34 



come or with what authority it may be voiced, such a conception of the scholar 

 and of scholarship is utterly at variance with existing facts. I believe this to be 

 true in all realms of thought. I know it to be true in the realm of science. The 

 development of this wonderfully brilliant and complex composite, which we 

 call modern civilization, has been due to the interplay of many factors, and 

 udt the least of these in these latter days has been science. During the last 

 decade, indeed, science seems to have been the dominating factor in human 

 affairs. It is not necessary in this presence to recount the manifold applications of 

 the truths of science to the affairs of every-day life. Science has stretched out 

 her hand and touched transportation and manufactures and agriculture, and with 

 the touch has given a fuller and more abundant life. She has gone into the home 

 and municipality, and by her presence has minimized the dangers of disease. 

 She has entered the office of the physician and surgeon and given a power that 

 even in this day of wonders seems marvelous. Her influence is felt in school, in 

 philosophy, in church and is surely, though perhaps somewhat slowly, bringing 

 these g:reat forces into a closer touch, a more complete harmony with the life that 

 is. Each day in the clear light of the truth, given as the rewards of her devotees, 

 clouds of superstition and ignorance lose form and vanish into nothingness. 



To one in touch with science and her achievements she seems no " /eca/se, " no 

 "a.scrtic," very little "like a nun, not knowing thai the world passes," but rather as a 

 virile force pervading the world in all of its affairs, a force as potent as pervading. 



And yet in spite of this broad view there exists in our own cases even a 

 somewhat natural tendency to withdraw from the affairs of common weal into the 

 shell of specialty. We justify this withdrawal by some plea of "truth for truth's 

 sake "or talk learnedly about "pure science" as if it were a thing apart from 

 human affairs. The fact plainly stated is, that science has not done as much for 

 the State as it should. I do not refer especially to Indiana and the scientist of 

 Indiana, but to science and the State in tlie broadest possible application of the 

 terms. 



Th»' monastic idea has prevailed too largely among scientists, and science has 

 not done its full duty by the State. Do not imagine for a moment that I am 

 tacitly admitting the converse of the statement that the State is doing for science 

 more than it merits. The failure in duty is mutual. Science has largely failed 

 to seize her opportunities, the State has almost utterly failed to utilize one of her 

 most potent forces. Many things have conspired to bring about tliis state of af- 

 fairs, one no doubt, that somewhat vague something known as " j)ractical poli- 

 tics." Another, e(iually vague ideas on the part of scientists as to what science 

 can do for the State. 



