582 



naTOre 



[January 29, 1920 



gardens, identified for those of us who are older with 

 the name of Henry Shaw ; but we are becoming 

 accustomed to its later name, the Missouri Botanical 

 Garden. Its plans and activities represent a fitting 

 continuation of the spirit of Englemann and Shaw 

 adapted to the progress of botanical science. 



In consequence of these associations St. Louis may 

 be said to have a botanical atmosphere, of which 

 botanists are very conscious. We have the feeling, 

 therefore, not of a visit, but of a home-coming. 



A presidential address delivered to a group com- 

 posed of investigators representing all the sciences, 

 and including also those interested in science, should 

 deal with some interest common to all. In my judg- 

 ment, our common bond is interest in research ; in 

 fact, the major purpose of this association is to stimu- 

 late research by the personal contact of investigators. 

 In selecting as my subject, therefore, the evolution of 

 botanical research, I am assuming that the situation 

 developed may apply in a general way to all scientific 

 research. 



My purpose is not to outline the history of botanical 

 research, but rather to direct attention to certain 

 evolutionary tendencies and to project them into the 

 future. We are all familiar with the gradual historical 

 development of different phases of botany, until 

 botanists became segregated into many distinct groups, 

 the only common bond being the use of plants for 

 investigation. This segregation was for a time very 

 complete, so that the interests of one group would not 

 have been affected if none of the other groups had 

 existed. This monastic phase of botany has subsided 

 somewhat, not for all individuals, but for the subject 

 in general. The different groups are coming into con- 

 tact, and even interlocking, so that the science of 

 botany bids fair to be recognised as an increasing 

 synthesis rather than as an increasing disintegration. 

 In connection with these gradual evolutionary changes, 

 I wish to emfjhaslse three tendencies which seem to me 

 to be significant. As in all evolutionary progress, the 

 tendencies may seem numerous, but the three I have 

 selected seem to me to be especially prophetic of a 

 new era of botanical research. 



(i) One of the growing tendencies of botanical re- 

 search is to attack problems that are fundamental in 

 connection with some important practice. The out- 

 standing illustration, of course, is the increasing atten- 

 tion given to ihe problems that underlie agriculture; 

 but there are many other practices also which are em- 

 bedded in botanical investigation. We all realise that 

 this tendency was stimulated by the war ; in fact, this 

 has been the experience of all the sciences, more 

 notable, perhaps, in physics and chemistry than in 

 the other sciences, but a very obvious general result. 

 This tendency is so strong at present that I 

 do not believe it will ever subside, but it should be 

 understood. There is no evidence that it is tending 

 to diminish research, the sole purpose of which is to 

 extend the boundaries of knowledge, which all of us 

 must agree is the great objective of research. It 

 merelv means that experience developed in connection 

 with an important practice has suggested fundamental 

 problems the solution of which is just as important 

 in extending the boundaries of knowledge as in 

 illuminating some practice.. In fact, among our most 

 fundamental problems are those that have been sug- 

 gested bv experience. The injection of such problems 

 among those not related to general experience is not 

 to the detriment of the latter, but simply extends the 

 range of research. 



I have no sympathy with the artificial segregation 

 of science into pure and applied science. All science 

 is one. Pure science is often immensely practical, 

 applied science is often vefy pure science, and between 



NO. 2622, VOL. 104] 



the two there is no dividing line. They are like the 

 end-members of a long and intergrading series — very 

 distinct in their isolated and extreme expression, but 

 completely connected. If distinction must be ex- 

 pressed in terms where no sharp distinction exists, it 

 may be expressed by the terms "fundamental" and 

 "superficial." They are terms of comparison, and 

 admit of every intergrade. The series may move in 

 either direction, but its end-members must always 

 hold the same relative positions. The first stimulus- 

 may be our need, and a superficial science meets it, 

 but in so doing it may put us on the trail that leads 

 to the fundamental things of science. On the other 

 hand, the fundamentals may be gripped first, and only 

 later find some superficial expression. The series is 

 often attacked first in some intermediate region, and 

 probably most of the research in pure science may 

 be so placed; that is, it is relatively fundamental, but 

 also relatively superficial. The real progress of 

 science is away from the superficial towards the 

 fundamental, and the more fundamental the results, 

 the more extensive may be their superficial expression. 



Not only are practical problems not a detriment to 

 botanical science, they, incidentally, also strengthen 

 its claim on public interest as a science that must 

 be promoted. As an incidental result, I look with 

 confidence to a future of far greater opportunity for 

 research than has been possible heretofore — research 

 which must be increasingly fundamental and varied. 

 Even if this were not true, my creed for science is 

 that while its first great mission is to extend the 

 boundaries of knowledge, that man may live in an 

 ever-widening horizon, its second mission is to apply 

 this knowledge to the service of man, that his life 

 may be fuller of opportunity. From the point of view 

 of science, the second may be regarded as incidental 

 to the first, but it is a very important incident, and 

 really stimulates research. In short, I regard this 

 so-called practical tendency in research as being 

 entirely in the interest of research in general, in 

 increasing the range of fundamental problems, in con- 

 tributing a powerful stimulus, and in securing general 

 recognition of the importance of research. 



(2) A second tendency, which I regard as more 

 important, is an increasing realisation of the fact 

 that botanical problems are synthetic. Until recently 

 a problem would be attacked from a single point of 

 view, with a single technique, and conclusions reached 

 that seemed as rigid as laws from which there is no 

 escape. In plant morphology, for example — and I 

 speak from personal experience — we described struc- 

 tures with no adequate conception of their functions. 

 Plant physiologists, on the other hand, would describe 

 functions with no adequate knowledge of the struc- 

 tures involved ; while ecologists often described 

 responses with no adequate knowledge of either 

 structure or function. The same condition obtained 

 in the other segregates of botany. We all recall the 

 time when plant pathologists described and named 

 pathogenic organisms and paid no attention to the 

 disease, which, of course, is the physiological condi- 

 tion of the plant. In short, not only taxonomists, 

 but all of us, were simply cataloguing facts in a kind 

 of card-index, unconsciously waiting for their co- 

 ordination. This co-ordination has now begun, and 

 is one of the strong tendencies which are certain to 

 continue. The morphologist is beginning to think of 

 the significance of the structure he is describing, and 

 the physiolog^ist to examine the structures involved 

 in the functions he is considering ; while the ecolo- 

 gist realises now that responses to environment 

 which he has been cataloguing are tobe interpreted 

 onlv in terms of structure and function. In other 

 words, around each bit of investigation, with its single 



