Decembee 7, 1906.] 



SCIENCE. 



735 



disqualification, but even this is not proved. 

 The main factors in producing scientific and 

 other forms of intellectual performance seem 

 to be density of population, wealth, oppor- 

 tunity, institutions and social traditions and 

 ideals. All these may be ultimately due to 

 race, but, given the existing race, the scien- 

 tific productivity of the nation can be in- 

 creased in quantity, though not in quality, 

 almost to the extent that we wish to increase it. 



There may be no significant difference in 

 the distributions of the first and second groups 

 of 500. Some states have produced men of 

 higher average standing than others, but the 

 differences are within the range of possible 

 chance variations. Thus Maine has produced 

 19 men of the first rank and 10 of the second. 

 But if 29 pennies are tossed up, there is one 

 chance in 14 or 15 (P=.068) that there will 

 be 19 or more heads. It is, however, true, as 

 a matter of fact, that Maine, Connecticut, 

 Ohio, Indiana and Illinois have produced men 

 of decidedly higher average standing than 

 New Jersey, Wisconsin, Iowa and Missouri. 

 Those born in Germany are considerably above 

 and those born in Canada are below the av- 

 erage, and the figures may here represent a 

 real difference in the classes drawn to this 

 country. 



The fact that there is not a significant dif- 

 ference in the average standing of scientific 

 men born in different regions of the country 

 tends to support the conclusion that scientific 

 performance is mainly due to environment 

 rather than to innate aptitude. If the fact 

 that Massachusetts has produced relatively to 

 its population four times as many scientific 

 men as Pennsylvania and fifty times as many 

 as the southern states were due to a superior 

 stock, then we should expect that the average 

 standing of its scientific men would be higher 

 than elsewhere; but this is not the case. Like 

 most arguments intended to disentangle the 

 complex factors of * nature and nurture,' this, 

 however, is not conclusive. If scientific abil- 

 ity were innate, each tending to reach his level 

 in spite of environment, then a potentially 

 great man of science would become such 

 wherever born, and we might expect a favor- 

 able environment to produce mediocre men. 



but not great men. But this argument is 

 answered by the small number of scientific 

 men from certain regions of the country. 

 Differences in stock can scarcely be great 

 enough to account for this; it seems to be due 

 to circumstance. A further analysis of the 

 curves of distribution might throw light on 

 the problem. Thus it might be that the men 

 of greatest genius were independent of tb'^ 

 environment, while men of fair average pt5r- 

 formanee were produced by it. Examples 

 might be given in favor of this view, but I 

 can not see that it is supported by the forms 

 of the curves of distribution. I hope at some 

 time to take up the question from a study of 

 individual cases, but I have not as yet the 

 data at hand. My general impression is that 

 certain aptitudes, as for mathematics and 

 music, are mainly innate, and that kinds of 

 character and degrees of ability are mainly 

 innate, but that the direction of performance 

 is mainly due to circumstances, and that the 

 environment imposes a veto on any perform- 

 ance not congenial to it. 



The present distribution of the 1,000 men 

 of science is somewhat the same as their 

 origin. The population of the country has 

 more than doubled since 1860, and the num- 

 ber of these scientific men per million popula- 

 tion is consequently less than half the num- 

 ber per million at the period of their birth. 

 There are in Massachusetts 144 of the 1,000, 

 which is 51.3 per million of the population, 

 according to the census of 1900. The num- 

 bers then decrease to 26.4 per million in New 

 York, 10.3 in Pennsylvania, 13.1 in Illinois, 

 8.2 in Ohio, 3.1 in Iowa, 1.1 in Alabama, 0.7 

 in Louisiana and in Mississippi. The most 

 striking development has been the attraction 

 to "Washington of a large group of scientific 

 men, 119 of the thousand, nearly all in the 

 service of the government. This number has 

 been almost exactly supplied to the country by 

 the excess of scientific men born abroad — 120. 

 This leaves an equal balance between the gains 

 and losses of other parts of the country. The 

 greatest gain has been made by California, 

 which has drawn 42 of the scientific men from 

 other states; Illinois and Maryland have each 

 gained 21. Other states have gained consider- 



