8 EXPERIMENT STATION EECOED. [Vol.36 



other phenomena and relationships beyond those the author of the 

 experiment has in mind. Hence the most is not made of these ex- 

 pensive undertakings, important by-products are overlooked, and at 

 the same time the experiments themselves are weakened because they 

 do not include a complete study of the exact conditions and the 

 changes brought about, both in the environment and in the plant 

 response. 



Dr. Webber's ideas on the method of organizing institutional ex- 

 periments are interesting because the subject is so fundamental in 

 accomplishing these broader aims. He considered two plans: (1) 

 Through a committee comprised of men representing all the branches 

 of science concerned in the experiment, and (2) by a strong team 

 captain. The committee plan is more common but its danger " lies 

 in the possibility that the plan finally adopted may be a result of 

 compi'omise that will be a hodgepodge, that after all may be emascu- 

 lated of its most vital points. The most valuable series of experi- 

 ments in the history of science are usually those planned to solve 

 certain points." 



Here again a vital matter is touched upon, for it frequently hap- 

 pens, as indicated, that in such composite investigations each partici- 

 pant works out the part of the problem he is particularly interested 

 in from his own point of view, and the main question which the 

 investigation set out to solve is advanced but little because there is 

 no common aim, no unit}', no one to keep the effort focused on a 

 definite point and to marshal the data to bear upon it. Such a plan 

 is a distinct weakness in the study of " institutional " problems. The 

 direction of such problems is an institutional matter. These con- 

 siderations led Dr. Webber to favor the individual leader — " a strong, 

 virile investigator with originality, vision, and training of the right 

 kind," who would be charged with the sole responsibility of planning 

 the experiments, getting all the help possible from the various de- 

 partments, and would center the effort on the solution of certain 

 fundamental questions, giving it definiteness and freedom from 

 compromise. 



In commenting on this paper Dr. Bailey, while fully recognizing 

 the importance of individuality in research, pointed to the danger 

 of such a division of institutional problems as to result in diffusion 

 of responsibility, inequality of enterprise, and lack of coordination. 

 In investigation of institutional problems, he held for such coordina- 

 tion of all parts as will give it responsibility, cohesion, and system. 



Speaking of the training of the investigator. Dr. Bailey held that 

 the research man should be a student in all that the name implies. 

 The investigator in horticulture should have a grounding in chemis- 

 try, physics, and physiology, for the grasp they give on methods and 



