January 14, 1898.] 



SCIENCE. 



39 



be found, and it would be a waste of time 

 to try to decide what should be done under 

 this, that or the other set of conditions. If 

 we know our ideal we know the direction 

 of effort, and through the effort the means 

 are eventually found. 



It will help us in the formulation of our 

 ideal if we glance for a moment at the ideals 

 that have found most favor. The best 

 models of marine laboratories ten years 

 ago all agreed in making research the ex- 

 clusive aim and in limiting the work to 

 marine forms. In most cases the work was 

 still further limited, embracing only marine 

 zoology, and often only a small portion of 

 that field. The idea of representing all 

 branches of even marine biology was seri- 

 ously entertained nowhere except at ISTaples. 

 Remembering that marine laboratories were 

 first introduced only about a quarter of a 

 century ago, we are not surprised at these 

 limitations. Even the narrowest limitations 

 were extensions beyond what had been done 

 before. The Naples Station itself began as 

 a zoological station, and still bears the name 

 Stazione Zoologiea. Bat the earlier ideal was 

 not long in expanding so as to include both 

 physiology and botany. Will its growth 

 stop, there? I don't believe it will, but 

 that remains to be seen. 



Our own seaside schools, introduced by 

 Louis Agassiz at Penikese and continued by 

 Professor Hyatt at Annisquam, combined 

 instruction with research, and this plan was 

 adopted at Woods HoU in 1888. Instruc- 

 tion, however, was accepted more as a 

 necessity than as a feature desirable in 

 itself. The older ideal of research alone was 

 still held to be the highest, and by many 

 investigation was regarded as the only legit- 

 imate function of a marine laboratory. Pov- 

 erty compelled us to go beyond that ideal 

 and carry two functions instead of one. The 

 result is that some of us have developed an 

 ideal of still wider scope, while others stand 

 as they began by their first choice. 



We have, then, two distinct types of 

 ideals, the one including, the other exclud- 

 ing instruction. One is preferred for being 

 limited to investigation ; the other is claimed 

 to be both broader and higher for just the 

 contrary reason, that it is not limited to in- 

 vestigation. At first sight, it might seem 

 that we had exact contraries, but that is 

 really not the case, for one type actually 

 includes the other, and differs from it only 

 by the more which it contains. The differ- 

 ence is, nevertheless, an important one, and 

 as it divides opinion we must examine it. 



To my mind, nothing but experience can 

 settle such a question ; but if reason and 

 experience coincide, so much the better, so 

 we may consider it from both points of view. 

 On the basis of ten years' experience, and 

 a previous intimate acquaintance with both 

 types, I do not hesitate to say that I am 

 fully converted to the type which links in- 

 struction with investigation ; and I believe 

 that many, if not most, of my colleagues in 

 the work at Woods Holl, would now concur 

 with me in the opinion that we could not 

 wiseljr exclude instruction, even if made free 

 to do so by an ample endowment. Some of 

 you will probably feel that such a conclu- 

 sion implies a step backward rather than 

 forward. On which side is the illusion ? 

 Is it with those who have accepted their 

 ideal second-hand and held to it unchanged 

 from the time of its adoption, or with those 

 who have been compelled to develop their 

 own ideal from all that they could learn by 

 actual experiment and study ? Which is 

 the broader ideal, and with which are the 

 possibilities for progressive growtli least 

 limited ? 



In what consists the argument for limita- 

 tion to research? I have yet to learn of 

 a single important advantage which is 

 necessarily dependent upon this limitation. 

 Is instruction a burden to the investigator 

 which interferes with his work ? That ob- 

 jection is frequently raised, and it is about 



