June 10, 1910] 



SCIENCE 



885 



in scientific knowledge and in its material 

 applications. A practical man, not trained 

 as an investigator, faces the problem of 

 obtaining some new and useful result. His 

 only method is to apply empirically certain 

 formula that have been developed by sci- 

 ence, but with ingenuity and patience he 

 succeeds, although he is not able to analyze 

 his results. And yet, his procedure reveals 

 to a trained investigator a method or cer- 

 tain data that lead to a scientific synthesis 

 of the first order. 



With such illustrations taken to repre- 

 sent the actual historical situation, what 

 may be some of the conclusions? ■ 



It is evident that responsibility for the 

 material results of science is to be shared 

 by those engaged in pure science, those 

 engaged in applied science and those not 

 trained in science at all. The only distinc- 

 tion is not in the result, therefore, but in 

 the intent. As one of my colleagues has 

 aptly said, the difference between pure sci- 

 ence and applied science, in their practical 

 aspects, resolves itself into the difference 

 between murder and manslaughter; it lies 

 in the intention. So long as the world gets 

 the results of science, it is not likely to 

 trouble itself about the intention. In every 

 end result of science that reaches the pub- 

 lic, there is an inextricable tangle of con- 

 tributions. Between the source of energy 

 and the point of application, there may be 

 much machinery, and perhaps none of it 

 can be eliminated from the final estimate 

 of values. And yet, the public is in 

 danger of gazing at the practical electric 

 light and forgetting the impractical power 

 house ; and schools are being asked to turn 

 on the electric light and to shut off the 

 power house. 



Another conclusion is that all applica- 

 tion must have something to apply, and 

 that application alone would presently re- 

 sult in sterility. There must be perennial 



contributions to knowledge, with or with- 

 out immediately useful intent, that appli- 

 cation may possess a wide and fertile field 

 for cultivation. It is just here that the 

 menace to education is evident. When 

 education in science becomes a series of 

 prescriptions, to be followed without un- 

 derstanding and without perspective, it 

 will train apprentices rather than intelli- 

 gent thinkers. Of course there is a place 

 for just this kind of training and there are 

 individuals who need it ; but the place does 

 not seem to be the schools for general edu- 

 cation, and the individuals are evidently 

 not all those who pass through these 

 schools, or even a majority of them. 



A third conclusion is that there is noth- 

 ing inherent in useful problems that would 

 compel their avoidance by an investigator 

 who wishes to contribute to knowledge. 

 While such an investigator should never 

 be handicapped by the utilitarian motive, 

 at the same time he should never be per- 

 versely non-utilitarian. I feel free to 

 make this statement, for perhaps no field, 

 within the confines of my own general 

 subject, seems to be more non-utilitarian 

 than the special one I have chosen to cul- 

 tivate. There is no reason why a univer- 

 sity, especially one dominated by research, 

 should not include among its investiga- 

 tions some that are of immediate concern 

 to the public welfare. 



A final conclusion may be that all sci- 

 ence is one; that pure science is often im- 

 mensely practical; that applied science is 

 often very pure science ; and that between 

 the two there is no dividing line. They 

 are like the end members of a long and 

 intergrading series; very distinct in their 

 isolated and extreme expression, but com- 

 pletely connected. If distinction must be 

 expressed in terms where no sharp distinc- 

 tion exists, what seems to me to be a happy 

 suggestion, made by one of my colleagues, 



