November 11, 1910] 



SCIENCE 



679 



thus appears that Dr. F. A. Woods ' is cor- 

 rect in holding that Massachusetts has not 

 only produced more scientific men, but also 

 men of higher standing. 



The second thousand includes those who 

 have dropped dov^n from the first thousand 

 (201), to whom consideration has already been 

 given. The others have been divided into 

 those above and those below the median age 

 (42 years), but the conditions are almost too 

 complicated to admit of analysis, and it seems 

 to be scarcely worthwhile to give the figures. 

 In New York 43 are below and 68 above the 

 median age ; in Illinois 37 below and 28 above, 

 and in California 9 below and 18 above. The 

 excess of older men in New York may be 

 attributed to its earlier development and to 

 the fact that older men, especially in applied 

 science, tend to reside in New York City. 

 Chicago is of more recent origin and has 

 called younger men to its universities. In 

 Massachusetts and the District of Columbia 

 there are about equal numbers below and 

 above the median age. Older men reside in 

 Boston and Washington, and younger men 

 have been called to the institutions of learning 

 in the former city and to the government 

 service in the latter. The eight scientific men 

 in the Philippines are all below the median 

 age. 



The men of the second thousand are more 

 equally and widely distributed over the coun- 

 try than those of the first thousand. The 

 regions and institutions which are the strong- 

 est in numbers tend to have also the larger 

 share of men of the higher rank. Thus 

 Massachusetts has 1G5 men of the first thou- 

 sand and 103 men of the second thousand; 

 Connecticut 50 of the first and 32 of the 

 second. The educational institutions of these 

 states have called and kept good men. They 

 have relatively more in the first thousand than 

 in the second, as they have relatively more in 

 the first hundred than of lower rank. New 

 York has a smaller preponderance of the better 

 men. In the District of Columbia the scien- 

 tific men are drawn equally from the first and 



' " American Men of Science and the Question 

 of Heredity," Science, N. S., 31: 205-209, 1910. 



second thousands. Thanks to the recent de- 

 velopment of its great university, Wisconsin 

 has 36 men in the first thousand and 14 in the 

 second. The superior men are in the majority 

 in Missouri, but the other north central states 

 have fewer men of the first rank than of the 

 second. California has 50 men of the first 

 thousand and 38 of the second. In general 

 the western and southern states which have 

 but few scientific men have relatively more of 

 the second thousand. It is of course impor- 

 tant to have even men of this rank. There 

 are advantages and disadvantages in concen- 

 trating the better men in a few regions and 

 institutions. The standards of the men in 

 both thousands are becoming higher, though 

 more slowly than would be wished. 



The distribution of our scientific men is 

 almost entirely determined by educational and 

 scientific institutions, including under the lat- 

 ter the government bureaus. Table X. shows 

 the institutions with which three or more of 

 those among our thousand leading men of sci- 

 ence are connected, together with the gain or 

 loss in a period of about four years. The table 

 also gives the ratio of the number of leading 

 scientific men in each institution to the total 

 number of instructors, to the total number of 

 students, to the value of buildings and grounds 

 and to the current income. Harvard, Wis- 

 consin, the Carnegie Institution, Illinois, Yale 

 and Chicago have made the most notable 

 gains. Columbia, California, the Geological 

 Survey, the Smithsonian Institution and the 

 Department of Agriculture have suffered the 

 most severe losses. Four years ago Harvard 

 had 66.5, Columbia 60 and Chicago 37 of our 

 leading scientific men, as selected three years 

 previously. After this short period it has 

 resulted that Harvard has 31.5 more than 

 Columbia and Chicago the same number. 

 Such changes are only to a small degree due 

 to the probable errors of the arrangements, 

 though in the case of Columbia the fact that 

 last time there were 11 and this time but two 

 men in the last hundred may be attributed in 

 part to the probable error and account in part 

 for the loss of that university. There is also 

 a different kind of chance variation due to the 



