20 



SCIENCE 



[N. S. Vol. XLI. No. 1044 



it is true that eminent administrators and 

 others who exercise large influence in the 

 intellectual world might prove to be of 

 great service as members of the Academy, 

 a wide departure from this fundamental 

 principle would soon detract from the 

 standing of the Academy as the national 

 representative of original research. Thus 

 while eminent services to the public should 

 by no means be excluded from the field of 

 the Academy's interests, and may well be 

 recognized by the award of special medals 

 founded for this purpose, actual member- 

 ship should be confined to original investi- 



SCOPE OF THE ACADEMY 



Here we may inquire as to the true 

 scope of the Academy's work. In what de- 

 gree should it confine its choice of members 

 to the physical and natural sciences, and 

 in what measure may it recognize success- 

 ful research in such fields as philosophy, 

 archeology, political economy, and history ? 

 The answer to this question will depend in 

 part upon one's opinion of the chief object 

 of the Academy. There are those who feel 

 that the most important function of the 

 National Academy is to confer distinction 

 by election to membership. If this were 

 its prime object, the participation of the 

 members in the work of the Academy would 

 be a minor matter, and any one of sufScient 

 reputation as an investigator might be 

 chosen. But if we agree, as I think the 

 large majority will, that the Academy 

 should be looked upon as a working body, 

 and that its privilege of conferring dis- 

 tinction by election to membership is only 

 one of many important functions, it seems 

 to me that a means of defining our choice 

 of investigators in the humanities may 

 easily be found. 



A single philologist, or a single political 

 economist, may find but little of interest to 



himself in the proceedings of a body made 

 up almost exclusively of representatives of 

 the physical and natural sciences. If so, 

 he may not attend the meetings, and his 

 membership would then serve merely as a 

 mark of distinction. Deferring for a mo- 

 ment the discussion of the broad question 

 whether the Academy should ever be re- 

 organized in two or more large classes, 

 after the manner of the Berlin Academy, it 

 seems to me that we should augment the 

 value of election by furnishing real reason 

 to every member for participation in the 

 work of the Academy. For example, in its 

 committee on anthropology and psychology 

 the National Academy now has three mem- 

 bers engaged in the study of archeologieal 

 problems. Although their work relates 

 primarily to American ethnology, it differs 

 in no essential respect from that' of the 

 classical archeologist or the student of 

 Egyptology or Assyriology. Would it not 

 be advisable, therefore, when the Academy 

 chooses its next member from outside the 

 domain of the physical and natural sci- 

 ences, to elect an archeologist from one of 

 these fields ? If this were done he might be 

 expected to take a more active interest in 

 the work of the Academy, which would 

 benefit by his contributions to its proceed- 

 ings.^^ 



The advantages which might result from 

 a wider extension of the scope of the Na- 

 tional Academy raise the question whether 

 an organization resembling that of the 

 Berlin Academy will ever become desirable. 

 This problem was long and seriously dis- 

 cussed by the Royal Society, and the nega- 

 tive decision of its deliberations led to the 

 establishment of the British Academy. In 

 spite of this decision, some of its leading 



28 William Dwight Whitney and William Jamea 

 resigned from the Academy, probably because 

 they were the sole representatives of their sub- 

 jects. 



