SCIENCE 



[N. S. Vol. LI. No. 1305 



in science should deal with some interest 

 common to all. In my judgment our common 

 bond is interest in research; in fact, the 

 major purpose of this association is to stim- 

 ulate research by the personal contact of in- 

 vestigators. In selecting as my subject, there- 

 fore, 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 call attention 

 to certain evolutionary tendencies and to pro- 

 ject them into the future. We are aU famil- 

 iar 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 some- 

 what, not for all individuals, but for the sub- 

 ject in general. The different groups are 

 coming into contact and even interlocking, 

 so that the science of botany bids fair to be 

 recognized as an increasing synthesis, rather 

 than an increasing disintegration. In con- 

 nection with these gradual evolutionary 

 changes, I wish to emphasize 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. 



1. One of the growing tendencies of botan- 

 ical research is to attack problems that are 

 fundamental in connection with some impor- 

 tant practise. The outstanding illustration, 

 of coiu'se, is the increasing attention given to 

 the problems that underlie agriculture; but 

 there are many other practises also which are 

 bedded in botanical investigation. We all 

 realize that this tendency was stimulated by 

 the war; in fact, this has been the experience 

 of all the sciences, more notable perhaps in 

 the case of physics and chemistry than in the 

 other sciences, but a very obvious general re- 

 sult. 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 whose 

 sole purpose is to extend the boundaries of 

 knowledge, which all of us must agree is the 

 great objective of research. It merely means 

 that experience developed in connection with 

 an important practise has suggested funda- 

 mental problems, whose solution is just as 

 important in extending the boundaries of 

 knowledge as in illuminating some practise. 

 In fact, among our most fundamental prob- 

 lems are those that have been suggested by 

 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 very pure science; and between 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 ex- 

 treme expression, but completely connected. 

 If distinction must be expressed 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 super- 

 ficial expression. The series is often attacked 

 first in some intermediate region, and prob- 

 ably most of the research in pure science 

 may be so placed; that is, it is relatively fun- 

 damental, but it is also relatively superficial. 

 The real progress of science is away from the 

 superficial, toward the fundamental, and the 

 more fundamental are the results, the more 

 extensive may be their superficial expression. 



Wot only are practical problems not a 

 detriment to botanical science, but inciden- 



