OcTOBER 2, 1902] 
NATURE 
549 
—Darwin, Pasteur, Helmholtz, Abel and Virchow for example, 
in Europe—Henry, Agassiz, Dana and Rowland in America— 
and also the encouragements and discouragements which are 
encountered by the men of to-day. Time will be required for 
the digestion of this material in order to discover the methods 
which are most efficacious in the advancement of knowledge. 
Meanwhile, much co-operative counsel will be given by 
experts in various branches of learning. As soon as the 
general purposes of Mr. Carnegie’s foundation were made 
known, hundreds of applications for assistance were received— 
the number of self-discovered ‘‘ exceptional men” was large. 
The number of trivial applications for help in the prosecution 
of researches was surprising; but, on the other hand, the 
number of well-considered, important, fundamental inquiries 
suggested by men of the highest rank among the promoters of 
knowledge indicated that the entire income would all be 
absorbed at no distant day. Discrimination, therefore, became 
the paramount virtue—discrimination which should meet the 
approval and, if possible, the concurrence of the world’s wisest 
men. 
For this discrimination, the aid of specialists was indis- 
pensable. The astronomer was not the man to judge of bio- 
logical claims, nor the chemist of economic problems. No 
board of ‘‘ generals” could wisely act without the aid of a 
strong advisory staff of ‘‘adjutants.” Accordingly, the authori- 
ties of the Carnegie Institution proceeded to select and enlist a 
number of advisory committees. Three, four, or five well- 
known authorities were chosen in each of the principal branches 
of science. All their expenses for travel and for clerical assist- 
ance were generously paid by the fund, but their services, like 
those of the trustees, were cheerfully given to the public with- 
out remuneration, and often at the sacrifice of time and con- 
venience. ‘Their hearty co-operation is a fresh illustration of 
the public spirit of men of science in our day, and their readi- 
ness to appreciate and help on the most deserving claims, irre- 
spective of local or personal preference, augurs well for the 
efficiency of the Carnegie Fund and for the wisdom of the plans 
that will presently be adopted. 
More specific announcements cannot be made until the trus- 
tees come together for their second meeting at the close of 
November next. 
A careful perusal of Mr. Carnegie’s language will bring out 
several points, to some of which I will venture to call attention. 
Here we have that special ‘‘ endowment for research,” which 
has been during the last thirty years and more the desire of so 
many men in England and America. This endowment is inde- 
pendent of any existing academy, university or school of techno- 
I cannot close this letter without reference to the great 
interest which this gift has aroused in all scientific circles at 
home and abroad. During the: past summer, spent upon the 
Continent and in Great Britain, I have had the honour of 
talking with many men of eminence, everywhere known as 
investigators, and their counsel, suggestions and co-operation 
are not only an indication of the international character of 
science, but they give an assurance that the most enlightened 
experience of the world can be enlisted in the plans of this 
new foundation. At home, ‘‘it goes without saying,” that 
there is the heartiest response to Mr. Carnegie’s generosity. 
With a grateful appreciation of the work of NATURE in the 
persistent advocacy of research. DANIEL C, GILMAN, 
London, September 9. President of the Carnegie Institution, 
Re Vegetable Electricity. 
WITH reference to Dr. Waller’s letter in NATURE, September 
18, I confine my reply, in the limited space courteously offered 
me, to the main issue, z.e. the priority of research on the 
electric response of ordinary plants under mechanical stimulus. 
My footnote to my Linnean Society paper gave the published 
dates which must determine, as usual, such a question. It 
would only obscure the issue were I to take up here assertions 
resting solely on Dr. Waller's personal affirmation. 
My statement which Dr. Waller wishes to traverse is definite 
enough, and may be answered in a definite manner. He has 
not done this. I stated that five months before the communica- 
tion of his paper to the Physiological Society (November 9, 
1901), Dr. Waller Aeavd me describe my results on the electric 
response of ordinary plants under mechanical stimulus. My 
| paper on the “‘ Electric Response of Inorganic Substances: Pre- 
logy ; but it may co-operate with any that now exist or that | 
may be established. It does not establish a university in 
Washington, which so many have advocated and so many have 
disapproved. Mr. Carnegie on this point is explicit and decided. 
The efficiency of the new institution is not restricted by any 
local, political or ecclesiastical fetters. Nor is there any attempt 
to decide what science includes. None of the progressive 
organised and systematic branches of knowledge are excluded. 
Economic, historical and archzeological inquiries may be aided 
as well as those which are more obvious to the public—physical, 
chemical, biological, geological and astronomical researches. 
Education may be encouraged, but it must be by the personal 
development of uncommon talents,—the advanced student, the 
young professor, ‘‘ the exceptional man.” To the last clause of 
his deed of trust, Mr. Carnegie attaches the highest importance. 
It corresponds with a clause in his gift to the Scotch universities 
The trustees by a majority of two-thirds ‘* may modify the con- 
ditions and regulations under which the funds may be dispensed” 
—if time, experience and changed conditions call for new 
arrangements. 
no. 1718 vou 66] 
liminary Notice,” was communicated to the Royal Society on 
May 7, 1901 (z.e. six months before Dr. Waller’s communica- 
tion to the Physiological Society). I read it before the Society 
on June 6. From the concluding portion of this paper I quote 
the short summary of the results obtained with plants. 
‘* An interesting link between the response given by inorganic 
substances and the animal tissues is that given by plant tissues. 
By methods somewhat resembling that described above, I have 
obtained from plants a strong electric response to mechanical 
stimulus. The response is not confined to sensitive plants like 
mimosa, but is universally present. I have, for example, 
obtained such response from the roots, stems, and leaves of, 
amongst others, horse-chestnut, vine, white lily, rhubarb and 
horse-radish. The current of injury is, generally speaking, 
from the injured to the uninjured part. A negative variation 
is also produced. I obtained both the single electric twitches 
and tetanus. (Two response curves given to exhibit this.) 
Very interesting also are the effects of fatigue, of temperature, 
of stimulants and of poison. Definite areas killed by poison 
exhibit no response, whereas neighbouring unaffected portions 
show the normal response.” 
Dr. Waller not only heard me describe these results, but took 
part in the subsequent discussion of my paper. It is indeed very 
strange that he should on that occasion have said absolutely 
nothing about his being engaged in this particular investigation, 
An eminent physiologist declared during the discussion that the 
electric response of ordinary plants under mechanical stimulus 
was an impossibility. Dr. Waller, who immediately followed 
him, it is again remarkable to note, had not one word to say 
for the possibility of such a phenomenon! These facts are as 
significant as the fact that Dr. Waller communicated his paper 
five months after he had discussed mine at the Royal Society. 
The above will dispose of the question of priority. My 
Linnean Society paper and Dr. Waller’s paper read before the 
Physiological Society are now before the public. From these, 
anyone interested in the subject will be able to determine the 
scope of the two investigations, the novelty of the appliances 
and methods employed, and the accuracy of the results obtained. 
JAGADIS CHUNDER Bose, 
THE claim for priority comes from Prof. Bose—implicitly by 
the note to his paper at the Linnean Society, to which I had to 
demur—explicitly in his present reply. Prof. Bose bases his 
claim on the final paragraph of a paper of June 6, 1901, now in 
