March 6, 1908] 



SCIENCE 



369 



sible, and in promoting tlie solidarity 

 among biologists which will make coopera- 

 tion feasible. 



J. Platfair McMurrich 



COOPERATION IN BIOLOGICAL RESEARCH "^ 

 The idea of cooperation in science is not 

 new ; our universities, learned societies and 

 publications represent or involve forms of 

 cooperation that are well established and 

 have demonstrated their usefulness in the 

 progress of science. Without them, prog- 

 ress would be painfully slow. They are, in 

 fact, the very framework and supporting 

 skeleton of science, without which there 

 might be life indeed, but at most aimless 

 amoeboid movement, no dignified or effect- 

 ive progress. 



I suppose it was not intended that the 

 present discussion should concern itself 

 with such old established organizations, but 

 rather that it should deal with needs that 

 have arisen as a result of recent growth of 

 science and its increasing specialization, 

 and which are not adequately met. Organ- 

 ization must keep pace with specialization, 

 if the true objects of specializing are to 

 be attained. 



The last decade has witnessed the origin 

 or farther development of institutions 

 planned to meet the specific needs of the 

 present, and organized to anticipate the 

 growing demands of the future. I name 

 various departments of the national gov- 

 ernment, the Carnegie Institution of Wash- 

 ington, the Wistar Institute of Anatomy 

 and Biology, the Rockefeller Institute for 

 Medical Research and the McCormick In- 

 stitute for the Study of Infectious Diseases. 

 These institutions recognize the funda- 

 mental importance of research for the well- 

 being, nay, for the very life, of the com- 

 monwealth, and they also recognize co- 



' Discussion before the American Society of Nat- 

 uralists, December 31, 1907. 



operation as the vital principle in the con- 

 duct of research. The institution that in- 

 breeds, that does not seek for the original 

 and productive investigator, and that does 

 not lend its own cooperation and secure his 

 is on the high road to ineffectiveness. 



I believe, however, that the full con- 

 ception of cooperation in scientific research 

 is not usually grasped and that the logical 

 outcome of the principle is, therefore, not 

 really understood: An organization may 

 be formed that proposes to make coopera- 

 tion with scientific men and institutions its 

 main business; it may propose to seek out 

 the original investigator wherever he may 

 be found and to support his work in every 

 possible way; it may welcome every new 

 branch of scientific investigation and pro- 

 pose to favor it according to its importance 

 and its needs; and yet such an institution 

 may not be fully cooperative. It may be 

 privately controlled ; if so, its impulses are 

 primarily benevolent and not free, guided 

 by tradition and chai-ter and not by the 

 native interests of the governing body, and 

 for these reasons apt to fail to profit to 

 the fullest extent by the fertilizing influ- 

 ences of new conceptions. 



The fundamental idea of cooperative or- 

 ganization is a free association of individ- 

 uals that proposes definite ends and effects 

 an organization to attain them. The mem- 

 bers of the organization are at the same 

 time the court of last resort ; they may elect 

 representatives as a board of management, 

 or as officers of the organization; but the 

 representatives are responsible to the or- 

 ganization for the conduct of affairs. The 

 functions of such an organization are not 

 benevolent, but free, for the members are 

 vitally interested in the conduct of its 

 affairs and they are themselves the govern- 

 ing body. The organization is plastic, re- 

 sponding to new ideas, so long as member- 

 ship in it is determined by broad prin- 



