558 



SCIENCE 



[Iv. S. Vol. XLI. No. 1059 



Bacon, however, mentions first of all the 

 class of achievements that are possible to 

 some one person, though not to every one. 

 That in certain spheres of activity one per- 

 son may be indefinitely superior to any 

 other or even to any combination of others 

 was familiar enough to Bacon, and social 

 conditions were not then such as to obscure 

 this truth or throw doubt upon it. Being 

 a man of genius himself and an advocate 

 of progress, he could not underrate the part 

 which personal originality and power of 

 invention play in progress; he knew that 

 such qualities are of individual and not of 

 social origin, although they naturally flour- 

 ish best in a favorable social environment. 

 It is perhaps time to protest against the 

 tendency to undervalue detached investi- 

 gators, which insists that every one shall 

 work chiefly in cooperation with a group 

 and for a collective aim. This tendency is 

 undoubtedly strong at present, especially in 

 America, because here the democratic spirit 

 is more dominant than anywhere else and 

 is subject to fewer corrective influences; 

 and the resulting bias toward collectivism 

 tends to lower the estimate placed on purely 

 personal or individual qualities. Now re- 

 liance on "team-play" is well enough in 

 its place ; it plays an indispensable part in 

 many undertakings. But such a spirit 

 cannot be depended on to promote scientific 

 progress by itself; in this sphere it is at 

 best rather an accessory. The truth is that 

 so far from progress depending on collective 

 effort, the whole history of science shows 

 that the guiding and fruitful ideas, those 

 which form the seeds of later developments, 

 nearly always originate in the minds of a 

 few scattered thinkers or investigators, 

 often working in isolation. Is there any 

 reason to believe that this will not continue 

 to be the ease? Yet high scientific author- 

 ity seems at times to encourage that belief. 

 President Woodward, of the Carnegie Insti- 



tution, in a recent address^ warns his hear- 

 ers against entertaining what he calls the 

 subtle error that 



the more remarkalile results of research are pro- 

 duced not by the better balanced minds, but by 

 aberrant types of mind popularly designated by 

 that word of ghostly if not ghastly implieations, 

 namely, genius. 



Again he says : 



The more striking results of research, quite com- 

 m.only in the past attributed to wizards and genii, 

 and still so attributed by a majority perhaps of 

 contemporary writers for the popular press, are 

 now understood by the thoughtful to be the prod- 

 ucts rather of industry, sanity and prolonged labor 

 than of any superhuman faculties. 



Others extol cooperative research as the 

 highest type of scientific work. But surely 

 what is understood by scientific genius is 

 not a wizard-like faculty of arriving at im- 

 mediate and astonishing results, but rather 

 that power of clear, imaginative and valid 

 insight into phenomena which is the prod- 

 uct of high native endowment combined 

 with industry, sanity and prolonged labor. 

 The peculiarities of pseudo-genius — ^which 

 no doubt has besieged the Carnegie Insti- 

 tution for support from the beginning — 

 should not be allowed to cast discredit on 

 true genius, a totally different thing. When 

 we understand clearly what scientific genius 

 really is, we must recognize that it is no 

 less indispensable to the production of the 

 highest scientific work than is poetical gen- 

 ius to the production of the highest poetry. 

 Every-day experience proves that industry, 

 sanity and prolonged labor are not suffi- 

 cient for the best work in any domain. It 

 would be fortunate for humanity if it were 

 so; for these qualities are not rare, and are 

 in a measure attainable by all normal per- 

 sons. Genius is not these — although when 

 these are added genius may become more 

 effective. Unfortunately — or perhaps for- 

 tunately — it evades rules; but it seems to 

 3 Science, 1914, N. S., Vol. 40, p. 217. 



