 

 in the intent. In other words, the difference between pure science and 

 applied science, in their practical aspects, resolves itself into the differ- 

 ence between murder and manslaughter; it lies in the intention. So 

 long as the world gets the results of science, it is not likely to trouble 

 itself about the intention. 



Another conclusion is that all application must have something to 

 apply, and that application alone would presently result in sterility. 

 There must be perennial contributions to knowledge, with or Avithout 

 immediately useful intent, that application may possess a wide and 

 fertile field for cultivation. 



A final conclusion may be that all science is one ; that pure science 

 is often immensely practical; that applied science is often very pure 

 science ; and that between the two there is no dividing line. 



I wish to illustrate these general statements concerning pure science' 

 and applied science, represented in our interests by botany and agricul- 

 ture, by some more specific statements concerning their mutual 

 interests. 



The science of botany has had a remarkable history. Beginning with 

 the investigation of plants for what were called their medicinal virtues, 

 it developed with various progressions and retrogressions, until the 



