228 



SCIENCE 



[N. S. Vol. XXIX. No. 736 



is there, for instance, in declaring that my 

 "definition for temperature '" is erroneous 

 without an accompanying proof showing that 

 Newton's law of radiation is also erroneous? 

 As this particular matter stands. Dr. Eeid 

 has simply made a dogmatic assertion, for if 

 Newton's law is true (and I claim to have 

 demonstrated that it is true) it follows as a 

 theoretical necessity that absolute temperature 

 is a direct measure of the intensity of ether 

 vibration. If Stefan's law, or any other law 

 except Newton's, can be demonstrated to he 

 true, then, and then only, will scientists be 

 justified in summarily condemning my con- 

 clusions. j_ ]^_ SCHAEBERLE 

 Ann Aebob, Mich., 

 January 4, 1909 



AMERICAN SCIENTIFIC PRODUCTIVITY 



It is well that we should be reminded by 

 Professor Nichols in his presidential address 

 before the American Association (Science, 

 January 1, 1909) and by Professor Pickering 

 in his articles in The Popular Science Monthly 

 (October, 1908, and January, 1909) that the 

 scientific work accomplished in this country 

 is not commensurate with its population and 

 its wealth, and that Professor Willcox (Sci- 

 ence, January 29, 1909) should reinforce this 

 fact from the awards of the Nobel prizes. 



But while we can not too strongly empha- 

 size the circumstance that we are not doing 

 all that we should for the advancement of 

 science and that this is partly due to the fact 

 that the scientific career is not made suffi- 

 ciently attractive to obtain and retain the best 

 men, nor sufficiently free to enable them to do 

 their best work, it yet seems that the situation 

 is by no means discouraging. The articles 

 mentioned measure our scientific productivity 

 by the eminent men we have. In so far as 

 this is an adequate method, it tends to meas- 

 ure our activity a generation ago ; for men do 

 not usually obtain international recognition 

 until long after the work for which it is 

 given has been accomplished. 



Professor Pickering finds that of the 87 

 scientific men who are members of at least 



' Science, January 1, 1909, p. 29. 



two foreign academies only six are Americans. 

 Each of the two eminent American men of 

 science who is a member of the largest num- 

 ber of academies is in his seventy-third year. 

 It is a striking fact that of the six distin- 

 guished Americans, three are astronomers ; and 

 astronomy is the only science in which thirty 

 years ago the facilities for research work in 

 this country were equal to those of the leading 

 European nations. Of the remaining three, 

 two have not been engaged in teaching, and 

 the third has been practically freed from 

 teaching for his research work. We may 

 have, in accordance with Professor Pickering's 

 data, but six scientific men as distinguished 

 as 17 in Prussia, 13 in England and 12 in 

 France, but this would represent the relative 

 scientific activity of the country at the time 

 when our universities were only beginning to 

 develop and when research work under the 

 government was only beginning. 



The Nobel prizes have, contrary to the in- 

 structions of the founder, been, as a rule, 

 awarded to eminent men for work done in the 

 past; and the fact that of twenty-four prizes 

 in the sciences only one has come to America 

 does not discredit our present scientific re- 

 search. If the provision of Nobel's will had 

 been followed and the prize had been given to 

 the person " rendering the greatest service to 

 humanity," by "having made the most im- 

 portant discovery or invention in the depart- 

 ment of physical science," the first two 

 awards should probably have been to Mr. Bell 

 and Mr. Edison. 



It is a curious fact that the three subjects 

 in which the Nobel prizes are awarded — phys- 

 ical science, chemistry and medicine — are those 

 in which we are particularly weak. These are 

 the sciences in which the applications are the 

 most direct, and it looks as if those competent 

 to advance these sciences had been carried 

 into practical work. This is contrary to my 

 preconceptions, for I should suppose that 

 when there are large opportunities for prac- 

 tical work, there should also be advances in 

 pure science. Perhaps it is only individual 

 eminence that is here lacking, and we are in 

 fact contributing our share to 



