68 



SCIENCE 



[N. S. Vol. XXXVI. No. 916 



necessarily occupied so much time in the 

 biological sciences. 



What is important to point out here is 

 this : That whether we date the founding of 

 the modem university laboratory from 

 Lomonossoff at St. Petersburg in 1748, or 

 from Liebig at Giessen in 1826, we must 

 admit that a good deal of investigation had 

 gone on in all the principal departments of 

 science previous to such foundations, and 

 thus in earlier times investigations were 

 made in scientific workshops unconnected 

 with teaching institutions. This fact sug- 

 gests that perhaps our research foundations 

 have even less novelty than we were at first 

 inclined to accord to them, and that we are 

 dealing now rather with a reappearance of 

 conditions — much improved, to be sure — 

 but quite familiar before the rise of our 

 modern universities. It has a direct bear- 

 ing on this point to note that in England, 

 for example, during the earlier part of the 

 last century when the historic universities 

 of that country gave only meager support 

 to experimental science and especially to 

 the biological investigations, much of the 

 most important work was done outside of 

 the teaching institutions. 



Joule, the student of the mechanical 

 equivalent of heat; Perkin, discoverer of 

 the aniline dyes; Bentham and the Hook- 

 ers, all three botanists ; Galton, the anthro- 

 pologist, and Darwin, are some instances. 



Moreover, for more than a century the 

 Royal Institution of Great Britain, the 

 foundation of which in 1799 was largely 

 instigated by our fellow countryman. Count 

 Rumford, furnished opportunities for re- 

 search to Davy, Faraday, Tyndall and 

 Dewar, all men whose contributions to 

 knowledge have been of great importance. 



According to its charter, the Royal Insti- 

 tution was "an establishment in London 

 for diffusing the knowledge of useful 

 mechanical improvements" and "to teach 



the application of science to the useful 

 purposes of life." 



This does not sound like the program of 

 a research institution to-day. I can not 

 say just what the steps were which led in 

 this case to a development seemingly so 

 different from that proposed, but it is not 

 rash to assume that the men like those who 

 have been named were always hunting rea- 

 sons and explanations, knowing quite well 

 that others could carry out the application, 

 while it was theirs to make the funda- 

 mental discoveries ; an excellent example of 

 the well-known fact that where an institu- 

 tion and a strong man are left to work out 

 the problem of adaptation, it is the institu- 

 tion that gets adapted. 



Returning from this diversion to our his- 

 tory, and taking the period from the middle 

 of the preceding century to the present 

 day, one can not fail to recall in this coun- 

 try such an example as the Smithsonian 

 Institution at Washington, and I would 

 add our agricultural experiment stations 

 which started right, then faltered, but are 

 now coming into their own. 



More extensive in scope and with far 

 greater resources than any of these is the 

 Carnegie Institution of Washington, whose 

 magnificent undertakings in the field of 

 science are well known, representing as 

 they do a long series of research stations. 



The ideas behind these several founda- 

 tions are of the greatest interest. In his 

 program of organization, in 1847 Joseph 

 Henry, first secretary of the Smithsonian 

 Institution, states the following : 



To increase knowledge: it is proposed (1) to 

 stimulate men of talent to make original researches 

 by offering suitable rewards for memoirs contain- 

 ing new truths and (2) to appropriate annually a 

 portion of the income for particular researches 

 under the direction of suitable persons. 



This is what one might expect from 

 Joseph Henry. 



