January 2, 1920] 



SCIENCE 



tally they 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, re- 

 search which must be increasingly funda- 

 mental 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 standpoint 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 funda- 

 mental problems, in contributing 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 realization 

 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 de- 

 scribed structures, with no adequate concep- 

 tion of their functions. Plant physiologists, on 

 the other hand, would describe functions, 

 with no adequate knowledge of the structures 

 involved; while ecologists often described re- 

 sponses, 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 condition 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 

 coordination. This coordination has now be- 

 gun, and is one of the strong tendencies which 

 is certain to continue. The morphologist is 



beginning to think of the significance of the 

 structure he is describing; the physiologist is 

 beginning to examine the structures involved 

 in the functions he is considering; and the 

 eeologist realizes now that responses to en- 

 vironment which he has been cataloguing are 

 to be interpreted only in terms of structure 

 and function. In other words, around each 

 bit of investigation, with its single point of 

 view and single method of attack, there is 

 developing a perspective of other points of 

 view and other methods of attack. 



This does not mean a multiple attack on 

 each problem by each investigator. We must 

 remain morphologists, physiologists, and ecol- 

 ogists, each group with its special technique 

 and special kind of data. But it does mean a 

 better estimation of the results, a watchful 

 interest in the possibilities of other methods 

 of attack, a general toning down of positive- 

 ness in conclusions. We all realize now that 

 plants are synthetic, and that is quite a 

 notable advance from that distant time when 

 we thought of them only as objects subservient 

 to laws of nomenclature. This increasing 

 synthetic view is resulting in a proper esti- 

 mate of problems. The data secured by each 

 investigation constitute an invitation to fur- 

 ther investigation. We have in mind the 

 whole problem and not scraps of information. 

 In short, the synthetic view has developed 

 about our problems the atmosphere in which 

 they actually exist. 



3. A third tendency, which seems to me to 

 be the most significant one, is the growing 

 recognition of the fact that structures are not 

 static, that is, inevitable to their last detail. 

 As a morphologist, I may recall to your 

 memory the old method of recording the facts 

 in reference to the development of such a 

 structure as the embryo of seed plants. ITot 

 only every cell division in the ontogeny was 

 recorded, but also the planes of every cell 

 division. The conception back of such 

 records was that the program of ontogeny was 

 fixed to its minutest detail. It is probably 

 true that such a structure is about as imiform 

 in its development as any structure can be; 

 but it has become evident now that many of 

 the details recorded were not significant. In- 



