limber 6 
 
 Price 25 cents 
 
 EPRINT AND CIRCULAR SERIES 
 
 OF THE 
 
 NATIONAL RESEARCH 
 COUNCIL 
 
 THE DEVELOPMENT OF RESEARCH IN THE 
 UNITED STATES 
 
 By James Rowland Angell 
 
 of the University of Chicago and the 
 National Research Council 
 
 Liblished in the Proceedings of the Thirty-third Annual Convention of the 
 Association of American Agricultural Colleges and Experiment 
 Stations, Chicago, Illinois, November, 1919, pages 84-97
 
 Announcement Concerning Publications 
 
 of the 
 National Research Council 
 
 The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 
 
 nas been designated as the official organ of the National Research 
 Council for the publication of accounts of research, committee and 
 other reports, and minutes. 
 
 Subscription rate for the "Proceedings" is $5 per year. Business 
 address: Home Secretary, National Academy of Sciences, Smith- 
 sonian Institution, Washington, D. C. 
 
 The Bulletin of the National Research Council 
 
 presents contributions from the National Research Council, other 
 than proceedings, for which hitherto no appropriate agencies of 
 publication have existed. 
 
 The "Bulletin" is published at irregular intervals. The sub- 
 scription price, postpaid, is $5 per volume of approximately 500 
 pages. Numbers of the "Bulletin" are sold separately at prices 
 based upon the cost of manufacture (for list of bulletins see third 
 cover page). 
 
 The Reprint and Circular Series of the National Research 
 
 Council 
 
 renders available for purchase, at prices dependent upon the cost 
 of manufacture, papers published or printed by or for the National 
 Research Council (for list of reprints and circulars see third cover 
 page). 
 
 Orders for the "Bulletin" or the "Reprints and Circulars" of the 
 National Research Council, accompanied by remittance, should be 
 addressed: Publication Office, National Research Council, 1201 
 Sixteenth Street, Washington, D. C.
 
 The Development of Research in the 
 United States 
 
 By 
 
 JAMES ROWLAND ANGELL 
 
 of the University of Chicago and the 
 National Research Council 
 
 An Address delivered before the Association of Land- Grant 
 Colleges at Chicago, November 13, 1919 
 
 I. THE NATIONAL OBLIGATION TO FOSTER RESEARCH 
 
 Among the many lessons which the war taught us, few have made a 
 deeper impression upon the public mind than that of the part played by 
 science and technology in the prosecution of any of the great undertakings 
 of modern life, and, for that matter, in the maintenance of the social order 
 itself. That the United States has been backward in these directions was 
 common knowledge to the experts, but was not suspected by the rank and 
 file. In a general way it had long been a subject of comment that the Ger- 
 mans had succeeded in exploiting scientific research for the improvement 
 of their industry and agriculture to a degree unrivalled by other countries. 
 But with the outbreak of the war the crushing efficiency of the many new 
 technical devices of the German army lent added emphasis of the most 
 dramatic character to the appreciation of what had in that country been 
 accomplished in these lines. 
 
 When the United States was drawn into the war one of the first prob- 
 lems which presented itself was the securing of the necessary number of 
 scientific experts to organize and direct the tremendous technical enter- 
 prises which had promptly to be put on foot. Instantly, it became apparent 
 that not only were we backward in the utilization of scientific methods 
 and intelligence in the solution of our economic, social, agricultural and 
 industrial problems, but also that we had no definite knowledge of where 
 the personnel required to deal with the new scientific issues could be found. 
 In other words, there had never been occasion for any general mobilization 
 of our scientific resources, and we were accordingly obliged to start at the 
 very beginning. One of the first tasks to which the National Research 
 Council set its face was precisely this gathering together of competent men, 
 bringing together the job and the man wherever possible. Most of these 
 men were promptly swallowed up in one or another of the government or- 
 ganizations, chiefly those of the War and Navy Departments. But the 
 lesson taught by this war-time experience will not be soon forgotten, and 
 it is part of the peace-time program of the National Research Council to 
 establish in perpetuity arrangements whereby there will be in some sense 
 a permanent mobilization of the scientific ability of the country, to be 
 directed in times of peace to the social, industrial and governmental neces- 
 sities of such periods, and to be instantly available in case of a future war 
 for the purposes of national defence. 
 
 Reprinted from the Proceedings of the Thirty-third Convention, 
 Association of American Agricultural Colleges and Experiment Stations, 
 pa^es 84 to 102.
 
 While the war brought forth the most pressing demand for mere 
 technicians in quantities never before dreamed of, and while the War 
 Department struggled with a high degree of success to produce quickly the 
 necessary number, and the necessary quality in these men, the more im- 
 portant lesson for our permanent interests in times of peace was the extent 
 to which the demand was felt for men capable of carrying on research 
 whether in the way of improving old methods, devices and apparatus, or 
 in the way of devising wholly new methods. At the declaration of the 
 armistice, practically every scientist possessed of any capacities for research 
 found himself taken up in one way or another into the great national 
 machine where he was called upon to make some contribution to the in- 
 numerable problems presented by the war. Nothing can be more certain 
 than that the character and rapidity of our national development in all 
 matters which relate to industry, agriculture, public health and the preserva- 
 tion of the physical framework of our civilization will be dependent upon 
 the quantity and quality of sound research which is carried on. The truth 
 of this assertion becomes even more apparent when one recognizes the fact 
 that every modern nation stands in relations of industrial and commercial 
 competition with other nations; and in the measure in which this is true, to 
 fall notably behind the others in scientific development is to precipitate a 
 trend of events which spells national depression and disaster. In other 
 words, the price of a sound, progressive, national life is in these times 
 widespread and intelligent scientific research. 
 
 It is to be recalled in this connection that Great Britain and her 
 dominions, Italy, and Japan, have all set about to solve this problem through 
 government subvention, and France is said to be contemplating a similar 
 move. Now it is to be recognized with full appreciation that in recent 
 years both Federal and State Governments have made substantial con- 
 tributions for purposes of research, particularly in agriculture, engineer- 
 ing, and the industrial arts. The sum total of such appropriations for 
 1919-20 I have no means of giving with precision, but so far as I can dis- 
 cover, it runs up to at least $10,000,000. All this is hopeful and indicative 
 of an open-minded and progressive spirit. Such shortcomings as it exhibits 
 are largely incidental to the administrative conceptions under which such 
 legislation is sometimes carried out. There has perhaps been temptation to 
 put undue emphasis upon immediate practical and local issues, some of 
 them intrinsically trivial, rather than upon the more fundamental and far- 
 reaching forms of inquiry; but it would be very unfair to criticize in any 
 carping spirit a movement dictated by motives of so sound and generous 
 a character, and one whose duration has been so brief as to afford rela- 
 tively little opportunity for improvement through experience, the only 
 means by which reliable knowledge can be gained. Certainly the national 
 character of the obligation to foster research, both in pure and applied 
 science, as widely as our resources will permit, cannot be called in question 
 by any thoughtful observer of the present trend in the development of 
 civilization, and it is essential in this connection that we conceive of research 
 as the organized technique of science itself for its own propagation. It 
 is, so to speak, the reproductive process of science. To think of it, as is 
 often done, as a mere addendum to science, as a sort of luxury of the 
 scientific idle rich, is fundamentally and perniciously false.
 
 More specifically, this obligation to foster research means, first, the 
 providing for a greatly enlarged personnel with much better fundamental 
 training than is at present available. It means, second, the securing of the 
 necessary facilities of laboratories, apparatus, and all the physical con- 
 veniences that are involved in scientific work. It means, third, the pro- 
 curing of sufficient freedom from other duties to permit research workers 
 to give their full and undivided attention throughout such periods as may 
 be necessary to the completion of their research undertakings. 
 
 It may contribute to a just estimate of the problem which confronts us 
 in this country to survey briefly the conspicuous characteristics of the 
 major agencies available for the conduct of research.* These I take to be: 
 
 (1) Experiment stations of the Federal and State Governments, 
 
 (2) Federal scientific bureaus, 
 
 (3) Research foundations including museums, 
 
 (4) Industrial laboratories, 
 
 (5) Educational institutions. 
 
 We may consider them in this order. 
 
 II. RESEARCH IN EXPERIMENT STATIONS 
 
 When the State and Federal Governments first established experiment 
 stations which were, so far as I am aware, chiefly devoted at the outset to 
 agricultural interests, there was great hope that they would become centers 
 of the most far-reaching research. Many of them have indeed accomplished 
 work of the very highest quality, but as time has gone on not a few if I 
 may trust report have found themselves increasingly swamped with mere 
 routine detail of a kind which represents, to be sure, a very real public 
 service, but not one which is in any sense directly of a research character. 
 Probably no one will question the desirability of circulating as widely as 
 possible in a potato-raising district any new information regarding the best 
 methods of combating the enterprising potato bug, but it may certainly be 
 questioned whether it is a wise expenditure of the energy of a man com- 
 petent to carry on fundamental research in entomology to permit his time 
 to be monopolized by individual correspondence with farmers desiring en- 
 lightenment on the familiar pests of their own district. In other words, 
 there has come to be some appreciable and unfortunate confusion of pur- 
 poses, due in part to the very success of the experiment station, whereby 
 its function as an essentially educational institution, disseminating useful 
 knowledge, has come to be confused with its function as a device for in- 
 vestigation and the procurement of new knowledge. The issue is in some 
 sense parallel with that in our universities where there is constantly in 
 progress an active conflict between the obligations of instruction and those 
 of research. The needs of each must be consulted, but neither must be 
 allowed to stifle the other. 
 
 Moreover, with the growth of certain of our experiment stations there 
 has arisen a lack of coordination between their several divisions which 
 materially diminishes the value and the possibilities of their scientific out- 
 put. Nowhere perhaps is the actual opportunity for scientific cooperation 
 
 I am not unmindful of the many scientists, such as state geologists, health 
 officers, etc., working under state auspices, nor of the unattached Individual 
 scientists In various parts of the country. But. I have Intended to stress here 
 Imply the specific institutions In which research Is of exclusive or considerable 
 interest.
 
 more obvious and yet if again I may trust report there is too often a 
 practical isolation of the work of one division from that of another, with a 
 resultant loss in the scientific productivity of the plant. Whether these 
 difficulties, where they exist, are wholly remediable by a more thoughtful 
 and effective organization at the head, or whether they are at present in- 
 digenous to the theory of the experiment station itself, I do not know. To 
 an outsider, however, it would not seem an insoluble problem to hit upon 
 devices which would assure frequent conference and intimate cooperation 
 on the part of the personnel of the several divisions of such stations. That 
 a station should be administered substantially as a scientific unit, if it is 
 to achieve its maximal scientific productivity, would seem almost axiomatic. 
 It is also reported that the stations conduct their work in too complete 
 isolation from one another, and that profitable opportunities for coopera- 
 tion are often neglected. If this be true, it should certainly be remedied 
 as promptly as possible. 
 
 RESEARCH IN GOVERNMENT BUREAUS 
 
 The conditions in the scientific bureaus of the Federal Government are 
 said to differ widely from department to department. Taken as a whole, 
 the productivity of these groups has been most creditable, but again, just 
 as in the case of the experiment stations, certain of them have been deluged 
 with the obligations of routine detail connected with the dissemination of 
 knowledge, with a consequent diminishment of their research productivity 
 which has at times been most lamentable. Furthermore, as in the case of 
 the experiment stations, assuming that current report may have some 
 foundation in fact, there has in certain instances been not only absence of 
 satisfactory cooperation as between the subdivisions of a given department, 
 but there has also been a somewhat complete isolation of the bureaus of 
 one department from those of another. I need not pause to describe the 
 peculiar Washington conditions which have led to this regrettable result. I 
 fancy I betray no secret, however, when I say that in general the traditional 
 attitude of the several departments to one another has not been one of 
 active cooperation. One need not be a wholly impractical idealist, nor 
 totally oblivious to the fundamental interests of the departments as such, 
 to regard this situation, so far as it is thus correctly described, as intrin- 
 sically unwholesome and probably unnecessary. It must certainly result in 
 preventing to some extent the maximal research productivity of the federal 
 bureaus. It is only fair to say that during the war conditions in this 
 respect were markedly improved, and it may be hoped that with the re- 
 sumption of peace-time conditons the lessons taught by the war may not 
 be wholly forgotten. 
 
 The bureaus rightly enjoy, in some cases, splendid financial resources 
 and an unrivaled prestige in the public confidence. On the other hand, it 
 would be a piece of obstinate disregard of fact to overlook certain limita- 
 tions under which their research work is carried on. For, once more, as in 
 the case of the experiment stations, the bureaus are apt to be subjected 
 from time to time to irresistible pressure to deal primarily with issues of 
 apparently immediate practical consequence. It is proper and inevitable 
 that a large part of their energy should be thus directed. Public support 
 could hardly be otherwise commanded, and work of this character is urgent 
 and essential. Now, it is well understood that as a byproduct of such
 
 practical experimentation, scientific results of the most fundamental char- 
 acter are occasionally achieved. But, in general, it can be predicted with 
 certainty that the great far-reaching contributions, running out in in- 
 numerable practical directions and valuable for generations to come, are 
 the results of research in pure science carried on without any regard to 
 immediate practical consequences. I would be furthest from implying that 
 such research is not conducted in government bureaus. I merely remark 
 that the almost inevitable tendency is in the other direction, and that in 
 so far as this is true, the Nation fails to secure the largest possible returns 
 from its scientific staff. Moreover, there are necessarily thrown about the 
 expenditure of funds for government work certain arbitrary restrictions 
 which arise again and again to hamper the efficiency of the scientific pro- 
 cedure. I will not say that these restrictions are inevitable under the 
 conditions of congressional appropriation of funds, but I am reasonably 
 certain that they are not likely to be wholly eliminated in any immediate 
 future. From this point of view, private agencies, in many fields of work 
 at least, enjoy a decided advantage. 
 
 RESEARCH FOUNDATIONS 
 
 I should include under this heading not only institutions such as the 
 Rockefeller Institute and the Mellon Institute, but also certain of our 
 great museums, which possess funds available from time to time for strictly 
 research work. 
 
 These institutions, when effectively manned and intelligently admin- 
 istered, are extremely productive, both in fields of pure and of applied 
 science. They are in a position to bring together groups of carefully 
 selected experts, who can be surrounded with the best of laboratory facili- 
 ties, and can be given complete freedom from every competing interest. 
 The output of such institutions affords already convincing evidence of 
 scientific achievements of the most valuable kind. There has been some 
 disposition to urge that the great mass of the research work of the country 
 should be carried on in institutes of this character. Despite their undoubted 
 advantages in many directions, they are very costly to administer, and a 
 good bit of their attractiveness and efficiency would be lost if they were 
 compelled to operate under the conditions of state or federal stations, 
 which is the only alternative when private resources fail. It is probably 
 too early to judge with confidence regarding certain of their limitations, 
 but there is some reason to think that there are relatively few men of the 
 research type who work to best advantage in conditions of so considerable 
 isolation as commonly exists in these institutes. The institutes are more 
 or less specialized, and one of the great and impressive lessons which the 
 war has taught us concerns the unexpected relationships which develop out 
 of the pursuit of any of the larger scientific problems. A study which 
 begins as a modest investigation of a zoological problem has presently run 
 out into botany, physics, chemistry, meteorology, and goodness know what 
 else. There are some advantages, therefore, for the fundamental research 
 man, if he may find himself in a community containing a wide variety of 
 scientific interests.
 
 RESEARCH IN INDUSTRIAL LABORATORIES 
 
 This group is for the most part concerned in the very nature of the 
 case with immediate practical issues, although some of the larger industries, 
 particularly those dealing with electrical problems, have already discovered 
 the potential value of research in pure science. 
 
 There is substantially no limit to the extent to which research in these 
 organizations can be carried, for it is almost wholly a matter of organiza- 
 tion and selection of a trained personnel. American industry has, as com- 
 pared with German industry at least, and even with some portion of British 
 industry, been astonishingly backward. As will be indicated at a later 
 point, the National Research Council is making the development of research 
 in the industries one of its principal fields of activity. Perhaps the most 
 serious limitation in the administration of these research laboratories at 
 present, apart from their dominant concern for immediate practical issues, 
 is the extent to which in some organizations the individual scientist is kept 
 out of contact with the work of his fellows in their attack upon difficulties 
 of industrial or manufacturing procedure. Such isolation is at times de- 
 manded in the supposed interest of preserving trade secrets; at times it 
 is a mere byproduct of the form in which the research work is organized. 
 In either case, it tends to detract somewhat both from the interest and the 
 dignity of the occupation, and, at least in the long run, to detract also from 
 the rapidity of scientific advance. The attitude of mind generated in a 
 scientist working in a laboratory of this type is necessarily somewhat hostile 
 to that which has now become traditional in other fields of research. The 
 obligation to give publicity to new discoveries in science is everywhere else 
 held to be mandatory. Here the obligation is of a precisely opposite char- 
 acter, and the scientist is brought face to face with the anthithesis between 
 the supposed financial interests of his employer and the interests of his 
 competitors and of the general public. 
 
 RESEARCH IN EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS 
 
 The colleges, technical schools, and universities of the country sustain 
 a double relation to the research enterprises of the Nation. On the one 
 hand, in these institutions, and particularly the last named, there has been 
 conducted throughout the last generation far the larger part of the re- 
 search in pure science, with a very considerable representation of research 
 in applied science in technical institutions and the professional departments 
 of the universities. On the other hand, these institutions are at present 
 the sole source from which is derived the trained personnel from which the 
 remaining research agencies are recruited. In dealing with the problem 
 of research in such institutions, this double function must be kept con- 
 stantly in mind. Not only are we under obligation to safeguard and im- 
 prove the conditions of research itself, but also, and in perhaps greater 
 measure, to look to the conditions under which the highest class of re- 
 search men can be produced. Both quantity and quality must be improved. 
 
 It is a matter of common knowledge that the most serious limitation of 
 the research productivity of these institutions is occasioned by the over- 
 whelming burden of classroom instruction which many of the men are 
 obliged to carry. Such classroom work is not only destructive to research 
 because of the sheer intellectual and physical fatigue which it occasions,
 
 but also, and perhaps more significantly, because of the interruption to at- 
 tention and the close observation of critical phenomena which it compels. 
 In some fortunate institutions provision has been made for considerable 
 periods of uninterrupted research work, and again, in certain other institu- 
 tions men can so arrange their teaching duties as to secure freedom in 
 certain portions of each week. But, in general, university research is carried 
 on in the interstices of other duties, and the only wonder is that so much 
 of it is produced, and that on the whole it is of so respectable a character. 
 
 Again, many institutions in this group are seriously limited in the 
 physical facilities which they are able to put at the disposal of their men. 
 Much admirable research has thus been crippled at the very outset. 
 
 In the training of personnel the same difficulties recur, with the added 
 difficulty, now much aggravated by the prodigious increase in the cost of 
 life, that the research career is even less attractive than in the immediate 
 past. The Nation must be aroused to a full appreciation of all that this 
 implies in the decadence of our position in the scientific and industrial world. 
 So far from being in a position successfully to survive a decrease in this 
 personnel, we need a very great increase in the number and a great advance 
 in the quality of the men entering upon this career. The answer is obvious, 
 even simple i. e., salaries for research men must be very materially increased, 
 the conditions of work must be made intrinsically far more attractive and, 
 if possible, there must be secured a larger and more intelligent public appre- 
 ciation of the social contribution made by the successful investigator. 
 
 One serious shortcoming of the research functions of educational in- 
 stitutions as at present administered is the substantially complete lack of 
 any rational program for dividing among themselves the field of research. 
 Many institutions have as a consequence of this fact been tempted into the 
 effort to develop research in many lines of work which they ought never to 
 have undertaken. State institutions in particular are often exposed to 
 pressure, which they find it difficult to resist, to set up new departments, 
 many of them implying research as part of their work, where such depart- 
 ments are in no educational sense at all justified. There must certainly be 
 a careful study of this situation with at least informal cooperation among 
 the universities, if we are in any degree to reap the largest harvest from 
 our research possibilities. To multiply indefinitely the same type of re- 
 search work in an unlimited number of institutions condemns us at once 
 to a most wasteful expenditure, both for material and personnel, with no 
 possible corresponding advantage. 
 
 This sketch of the research facilities of the country makes no pretense 
 of being exhaustive, but it may at least serve to indicate the major groups 
 of agencies, and something of the peculiar circumstances under which re- 
 search is conducted in each of them. My purpose has been to suggest the 
 very varied conditions which exist in order to make clear that any funda- 
 mental program directed to the improvement of our national efficiency in 
 all this matter must take constant account of the complexity of the problem 
 and provide for such methods as the exigencies of each group may require.
 
 III. ORGANIZATION AND COOPERATION IN RESEARCH 
 
 It is a not infrequent remark, and one which I believe to be measurably 
 just, that science despite its magnification of method has never seriously 
 worked out the method of its own organization. For the most part, it has 
 thus far rested on individual initiative and on such loose forms of coopera- 
 tion as are based upon the magnetic or coercive personality of some one 
 scientific man. Assuredly, nobody expects to achieve a system of scientific 
 progress which will in any sense be independent of the presence of com- 
 manding intellects; but it is equally certain that scientific men have as yet 
 only achieved the most elementary beginnings of the organization of scien- 
 tific interests. Indeed, it has been something of a fetish among scientists 
 that we must rely upon individual inspiration and initiative, and that the 
 individual worker must be safeguarded in every possible way from the 
 corroding influence of administrative organization. It has unfortunately 
 been generally assumed that an organization which interests itself in re- 
 search will inevitably exercise such a depressive influence on the research 
 worker. This I believe to be essentially untrue in theory, and I am at the 
 moment connected with an organization which is directing all its energies 
 to proving it untrue in fact. No doubt there will always be wide ranges 
 of scientific work where the individual must toil more or less alone, but on 
 the other hand, no one who has thoughtfully contemplated the conditions 
 under which modern science does its work can have failed to be impressed 
 with the innumerable unimproved opportunities for cooperation. 
 
 In the first place, we have, through processes which I need not stop to 
 describe, parceled out the field of knowledge to a great group of sciences 
 each of which is, perhaps not unnaturally, disposed to claim supreme juris- 
 diction over its own bit of territory. The world of science has thus come to 
 present somewhat the appearance of an English landscape with its checker- 
 board effect of small fields set off Trom one another by high, impenetrable 
 hedges. To one who toils inside such a field, the universe is limited by his 
 own hedge-row, and inside it he desires to be left in peace to cultivate his 
 crop as best may suit him. The parable has of course its element of ex- 
 aggeration, but it is unfortunately not so much exaggerated as one might 
 wish, and there are not a few scientists whose thought and speech would 
 seem to indicate an amazing lack of appreciation of the intellectual con- 
 text of their own. work. 
 
 The actual fact, of course, is that the dividing lines of science are, like 
 the hedge-row, in large measure arbitrary and practical, and consequently 
 subject to persistent modification. Practically speaking, chemistry and 
 physics are profitably conducted as separate sciences, and yet they overlap 
 and impinge upon one another in ways which have already created the 
 border science of physical chemistry. Botany and zoology have similar 
 relationships. Chemistry and physiology are neighbors of the most intimate 
 kind. Psychology and neurology can hardly get along the one without the 
 other. And so it goes. Now under the present organization of science or 
 lack of it there is no localized responsibility for bringing together in co- 
 operative enterprises research workers occupying fields that are thus con- 
 vergent or overlapping. There is genuine need for such cooperative work 
 
 The subjects discussed in the remaining sections of this paper were touched 
 upon in similar form in an address before the Association of American Univer- 
 sities at the meeting held November 7, 1919, at Columbus, Ohio.
 
 9 
 
 in many different directions and one of the first obligations of any method 
 adopted to further the general interests of scientific research must be the 
 providing for investigations which shall thus bring together the scientists 
 now occupying neighboring but distinct fields. 
 
 Obviously organization in research must involve something substantially 
 different from organization in enterprises of other kinds, for example, war, 
 industry, sport, and exploration. Organization, I take it, looks primarily 
 to the efficient mustering of all the resources available for a given under- 
 taking, and as the ends desired vary, so do the means for their attainment. 
 In war, the individuality of the private soldier must be in large measure 
 subordinated to the conception of the high command, and while any ideas 
 he may have to offer may theoretically be received, in practice his initiative 
 is reduced close to the zero point through the larger part of his service. 
 Obedience, rather than initiative, is the first military virtue. Similarly in 
 industry, ideas are desired and generally encouraged, but nevertheless in 
 the stress of the day's work, each individual workman must play his pre- 
 viously assigned part, play it promptly and without debate, become in short 
 a cog in the great machine; otherwise production is blocked and economic 
 disaster may be the result. Initiative and ingenuity are essential at the 
 top of the organization. Moreover, ideas supplied from workers at any 
 level of the process are in progressive industries welcome, but the actual 
 application of them to the procedure in hand must ordinarily come from 
 above and the individual unit in the machine must function more or less 
 mechanically. 
 
 Evidently organization in research calls for quite a different distribu- 
 tion of effort. Individual initiative, resourcefulness, ingenuity, imagination, 
 vision, must be kept at a high pitch all along the line. Here we are not 
 concerned with quantity production of a stereotyped product, of which the 
 hundred-thousandth specimen shall exactly resemble the first. On the con- 
 trary, the product is in some sense constantly varied and unless it prove to 
 be varied, the process has failed of its purpose, has degenerated into mere 
 hack work, or has been based on essentially mistaken principles. On the 
 other hand, the conception not infrequently entertained that the research 
 man is necessarily the genius working in seclusion is essentially untrue to 
 most of the facts. Many a genius works in seclusion and all research men 
 must be free to work undisturbed at the task in hand ; but there are many 
 forms of scientific problems whose solution is essential to the modern world, 
 which are so complex that no one scientist is equipped to deal with them 
 single-handed. Either they must wait for their solution upon the accidental 
 arousal of interest in the appropriate group, or there must be some definite 
 purposeful cooperation established. The great fundamental discoveries 
 may perhaps, as a rule, await the wholly spontaneous efforts of the great 
 genius, but many discoveries of the utmost value to humanity have come 
 from the somewhat accidental observations of men of essentially moderate 
 talents. And not only so, but a very large fraction of the progress in our 
 scientific knowledge in the last 50 years has come not from the work of 
 the occasional genius, but from the hard, persistent, thoughtful investiga- 
 tions of men who would never be classed as geniuses in any ordinary sense, 
 but rather as trained men of large native ability. This group of men are 
 more often than not, eager for those forms of contact with other scientific 
 workers which shall enlarge their own outlook upon the problems with whicl
 
 10 
 
 they are engaged and which shall enable them to pursue more effectively 
 their individual researches. For such men betterment of the machinery of 
 scientific cooperation and the dissemination of useful scientific information 
 involves not only no invasion of their individual initiative, but often is the 
 condition of its successful expression. 
 
 To put it in slightly different form, and at the risk of repetition, one 
 may say that a fairly prevalent conception of research associates it with 
 the somewhat mystical intellectual operations of the genius, or "near-genius," 
 to tamper with which is a kind of profanation. In this view one must 
 simply wait upon the deliverances of fate. To attempt to assist by any 
 devices of organization is futile. As a matter of fact, large areas of the most 
 needed research lie in territory where properly trained men of talent, given 
 proper conditions of work, may produce constantly and in increasing 
 measure results of the utmost consequence. But one of the conditions of 
 maximal efficiency is that they shall work inside the framework of a gen- 
 eral program in which there is intelligent cooperation in the allocation of 
 the field and in the constant communication of results achieved. Such 
 distribution of responsibility and effort is entirely consonant with the fullest 
 actual initiative which any scientist can desire. No one compels him to 
 investigate where he does not desire so to do, but by a centralized device 
 for planning, he can make his effort count for far more than when he works 
 wholly alone. This is as true of the zones of pure science as it is of the 
 regions of applied science where organization is often thought of as less 
 foreign to the ends sought. Indeed in the research laboratories of a few 
 of the great industries such cooperation has produced the most remarkable 
 results. 
 
 Even if organization in research meant no more than thoughtful dis- 
 cussion and planning among a group of men engaged in the same lines of 
 work, it would be immensely worth while. For example, here are a dozen 
 forestry experts in position to determine the research problems which 
 shall be first attacked by the staffs of a dozen different organizations. If 
 there be no contact among them, they may all decide to start upon exactly 
 the same problem, or upon utterly disconnected problems. Undoubtedly, 
 some excellent results may emerge under such conditions. And yet nothing 
 is more certain than that the energies of the entire company could have 
 been invested to far better purpose with much less of wasted effort had 
 there been intelligent planning before work began. There is abundant 
 practical experience to justify this conclusion. Repeatedly it has occurred 
 that men working in entire ignorance of what others in their field were 
 doing have traversed the same ground and with results which in no wise 
 justified the wasted effort. 
 
 But as a matter of fact, organization in research means much more 
 than this. Many highly important projects, as we have observed before, 
 involve for their execution the converging efforts of men in different fields 
 of science, and in applied science in particular. The agencies interested 
 in improvement of methods must at times come together to set in motion 
 the necessary research work, or it will not get done. Furthermore, the 
 technique for the prompt and convenient dissemination of information re- 
 garding discoveries in research is at present lamentably imperfect, and we 
 shall never capitalize our scientific energies at anything like their full value 
 until this condition is removed.
 
 11 
 
 Cooperation in research may be profitably developed, first, as between 
 scientists working upon related problems in the same general field say 
 physics; second, as between scientists in different but adjacent fields 
 e. g., chemistry and biology; third, as between scientists in different coun- 
 tries, where such cooperation is often essential to success; fourth, as be- 
 tween agencies like the industries requiring the benefits of research; fifth, 
 as between organizations, e. g., government bureaus, experiment stations, 
 and universities; and sixth, by improvements in methods of rendering 
 easily accessible information regarding scientific discoveries. 
 
 As practical illustrations of the type of thing we have in mind may 
 be mentioned certain of the problems of public health; for example, sewage 
 disposal presents a question in which the organic chemist, the colloid 
 chemist, and the sanitary engineer are all necesarily involved. The National 
 Research Council has secured the services of a very representative com- 
 mitttee to study the fundamental problems of food and nutrition, a prob- 
 lem which in this same way represents the combined interests of a consider- 
 able group of sciences. The successful solution of the problem cannot be 
 reached without the cooperation of men representing these distinct but 
 related fields of science. One of the most promising ranges of contem- 
 porary research is in that borderline group of problems in which the 
 biologist, the chemist, and the medical scientist find their interests con- 
 verging. A physiological chemist, however learned he may be, is compelled 
 to turn from time to time for scientific assistance to one or other specialist 
 in this group of neighboring sciences. Indeed, it is practically impossible 
 to pitch upon any problem in modern life whose complete solution does not 
 involve an appeal to several lines of scientific approach. In certain cases, 
 through more or less happy accident, the required scientific cooperation is 
 easily secured, but in many instances there has been no adequate provision 
 for securing such combined attack. 
 
 Again, within the field of any one of the great sciences, there is op- 
 portunity for a kind of cooperation in research which has never been 
 undertaken on any large scale and which can, if properly stimulated and 
 guided, produce results of the highest consequence. For example, there 
 is at the present moment being considered by the National Research Coun- 
 cil a nation-wide investigation of the problem of reforestration such as no 
 extant single agency can hopefully attack. Similarly, it is hoped to study 
 the problems of soil fertilizers in different regions of the country by means 
 of cooperative effort in a considerable group of appropriate agencies. 
 
 In certain ranges of science there is not only necessity for the coopera- 
 tion of individual scientists, working on different aspects of the same 
 central problem, but here is also need for international cooperation. One 
 only needs to cite such problems as those of astronomy, seismology, me- 
 teorology, and terrestrial magnetism to appreciate how essential simultaneous 
 observations at various points of the earth's surface may be. In such cases, 
 international cooperation is absolutely indispensable. Nor are the forms 
 of profitable international scientific cooperation in research confined to 
 the spheres of astronomy and the major phenomena of the behavior of the 
 earth's surface. The study of the behavior of plants and animals under 
 certain standard conditions will afford numerous instances in point. 
 
 Perhaps the most obvious illustrations of the possibilities of successful 
 cooperative investigation are represented in certain forms of industrial
 
 12 
 
 research where a group of producers come together and establish a research 
 organization, either establishing laboratories of their own for this purpose, 
 or utilizing extant laboratories through which they can arrange for the 
 admittance of their investigators. It is of course well understood that 
 certain of the great manufacturing industries, particularly those connected 
 with the development of electricity, have developed laboratories of the 
 most elaborate kind and of a very high degree of efficiency. But the 
 smaller concern cannot afford to develop its own scientific staff, and con- 
 sequently the cooperative device is found to be the best substitute. This 
 process, which has been carried to a considerable development in Great 
 Britain, is being rapidly fostered in this country and gives promise of ex- 
 tremely valuable results. Several different methods of procedure are feas- 
 ible, but time will not permit further discussion of the matter here. 
 
 Finally, one may mention the types of cooperation in research which 
 may be achieved by the establishment of more intimate contact between 
 the organizations and institutions now actually engaged in such work. As 
 has been already indicated, we have at present, as the main features of 
 our national research equipment, certain of the scientific bureaus of the 
 Federal Government and the several States, certain large research founda- 
 tions, including a few of the great museums, a group of research enter- 
 prises in the industries, and the research work done in our universities. In 
 each of these, individuals are at work on problems which, so far as is 
 known to the men engaged upon them, are at the moment not under attack 
 elsewhere. But our present organization is totally devoid of any adequate 
 means for securing information as to the research work at a given time in 
 progress. In consequence, it repeatedly happens that men are found to have 
 been working on common problems, investing time and energy which might 
 have been expended to far better effect could they have been brought in 
 touch with one another and have learned each what the other had to give 
 in the way of knowledge already ascertained. In the case of the industrial 
 laboratory, both the economics and the ethics of the case render it improper 
 that information should be disseminated as to what is being learned. Even 
 scientific men working alone as individuals have oftentimes been extremely 
 jealous of their prerogatives in the matter of priority of scientific discovery, 
 and have treated their work somewhat in the spirit of the trade secret of 
 the industries. But over against this relatively small group there has 
 always been a larger and more open-minded body of scientists eager to learn 
 whatever could be brought to bear upon their own researches, and willing 
 and ready to communicate to others whatever they had to offer of worth. 
 Generally speaking, the ethics of scientific research outside the industrial 
 laboratory is rapidly coming to a point which commends and demands 
 publicity. Indeed, it may be said that this condition has already sub- 
 stantially arrived. Men are eager for more prompt and adequate means 
 of publication of scientific work, and one of the crying defects in the scien- 
 tific situation as a whole, one which is far more serious in some branches 
 of science than in others, is the need, first, for a central clearing house of 
 information regarding current research work and its status from month to 
 month and year to year; and second, far more complete and more effective 
 modes of publication of scientific results. Publication needs to be more 
 prompt, and needs to be accompanied by much more adequate methods 
 of abstracting and indexing than at present are in operation. To these
 
 13 
 
 problems, also, the National Research Council, through its Division of 
 Research Information, is turning its hand, and we hope to be able not 
 only to point the way to better conditions, but also to make a substantial 
 beginning in the actual improvement of these conditions. I will not pause 
 to discuss the entire program of this service, but I may simply say in 
 passing that it contemplates catalogues of research laboratories, of current 
 investigations, sources of information, laboratory facilities, catalogues of 
 scientific and technical societies with indices of foreign reports, and a some- 
 what detailed program for the improvement of scientific publications, with 
 particular regard to systems of abstracting and indexing. 
 
 IV. ORGANIZATION OF NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL 
 
 To assist in meeting some of the needs of scientific organization in the 
 United States, the National Research Council has been organized. It at- 
 tempts to achieve in a democracy, and by democratic methods, such a 
 mobilization of the scientific resources of the country as shall permit their 
 most effective use not only in times of crisis such as war, but also con- 
 tinuously in times of peace. The German Government had succeeded under 
 autocratic methods in carrying such organization to a high degree of per- 
 fection and had procured the most striking results not only in the military 
 administration, but also throughout the entire field of industry. Whether 
 we shall be equally successful under the voluntary extra-governmental 
 plan which we are developing remains to be seen. It may, however, be said 
 at the outset that, rightly or wrongly, the opinion of scientific men is sub- 
 stantially unanimous that in our country an enterprise of this character 
 can only reach its highest possibilities when freed from the restraint of 
 government control. This, however, should in no wise be understood as 
 reflecting upon the efficiency of the scientific work carried on by the various 
 departments of the Government. It does, however, argue a widespread 
 conviction based on experience that these departments, despite their many 
 great advantages, must of necessity work under limitations of a very 
 definite and often unfortunate kind. 
 
 As the first step in securing a democratic foundation, the National 
 Research Council is based upon the election of members by the great 
 scientific societies of the Nation, some 40 being represented in the present 
 roster with a constituent personnel running up into the thousands. These 
 representatives from the scientific societies are organized in divisions, of 
 which there are seven representing science and technology. Each such 
 division elects a chairman, who becomes a salaried officer of the Council, 
 resident in Washington for one year, and in charge, together with an ex- 
 ecutive committee of his division, of the scientific work to which the division 
 decides to set its hand. Provision is made for a certain number of mem- 
 bers of each division to be selected at large, thereby insuring as far as 
 possible the presence of a thoroughly representative scientific group, for 
 it may at times happen that some important scientific interest is by accident 
 omitted in the elections from the societies. 
 
 The Council has also six so-called general divisions whose officials are 
 appointed by the executive board of the Council, and who conduct the 
 work of the divisions much as in the case of the science and technology 
 group. The personnel of these divisions is determined by the executive 
 board, with the exception of a few persons who are ex officio members.
 
 14 
 
 These divisions cover the Federal Government, foreign relations, the states 
 relations, education, industrial relations, and research information. 
 
 The government division has upon it representatives of each of the 
 scientific bureaus of the Government, and is intended to foster, so far as 
 possible, cooperation among such bureaus and among the outside scientific 
 agencies working on similar problems. 
 
 The foreign relations division has to do with foreign scientific societies. 
 An International Research Council was established at Brussels during the 
 past summer, and will take the place of the old international associations 
 and unions which, in forms somewhat modified by the war, will comprise 
 the international unions organized under the International Research Council. 
 
 The states relations division concerns itself with the attempt to foster 
 helpful cooperative relations among the scientific bureaus and other scien- 
 tific organizations of the several States. There appears to be opportunity 
 here for an outside disinterested agency to render very great assistance. 
 
 The educational division has to do with the interests of research in 
 educational institutions in all its aspects. This division is beginning its 
 work by a careful study of the actual facilities for research in our Ameri- 
 can educational institutions. It is hoped that by bringing together re- 
 liable information about these conditions it may be possible to formulate 
 a more effective program for the utilization of such resources as we now 
 enjoy, for the improvement of the same and for the development of a larger 
 number of better trained research men. Any rational adjustment of the 
 program of research development in our universities, such as was referred 
 to earlier in this paper, involves a careful preliminary scrutiny of the 
 extant situation. There are some types of research work whose develop- 
 ment can be justified only at a limited number of institutions. To have a 
 great group of universities each attempting to do such work is wasteful 
 of personnel and material resources alike. We shall hardly, however, be 
 able to move on to a saner distribution of scientific effort until we know 
 more precisely what are the actual facts in the case, much less can we edu- 
 cate public opinion to accept a reasonable distribution of responsibility. 
 
 The industrial research division has as its work the stimulation of 
 research in the industries. It seeks particularly to bring into contact in- 
 dustrial groups, interested in improving their scientific technique with 
 scientific men and agencies competent to render the necessary assistance. 
 
 The research information service involves a program in many ways 
 the most unique which the Council has to offer, in its attempt to create 
 mechanisms for giving prompt and accurate information regarding not 
 only the finished products of research of all kinds and in all parts of the 
 world, but also the conditions in current research. Its general intentions 
 have already been briefly described and need not be repeated. 
 
 Taken in its entirety the work of the Council is to be understood as 
 primarily one of stimulation of research in both pure and applied science, 
 and in the creation of an enlarged and better trained research personnel, 
 with particular emphasis upon the securing of cooperation wherever this 
 can be profitably accomplished cooperation as described above among scien- 
 tists in the same field working on different aspects of a common problem, 
 cooperation among scientists in different fields, whether at home or abroad, 
 studying a group of related problems, cooperation among research or-
 
 35 
 
 ganizations, and, finally, cooperation among agencies which require the 
 services of research men and research organizations. 
 
 The Council is itself frankly a piece of research, a great experiment, 
 whose outcome we await with undisguised interest. Its purposes are worthy 
 beyond question. If its methods be unsound, better ones must and will 
 be devised. Meantime it invites your sympathetic support and offers you 
 whatever service it can render. 
 
 THE PRESIDENT. The discussion of this important topic will be opened 
 by Dean R. W. Thatcher of the University of Minnesota. 
 
 R. W. THATCHER. I am interested in the statements made by both Dr. 
 Jordan and Dr. Angell to the effect that there is great need for the devel- 
 opment of personnel with a view of promoting research. The subsidizing of 
 prospective research workers is an important matter and likewise the re- 
 sponsibility of those subsidized. There are plenty of good arguments 
 in favor of subsidizing young men through scholarships, fellowships, etc., 
 in order that they may prepare themselves for research work; but some- 
 times such young men consider themselves objects of charity, sometimes, 
 on the contrary, they are more mindful of their own assumed rights than of 
 those of the institution that deals with them. Perhaps we carry philan- 
 thropy too far; sometimes it is better to allow young men to prepare them- 
 selves for research work at their own proper expense. 
 
 Dr. Angell has presented a critical review of the agencies for the pro- 
 motion of research work and the development of personnel. I have planned 
 to discuss the means by which additional public support for research, 
 particularly agricultural research, can be secured. I am not sure whether 
 this covers a phase of the problem which the Executive Committee had in 
 mind when they selected this topic for discussion at this meeting. I sup- 
 pose that the question of possible resuscitation of research might be sup- 
 posed to mean that research is in a dying or comatose condition. I have 
 not felt that such was the case. It has seemed to me that the experiences of 
 the war have led to a new appreciation of the value of research work and 
 that there never was a time when there was so insistent and so consistent a 
 demand for thorough research as at the present time. I suppose it is fair 
 then to raise the question, whether this war-time public interest in and 
 appreciation of the value of research has waned or whether this question is 
 merely one of how to capitalize the present interest in this work into a 
 policy which shall work out in permanent good. I suspect that there is 
 the fear at least that public interest is or will be waning and that public 
 support is going to be hard to obtain. For that reason, I have chosen to 
 discuss this phase of the problem and assume that a brief discussion of 
 certain fundamental facts in the present situation as it appears to me will 
 not be out of order. 
 
 As I see it, there are three distinct types of forces which have exerted 
 in the past and are exerting at present pronounced influence is stimulating 
 interest in and providing funds for the support of research. These are, 
 respectively, industrial or economic necessity, personal or corporate philan- 
 thropy and educational policy. As specific effects of these three types of 
 influence, I may mention, first, the research which is being carried on in 
 connection with the regular work of manufacturing enterprises, factories, 
 smelters, etc.; second, that which is supported and endowed by cor-
 
 16 
 
 porations like the Rockefeller Institute, etc.; and third, the publicly 
 supported research work which is a part of every important educational 
 institution of high standards and standing, and of various state and 
 governmental institutions which help to establish the educational system 
 of the country. 
 
 The character of the research work which is undertaken, as well as its 
 general effect upon the public mind and public good, are significantly affect- 
 ed by the purpose for which it is established. 
 
 The first type is characterized by having a specific end or object in 
 view, seeking to establish facts of technical importance and with probable 
 definite nnd profitable application in industrial processes. Its results are 
 generally protected by patents insuring use only by the private agency 
 which supports the investigation. The public learns of its results only 
 indirectly and has no direct interest in the facts which are demonstrated or 
 in the methods used in researches. 
 
 The second type is an outgrowth of the experience by industrial agen- 
 cies of the benefits of technical research, and is an attempt to provide 
 similar skilled investigations of subjects of broad public interest, using 
 funds which have accrued from the results of the application of scientific 
 methods, business acumen, or exploitation of the natural resources of the 
 country, for the establishment of facts of public, economic or humanitarian 
 interest. The results of these investigations are open to public use, but up 
 to the present, at least, this work is looked upon by a large proportion of our 
 people as having back of it some secret or sinister motive, or else as an 
 attempt to win support to corporation interests by activity in a field of 
 public service which is too technical in character for the public mind to 
 grasp. I am not belittling this work or criticizing the motives of these 
 great endowments for scientific research, but am attempting to present 
 what seems to me to be the public reaction toward them. 
 
 The third type of research work has always been a part of the activity 
 of educational institutions. Everyone recognizes the necessity for constantly 
 enlarging the borders of the field of human knowledge. Teaching without 
 research soon becomes hide-bound, uninteresting, of little inspirational or 
 cutural value. But the atmosphere of the university, in the past at least, 
 has tended to limit the field of research to those problems which were 
 academic rather than technical in importance. ''Truth for truth's sake" is 
 a familiar slogan. Undoubtedly this is an inspiring motive for research 
 men, but it has not appealed to the public imagination. Hence, public 
 support for this work has sometimes been hard to get, because of the idea, 
 false though it may be, that the work is "impractical," "theoretical," or 
 "visionary" in character. Please understand that I am not defending this 
 point of view. No one has keener respect for the methods and results of 
 this type of research than I. Furthermore, much of the very best and most 
 fundamental research in science can be shown to have direct economic 
 value in industry or agriculture. But the results of this type of research, 
 while freely available to the public, seem to be regarded as of little use 
 to it. I believe that it is a correct interpretation of the general public 
 reaction toward it to say that its purpose, methods, and results are little 
 understood, and there is little enthusiastic support for it. The work of 
 the agricultural experiment stations is somewhat better known and enjoys a 
 somewhat more desirable position in the public mind than does general
 
 17 
 
 university research; but even here it is evident that station men feel that 
 they do not have all the public support to which the importance and value 
 of their work should entitle them. 
 
 As a result of these conditions, I had come to the conclusion, prior to 
 the outbreak of the World War, that support for research work was tend- 
 ing toward concentration in the hands of private enterprises, with private 
 and personal control of both the methods and the results of the investiga- 
 tions. This seemed to me to be extremely unfortunate. I felt that the 
 general public good demanded that the very best that educated scientific 
 skill could contribute to the solution of the problems of public business, of 
 public health, of public food supplies, and of public social and moral 
 development, ought to be freely available to the use of all rather than con- 
 fined by patents or other means of maintaining secrecy to the individual 
 profit of a single corporation or industry. 
 
 Then the war came on, with its insistent demand for new methods of 
 meeting every conceivable type of constructive and destructive processes. It 
 seemed that success in the war was to go to that nation which could outwit 
 the other in the production of new engines of war, new uses of poisonous 
 gases, new sources of supply of foodstuffs and munitions of war, etc., 
 It became almost a trite saying that the war is teaching the world the value 
 of research work. 
 
 Now the war is over. We are faced with the problem of securing more 
 public interest in and support for research work, the results of which shall 
 be available for the general public good. I suppose that there was in the 
 minds of the committee which suggested this topic for discussion, the idea 
 that during the war active work on agricultural research has been inter- 
 rupted by the necessities of the war, and that it is of importance now to 
 restore it to prewar activity. I have not felt this as a critical condition. 
 It has seemed to me that the increased appreciation of the practical value 
 of research work of all kinds, including agricultural research, has more 
 than counterbalanced the disrupting influence of the absence of our men 
 in war time service. Further, many of our men have come back with in- 
 creased respect for research work as a result of their participation in the 
 work of the sanitary corps, the hospital corps, the engineering corps, etc. 
 and their insight into the work of the research organizations in this country 
 and abroad. Therefore, I believe that the present problem is not so much 
 one of getting new interest in research as a life work or better institutional 
 conception of the values of research to the institution as it is that of 
 arousing general public interest in and support of this kind of work. 
 
 I believe that the first step is to encourage those who are influential 
 in forming public opinion through addresses, papers, etc., to present this 
 matter in its true light wherever the opportunity is offered. In so far as 
 it concerns agricultural research, this duty will fall on those of us who 
 represent the land-grant college movement, as a whole. 
 
 In this campaign, I think that the first fact to be emphasized is that 
 research is not teaching. Agricultural experiment stations have usually 
 been located at or in connection with agricultural colleges. This has given 
 rise to the idea that the experimental plots, feeding stalls, laboratories, etc., 
 are intended to teach or to demonstrate certain established facts and much 
 of the criticism which has been directed toward experiment station work has 
 been due to this misconception. Next, I think that the necessity for and
 
 J8 
 
 value of exact measurement of all of the contributing factors in an experi- 
 mental investigation should be explained as ample reason for the expense of 
 such operations as compared with that of similar operations in established 
 enterprises. Such careful work distinguishes real investigation from the 
 haphazard trials or experiments which constitute a part of many ordinary 
 farm operations. Then we must point out that skilled scientists (not neces- 
 sarily trained farmers) must be used in these investigations; and that agri- 
 cultural operations like industrial operations are founded on true scientific 
 principles, and that only those who are trained to recognize and under- 
 stand these principles can accurately interpret the observations which are 
 made in the field or laboratory and draw the correct conclusions therefrom. 
 We must not fail to emphasize the fact that as soon as an experimental 
 study has been brought to a definite conclusion its practical application to 
 agricultural operations will be demonstrated through the extension agencies 
 provided for that purpose. However, it is a sad mistake so to emphasize the 
 practical or economic importance of agricultural research work that our 
 constituency gets the idea that only men of practical farm experience should 
 be used in agricultural investigational work. 
 
 I feel that I would not be completing this discussion of the steps which 
 I think lead toward the securing of public approval and support for agri- 
 cultural research work, if I did not allude here to the phase of the matter 
 which I have already discussed at a meeting of the section on experiment 
 station work, namely, the necessity for the presentation to the general public 
 of such a united front and such a spirit of cooperation and sympathy be- 
 tween research workers as will lead to more general public confidence in the 
 accuracy and the impartiality of station research work. Dr. Angell has 
 emphasized the need for cooperation between research agencies. I feel that 
 this point can not be overemphasized. As a result, in part at least, of the 
 habit of public criticism of each other's work, which may be a perfectly 
 proper and legitimate incentive to scientific accuracy, the general public 
 has become accustomed to belittling the opinions and the work of so- 
 called "experts." It has become skeptical of the possibility of securing dis- 
 interested, impartial and accurate scientific evidence on any question of 
 public concern. On these accounts we need to do everything within our 
 power to re-establish public confidence in expert opinion and to emphasize 
 the true reason for our work, namely, the contribution to the public welfare 
 of an accurate, impartial and thoroughly scientific basis for educational, 
 industrial and agricultural development. 
 
 Finally, I should say that the missionary in this movement for better 
 understanding of agricultural research work should be full of a message of 
 good cheer. Pessimism and discouragement never are efficient aids to any 
 movement. Fortunately, there is nothing in the present situation which 
 ought to create this discouraged feeling in the minds of our station men. 
 
 Out of the chaos of conflicting political opinion and of rising class 
 prejudice, our efforts to extend the borders of human knowledge, to enlarge 
 the safe and sure foundation for agricultural development, to sift the wheat 
 of true knowledge of nature's laws out of the mass of chaff of superstitious 
 beliefs and misinterpreted results of individual farm experiences, stand 
 clear of suspicion of class interest or improper motives. We may take 
 tremendous satisfaction in the thought that we are dealing with perma- 
 nent verities rather than with passing vagaries and impulses. Being
 
 19 
 
 optimistic and courageous ourselves, we may approach the task of securing 
 public confidence in and support for our agricultural research work with 
 every assurance of success. 
 
 THE PRESIDENT. May we hear from President A. F. Woods of the 
 Maryland State College? 
 
 A. F. WOODS. It is really quite unnecessary for me to continue this 
 discussion. I was put on the program as alternate in case Dean Thatcher 
 was not here. Certainly there is no disagreement among the stations and 
 colleges on the questions laid before us. We all understand the purposes 
 of the National Research Council. We realize that the Council is doing 
 everything in its power to promote research and to develop a public senti- 
 ment that will support it. I do not believe that we shall find serious diffi- 
 culty in maintaining our national and state supported research agencies. 
 The support of the National Research Council will undoubtedly be available 
 in maintaining this interest in publicly supported research. I am glad to 
 note the interest of this Association in cooperating with the National 
 Research Council. In my opinion, the organization of the Research Council 
 is one of the great forward steps in the development of a national policy 
 looking toward the coordination of fundamental research.
 
 UC SOUTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY 
 
 nil nil ii linn inn minimum iiiiiiiiiinii 
 
 A 001 218899 1 
 
 Bulletin of the National , 
 
 Volume 1 
 
 Number i. The national importance of scientific and industrial research. 
 By George Ellery Hale and others. Price 50 cents. 
 
 Number 2. Research laboratories in industrial establishments of the 
 United States of America. Compiled by Alfred D. Flinn. (In 
 press.) 
 
 Number 3. Periodical bibliographies and abstracts for the scientific 
 and technological journals of the world. Compiled by R. Cobb. 
 (In preparation.) 
 
 Reprint and Circular Series of the National 
 Research Council 
 
 Number i. Report of the Patent Committee of the National Research 
 Council. Presented for the Committee by L. H. Baekeland, Acting 
 Chairman. Price 30 cents. 
 
 Number 2. Report of the Psychology Committee of the National Re- 
 search Council. Presented for the Committee by Robert M. 
 Yerkes, Chairman. Price 60 cents. 
 
 Number 3. Refractory materials as a field for research. By Edward 
 W. Washburn. Price 30 cents. 
 
 Number 4. Industrial research. By F. B. Jewett. Price 25 cents. 
 
 Number 5. Some problems of sidereal astronomy. By Henry N. 
 Russell. Price 30 cents. 
 
 Number 6. The development of research in the United States. By 
 James Rowland Angell. Price 25 cents. 
 
 Number 7. The larger opportunities for research on the relations of 
 solar and terrestrial radiation. By C. G. Abbot. Price 20 cents. 
 
 Number 8. Science and the industries. By John J. Carty. Price 25 
 cents. 
 
 Number g. A reading list on scientific and industrial research and the 
 of the da-mist to industry. By Clarence Jay West. (In 
 pre
 
 University , 
 Southern 
 Library