AMERICAN MEN OF SCIENCE 



553 



is referred to the census of I860." Thus the 

 first line of the table shows that 29 of the 

 1,000 scientific men were born in Maine, and 

 four now reside there. Of the 29 scientific 

 men born in the state, 19 are among the 500 

 who are more eminent and 10 among the 500 

 who are less eminent. The number born was 

 at the rate of 46.1 per million of the popula- 

 tion at the approximate time of their birth, 

 or one for each 22,000. The scientific popula- 

 tion of the state is now only at the rate of 5.7 

 per million of the population, or scarcely more 

 than one for each 200,000. 



There are striking variations in the origin 

 and in the present residence of scientific men 

 throughout the United States. Massachusetts 

 and Boston have been the intellectual center of 

 the country. The birth rate of these leading 

 men of science is in Massachusetts 108.8 per 

 million population; it is 86.9 in Connecticut, 

 and decreases continually at greater distances 

 from this center. It is reduced to about one 

 half in the surrounding states 46.1 in Maine, 

 46 in New Hampshire, 57.1 in Vermont and 

 47.2 in New York. There is a further reduc- 

 tion to one half in Pennsylvania to 22.7 and 

 this proceeds as we go southwards, the rate 

 being 8.8 in Virginia, 5 in North Carolina, 



2.8 in Georgia, 2.1 in Alabama, 1.3 in Missis- 

 sippi and 1.4 in Louisiana. In the north 

 central states the conditions are intermediate 

 between New York and Pennsylvania. Thus 

 the birth rate per million is 32.1 in Ohio and 

 36 in Michigan. Here again it decreases as 

 we go southward. The rate is 45.1 in Wis- 

 consin, 24.5 in Illinois, 11.8 in Missouri and 



6.9 in Kentucky. Westward the total num- 

 ber of scientific men is too small and the pop- 

 ulation has been too rapidly increasing for 

 the figures to be reliable. Each individual 

 should be considered in connection with the 

 population at the time of his birth, but even 



"This is not exact, as the age distribution is 

 not symmetrical, and the rate of increase of the 

 population in the different states is not uniform, 

 but the results are as nearly correct as is neces- 

 sary. 



* in this case the validity of the results would 

 be small. 



Of the 1,000 scientific men, 126 were born 

 in foreign countries 34 in Canada, 38 in 

 Great Britain and 19 in Germany. The 

 birthplace of seven is not known. The num- 

 ber per million is for the native population 

 13.2, and for the foreign-born population 12. 

 These figures have, however, no significance, 

 as the foreign-born population contains a 

 much larger proportion of adult males. The 

 percentage of the white native population in 

 the United States over 40 years of age is 18.4, 

 and of white foreign-born is 44.4. The native 

 population consequently produces more than 



t twice as many scientific men as the foreign- 

 born, even without regard to the excess of 

 males among the foreign-born, the inclusion 

 of the colored races among the native-born 

 and the fact that many of the foreign-born 

 have been called to this country on account of 

 their scientific standing. The different na- 

 * tions contribute scientific men in very unequal 

 measure, the numbers per million foreign- 

 born being as follows: Switzerland, 68.9; 

 Scotland, 37.9; England, 29.6; Canada, 28.7; 

 Austria-Hungary, 10.4; Russia, 7.4; Germany, 

 7.1; Sweden, 5.2; Italy, 2.1; Ireland, 1.8; 

 France, 0. These differences can not be at- 

 tributed to race, as they do not represent the 

 scientific productivity of these nations, but 

 only of the classes that have emigrated to this 

 country. While it is not possible to deny 

 that the variations are dependent on the kinds 

 of family stocks, it is probable that they are 

 due in much larger measure to social and > 

 economic conditions. The native-born sons of 

 Irish-born parents may not be inferior in 

 scientific productivity to other classes of the 

 community. 



The inequality in the production of scien- 

 tific men in different parts of the country 

 seems to be a forcible argument against the 

 view of Dr. Galton and Professor Pearson 

 that scientific performance is almost exclu- 

 sively due to heredity. It is unlikely that 

 there are such differences in family stocks as 

 would lead one part of the country to produce 



