June 9, 1922] 



SCIENCE 



621 



were savagely addicted to killing one another. 

 Curiously enough, only the advertisements 

 would save him from presenting an utterly 

 distorted picture of present day life and 

 manners. 



Since these are- the editorial standards of the 

 day, is it any wonder that scientists hold aloof 

 from the reporter? Is it any wonder that they 

 do not loish to be made ridiculous? 



In Europe it is otherwise. I have never had 

 any difficulty in securing whole-hearted co- 

 operation from English, French and German 

 scientists. They send their portraits on re- 

 quest — something that American scientists hesi- 

 tate to do. They write delightful scientific 

 feuilletons, many of them models of simplicity 

 and clarity. They recognize their journalistic 

 obligation to the public at large. But when 

 they come to this country, they soon learn the 

 wisdom of withdrawing into their shells. 



The newspaper and magazine editor con- 

 stantly uses the stock argument that he "gives 

 the public what it wants." But does he really 

 know what the public wants? Would any 

 magazine or newspaper editor have predicted 

 that Wells' Outlines of History or Van Loon's 

 Story of Mankind would have sold in editions 

 of one hundred thousand and more? 



The Saturday Evening Post, with a circula- 

 tion of over two million, publishes articles on 

 economies and industrj' which are, in the main, 

 excellent examples of what the popularization 

 of technical subjects should be. It has its 

 standards of hmnan interest, but it does not 

 forget that the facts, simply, humanly, and 

 interestingly presented are "what the public 

 wants." 



It is possible that the schools of journalism 

 which have been established in various parts of 

 the country may bring about a reformation of 

 editorial standards through their graduates. Not 

 much is hoped for from the publishers tliem- 

 selves. 



Waldemar Kaempfpert 



Mr. Slosson's indictment of American scien- 

 tists, in your issue of May 5, for their failure 

 to write interestingly and attractively about 

 their work is all too true. As a teacher of 

 English, I have observed the same failure 

 throughout our universities. Among both fac- 



ulty and students an opinion prevails that 

 there are but two general ways of writing: 

 a so-called literary and polished style fit only 

 for esthetes and poets; and a crude, inchoate 

 style that marks the profound researcher and 

 busy technician. The scientific man generally 

 thinks that he hasn't time to "polish" and 

 "adorn" his sentences; therefore he slips into 

 the slovenly jargon that he sees is customary 

 among his colleagues. He fails to notice that 

 there is a middle ground of simple, clear 

 English that can be made interesting and 

 attractive without his becoming a poet or an 

 esthete. Mr. Slosson's English is an example. 

 Another example of a scientific man who taught 

 himself to write excellent English was Pro- 

 fessor John W. Draper, of New York Univer- 

 sity. His volume of "Scientific Memoirs" is a 

 model of clear, incisive prose. 



Professor Draper won the Rumford medals 

 and was the first president of the American 

 Chemical Society. But look at the accounts of 

 chemical research as published to-day, and see 

 what they have become from the point of view 

 of English or readableness. Look at the tire- 

 some, too-modest statements,, phrased in pas- 

 sives and circumlocutions to avoid saying "I" 

 or "me." Pick a sentence at random and try 

 to tell what it means without reading it several 

 times. Such a style is supposed to indicate 

 the scientific, objective researcher. The awk- 

 ward sentences and confused transitions are 

 supposed to connote the profound scholar 

 intent on his specialty. The curious thing is 

 that many chemists can write well if they 

 choose. But when they begin to explain their 

 work, they drop into professional jargon, which 

 disguises their real ability. Such jargon is the 

 custom. It makes all the articles alike, looks 

 technical, dulls the interest, eliminates the per- 

 sonal element, and discourages discussion. 



Mr. Slosson hints that he would like to see 

 the great events in the history of science 

 described in their proper dramatic significance. 

 So should I, and if such descriptions could be 

 included in a text-book on the history of science 

 for use in colleges, it would be a great benefit 

 to teachers. 



Philip B. McDonald 



ColIjEGe of Engineering, 

 New York University 



