SCIENCE. 



FEIDAY, AUGUST 15, 1884. 



COMMENT AND CRITICISM. 



A marked feature of recent scientific work 

 is the tendenc}' to international co-operation. 

 Problems too large to be undertaken by a single 

 institution, or even by one nation, are thus 

 successfully solved. Two examples suggest 

 themselves. The first of these is the largest 

 piece of astronomical work yet undertaken. 

 Since 1870 a dozen observatories have been 

 actively engaged in preparing a catalogue of 

 about a hundred thousand stars in the northern 

 hemisphere, a part of the sky being assigned 

 to each observatory. The Greely expedition 

 recalls the second example. This was one of 

 a dozen expeditions fitted out by various 

 governments to secure simultaneous meteoro- 

 logical observations for one year at different 

 points within the arctic circle. Other examples 

 might be added, all tending to show that co- 

 operation is likely to yield results of lasting 

 value. 



We have on several occasions called atten- 

 tion editorially, or through *our contributors, 

 to the advantages likely to follow the organiza- 

 tion of an international scientific association 

 properly formed ; and the responses which have 

 come to a recent appeal are to-day referred to 

 in our notes. Besides the inspiration the indi- 

 vidual members would gain from attendance 

 at its sessions, such a society would inspire 

 great confidence in the work that it might un- 

 dertake. It would then become comparatively 

 easy to secure proper means for investigation. 

 Observers, too, would be much more willing 

 to aid in a research in which there was little 

 danger of needless duplication. 



A correspondent calls our attention to the 

 omission of the Henry Draper medal in our 

 brief list of honors founded in this country for 

 scientific research. Both this and the Watson 

 medal were overlooked ; as we were under the 



No. 80. — 1884. 



impression that the gifts of Mrs. Draper and 

 Professor Watson were wholly in aid of. rather 

 than as rewards for, research. This last is 

 the case in part with the Watson fund, the in- 

 come of which is directed to be expended ' for 

 the promotion of astronomical science. ' But 

 in making the National academy of sciences his 

 residuary legatee, Mr. Watson also provided 

 that a gold medal of the value of one hundred 

 dollars, with a further gratuity of one hundred 

 dollars, should be given " from time to time 

 to the person in any countay who shall make 

 any astronomical discovery, or produce any as- 

 tronomical work, worthy of reward, and con- 

 tributing to our science." The fund is of 

 recent date, and no award of the medal has yet 

 been made ; but a part of the expenses of the 

 eclipse expedition to Caroline Island was paid 

 from the fund. 



The fund given by Mrs. Draper to the na- 

 tional academy, to commemorate one of its 

 members, the late Dr. Henry Draper, is also 

 very recent, and no award has }~et been made. 

 A gold medal of the value of two hundred 

 dollars is to be awarded, not oftener than even- 

 two years, ' to any person in the United States 

 of America, or elsewhere ' (with preference, 

 other things being equal, to an American). 

 ' who shall make an original investigation in 

 astronomical physics ' meriting such an award. 

 This award, like the Lawrence Smith medal. 

 can be given only for investigations made or 

 published since the last preceding award. 



One is tempted to speculate on the compar- 

 ative value of funds given in direct aid of 

 scientific research, and of medals or gratuities 

 rewarding successful discovery or searching- 

 investigation. The former, as the endowment 

 of research, must surely produce the more 

 immediate practical results ; while the latter 

 signalize the victories of science, and, when 

 properly administered, direct public attention 

 to what is of true value. But in the probable 



