EDITORIAL. 3 



for other men and institutions to develop, instead of dividing their 

 efforts and resources between too many subjects." 



Such a view of the desirability of coordination and cooperation in 

 agricultural investigation is not new, although it has not been very 

 much in evidence. It was one of the topics taken up at the first 

 convention of the Association of American Agricultural Colleges 

 and Experiment Stations, in 1887. A committee appointed to report 

 upon its feasibility pointed out some of the difficulties at that early 

 stage, growing out of the immature plans of the stations and the 

 lack of leadership. But the committee suggested that the stations 

 which were planning to work in a given subject, as dairying for 

 example, should consult together and seek the counsel of specialists. 

 And it pointed to the opportunity which field experiments offer for 

 stations to work under a uniform or harmonious plan. 



At a later meeting of the association, held in Knoxville in 1889, 

 the desirability of making up circles or sections comprising stations 

 interested in common lines was set forth, as a means of unifying the 

 work. At that meeting a committee further emphasized the ad- 

 vantages of cooperation, pointing out the great opportunity for 

 united or coordinated effort, and very properly suggesting that it be 

 voluntary between States having common interests and conditions. 



From time to time cooperative efforts of limited scope have been 

 arranged, but in spite of the theoretical advantages of some degree of 

 coordination, if it could be accomplished, the inherent difficulties 

 of such an undertaking, accentuated by a marked feeling of indi- 

 viduality and separateness with respect to their work, has resulted 

 in the stations conducting their efforts mainly on an independent 

 basis. This is true despite great similarity in conditions and prob- 

 lems, and a common purpose as public institutions. "While there has 

 been exchange of views and discussion of methods of experimenta- 

 tion, as far as the conduct or the unifying of such work is concerned 

 there has been nearly or quite as much independence as between the 

 unaffiliated research institutions of the country. 



The question naturally arises after more than a quarter of a cen- 

 tury of such independent activity as to whether the apparent ad- 

 vantage of a closer coordination is a theoretical and imaginary one, 

 or whether it has actual possibilities. 



It is admitted that in the simpler forms of experimental work 

 there has been much duplication and repetition, considerable of it 

 beyond doubt unnecessary and without material advantage to the 

 progress of the inquiries themselves. It can scarcely be doubted that 

 there has been considerable lost motion and wasted energy, except 

 that it has helped to train experimenters and to provide local demon- 

 strations. It has been frequently contended in the past that to carry 



