HORTICULTURE A GREAT GREEN CARPET 435 



fundamental research of today is the applied research of tomorrow, only to 

 be replaced in turn by something else fundamental. 



It would seem that the real test of research is its quality. A fruit grower, 

 vegetable grower, seedman, or florist who is diligently and self-critically 

 seeking information is a useful research worker. There is no reason to exclude 

 anyone from the field; in fact, the more inclusive the term can be made, the 

 better. Some of the most worthwhile leads and suggestions have come from 

 the careful study and observations of amateurs. In the final test there are 

 but two kinds of research — good research and bad research — the product of 

 the long hard road requiring much time, or the easier and shorter road of 

 mere superficial and often misleading observation. 



Of course the emphasis in the program of research may vary. There may 

 be the emphasis on solving the little problem that arises day by day — what 

 we call "trouble-shooting" — and there may be the more carefully considered 

 development type of research. Also there may be the closely directed research, 

 and there may be disinterested research, of which patience and free time are 

 the essence. 



Ordinarily, the support of research begins with the closely directed form. 

 But the disinterested form, which may be at the moment less spectacular and 

 often viewed with impatience, is the one which is being accepted more and 

 more as the real "payoff" in significant achievement. As someone has said, 

 it is more profitable just to dig than to dig specifically for a gold nugget. 

 Urged on by love of digging, one may dig deeper and in a new vein. Prac- 

 ticality often is synonymous with shortsightedness. Horace Walpole coined 

 the word "serendipity" for the gift of finding valuable or agreeable things 

 not sought for. Dr. Irving Langmuir speaks of "the art of profiting from 

 unexpected occurrences." 



This does not mean, of course, that some degree of common sense should 

 not prevail. If one is hunting elephants, he might more properly select Africa 

 than London for his hunting grounds, yet an elephant escaping from the zoo 

 might perhaps reward a hunter of big game, even in the streets of London. 

 Or, to put it as someone else has done, "Even a blind hog occasionally gets 

 a chestnut." 



It would seem obvious, however, that research workers in Horticulture 

 should properly stay in the field of Horticulture. In fact, it is doubtful if the 

 research worker in Horticulture should ever take his eye off the commodity, 

 the individual, and the industry he serves. This limitation is hardly to be 

 looked upon as confining. There is plenty of latitude. 



Generally speaking, the horticultural industry is well aware of the value of 

 research. But it is becoming increasingly aware of the dividends of the long- 

 range, not closely directed type of research. More and more a publicly sup- 

 ported research laboratory may be asked to spend less of its time and energy 

 on so-called "practical" problems and be left to spend the larger percentage 



