10 



SCIENCE 



[N. S. Vol. XXXIX. No. 992 



make them into chemists in addition. On 

 the other hand, the chemist must be, first 

 of all, a chemist. The agricultural chem- 

 ist must have knowledge of soils and ani- 

 mal nutrition, but he should have predom- 

 inant chemical training and chemical 

 methods of thought. The agronomist and 

 the animal husbandman undoubtedly need 

 the aid of the chemist in the solution of 

 their problems; but they should not seek, 

 at one and the same time, to be both agron- 

 omist and chemist. The result of such an 

 effort is either an agronomical chemist or 

 a chemical agronomist. It often results in 

 the chemist becoming also the agronomist. 

 What agricultural science needs is the 

 highly-trained agronomist, working, where 

 needs be, in cooperation with a highly- 

 trained chemist who has perhaps spe- 

 cialized in soils and fertilizer chemistry, 

 each assisting and aiding the other. The 

 same is true of the animal husbandman. 

 We need the animal husbandman, highly 

 trained in his field and with a full knowl- 

 edge of its peculiar problems, working in 

 cooperation with the agricultural chemist, 

 highly specialized in the chemistry of ani- 

 mal nutrition. In this way, we shall avoid 

 those errors which we so often see when a 

 man enters into a field outside of his spe- 

 cial training — errors which the specialist 

 immediately recognizes. The truth of the 

 matter is, that the chemist has made such 

 great contributions to the field of agricul- 

 tural science, that the agronomist and the 

 animal husbandman have, in many cases, 

 not been able to see their own peculiar 

 problems, but have emphasized the chem- 

 ical side of the subject. They have not 

 wholly found themselves. In some institu- 

 tions, agricultural chemistry is no longer 

 taught. This, we believe, is a mistake. 

 The student needs a thorough grounding 

 in the entire field, such as is given by the 

 agricultural chemist, and he needs to look 



at agriculture, for a time, from the point 

 of view of the chemist. Specialization 

 should come later. 



These matters will adjust themselves in 

 time. We need not fear that the science of 

 agriculture will ever be without the need 

 of the agricultural chemist. Our ranks 

 have not thinned, but each step of progress 

 has rather added to our numbers. The 

 Adams Act, for example, which is one of 

 the most important events in the recent 

 history of agricultural science, has in- 

 creased the number of agricultural chem- 

 ists, as well as the number of other agri- 

 cultural investigators. 



The Adams Act, of March 16, 1906, is 

 important, not only from the fact that it 

 increased the number of scientific agricul- 

 tural workers in the experiment stations, 

 and their facilities for investigation, but 

 because it affords to the experiment sta- 

 tions opportunity for fundamental re- 

 search work. The passage of the Adams 

 Act indeed marked an epoch in the history 

 of agricultural science. The experiment 

 stations had previously done much valuable 

 work, and accumulated much data, a fact 

 which the passage of the Adams Act itself 

 recognizes. But the experiment stations 

 had such large demands upon them for 

 immediate and practical information, that 

 they had little time for the investigation 

 of fundamental things, no less practical in 

 their final application, but requiring more 

 time, more patience and less obvious in 

 their practical applications. But under the 

 Adams Act, the experiment stations not 

 only may, but must, conduct research. 

 Fundamental and continuous work may 

 be done upon projects which have no pres- 

 ent popular appeal, though no one can pre- 

 dict the ultimate effect of such work. The 

 result of the Adams Act has been an in- 

 crease in personnel and in facilities for the 

 experiment stations, and it has aided in 



