JANUARY 18, 1901.] 
office is a good official and no personal ob- 
jections are to be raised against him. The 
principle, however, is not a good one, and 
the next appointee to this office should be a 
man who combines scientific attainments 
with administrative ability. The old pop- 
ular idea of a scientific man—that he lacks 
what is called ‘common sense,’ that he is 
impractical—is an unfortunate estimate 
gained from unappreciative observation of 
workers in pure science, but it no longer 
holds. Henry, Agassiz, Baird—all men of 
affairs, now gone, did much to change this 
popular estimate, and the host of brilliant 
men who have succeeded them—men of 
high scientific rank, who control the des- 
tinies and shape the policies of great insti- 
tutions, and who turn out work of great and 
important practical value, have demonstra- 
ted beyond the slightest doubt that scien- 
tific men are the broadest men of affairs, 
that they are practical men, and that they 
are fit to be leaders not only in thought but 
in action. 
It is doubtful whether any government 
in existence does as much for the encourage- 
ment and development of science as does 
our own. This has repaid her a thousand 
fold, and the sound judgment of the Amer- 
ican people and their patriotic pride in 
national attainment will effect a steady in- 
crease in governmental support of scientific 
work in spite of temporary checks. With 
scientific men, however, must come the 
initiative. They must point out the needs 
and the ways and means by which these 
needs must be supplied. This fact is the 
justification of this discussion. 
L. O. Howarp. 
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. 
Is it not true that the attitude of the 
State toward science and scientific research 
is at all times greatly influenced by the 
shaping of public sentiment through the 
work of scientific men themselves? This 
SCIENCE. 
91 
is a practical age, and in America especially 
the tendency is more and more to give a 
practical trend to almost every line of re- 
search. We find, therefore, as a matter of 
fact, that there is a general lack of interest 
in, and support of, matters having to do 
with pure science alone, while on the other 
hand all questions haying practical appli- 
cation, and even those in which the practi- 
cal end is remote are received with com- 
mendable liberality. Taking the field of 
botany, for example, it would be difficult, if 
not impracticable, to secure support for the 
preparation and publication of purely flor- 
istic monographs, unless it could be pretty 
clearly shown that such a project had some 
practical end in view. 
In so far, therefore, as the attitude of 
the State toward all work of this nature 
is concerned, there is a great deal of con- 
servatism to be overcome, and this con- 
servatism is especially pronounced where 
pure science is brought strongly to the 
front. The reason for this is not far to 
seek, for its roots lie imbedded in the 
selfishness of human nature, which, acting 
through organization in the shape of gov- 
ernment, sees, or thinks it sees, in the ag- 
gressiveness of science a menace to exist- 
ing institutions in some form or other. 
While science in its nature is aggressive, 
the men who do most to advance it often 
lack aggressiveness, and for this reason the 
far-reaching effect of science as an edu- 
cational factor at the present time is not 
fully understood or appreciated. 
This brings me more particularly to the 
main question I wish to raise in this discus- 
sion, namely, what should be the attitude 
of the scientific man toward the cause he 
represents. I am strongly of the opinion 
that he owes it to himself and to his work 
to put forth every legitimate effort to ad- 
vance the interests of the cause. He should 
of course keep constantly before him the 
fact that to bring honor and credit to the 
