Juxy 12, 1918] 
Out of the hundreds of young men who 
had been trained in our universities for re- 
search work, why had there not arisen at ~ 
least one who had already become an au- 
thority on von Graft’s specialty? Must 
America be rediscovered, and our birth- 
right taken away from us? Is this failure 
on the part of American zoologists to be- 
come acquainted with their own fauna of a 
piece with the happy-go-lucky existence 
which we as a nation have been, and are, 
living, flinging in spendthrift fashion our 
great natural resources to the viewless air, 
whence they come back to us not again any 
more? Or is it due to the same tendencies 
which Professor Baird deplored? An an- 
swer is suggested by the following statis- 
tics, compiled from Dr. Cattell’s valuable 
tables, which, unfortunately, extend back 
only to 1898: Of the 400 doctorates con- 
ferred by our universities for work along 
zoological lines, excluding physiological 
and paleontological titles, noted in ScteENcE 
for the years 1898-1915 inclusive, barely 6 
per cent. deal with problems which involve 
the study of groups as large as a family; 
and of these there appear to be but two 
that are of monographic proportions. 
The prosperity of the nation is in no 
small degree dependent upon the under- 
standing and sympathy which exist, and 
are maintained, between the men of science 
and the members of our law-making bodies. 
A challenge might be issued to the leaders 
of scientific thought in our universities to 
explain why they have played so small a 
part in public affairs, and why they have 
had so little influence upon legislation af- 
feeting the health and welfare of the peo- 
ple. It is true that a considerable majority 
of our national legislators are men learned 
in the law, and, in consequence of their 
training, peculiarly unresponsive to new 
ideas, and disposed to judge things as they 
are; while the scientific man is inclined to 
SCIENCE 27 
judge things as they ought to be. Thus the 
scientific man is appalled at the great waste 
of our natural energy occasioned by the 
absence of uniform and suitable forestry 
laws, that would not only help to conserve 
what we already have, but would make 
provision for the future. He is inclined, 
somewhat sharply perhaps, to demand why 
the energy that is stored in our coal sup- 
ply, and flowing in every running stream 
and tide-way has not been made the prop- 
erty of the whole people. He grows im- 
patient under the bonds of the antiquated 
and chaotic system of weights and measures 
which we are wearing to our discredit as a 
supposedly enlightened people, and to our 
disadvantage in the accomplishment of 
our commercial enterprises and ambitions. 
He has difficulty in understanding the state 
of mind of the person who replies to sug- 
gestions that we rationalize the spelling of 
our words with ludicrous and conventional 
exhibitions of the skepticism of ignorance, 
which such suggestions invariably all 
forth. When he lifts his voice to advocate 
a change, it seems to him that he is simply a 
voice crying in the wilderness, for none of 
these things move the man of precedent, 
and, learning that even in this day people 
stone the prophets who would jostle them 
from the calm of things as they are into the 
apprehended turmoil of things as they 
ought to be, too often subdues his voice, and 
returns in disgust to his laboratory. 
As I look over the titles of theses for doe- 
torate degrees in biology, however, know- 
ing that they must, in some fashion, reflect 
the activities of our biological leaders, I 
am led to wonder if the failure of science 
to influence legislation in the interests of 
the people is not to be charged to the pro- 
pensity on the part of these leaders to shun 
the practical. Is there a hierarchy in sci- 
ence that frowns upon independence of 
thought and action in her sanctuary? That 
