AvueustT 23, 1918] 
What that means is, perhaps, not altogether 
clear because “dependable automatists” are 
to be trained and awarded certificates, ab- 
normal cases are to be treated, and negotia- 
tions with other institutions are encouraged, 
but surely not without fee. No, my chief 
criticism is simply: why do all this under the 
name of psychology? There is hardly an aca- 
demic institution that would designate this 
subject as anything but “ psychic research”; 
and certainly, if I judge aright, no scientific 
body of psychologists would’ endorse the selec- 
tion of so ambitious a title for organizations 
at work in the field described in the pamphlet. 
The use of such a name involves bad taste and 
delusion, if it does not also bespeak audacity 
and professional discourtesy. Especially at 
this time of national service in an emergency 
ought scientific bodies to be particularly sensi- 
tive lest those in authority who are susceptible 
to misinformation proceed to belittle and to 
caricature the achievements already won. This 
is peculiarly true of so youthful a scientific 
discipline as psychology. 
Curistian A. RuckMicH 
UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS 
THE POSITION AND PROSPECTS OF BOTANY 
To THE Eprror or Science: There are times 
when it is perhaps to be expected that the 
naturalist should feel, more insistently than 
other scientific men, the impulse to justify 
the pursuits with which he has chosen to 
occupy his time. The recent address by Dr. 
Gager, concerning the position and prospects 
of botany, printed not long ago in Science, 
prominently conveys an attempt of this kind. 
Like most of the pleas advanced by investi- 
gators in defence of their performances, this 
address develops the traditional theme of eco- 
nomic benefit accruing to society at large, and 
more specifically to certain groups of business 
interests, as the result of research activities. 
It is strange that the peculiar futility of 
this type of apologetic seems not to be more 
generally appreciated. That the results of 
scientific inquiry contribute to the well-being 
of humanity is a tiresome truism, which has 
no bearing upon the support of research by 
SCIENCE 
193 
business interests. Perhaps in despair at the 
lack of other common ground upon which to 
engage in discussion with nonscientifie ac- 
quaintances, perhaps from the honest con- 
viction that economic good is the main con- 
sideration in this matter, investigators have 
at any rate been far too willing to point to 
useful inventions, commercial practises and 
hygienic improvements, as the crowning fruits 
of the spirit of discovery. To this habit may 
in large degree be traced the origin and per- 
petuation of that conception, commonly en- 
joyed by cultivated people of nonscientific in- 
terests, that science is a vaguely delimited 
mélange of engineering, sanitation, surgery 
and what not else. 
To encourage the demand, upon specific 
economic grounds, that research in biology 
should receive the financial support of com- 
mercial organizations is futile and dangerous: 
it is also a tactical error of the first magni- 
tude. It is futile because the appeal fails, 
and in the nature of things must fail, to im- 
press the people for whom it has been de- 
signed; because it omits to reckon with the 
fact that “usefulness,” in the ordinary under- 
standing of that attribute, is an accidental by- 
product of research. It is dangerous because, 
as Dr. Sumner has clearly expressed it in 
another connection,! “the investigator who 
derives his support from the public treasury 
often finds his intellectual honesty sorely 
strained. More or less fictitious benefits to 
‘the community are conjured up in justifica- 
tion of work which ought to stand upon its 
own merits. The mental processes involved 
are insidious and the deceiver often ends by 
being himself deceived.” It is a tactical mis- 
take because it fosters a false conception of 
the relations of science to other pursuits; the 
continual insistance upon the “practical” 
justification, especially when this is urged as 
a basis for the commercial support of research, 
can only delay the arrival of a social read- 
justment which, by reducing the grossly dis- 
proportionate material rewards of commerce, 
will help to insure for science the social and 
1Sumner, F. B., 1917, Bulletin of the Scripps 
Instn. Biol. Research, No. 3, p. 3. 
