April 10, 1903.] 



SCIENCE. 



581 



chologieal phenomenon, and I can not help 

 it if my psychology has even a certain 

 national flavor; the president knew that 

 my views as well as my English are 'made 

 in Germany.' 



I, for one, indeed, believe that, if the im- 

 provement of scientific research in America 

 is linder discussion, the psychological fac- 

 tor which is involved can not be empha- 

 sized too strongly; it is the psyche of men 

 and not the physical apparatus that de- 

 termines the value of research. I know 

 very well that work in a rich laboratory 

 is much more comfortable than in a poor 

 one, but the ultimate productiveness of 

 the research does not depend upon it. 

 Wherever good productive work is done, 

 there is a strong moral claim for greater 

 comfort in work, for greater leisure, for 

 finer devices to make work more effective, 

 more elegant, more complete, but the es- 

 sentials of research are not touched by 

 these factors. In the sphere of research, 

 as in all spheres of life, there is a danger- 

 ous temptation to take gi-eater comfort in 

 itself for greater culture and internal 

 progress. The whole history of science sug- 

 gests the opposite. Everywhere may we 

 see that the decisive discoveries and ex- 

 periments were made with modest means 

 and clumsy apparatus, and the change 

 from poverty toward luxury has not 

 seldom meant a change from concentration 

 to superficial expansion. The great Helm- 

 holtz once said to me: "In the small 

 laboratories with home-made apparatus 

 they mine gold, while in the large and rich 

 ones they transform the gold nuggets into 

 sounding brasses." 



How little important is the equipment 

 is shown just by the situation in this 

 country. It is an insufficient excuse for 

 unproductiveness if the fault is laid to the 

 defective equipments. If the outfit and 

 the means were the determining factors 

 we Americans should be far ahead of 



European research in many fields. In my 

 own science, experimental psychology, the 

 commercial value of the equipment of 

 the existing psychological laboratories in 

 America is perhaps five times greater than 

 that of all German, yes, of all European, 

 laboratories, but it would be absurd to say 

 that we have really done five times more 

 than those on the other side of the water. 

 The real foundations of our science were 

 laid by Professor Wundt in a German 

 laboratory whose equipment is surpassed 

 to-day by many frontier colleges in this 

 country. And I deny that my science is 

 an exception. In zoology, for instance, 

 there are small colleges here whose names 

 are hardly known, whose equipment sur- 

 passes that of universities like Leipzig, and 

 yet, as the poet says, what difference to 

 me! 



The only two factors which really count 

 for research are to be found in the minds 

 of the men; they are, first, intellectual 

 quality, and secondly, the will to achieve. 

 These are the two respects in which Amer- 

 ican research is defective. Have we the 

 right kind of man behind the gun? 



The psychologist must ask, of course, in 

 general : Is the right kind of research man 

 to be found at all among this people? I 

 should say: Certainly— perhaps nowhere 

 a more ideal combination of the right fea- 

 tures. Quick, sharp grasp of a situation, 

 brilliant inventiveness, persistent energy, 

 talent for organization, unselfish idealism, 

 all these are characteristics of the best 

 type of American and exactly these are 

 the conditions of successful research. The 

 misery of the whole situation is that if we 

 abstract from the numerous exceptions and 

 look on the broad average, this right type 

 of man sits in the counting-houses and 

 law offices, is busy in commerce and in- 

 dustry and polities and medicine and what 

 not — but into the graduate schools and into 

 college work there rushes, together with 



