EDITORIAL. 605 



simply more dnta of tlie same kind ? TTnless the former is the case the 

 Avork will not be genuinely c-onstriicti\e; and at the present stage this 

 may well be the test. If its aim is not constructive it is on doubtful 

 ground; and if its method and attack ai-e not such as to lead to ad- 

 vancement, it lacks the degree of efficiency Avhich may now rightfully 

 be expected. 



It sometimes seems that even now the force of this is not fully 

 appreciated, partly no doubt because the field and function of the 

 experiment station is still confused witli that of demonstration, and 

 some of its workers from their relations or inclinations vacillate from 

 one to the other without changing their Aiewpoint. The effects of 

 this are seen particularly in the simpler experiments, which should 

 aim at advancement and conclusion, but which often represent merely 

 repetition and duplication, ending mainly in demonstration. These 

 ■simpler experiments ought to mark a contribution, not merely to 

 A\hat their author knows but to what is generally known; and if 

 they do not afford promise of such a result in their plan and method 

 it is questionable whether money so much needed for productive 

 work should continue to be assigned to them. Too often they are 

 undertaken without a search of the available literature to learn 

 what others have found, and hence they involve nothing new in 

 conception or result. There should be a means of determining in 

 advance the character and the reasonable prospects of each under- 

 taking, whether it be a piece of investigation or a relatively simple 

 field experiment. 



Some of our experimental work has moved in circles. It has been 

 done more from the demonstration standpoint than from that of 

 acquiring information. The attitude and aim are not genuinely 

 experimental but rather of convincing the farmer by example and 

 improving his methods because the need of it is keenly felt. No one 

 questions but it has had good effect, and it has often been done in 

 response to state appropriations secured specifically for that kind of 

 work, because the response to it was easier to arouse. But one effect 

 of this has been to not only confuse the public l)ut worst of all the 

 staff of the station. It has put them in a wrong position as station 

 men and their work in a false light as station work. It has often 

 kept them from the opportunity for more advanced and progressive 

 work, and has sometimes blinded them to the real character of what 

 they were turning out. 



Now that extension work is definitely organized and provided for, 

 the purpose of the experiment station and its place in the institution 

 should be made clear and maintained. Demonstration for the pur- 

 pose of teaching and experimentation for the purpose of learning 

 should not be confused, and each should be made in the highest 

 degree effective. 



