July 30, 1915] 



SCIENCE 



161 



III. In regard to the equation V = FTg/W 

 •which has been proposed by Mr. Kent in Sci- 

 ence for March 19, 1915, my feeling agrees 

 with that already expressed by Professor 

 Hoskins in Science for May Y, 1915, namely, 

 that no equation which covers only the special 

 case of a body starting from rest, under a con- 

 stant force, and does not involve the idea of 

 mental equation of mechanics. Mr. Kent's 

 paper, however, is not without interest on the 

 pedagogical side. 



IV. Finally, in regard to the objections 

 raised by Professor Hoskins to a certain defi- 

 nition of the term " force of gravity " which 

 I gave some years ago (objections which, it 

 should be observed, do not affect the present 

 question as to the choice of the fundamental 

 equation of mechanics), I wish to say that his 

 criticism seems to me well-founded, and that 

 my definition was not happily phrased. The 

 important facts about W and g remain true, 

 however, as follows: If we define the weight, 

 W, of a body, in a given locality, with respect 

 to any given frame of reference, as the force 

 required to support the body at rest with re- 

 spect to that frame ; and if we denote by g the 

 acceleration of the body when allowed to fall 

 freely in the given locality, as measured by an 

 observer on the given frame of reference; then 

 the ratio W/g will always be the correct ex- 

 pression for the mass or inertia of the body, 

 regardless of any motion which the given 

 frame of reference may possess. I hope to 

 revert to this point on some future occasion. 

 Edward V. Huntington 



Harvard TJniversitt 



THE proceedings OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY 

 OF SCIENCES 



To THE Editor of Science: Please be so 

 kind as to print in Science the following letter 

 which I have addressed, under date of June 17, 

 1915, to Dr. Arthur L. Day, home secretary of 

 the National Academy of Sciences, Washing- 

 ton, D. C: 



Replying to your request to subscribe to the 

 Proceedings of the National Academy, may I voice 



of the fact that the latter is much more readily 

 preserved than the former. 



a protest which I believe many scientific men share 

 with me, but which few will care to formulate and 

 send to you. 



A general scientific society, before which ab- 

 struse papers are read on most minute details of 

 specialized scientific work, is an anachronism of 

 the most glaring bind. Certainly, when a large 

 audience endures patiently the reading and discus- 

 sion of a paper which is entirely beyond the ken 

 and comprehension of nine tenths of them, they are 

 wasting their valuable time, and the whole proced- 

 ure smacks of the farcical. 



Further, when you publish such a miscellany of 

 highly specialized papers in your Proceedings, is it 

 fair to any man on earth to ask him to pay for the 

 whole set of papers in order to get the one or two 

 which he can read understandingly and profitably? 

 You surely can not expect a man of understanding 

 to risk acute mental indigestion by trying to as- 

 similate the specialized articles entirely outside of 

 his ability to absorb. Then why should any indi- 

 vidual be expected to pay good money for so much 

 material useless to him? Are you not guilty of 

 wasting much good ink and paper, postage and 

 shelf space — a waste which the apostles of true 

 conservation should deplore and discourage? 



Still further, modern efficiency in almost all its 

 various shapes is based on pushing as far and as 

 hard as possible in the contrary direction. Concen- 

 tration of mind and effort towards one goal, elimi- 

 nation of the unnecessary and the distracting, do- 

 ing one thing mighty well — are the principles of 

 specialization which are at the basis of modern 

 efficiency and achievement. But your society and 

 its Proceedings tend towards dififuseness, cumber 

 our minds and steal away our attention with the 

 unnecessary and superfluous, and rob the special 

 societies of papers and discussion which they alone 

 are well fitted to receive and digest. In short, are 

 you not a stumbling block before the wheels of 

 scientific progress, a panderer to scientific char- 

 latanism, rather than a promoter of scientific efS- 

 ciency? 



Let me in all seriousness recommend the aban- 

 donment of publication of your Proceedings, if not 

 even the cancelling of your scientific sessions. Let 

 the astronomers discuss ' ' Photographic Determina- 

 tion of Stellar Parallaxes" with astronomers, the 

 chemists ' ' Chondrosamine ' ' with organic chemists, 

 the mathematicians ' ' The Straight Lines on Modu- 

 lar Cubic Surfaces" with mathematicians, the zool- 

 ogists ' ' Ecology of the Murray Island Coral Reef ' ' 

 with zoologists, etc.- — for only such special groups 



