November 30, 1906.] 



SCIENCE. 



679 



Should not individuals and societies which 

 stand for the promotion of science, while 

 giving no less attention to specific results 

 of investigation, take greater heed to the 

 formation of an enlightened public opin- 

 ion ? We listened with pleasure and profit 

 this afternoon to a discussion upon agricul- 

 tural science in the experiment stations. 

 Might it not be possible in the future to 

 attract greater audiences to such discus- 

 sions, and by means of suitable publication 

 to bring them before the larger public ? I 

 feel sure that all legitimate influences ought 

 to be brought to bear, whether in this or in 

 other ways, to secure a generous and proper 

 recognition of the importance of real scien- 

 tific investigation in the work of our insti- 

 tutions for agricultural education and ex- 

 perimentation. 



But such education of public opinion 

 can not be effected in a month or a year; 

 it must be a work of time, a gradual leaven- 

 ing of the lump. For the present, we can 

 hardly expect otherwise than that the prac- 

 tical, so called, will predominate over the 

 scientific in institutions supported by pub- 

 lic funds. We are led to ask, therefore, 

 whether any more immediately effective 

 measures for the promotion of agricultural 

 science can be devised. 



Our minds naturally turn, in this con- 

 nection, to the much-discussed question of 

 the endowment of research. During the 

 last few years we, along with others, have 

 applauded the devotion of vast sums to 

 this purpose, such as, to name two con- 

 spicuous examples, the endowment of the 

 Carnegie Institution of Washington and of 

 the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Ee- 

 search. We have rejoiced at the testimony 

 afforded by these magnificent gifts to the 

 estimate put upon the value of science and 

 scientific investigation by hard-headed, suc- 

 cessful men of affairs. We would not, if 

 we could, subtract one dollar from the sums 



assigned by these and other like founda- 

 tions to the support of any line of scientific 

 inquiry, however abstruse. At the same 

 time, we can not but regret that the great 

 basal industry of this, as of every civilized 

 country— the one which not only overtops 

 all others in magnitude as measured in 

 terms of money, but the one whose fol- 

 lowers constitute the great conservative 

 force of our national life— has thus far 

 practically failed of recognition, and that 

 the claims of agricultural science as a field 

 for research have not thus far seemed to 

 appeal to our men of wealth. I can hardly 

 believe that this state of things will con- 

 tinue indefinitely. Wealth almost incal- 

 culable is being created annually by the 

 American farmer, not for himself alone, 

 but as well for the great transportation and 

 manufacturing interests whose prosperity 

 depends so directly upon his. Is it not 

 reasonable to anticipate that if the impor- 

 tance of fundamental research in this field 

 were properly set forth, free from the sus- 

 picion of personal interest, as it might be 

 by a society like this, the Carnegie or the 

 Rockefeller of agriculture would in due 

 time appear, and that the great endowed 

 universities would find a place for it in 

 their programs? 



These, then, are some of the larger ob- 

 jects which, as it seems to me, a Society 

 for the Promotion of Agricultural Science 

 should set before itself: 



1. To aid in maintaining among our in- 

 vestigators in agriculture the highest ideals 

 of scientific research, and to help to fur- 

 nish the inspiration for the pursuit of these 

 ideals. 



2. To seek to educate the public to a 

 greater appreciation of the need for scien- 

 tific investigation into the underlying prin- 

 ciples of agriculture and to a realization of 

 the practical benefits flowing from it, and 

 thus to promote the cause of agricultural 



