bition for victory may supplant altruistic ambition for the in- 
crease of knowledge, that paltry bickering may sully the honor 
and dignity of leseaich. If the man who opposes our opinion 
is an invisible author, or if we meet him only in the arena of 
discussion, we are pione to be warped in our judgment and sus- 
pect that his attire conceals a cloven hoof and a barbed tail. 
But if we know him not merely as a rival but also as a man, we 
can usually satisfy ourselves that his anatomy is normal and 
inoffensive. It is a prime function of the American Association 
for the Advancement of Science, fully recognized by its leaders, 
that it brings men into personal relations and thus promotes 
mutual appreciation. It is a prime function of the Cosmos Club 
to bind the scientific men of Washington by a social tie and thus 
promote that solidarity which is important to their proper work 
and influence. The world but imperfectly realizes that its prog- 
ress in civilization is absolutely dependent on science, and Gov- 
ernment endowment of research is yet limited, and too often 
thwarted, by a lack of understanding and appreciation. The 
influence of our scientific corps — an influence of national and 
more than national extent — is strong in proportion as it is united, 
and it suffers from every jealousy and needless antagonism. 
There are no scales by which a social influence may be weighed. 
There is no logic by which the credit for a moral result can be 
fairly apportioned to its causes. But I fear no dispute in saying 
that su spici on, j ealousy , and dissension were comparatively ch ar- 
acteiistic of the scientific body of Washington a quarter century 
ago, and that mutual appreciation, good will, and support are 
comparatively characteristic of the greatly enlarged scientific 
body of to-day. And I hold that the share of the Cosmos Club 
m the working of this change has counted for more in the promo- 
tion of science than has its hospitality to the associations that 
meet under its roof. 
In passing now from the service the Club renders science to 
the service it renders the individual scientist, I feel that I must 
tread gently, for the ground is tender. Let me begin with the 
truism that in each profession are men of high culture and men 
of inferior Culture, men who possess the clubbable quality and 
men who lack it. Oui Club was projected by men of a single 
profession, science, and it was by their invitation that men of 
culture in other professions took part in the organization. At 
an early stage the door was opened wide to the members of the 
Philosophical Society, then our only important scientific asso- 
ciation, but credentials were demanded from all others. The 
principle thus established has never been abandoned, and the 
standard of admissions has always been higher for candidates 
outside the scientific field than for those within it. The door 
has yielded somewhat easily to the touch of the scientist but 
has resisted the push of the doctor, the lawyer, the man of busi- 
ness, or the man of leisure unless his personal desire was rein- 
forced by the possession of high culture and clubbability. 
Thus it has come to pass that we of the scientific contingent 
have been able to contribute less of social advantage than we 
have received. We have come in almost unsorted, the refined 
and the crude, the apt and the less apt, the socially skilled and 
the shy, and we have chosen our associates with all the skill we 
could command. It is barely possible that we have “made 
good” in some other way — I hope we have — but, whatever may 
be thought as to that, there can be no question that our own 
outlook has been broadened, our angles have been rounded, our 
conceit has been moderated, and in general we have been human- 
ized by the good society we have enjoyed. I would not carry 
a metaphor too far, but there would be a measure of truth in the 
figure if we should call the present occasion a silver wedding of 
Science and Culture. 
