December 24, 1915] 



SCIENCE 



887 



partment of science or some one of the 

 teclinical arts. It must be frankly ad- 

 mitted that the scientific expert himself is 

 responsible, more than any one else, for the 

 humiliating fact that courts and juries 

 often have little respect for him and little 

 confidence in the evidence which he fur- 

 nishes. This unfortunate and unnatural 

 condition is the result of a system which 

 is a disgrace to all who are responsible for 

 it. The scientific expert has allowed him- 

 self to become an advocate. All of his 

 tests, experiments and investigations are 

 made to bolster up a particular theory. 

 Phenomena or results of experiments that 

 tend to discredit this theory are excluded 

 from his testimony unless brought out by 

 the skillful questioning of the attorney on 

 the other side, who has been coached by an- 

 other expert whose tests, experiments and 

 investigations have been made for the pur- 

 pose of breaking down this particular 

 theory or establishing a different one. 

 Often both of these men know the real 

 truth of the controversy and if locked up 

 in a research laboratory or isolated from 

 outside influence would come to substantial 

 agreement as to every important fact bear- 

 ing upon it, for two trained observers can 

 never differ long as to the phenomena pres- 

 ent in any investigation. 



But they have discredited themselves and 

 the great body of scientific men whom they 

 temporarily represent by selling their serv- 

 ices as advocates rather than as experts 

 skilled in ascertaining facts. 



It has long been recognized that the 

 remedy for this evil lies in the selection of 

 expert witnesses by the court. Attorneys 

 on both sides should be allowed to sug- 

 gest questions to the court for the experts 

 to answer if the court considers them 

 proper but never to examine or cross-ex- 

 amine the witness directly. The compen- 

 sation of the witness should be fixed by 



the court and paid by the state. The 

 court would often find the academy the 

 best source of information regarding the 

 qualifications of experts and would gladly 

 transfer to it the responsibility of making 

 a selection, precisely as some years ago the 

 officers of our national government charged 

 with the administration of the internal 

 revenue laws shifted the responsibility in 

 an important case to the National Acad- 

 emy of Sciences and adopted the recom- 

 mendations of its committee. 



During the past few years there has been 

 much talk (and not much besides talk) 

 about the importance of conserving our 

 national resources, state and national. I 

 need hardly say that the membership of 

 the academy includes men who have 

 studied these resources for many years; 

 who are better informed regarding them 

 than any or all others. Whenever the- 

 state shall seriously undertake legislation 

 to secure their conservation it will be a 

 reckless administration that does not ap- 

 ply to them for advice and counsel. 



At the risk of being charged with grossly 

 exaggerating the merits of my fellow 

 academicians and others of their kind I 

 venture to refer to one other function of 

 our complex social and industrial life for 

 which I have long thought to be especially 

 well fitted, those men who are thoroughly 

 trained in scientific methods and who 

 have shown their capacity for the original 

 investigation and solution of difficult scien- 

 tific problems. I mean for service as ar- 

 bitrators, especially in those cases in 

 which both sides declare there is nothing 

 to arbitrate, each believing, often with 

 perfect sincerity, that his own position is 

 absolutely right and the other absolutely 

 wrong. 



Arbitration, in theory the best method 

 of settling disputes, in practise has more 

 often failed than not. It could hardly 



