736 



SCIENCE. 



[N. S. Vol. XXIV. No. 623. 



ably in proportion to their total scientific pop- 

 ulation — New Jersey, 7, Minnesota 9, Mis- 

 souri 7, Nebraska 7 and Colorado 5. These 

 gains appear to be significant, attributable to 

 the establishment and growth of universities. 



Massachusetts, New York and Pennsylvania 

 have remained nearly stationary. Massachu- 

 setts has gained ten of the scientific men and 

 New York nine, while Pennsylvania has lost 

 one. The conditions in New York are by no 

 means creditable to that state, in view of its 

 great increase in wealth. Outside New York 

 City, the state has lost 31 men of science, 

 nearly one third of those it has produced, and 

 half the others are concentrated at Ithaca. 

 The conditions are somewhat similar in Massa- 

 chusetts and Pennsylvania, outside Boston, 

 Cambridge and Philadelphia. 



The rural New England states, Maine, New 

 Hampshire and Vermont, have lost 48 of the 

 62 scientific men whom they have produced. 

 This is a loss that they can ill afford; it signi- 

 fies a distinct decadence. Had each of these 

 states provided an income of $50,000 to retain 

 these men in their service, they would have 

 been repaid manyfold, commercially as well as 

 intellectually. The conditions in some of the 

 north central states are also ominous, though 

 more likely to improve. Thus Ohio has lost 

 forty-one of its scientific men, more than half 

 of those whom it has produced; Indiana has 

 also lost more than half and Iowa just half. 

 The south remains in its lamentable condition 

 of scientific stagnation, but we may hope that 

 material progress will be followed by an intel- 

 lectual awakening. All these figures become 

 more impressive when we remember that they 

 indicate performance in scholarship, in litera- 

 ture and in art, as well as in science. It would 

 be well if they were widely known, as they 

 would tend to awaken civic pride and to im- 

 prove the conditions of intellectual activity. 



The average standing of the scientific men 

 residing in different parts of the country 

 varies a little more than the standing of those 

 produced in different regions and is perhaps 

 less likely to be due to chance variations. 

 This appears to be somewhat paradoxical from 

 the point of view of the theory of probabilities. 

 The fact that of the 75 scientific men bom in 



Ohio, 42 belong to the first group and 33 to 

 the second is a natural result of chance dis- 

 tribution, and the fact that of the 34 scientific 

 men remaining in the state, 13 belong to the 

 first group and 21 to the second might equally 

 well be the result of chance distribution. But 

 apparently it is not. Ohio has lost more than 

 half the scientific men it has produced; it has 

 lost two thirds of its better men and one third 

 of its more mediocre men. The state has not 

 provided for its scientific men, and has pro- 

 vided less adequately for the better men than 

 for those who are not so good. Indiana has 

 lost three fourths of its men of the first class 

 and one fourth of those of the second class. 

 The three rural New England states have lost 

 seventeen eighteenths of their men of the first 

 class and one half of those of the second class. 

 These conditions are significant and serious. 



Other states have improved their positions. 

 Thus, thanks to its great university, Michigan 

 has 22 men in the first group as compared with 

 five in the second. Thanks again to its uni- 

 versities, Illinois has increased its number of 

 scientific men from 42 to 63, of whom 36 are 

 in the first class. California, Missouri and 

 Minnesota have, on the other hand, called men 

 who are below the average. 



The large centers of scientific population in 

 Massachusetts and New York have about 

 maintained their positions, having produced 

 men of about average standing and their resi- 

 dent men of science being of about average 

 standing. Massachusetts has, however, gained 

 a little and New York has lost a little. Of 

 the 119 scientific men in Washington, 69 are 

 in the first group and 60 in the second. This 

 appears to me to be a fact of very great impor- 

 tance. It is commonly said that less able sci- 

 entific men are attracted to the government 

 service, that those who are able leave it for 

 university positions and that those who stay 

 are not encouraged to do their best work. 

 Such statements are refuted by these statistics. 

 The average performance of the scientific men 

 at Washington is higher than in Massachu- 

 setts or in New York. This conclusion is 

 most gratifying to those of us who believe that 

 the future of scientific research depends large- 



