158 The American Naturalist. [February, 
EDITORIAL. 
EDITORS, E. D. COPE AND J. S. KINGSLEY. 
bia press has taken hold of a question of vital interest to the 
science of this country, which too many of the scientific 
men themselves have been unwilling to touch. The New York 
Herald of Sunday, the 12th Jan., contains an exposition of some 
abuses which have been for a long time an open secret among 
the geologists and paleontologists of the country. It is unfortu- 
nate for the reputation of some of our scientific men that they 
have neglected the matter so long that its adjudication has now 
passed into the hands of the public. The matter should have 
been quietly disposed of among themselves, but it has now gone 
before a wider tribunal, in which the susceptibilities of individuals 
will be less considered. The question of scientific honesty and 
scientific property is at stake, and it is strange that scientific men 
everywhere in the country have not perceived that the personal 
reputation of every scientific man in the country is involved in 
the toleration of a state of affairs such as is described in the above 
mentioned interview. 
The facts are now well known. A wealthy man who desires 
to pursue a scientific career, finding the labor of doing so dis- 
tasteful, and the solution of the questions involved inconveniently 
difficult, employs a number of “assistants.” It turns out that 
these assistants are not only expected to do the mechanical and 
clerical work necessary to the pursuit of original research, but 
also to perform the research itself, and to commit the results to 
paper. The manuscript thus obtained is issued by a reputable 
scientific journal, and by the United States Geological Surveys, 
as the work of the employer of these assistants, his name ap- 
pearing on the title page, and credit for the authorship of the 
published contents being assumed by him. 
We do not hesitate to say (and in so doing we express the 
opinion of a majority of scientific men), that while this mode of 
advancing scientific knowledge may be successful, it is disrepu- 
table and fraudulent. However, it is probable that there is no 
’ 
