EDITORIAL. 407 



More than thirty years ago Dr. Johnson wrote to a correspondent 

 who had proposed the establishment of a journal : " In our stage of 

 agricultural experimentation there is need of a moderately large 

 amount of judicious criticism." This need has not passed. The 

 absence of it is one of the conspicuous deficiencies in the present situa- 

 tion. There has been no established agency or forum for it, and those 

 who have been most competent have seemed to shrink from indulging 

 in it. A critical attitude toward method and results has been little 

 in evidence. 



It is easy to run along in grooves, doing things as they have been 

 done, assuming that because they have been done that way for a long 

 time they are correct and incapable of further improvement. It is 

 easy to overlook the fact that work which is in the realm of research 

 at one period becomes commonplace and lacking in originality or 

 progress in another. It is perhaps natural to accept the findings of 

 one time and build upon them, when in reality the problems have so 

 changed that they need quite different treatment. But a certain 

 measure of reflection and critical study is quite as necessary, and 

 quite as productive in the end, as any other form of activity. It is 

 an essential of progress, and it is an element in originality. 



The scientific journal, through its board of editors, can exercise a 

 useful function as a discriminating critic, especially if it will take 

 pains to explain its real objections and indicate the weaknesses of 

 papers it rejects. It can do much by way of suggestion, and if con- 

 sistent in its attitude it can bring about a modified point of view as 

 to the essentials of a scientific article. 



The scientific societies offer another opportunity for constructive 

 criticism. Papers and discussions ■ of this nature would often be 

 quite as profitable as a program made up entirely of reports of in- 

 vestigation and would represent advanced thought. One agricultural 

 society has with profit given considerable attention to the critique of 

 certain classes of methods. This might well be extended to other 

 features which are vital to right experimenting and right thinking. 

 The scientific meeting is an appropriate place for such discussion. 

 Such a gathering gives opportunity for plain speaking, with less 

 danger of offense because less likely to be misunderstood. 



In the older sciences broad criticism is recognized as desirable and 

 essential to progress, and is indulged in freely. The feeling is that 

 if methods and theories and deductions will not stand the test of 

 critical analysis the sooner this is known the better. The same view 

 should prevail in relation to agricultural science. We need more 

 sound, sympathetic, constructive criticism. 



Such criticism should deal with conditions and tendencies as they 

 are, and be made from a broad-minded point of view, not with the 

 33788°— No. 5—14 2 



