560 



SCIENCE 



[N. S. Vol. XXVIII. No. 721 



culture, to consider in detail the questions raised " 

 in the president's address.^ These duties your 

 committee has performed and now desires to 

 present the following report and be discharged. 



The character of the work assigned us is new 

 and without precedent. The essential facts appear 

 to be that the president of this association, in his 

 inaugural address, speaking on the duty of science 

 to agriculture in guarding against error as well 

 as in discovering truth, expressed views antago- 

 nistic to those published by one of the bureaus of 

 the Department of Agriculture and criticized ad- 

 versely certain of its published doctrines, desig- 

 nating the publications specifically and the bureau 

 by name. These being the facts, as your commit- 

 tee understands them, there seem to be three perti- 

 nent questions to be considered: 



Krst, Is it proper for an ofiScer of this asso- 

 ciation to criticize the published work or doctrines 

 of an institution or of individuals? 



Second, Is the association responsible therefor? 



Third, Did the president correctly state and 

 construe the facts, observations or statements 

 upon which he based his criticisms? 



As to the first question, your committee is of 

 the opinion that liberty of criticism of this sort 

 is entirely proper and, more than this, is necessary 

 to the existence of a scientific deliberate body. 

 Free discussion, such as obtains the world over 

 among scientific men, spoken in convention and 

 printed in journals, is indispensable to progress. 

 To suppress what one conceives to be the truth, 

 because it does not accord with the views of col- 

 leagues, is an enormity hardly conceivable to lib- 

 eral-minded men. This principle, once admitted 

 to govern our proceedings, would put an end to 

 the association's usefulness. 



As to the second question, it is the sense of 

 your committee that the association is not in any 

 degree responsible for the views expressed by its 

 members in debate or public addresses. That, 

 beyond enforcing ordinary parliamentary laws 

 and courtesy, the association does not and should 

 not exercise censorship over debate or other dis- 

 cussion. Views expressed by members are to be 

 understood as their personal opinions. The asso- 

 ciation is responsible only for that which it has 

 authorized by formal vote. 



In attempting to answer the third question we 

 have carefully verified the figures and statements 

 quoted in the address, by comparison with the 



'President Hopkins's address on the duty of 

 chemistry to agriculture, 1906, was published as 

 Circular 105 of the Illinois Station. 



publications from which they were derived and 

 by correspondence with the persons familiar with 

 the investigations under discussion. We find them 

 accurately stated and properly used in a legiti- 

 mate scientific discussion of matters of the great- 

 est interest and importance to agricultural chem- 

 ists. In our opinion, the facts as stated in the 

 president's address are essentially correct. 



As supplementary to this report, your com- 

 mittee submits as exhibits to be filed the follow- 

 ing documents bearing upon its work and leading 

 to its conclusion: 



A. Letter from Chairman WoU to the Secretary 

 of Agriculture. 



B. Answer to same from the Secretary, January 

 19, 1907. 



C. Letter of March 25 from the secretary trans- 

 mitting Circular 22. 



D. Circular 22 from the ofiice of the Secretary 

 of Agriculture. 



E. Statement of Dr. Hopkins in regard to Cir- 

 cular 22. 



F. Letter from Director Thome explaining his 

 position. 



G. Circular 70 of the Ohio Station relative to 

 Circular 22. 



H. Circular 105 of the Illinois Station, being the 

 president's address, as published in pursuance of 

 the resolutions of the association. 

 I. Bulletin 167 of the Ohio Station. 

 J. Farmer's Bulletin No. 257 of the Department 

 of Agriculture. 



K. A detailed discussion of the issues involved 

 under question No. 3 above, prepared by Chairman 

 Woll with the assistance of some other members 

 of the committee. 

 ( Signed ) 



L. L. Van Slyke, B. B. Ross, 



Jacob G. Lipman, F. W. Woll,= 



R. J. Davidson, A. M. Peter.= 



Mr. Lipman spoke at some length concern- 

 ing the necessity of the association fulfilling 

 its duty both to the farmer and to the scien- 

 tific world in taking no equivocal position in 

 regard to the methods of scientific research, 



^ The signature of the absent chairman of the 

 committee, F. W. Woll, and that of A. M. Peter 

 were appended subsequent to the meeting, the 

 report having been submitted to them. The other 

 absent member of the committee, Mr. C. L. Penny, 

 signified his agreement to the report in the main, 

 but took exception to one phase of it, and his 

 name, therefore, does not appear. 



