July 4, 1919] 



SCIENCE 



Some work has already been done to bring 

 into closer touch the research worker and the 

 bureau. Many of the men before me have 

 enjoyed from time to time opportunities for 

 carrying out investigations at various labora- 

 tories and have gained immensely, not only in 

 their own work but in the possibilities for 

 training younger men to meet the needs of the 

 service. There is a demand for a more defi- 

 nitely organized program, one calculated to 

 bring the university laboratory with its pure 

 science and the bureau with its applied science 

 into definite and intimate contact. Two lines 

 . of attack are possible: 



First, the end desired might be reached 

 under the direction of the research council or 

 some branch of it through discussion or corre- 

 spondence. The gain would be very great. I 

 merely suggest one of the evident disadvan- 

 tages in such a plan. It throws a heavy bur- 

 den of labor on some central committee. Its 

 success depends upon the existence of a ma- 

 chinery functioning actively enough to carry 

 out all the processes of conveying the informa- 

 tion and coordinating the plans. Further- 

 more, it suffers the disadvantage of being at 

 times subject to the difficulties due to imper- 

 fect understanding. Men express themselves 

 so differently that what is found on the 

 written page is sometimes interpreted in a 

 different way than was intended. This may 

 be followed by a further waste of time spent 

 in explanations. Extensive discussions in 

 modern science have arisen from this very 

 cause and the result is evident loss of energy. 



The second method, which looks more likely 

 to be successful, is a plan for having a divi- 

 sional board of ten, fifteen or twenty members, 

 which should be representative of different 

 parts of the country, different institutions, 

 different lines of work, and different regions 

 that come in contact with different phases of 

 existence — a board to have meetings as a gen- 

 eral body and able to have personal confer- 

 ences with representatives of the Bureau of 

 Fisheries. The advantages of personal con- 

 tact seem to make this a more profitable line 

 of attack than the other, though I am not 

 blind to the difficulties in both suggestions. 



Personal discussion brings up new points of 

 view and yields keener analyses of any situ- 

 ation; it provides, I believe, means for meet- 

 ing difficulties more readily than methods of 

 conference by letter. 



I want to indicate clearly, however, that if 

 such a plan is to be tried this board must be 

 directly subject to the Bureau of Fisheries. 

 I am confident that the history of the past 

 shows that no undesirable connotation can be 

 attached to the words "subject to." The bu- 

 reau has responsibility for these problems 

 given it by the people and should have the 

 final authority in such an arrangement. It 

 should have freedom to suggest where in its 

 experience certain plans do not seem to be 

 feasible. 



It would be possible for such a body to hold 

 sectional or topical conferences for the dis- 

 cussion of problems important in a particular 

 region or for the solution by joint action of a 

 question of serious import at a particular 

 time. The membership of such conferences 

 could be specifically determined with reference 

 to the special need and the definite questions 

 that demanded experimental investigation or 

 laboratory study to be taken back to the uni- 

 versities for research and report at some later 

 date. Other advantages will evidently accrue 

 from this association of technical experts and 

 scientific investigators in a board which could 

 outline a plan of active and direct procedure 

 with a view to securing the necessaiy knowl- 

 edge whether it was already in existence or 

 had to be worked out by investigators properly 

 equipped with library and laboratory facilities. 



Such a board would exert a powerful in- 

 fluence outside of that which it might have in 

 developing a program; it would possess power 

 to push those lines of activity which are seen 

 on analysis to be not only right but essential. 

 Important items often appeal to men in legis- 

 lative halls or to the general public as being 

 quite unnecessary or even foolish. A board 

 representing the public at large would give a 

 weight to its views that could not be imparted 

 to them in any other way. 



Of course, one has to consider also another 

 aspect of the question. It is inevitable that 



