184 



SCIENCE 



[N. S. Vol. XL VI. No. 1182 



ohemistry. Twelve of the eighteen could not 

 name the president of the American Chemical 

 Society. Only six of them knew of the re- 

 cent work on the atomic weight of lead; only 

 two of the eighteen could name three impor- 

 tant chemical discoveries of the last ten years. 

 Bunsen, Scheele, Wohler, Ramsay, Mendeljeflf 

 were, to most of the contestants, just names 

 of chemists who had done something or other. 

 Required to name five prominent living chem- 

 ists, most of them named three or four of the 

 members of the local chemistry stafE. Some of 

 the men named are, indeed, prominent chem- 

 ists, but when a student indicates that four out 

 of five of the world's prominent chemists are 

 included amongst his instructors, he is showing 

 a lack of viewpoint rather than an intelligent 

 loyalty. 



It is far from the purpose of this note to 

 belittle the knowledge of these students. 

 They are, in all probability, more intelligent 

 than the average. The point is that they 

 should have, after three years of study in the 

 field of chemistry, some knowledge of the use 

 of a chemistry library, and more than a naive 

 understanding of contemporary chemistry. 

 Perhaps we have expected them to absorb 

 general chemical information from the at- 

 mosphere of a chemistry department. The 

 actual situation is that their views of chem- 

 istry are hedged in between the covers of some 

 ten or twenty text-books. If this is the case, 

 would it not be worth while to add to our 

 chemistry curricula a few courses — call them 

 what you will — aimed squarely at supplying 

 that body of general chemical information 

 not to be found in text-books ? To teach 

 chemistry is one thing; to teach men to be 

 chemists is a greater task. 



Harry A. Curtis 



TJniversitt op Colorado, 

 Boulder, Colo. 



another phase of " academic freedom " 

 During the last few years there has been 

 considerable agitation and many articles have 

 been written upon the danger of loss of 

 " academic freedom," by which is meant the 

 right of college and imiversity teachers to 



think and express their thoughts without fear 

 of losing their positions through the possible 

 unpopularity of their own opinions. All who 

 are associated in any way with education re- 

 alize the danger of political and financial 

 overshadowing of independent thought, espe- 

 cially when it is opposed to the established 

 order of things. It is evident, however, that 

 there are still some who do not grasp the es- 

 sential difference between the clerical attitude 

 toward education a hundred years ago and the 

 scientific attitude toward education to-day. 

 A hundred or more years ago the imparting 

 of information and of established creed was 

 believed to be the entire function of the insti- 

 tutions of learning. To-day we advocate the 

 stimulation of active, progressive thought 

 which questions established ideas and is anx- 

 ious to have before the mind all possible 

 theories in order to further stimulate thought 

 and investigation. A recent incident shows, 

 however, that such is not by any means the 

 attitude of all who should be leaders in free- 

 dom of expression of thought, but who are 

 not. 



In the December twenty-ninth issue of 

 Science of last year a short item entitled 

 "1916 or 1816?" calls attention to the fact 

 that a certain literary society in one of our 

 universities was announcing a phrenological 

 lecture with the title " Brains — How to 

 Know and Handle Them." The author of 

 the note says simply at the end of his quota- 

 tion of the announcement : " Comments would 

 seem superfluous." However, it seems that 

 they were not to him " superfluous," since in 

 the January nineteenth issue of the same 

 journal, under the caption " Phrenology," 

 the same writer says, " It is gratifying to re- 

 port the receipt of the following communica- 

 tion," which was signed by the dean of one 

 of the colleges of the university. The letter 

 quoted brings out the information that the 

 author of the notes in Science wrote twice to 

 the imiversity protesting against the giving 

 of the announced lecture on " Brains," with 

 the result that the university president re- 

 quested the literary society to cancel the lec- 

 ture, which was forthwith done. 



