32 



PIIOCBBDINOS OF THE 



Research is a redundancy ; this is what science knows as Tech- 

 nolofjy ; what industry knows as Applied Science. But we need 

 not discuss synonymy. The important point is that the State 

 now reahzes tliat there are two types of utihtarian activity, just 

 as there are two types of philosopliical activity. One of these 

 utilitarian activities involves the provision by some one science 

 of all the assistance it can give to every kind of industry. The 

 other entails tlie adaptation from various branches of science of 

 all the help they can supply to some particular industry. Both 

 are technological in purpose; both must be scientific in method. 

 The first involves both research and investigation; the second 

 involves investigation but need not entail research. In both the 

 same facts are considered, but are viewed from different stand- 

 points. The use to which facts are put does not alter the facts. 



Though philosophical study and industrial enterprise parted 

 company in the XVllI. Century, complete detachment did not 

 result. Appeals to science for aid continued to be made by 

 industry. Science, in response, has advised and warned. Industry, 

 as a result, has evolved the applied sciences. But there is a limit 

 to what an industrial technology can do. The existing strain 

 has affected science as it has influenced the State. Science 

 realizes that all is not well. She feels that her duty to the 

 business of life calls for more than the prediction of disaster, 

 and at last recognizes that action is more helpful than invective. 

 Philosophical study has spontaneously suggested that she and 

 industrial technology sliall take counsel together. Science is no 

 longer content to tell industry what should be done ; she is now 

 anxious to supply the trained assistance that is needed. 



My colleague, our Botanical Secretary, has discussed this 

 question, as regards one branch of our pursuits, in an address 

 which deserves our gratitude. He has endeavoured to bring 

 about a more cordial understanding between botany and its 

 economic appliances. His own long and distinguished experience 

 in philosopliical study has led him to remark that, for many 

 whose tastes are like his, tliis involves the breaking of new ground. 

 The remedy he suggests is in effect a return to the XVI 1. Century 

 attitude of science towards the business of life ; his address is 

 devoted to the task of erecting finger-posts that guide botanists 

 to economic paths. The spirit which informs his message does 

 more than disarm criticism. It compels those of us whose work 

 is mainlv economic to ask ourselves if we be wholly free from 

 blame. The economic botanist, at least, knows that in his inter- 

 course witli other sciences incidentally interested in the problems 

 of ai)plied botany, the statement of a difficulty on his part is 

 all that is needed to evoke the sympathy and enlist the aid of 

 geology, geography, meteorology, chemistry, ethnology, archaeology, 

 philology, liistory and folk-lore. 



It is, however, one thing to arrive, during a period of stress, at 

 a more cordial understanding than that induced under and perhaps 



