June 10, 1910] 



SCIENCE 



883 



not intelligently interested. I wish to an- 

 alyze the situation briefly. 



There is a conventional application of 

 the term science, which I will use for con- 

 venience. Thus applied, there has arisen 

 a classification of science into two phases, 

 called pure science and applied science. 

 This distinction is one that not only exists 

 in the public mind, but it is also reinforced 

 by published statements from colleges and 

 universities. An attempt to define these 

 two kinds of science reveals the fact that 

 the distinction is a general impression 

 rather than a clear statement. A general 

 impression is usually sufficient for the 

 public, but it ought not to be sufficient for 

 the universities. 



If the impression be analyzed, it seems 

 that pure science is of no material service 

 to mankind; and that applied science has 

 to do with the mechanism of our civiliza- 

 tion. The distinction, therefore, is based 

 upon material output. In other words, 

 pure science only knows things, while ap- 

 plied science knows how to do things. This 

 impression, rather than distinction, has 

 been unfortunate in several ways. 



The public, as represented by the mod- 

 ern American community, believes in doing 

 things; and therefore to them pure science 

 seems useless, and its devotees appear as 

 ornamental rather than as vital members 

 of human society, to be admired rather 

 than used. The reaction of this sentiment 

 upon opportunities for the cultivation of 

 pure science is obvious. 



On the other hand, the universities, as 

 represented by their investigators, believe 

 in knowing things; and therefore to them 

 applied science seems to be a waste of in- 

 vestigative energy, and its devotees appear 

 to be unscientific, very useful, but not to 

 be acknowledged as belonging to the sci- 

 entific cult. 



The reaction of this sentiment sometimes 



has been to avoid the investigation of prob- 

 lems that have an obvious practical appli- 

 cation, and to justify Lowell's definition of 

 a university as "a place where nothing 

 useful is taught." 



In this atmosphere of mutual misunder- 

 standing the public and the universities 

 have continued to exist and to make prog- 

 ress, all the time acknowledging their inter- 

 dependence by mutual service. 



In recent years, however, a new spirit is 

 taking possession of the public and it has 

 invaded the universities. In fact, so con- 

 spicuous have the universities become in 

 the movement that they seem to be the 

 leaders ; certainly they furnish the trained 

 leaders. The new spirit that is beginning 

 to dominate increasingly is the spirit of 

 mutual service. It is called by a variety 

 of names, dependent upon the group that 

 proclaims it; it is narrow or broad in its 

 application, dependent upon the moral and 

 intellectual equipment of its promoters; 

 but it is the same enduring idea. 



The university is no longer conceived of 

 as a scholastic cloister, a refuge for the 

 intellectually impractical ; but as an organ- 

 ization whose mission is to serve society in 

 the largest possible way. Furthermore, 

 this service is conceived of not merely as 

 the indirect contribution of trained minds, 

 a contribution of inestimable value, as we 

 believe; but also as the direct contribution 

 of assistance in solving the problems that 

 confront community life. 



This new animating spirit is so attract- 

 ive and inspiring, appealing to what seem 

 to be our best impulses, that it threatens to 

 become a real danger not only to universi- 

 ties, but to the whole scheme of education 

 down to the primary school. The reaction 

 is natural, and therefore inevitable ; but its 

 demands must be recognized as represent- 

 ing the primary and extreme recoil stage of 

 a new motive. The new motive must not 



