FIFTY YEARS OF PLANT PHYSIOLOGY IN THE U.S.A. 623 



tory houses primarily plant physiologists, and at the California Institute of 

 Technology the Dolk, Clark, and Earhart Laboratories provide unsurpassed 

 facilities for plant physiological work. However, in general it would seem 

 better to house plant physiologists together with other botanists and bio- 

 chemists to stress the essential unity between these sciences. 



Although it is true that a good scientist can always think up more research 

 projects than he can get money for, financial support of plant physiological 

 work in general can be considered adequate at present. It is only in regard to 

 basic research that there are difficulties, in spite of the generous help from 

 the Rockefeller Foundation, the Office of Naval Research, the Carnegie In- 

 stitution of Washington, and the National Science Foundation. For instance, 

 most of the money allotted for work on plant-growth regulators goes for prac- 

 tical testing, leaving us still in the dark about the basic reactions which causes 

 2,4-D, for example, to be so toxic to plants. 



During the 50 years of plant physiology here in the United States the 

 proportion of work carried out in private universities and institutions has 

 probably remained about the same. The greater amount of basic research 

 still seems to emerge from privately financed institutions, although during 

 the last 20 years the government has supported basic research in photo- 

 periodism and plant-growth regulators on a very modest scale in Beltsville. 



In spite of the fact that science is international in every aspect, it still is 

 possible to discern special national traits in the work carried out in the United 

 States. There is in general a greater emphasis on the problems which have 

 practical implications. This is due to several factors. In the first place a greater 

 proportion of the work is carried out in experiment stations, in contradistinc- 

 tion to Europe where the proportion of contributions by the universities is 

 greater. And in the second place there is usually more money available for 

 practical problems. In the third place the American mind is more focused 

 on problems which have a practical implication. This explains why during the 

 first 10 years of plant-hormone research most of it was carried out in European 

 universities. Seven years after I had carried out my experiments on auxin 

 in the Avena coleoptile, I was asked pityingly by a group of young physiologists 

 in one of our great universities whether I actually believed in plant hormones. 

 This attitude changed completely when we could show that auxins not only 

 regulated cell elongation but also controlled root formation and bud inhibition. 

 Then later fruit set, weed control, and other functions of auxins made them 

 practically so important that now America leads research in plant-growth 

 regulators. For the same reason plant nutrition is leading other research sub- 

 jects in the States. On the other hand, work on tropisms is definitely lagging 

 here. 



Teamwork has been developed more in the United States than in Europe, 

 where the individualistic attitude of the scientist is more pronounced. The 

 "Herr Professor" attitude of department heads is unthinkable here. Having 



