376 Forestry Quarterly 



tion of knowledge, rather than the immediate gain in the wealth or 

 welfare of the community, is the guiding impulse, though the 

 ultimate benefit of society which knowledge brings is always one 

 of the motives of the scientist. 



Which of these two points of view guides forest investigators 

 in this country? We must, in all frankness, admit that it is the 

 first or so-called practical point of view. This has not always 

 been the case. Formerly, although the facilities were limited, 

 foresters saw the importance of seeking fundamental facts. They 

 were not afraid of thinking out problems and evolving theories, 

 though realizing that their theories were insufficiently grounded 

 and must be revised from time to time as more knowledge was 

 secured. But today as the opportunities broaden, the viewpoint 

 narrows ; and practical considerations rule. This is not research, 

 not science. It is superficial pseudo-science, obvious as such to 

 scientists. Professor Lillie, in Science for April 16, 1915, says : 



"It is the fundamental investigations which are chiefly im- 

 portant for science, and lay the foundations for those later appli- 

 cations affecting mankind generally. Thus, in this sense we owe 

 wireless telegraphy to Maxwell and Hertz rather than to Marconi, 

 our freedom from many forms of disease to Pasteur, our mastery 

 of the air to Langley and others who studied the lifting power 

 of moving planes ; and many other similar examples could be 

 given. In general, we may say that if an adequate body of 

 theoretical knowledge has once been gained, it is a relatively 

 easy matter to make the desired practical applications. It is 

 when there is no guiding theory and we have to work empirically 

 that problems are difficult or impossible of solution." 



The last sentence well expresses the status of forestry today. 

 Most of the work must be empirical, and many of the problems 

 are impossible of solution until a more adequate body of theo- 

 retical knowledge has been gained. 



The problems bearing directly on the handling of the forests, 

 or practical problems, must be solved, nobody denies that, but 

 they can be studied by men having the average forest training, 

 while the deeper problems require men of a higher degree of 

 preparation. As a science advances its problems become more 

 complex, research must go deeper. As one forester said, "the 

 binoculars and canteen must give way to the microscope and 

 burette." 



