504 



SCIENCE 



[Vol. LV, No. 1428 



practical employment of electricity, of indus- 

 trial chemistry, of immunity, of surgery, aU 

 have been made at the cost of much plodding 

 and puttering. It is doubtful whether they 

 could have been made in any other way. 



The foregoing defense of the present free- 

 dom of the investigator is not to be regarded 

 as a recommendation of still further freedom. 

 It is not proposed that young investigators 

 shall be delivered from all advisers. No 

 muzzle is to be placed upon those who have 

 comments to make upon the value of the work 

 of their colleagues. Restrictions laid upon ad- 

 vice and criticism are likely to be as dangerous 

 as restrictions imposed upon problems for 

 investigation. All that is insisted upon is that 

 no such advice or criticism shall carry with it 

 any weight that is not inherent in the advice or 

 criticism itself. Those in whose hands lies the 

 power to make or mar the career of investiga- 

 tors should be exceedingly cautious how they 

 create an atmosphere that seems in any way 

 to discourage or limit the freedom of research. 

 I have referred in my introductory remarks 

 to several instances in which responsible offi- 

 cials have, in my opinion, transgressed in this 

 regard. They are not the only ones, and there 

 are other ways of committing the same sin. 

 One of these ways is the appointment of an 

 investigator to a position for the purpose of 

 studying a certain problem. There comes to 

 my mind one such appointment in a research 

 institution. The appointee was, in his own 



words, "brought down here to study " 



— but to name the specific problem would be 

 to name the institution. He did not feel free 

 to attack another problem until that one was 

 solved. It made no difference that he had 

 come vaguely to feel that the problem would 

 never be solved, or that other investigations 

 would yield greater returns. By the terms of 

 his appointment, his energy could be directed 

 into other channels only with the permission 

 of his superior officer. Such direction from 

 above could be justified only in the case of an 

 assistant or an investigator on temporary ap- 

 pointment, not in the case of a permanent 

 colleague. Research in a general field may 

 legitimately be the aim of an institution in the 

 appointment of an investigator, and the ap- 



pointee would naturally be one who had demon- 

 strated an abiding interest in that field; but 

 even in such cases, the progress of science de- 

 mands that he be free from restraint. 



Very different from such interference is the 

 friendly advice of a teacher or the criticism of 

 a colleague. Advice and criticism carry no 

 concealed weapons. They are sometimes good, 

 and to repress them eliminates the good with 

 the bad. Indeed, good advice is more easily 

 frowned down than is the bad. If my argu- 

 ment were regarded as against the giving of 

 advice, and were taken seriously, those whose 

 advice is best would be the most restrained by 

 it. The greatest freedom of suggestion from 

 all sources is advantageous, for advice is some- 

 times good, and to get what is good one must 

 also hear the worthless. That is the reason for 

 this address — and this statement may be inter- 

 preted in any way you choose. 



To simi up, a successful system of research, 

 even when the practical is the ultimate aim, 

 demands the greatest freedom of the investi- 

 gator. While direction from superiors may 

 effect gains in limited fields, the losses entailed 

 in the whole system are probably invariably 

 greater. Great industrial concerns maintain 

 staffs of workers whose tasks are assigned to 

 them, and such startling achievements as the 

 wireless telephone have resulted from their 

 directed energies; but the responsible heads of 

 these enterprises recognize that untrammeled 

 research in pure science must precede and build 

 the foundation for their labors, and some of 

 these industrial institutions are now deliberate- 

 ly maintaining research workers in fields which 

 promise at present no practical results what- 

 ever. The freedom which is insisted upon for 

 the investigator mil, it is expected, often lead 

 him to problems that have no practical value, 

 or even no great scientific value. But a system 

 in which such liberty is a cornerstone insures 

 a continuous output and a wide range of re- 

 sults. Among these results are most certain to 

 be some, perhaps many, of practical value. 

 Any interference with this system which would 

 limit investigations to those of supposed im- 

 portance would interrupt their continuity, limit 

 the output, restrict the variety, and defeat its 

 own purpose. The development of a scientific 



