EDITORIALS. 
The American vs. the British Association for the Advancement 
of Science. A Comparison.— Comparisons may be odious, espe- 
cially to the less favored party, but they nevertheless afford the best 
means for determining shortcomings and the way to improvement. 
For years we in America have been asking why our Association is 
so inferior to that of Great Britain; why it is so much less represent- 
ative of science in the country. Perhaps a detailed comparison of 
the two Associations will tell us. 
The British Association has a membership of about 5000; the 
American Association of about 2000. The British Association has 
invested funds, including balance in banks, of nearly $70,000; the 
American Association has about $6,000. The meetings of the Brit- 
ish Association are attended by from 1300 to 4000 paying members 
and “associates ”; the American Association had an attendance at 
its Detroit meeting, in 1897, of less than 300 ; at its Boston meeting, 
in 1898, of about goo “ registered delegates.” The published Report 
of the British Association for 1897 contained 1132 pages; the Praceed- 
ings of the American Association for 1897 had 579 pages, very largely 
matter of transitory value. The membership of the British Asso- 
ciation admittedly and evidently includes practically all the scientific 
men of Great Britain. In the American Association it is the absence 
of many of the most important names which is striking. Thus, of 
the professors of all grades in the twenty principal universities and 
colleges of the United States, we find that the members of the Amer- 
ican Association constituted in physics about 54 per cent; in chem- 
istry, 51 per cent; in geology, 74 per cent ; in biology, 27 per cent. 
The British Association voted, in 1897, $5295 in grants; the Ameri- 
can Association, $400. On the other hand, while the British Asso- 
ciation expended $2770 in salaries, rent, and office expenses, the 
American Association spent $2867 on these items. Thus, while the 
British Association spends 24 per cent of its receipts upon research, 
ours spends less than 7 per cent; but while our cousins devote 
t3 per cent of the gross receipts to salaries and office expenses, we 
spend thus 48 per cent. 
Various causes have been assigned for this difference between the 
two Associations. The small membership and attendance at the 
53 
