366 



SCIENCE 



[N. S. Vol. XLIX. No. 1268 



be met by the superficial things of science, the ex- 

 ternal touch of the more fundamental things. The 

 series may move in either direction, but its end 

 members must always hold the same relative posi- 

 tions. The first stimulus may be our need, and a 

 superficial science meets it, but in so doing it may 

 put us on the trial that leads to the fundamental 

 things of science. On the other hand, the funda- 

 mentals may be gripped first, and only later find 

 some superficial expression. The series is often 

 attacked first in some intermediate region, and 

 probably most of the research in pure science may 

 be so placed; that is, it is relatively fundamental, 

 but it is also relatively superficial. The real prog- 

 ress of science is away from the superficial toward 

 the fundamental; and the more fundamental are 

 the results, the more extensive may be their super- 

 ficial expression. 



It is this situation that we must drill into 

 our students, into ourselves, and into the com- 

 munity. 



3. Cooperation in Research. — One of the 

 most important by-products of the war has 

 been the proof that if a nation is to develop 

 its m.aximum strength and efficiency, all of its 

 citizens must join hands and work together; 

 in other words, competition must give place to 

 cooperation. What is true of a nation is true 

 of a science. Our isolated, more or less com- 

 petitive investgations have resulted in a cer- 

 tain amount of progress; but it has been very 

 slow compared with what cooperation would 

 have secured. The important problems to-day 

 are either too complex for the training of any 

 one investigator, or they call for too many 

 data for one investigator to secure, at least in a 

 reasonable time. In the first case the problem 

 is attacked sporadically from one aspect and 

 then another, the attacks entirely imrelated to 

 one another, and the result is a debris of un- 

 organized results that is more apt to leave 

 the subject in confusion than to clarify it. 

 In the second case the data are either in- 

 sufficient or are accumulated by an indefinite 

 succession of investigators, probably under 

 fluctuating conditions. As a result, both time 

 and accuracy are sacrificed. Intelligent co- 

 operation would clear up both of these situ- 

 ations and in a comparatively short time 

 reach results that are fairly clear and ac- 



curate. Of course, effective cooperation is not 

 possible unless it is voluntary. 



This suggests what is probably the most 

 serious obstacle to any general adoption of 

 the cooperative method. We have worked so 

 long in our isolated way in a kind of monastic 

 seclusion, that we have come to regard our 

 problems as personal property, and feel a sort 

 of resentment if any other investigator ven- 

 tures within our territory. This means that, 

 perhaps \mconsciously, we are more concerned 

 with our own personal credit than with the 

 solution of the problem. If our old method 

 has developed this attitude of mind among 

 investigators, it is high time to change it 

 and to realize that research is to advance 

 knowledge, and is not for self-glorification. 

 What the science wants, and what the world 

 wants, is results, as quickly and accurately as 

 possible. If we can not be large enough to 

 put truth above ourselves, the outlook for 

 botany is discouraging. 



The spirit of competition between individ- 

 uals is depressing enough, but when it extends 

 to competition between research establishments 

 it is worse. This spirit of aloofness is the 

 more emphasized between institutions that 

 deal primarily with practical questions and 

 those that deal primarily with fundamental 

 research. For example, why should not the 

 investigators of our universities be called 

 upon freely by the Department of Agriculture 

 for the help their training can give; and why 

 should not the imiversity investigators draw 

 freely upon the immense store of practical ex- 

 perience that the Department of Agriculture 

 has collected? ISTeither set of establislmients 

 can do all that is necessary. If each remains 

 in relative isolation, absorbed by its own self- 

 confidence, both science and practise will 

 suffer. Such artificial barriers of self-suffi- 

 ciency to full cooperation should be broken 

 down that our science and its applications 

 may be free to develop normally. To speak 

 physiologically, we must remove the inhibi- 

 tions, personal and institutional, and give the 

 stimuli a chance. 



In conclusion, if I may venture a prophecy, 

 it would be that if in response to the great 



