226 



SCIENCE 



[N. S. Vol. XLV. No. 1158 



conspicuous practical aspects of botany 

 have been segregated in such special insti- 

 tutions as schools of agriculture, quite dis- 

 tinct from the universities, where by im- 

 plication only impractical botany is taught. 



2. The recent organization of the Na- 

 tional Research Council emphasizes the fact 

 that botany must be recognized as a na- 

 tional asset to be developed. The purpose 

 of this council is to bring into cooperation 

 all of those scientific and practical activ- 

 ities which have to do with national wel- 

 fare. It is an attempt to coordinate the in- 

 tellectual resources of the country, so that 

 they may be increased and may be avail- 

 able. Since the organization of this coun- 

 cil, I have been asked what a botanist 

 has to do with national welfare. This is 

 merely an expression of what seems to be a 

 general feeling, that botany is not a sci- 

 ence of human interest, an impression that 

 botanists must correct. This does not mean 

 a revolution in our work, which must deal 

 with the fundamentals, but we must not 

 allow these fundamentals to remain in cold 

 isolation, entirely unrelated to the activ- 

 ities of life. This is not teaching a prac- 

 tise, but developing a vision. In my own 

 experience, I have found that students, 

 while working upon the purely scientific 

 aspects of plants, respond with what seems 

 like gratified surprise to suggestions that 

 all this underlies the possibility of a much 

 more effective handling of plants in supply- 

 ing human needs. 



I wish now to analyze the situation, that 

 we may have it before us clearly; and at 

 the same time to outline the perspective 

 that may change it, and rehabilitate botany 

 in public estimation as the most important 

 of all sciences to human welfare. In fact, 

 I am asking cooperation in arousing the 

 public to a realization of the fact that 

 botany may be made one of the greatest 

 assets of a nation. 



We should realize first how the present 

 condition of scholarly isolation has arisen. 

 Men who spend their lives in universities, 

 especially the older ones, are apt to develop 

 certain unfortunate peculiarities. These 

 peculiarities may not make them less happy 

 or less useful to their professional students, 

 but they diminish the appreciation of the 

 community at large. There is a peculiar 

 kind of isolation that is bound to react. It 

 is partly the isolation of a subject which 

 seems more or less remote from general 

 human interests, at least in the aspects the 

 university investigator is cultivating. As 

 a consequence, he feels that his world is 

 quite apart from that one in which the 

 majority of men are living. He is con- 

 scious of an interest distinct from their 

 interests, which seem to him therefore rela- 

 tively trivial. This sense of intellectual 

 aloofness does not result in a feeling of 

 loneliness, but rather in a feeling of supe- 

 riority; unconscious in many eases, but 

 often naively expressed. 



It is also the isolation of authority, which 

 comes from the mastery of a subject and 

 association with students who recognize 

 this mastery. To speak with authority in 

 a subject, to give the deciding word, to 

 meet a constant succession of inferiors, is 

 apt to affect any man's outlook on the 

 world of practical affairs. Either he be- 

 comes dogmatic in expression, or he must 

 hold himself in check with an effort. 



As a consequence, men engaged in funda- 

 mental botanical research are apt to be 

 looked upon in general as inoffensive, but 

 rather curious and useless members of the 

 social order. If an investigator touches 

 now and then upon something that the 

 public regards as useful, he is singled out 

 as a glaring exception. If an investigation 

 lends itself to announcement in exceedingly 

 sensational form, as if it were uncovering' 

 deep mysteries, the investigator becomes a 



