52 Trausactious of the Anulvmy of Siiencv of St. Loui< 
From the Standpoint or the Scientist 
It is possible that some of the problems just mentioned might 
not be so acute if our conception and measurement of standards 
of good scientific work had been interpreted in a dicerent way; 
and it is possible that the scientist has been as intolerant of the 
person who did have the scientific viewpoint as that person has 
been of the scientist. 
There has been some tendency during recent years to dis- 
cuss rather glibly various types of scientific work ; as for example, 
"pure research;" "investigation;" and "applied research." The 
writer is not sufficiently scientific-minded himself to even suggest 
that any such division is or is not possible or justifiable. He only 
knows that this situation exists, that this has given rise to a 
tendency among scientific workers to distinguish between and 
evaluate the work of certain groups of investigators on the basis 
of such a classification, and that there has arisen evidence of 
depreciation of the professional standing of the so-called "ap- 
plied" scientist and an attempt to place a premium upon the so- 
called "pure" scientist. Among certain workers there is a fixed 
belief that no work is scientific or to be evaluated as bona fide 
research unless the worker himself is left to wander at will, to 
follow any leads or ramifications that may suggest themselves, 
to follow through for the sole purpose of producing information, 
whatever it may be, and regardless of whether it can ever have 
practical application or not. There are some workers who, it 
sometimes appears, even believe that the less application scien- 
tific material can have, the more "pure" it is. An administrator 
feels sometimes that the end product is developed with the idea 
that the more it can confuse and the farther it can remain above 
the comprehension of the uninitiated the higher is the standard of 
the work. This is somewhat of an exaggeration, of course, but 
it illustrates the point. Many scientists have had a tendency to 
look askance at investigators of pure administrative problems. 
On the other hand, there has, no doubt, been much justifica- 
tion for the reserved attitude on the part of the scientist, because, 
all too frequently, from the administrative standpoint, there has 
been too much of a tendency to require an investigator to prove 
a point which is vital to the administrative field, but which proof 
may not be altogether honest. If that investigator has not been 
able to conscientiously produce data and information which will 
substantiate a pre-conceived viewpoint, he is out of countenance 
with the administration. This should not be so; and, again, it 
