398 



SCIENCE 



[Vol. LV, No. 1424 



loosa, at a cost of $82,000. Construction work 

 will be started immediately. 



The Journal of the American Jledical Asso- 

 ciation states that the governor of Bengal laid 

 the foundation stone of the new School of 

 Tropical Medicine at Calcutta on February 14. 

 The Indian government donated $195,000 for 

 the site and will contribute toward the upkeep 

 of the institution. Owing to the prevalence of 

 tropical diseases in India, the work of the 

 laboratory will be chiefly the investigation of 

 causes of tropical diseases in an effort to dis- 

 cover more accurate methods of diagnosis and 

 more advantageous process of treatment. 



Stewart S. Bruce, formerly professor of 

 metallurgy and ore dressing at the Michigan 

 College of Mines, is temporarily filling the chair 

 of metallurgy at the University of Idaho, Pro- 

 fessor K. B. Elder having a leave of absence 

 on account of illness. 



The research chair of medical psj'chology in 

 the University of Queensland, Brisbane, has 

 been filled by the appointment of Dr. J. P. 

 Lowson, university demonstrator in experi- 

 mental psychology at the University of Cam- 

 bridge. 



DISCUSSION AND CORRESPOND- 

 ENCE 



OSBORN VERSUS BATESON ON EVOLUTION 



Professor H. F. Osborn's challenge (this 

 Journal, February 24, 1922) to Professor 

 Bateson for his position on the evolution 

 theory, ought to and probably wUl, maJie many 

 a biologist gasp a little and wonder a good 

 deal. 



If one scans a bit thoughtfully the land- 

 scape of human life for the last few decades, 

 he can hardly fail to see signs that the whole 

 battle ground of evolution will have to be 

 fought over again; this time not so much be- 

 tween scientists and theologians as among 

 scientists themselves. 



The purpose of this note is to put side-by- 

 side two sentences, one from Bateson's Toronto 

 address, the other from Osborn's challenge. 

 Says Bateson: "Biological science has i^eturned 

 to its rightful place, investigation of the struc- 



ture and properties of the concrete and visible 

 world"; and Osborn: "If this opinion [Bate- 

 son's as to the failure of studies so far made 

 to reveal the causes of the origin of species] 

 is generally accepted as a fact or demonstrated 

 truth, the way is open to search the causes of 

 evolution along other lines of inquiry." 



Of the many things that fairly beg to be 

 said about both these sentences, this seems to 

 me the most urgent: Why have biologists felt 

 it so much more incumbent upon them to 

 "search the causes" of the origin of the bodies 

 which are subject matter of their science, than 

 astronomers, and geographers and geologists 

 have t-o search the causes of origin of the bodies 

 they study? 



Or, putting much the same question in an- 

 other fonn: What would have been the effect 

 on the sciences of astronomy, and geogi-aphy, 

 and geology, had their devotees given relative- 

 ly as much time and energy to searching for 

 causes as have evolutional biologists? 



I doubt if any one acquainted however 

 slightly with progress in the several domains 

 mentioned would hesitate much for answei-s to 

 these queries. 



Undoubtedly those who investigate the 

 heavenly bodies are interested, and deeply in- 

 terested, in the causes which produced these 

 bodies. And undoubtedly, too, all students of 

 the earth want to discover the "causal factors" 

 in earth production. 



I venture here to be a trifle personal. Hav- 

 ing l>een for years closely connected with in- 

 vestigations on the oceanogi'aphy of the Pacific 

 Ocean, I am greatly interested in oceanic 

 causation. Indeed it would be a vei-y great 

 satisfaction could I contribute even indirectly 

 and in the smallest way to discovering the 

 causes of the Pacific Ocean. 



But my oceanographic feeling has always 

 been that "investigation of the structure and 

 properties of the concrete and visible" gi'eat- 

 est of oceans would be more fruitful than 

 would search after the causes of it. Possibly 

 I am wrong, but my guess is that the attitude 

 of the gi-eat majority of modern astronomei-s, 

 geographers, and geologists, toward their do- 

 mains has resembled more my attitude towai'd 



