c 141 C32 UC-NRLF c 3 lib A STATISTICAL STUDY OF AMERICAN MEN OF SCIENCE BY J. McKEEN CATTELL PROFESSOR OF PSYCHOLOGY, COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY {Reprinted from SCIENCE, N. S., Vol, XXIV- , No. 621, pages 658-665, November 28 No. 622, pages 699-707, November 30; No. 62S, pages 732-742, December 7, 1906; and under the title U A Further Statistical Study of American Men of Science" Vol XXXII, No. 827, pages 633-648, November 4 ; No. 828, pages 672-688, 1910.] A STATISTICAL STUDY OF AMERICAN MEN OF SCIENCE. OF THE UNIVERSITY OF A STATISTICAL STUDY OF AMERICAN MEN OF SCIENCE. 1 THE SELECTION OF A GROUP OF ONE THOUSAND SCIENTIFIC MEN THE psychologist, like the student of other sciences, can view his subject from different standpoints and pursue it by various methods. He may get what knowledge he can of mental processes by introspection, or he may use ob- jective methods. He may confine himself to the " inner life," or he may study the indi- vidual in all his psychophysical relations. He may give verbal descriptions, or he may make measurements. He may describe static men- tal life, or he may study the lower animals and human beings from a dynamic and genetic point of view. . He may attempt to determine facts and laws that hold for mental life in general, or he may attend to individual dif- ferences. He may ignore the practical appli- cations of his science, or he may investigate them. Psychology has until recently con- cerned itself chiefly with the first of these vari- ous alternatives. But its recent progress and future development seem to the present writer to depend particularly on" the second. In this case, our two main methods, which can often be combined, are experiment and measure- ment in the laboratory, and the inductive and statistical study of groups of individuals. In recent years great progress has been made in both directions. Experimental psychology has become a science coordinate with the other great sciences, and statistics have been ex- tended to include sociological and moral phe- nomena. The intensive study of groups of individuals has, however, only been begun. The origin of the method may be attributed to Quetelet, whose " Essai de physique sociale " was pub- lished in 1835, and its principal development 1 Reprinted from SCIENCE, N. S., 24: 658-665, November 23; 699-707, November 30; 732-742, December 7, 1906. to Dr. Francis Galton, whose "Hereditary Genius " (1869) has been followed by a series of books and articles, including " English Men of Science" (1874). Another work bearing closely on the subject matter of the present paper is Alphonse de Candolle's " Histoire des sciences et des savants depuis deux siecles" (1873). Other extensive studies of groups of individuals are: Dr. Paul Jacoby's "Etudes sur la selection " (1881), which has as its sub- ject matter the 3,311 Frenchmen of the eight- eenth century whose biographies are included in the " Biographie universelle," Professor A. Odin's " Genese des grands hommes " (1895), which is a study of 6,382 French men of let- ters; Mr. Havelock Ellis's "A Study of British Genius " (1906, published in the Popular Sci- ence Monthly, February-September, 1901), which considers 859 men and 43 women of eminence, and Dr. F. A. Woods's " Mental and Moral Heredity in Koyalty " (1906, published in the Popular Science Monthly, August, 1902- April, 1903), which treats 832 membera of royal families. I have myself selected as material for study three groups : a thousand students of Columbia University; 2 the thousand most eminent men in history;* a thousand American men of science.* 3 " Physical and Mental Measurements of the Students of Columbia University" (with Dr. Liv- ingston Farrand). Psychol. Rev., 3: 618-648, 1896. Cf. also the dissertation for the doctorate of Clark Wissler, " The Correlation of Mental and Physical Tests," Psychol. Rev., Monograph Sup- plements, 16: iv + 62, 1901. *"A Statistical Study of Eminent Men," Pop. Bci. Hon., 53: 359-378, 1903. 4 "Homo Scientificus Americanus: Address of the president of the American Society of Natural- ists," SCIENCE, N. S., 17: 561-570, 1903. "Sta- tistics of American Psychologists," Am. Jour, of Psychol., 14: 310-328, 1903. Towards the cost 537 2094 538 AMERICAN MEN OF SCIENCE Each of these groups seems to me favorable for such work. The students of Columbia College are measured, tested and observed in our laboratory; we are able to follow their academic courses and their careers in after life. The lives of the most eminent men of history are to a certain extent public prop- erty, open to statistical investigation and psychological analysis. A thousand scientific men in the United States will doubtless be willing to assist in furnishing the material needed, which is in any case accessible from other sources. The accompanying table, which with most of the data to be discussed refers approxi- mately to January 1, 1903, shows how Amer- ican men of science are distributed among the principal sciences by various agencies.* There are in the table certain facts that require allowance, or at least mention. The American Chemical Society and the doctorates conferred in chemistry represent in part professional work in applied science. Under the special of computation in connection with this research, I have received a grant of two hundred dollars from the Esther Herrman Research Fund of the Scientific Alliance of New York. The distribution among the sciences of those in the " Biographical Directory of American Men of Science" (published this year by The Science Press, New York) differs rather more, than I had expected from this estimate, which was based on the first thousand entries that were written. There are in the "Directory" 4,131 names, of whom 131 are students of philosophy, education, economics and sociology, leaving just 4,000 in the twelve sciences under consideration. They are distributed among the sciences as follows: mathematics, 340; physics, 672; chemistry, 677; astronomy, 160; geology, 444; botany, 401; zool- ogy, 441; physiology, 105; anatomy, 118; pathol- ogy, 357; anthropology, 91; psychology, 194. These figures were not at hand when it was neces- sary to select the thousand men of science for this research. The numbers under physics and pathology are increased by the inclusion under these sciences of engineers and physicians. The chief discrepancy is that there are fewer zoologists than was indicated by the preliminary estimate or by the other data of the table. TABLE I. THE NUMBEB OF AMEBICAN MEN OF SCI- ENCE AND THEIB DISTBIBUTION AMONG THE SCIENCES or] V a . 5- -g *o o ^ fe 2 ,5 ^s i js"3 a jo ja 15,33 09 "3 o'o 3 O |1 a > << - 1 V S a 03 "b 2-^a I 00 ** *** a P Q* o'S CJSQ - Mathematics .... 375 81 i 136 61 35 46 380 Physics 149 167 ?3 105 6Q 155 73 556 Chemistry 1933 174 1?, 143 137 73 166 656 Astronomy 40 41 16 48 51 212 Geology ?56 13 55 3? 161 174 436 Botany 169 1?0 7 57 53 94 70 416 Zoology ?37 146 17 83 7? ?43 131 620 Physiology 96 10 53 18 156 Anatomy 136 10 56 1 13 18 116 Pathology 138 14 5 68 4 44 56 224 Anthropology. . . . 60 60 3 4 5 66 37 92 Psychology 127 40 1 37 63 58 21 136 Total 3801 983 96 838 531 1002 868 4000 SEDUCED TO PER THOUSAND Mathematics .... Physics Chemistry Astronomy Geology Botany Zoology Physiology Anatomy Pathology Anthropology .... Psychology 99 39 506 33 68 45 63 25 36 36 16 34 32 170 240 177 41 123 122 149 10 10 14 61 41 10 125 125 136 73 177 21 52 31 10 162 125 171 49 66 68 99 63 67 81 5 44 113 128 265 30 60 99 134 34 2 118 35 155 73 47 161 94 243 22 13 44 56 57 53 84 191 59 200 81 151 29 21 64 43 24 95 139 164 53 109 104 155 39 29 56 23 34 societies there are duplications, as scientific men may belong to more than one society. The American Mathematical Society and the Association of American Anatomists have been rather liberal in the admission of mem- bers. As mathematics and the medical sci- ences are required subjects for large groups of students, there are many teachers, but this has not produced a proportional number of investigators. The membership of the Na- tional Academy represents to a certain extent the interests of the passing scientific genera- tion, the doctorates the interests of the com- ing scientific generation. In selecting a group of a thousand scien- tific men, the number in each science was taken roughly proportional to the total num- AMERICAN MEN OF SCIENCE 539 ber of investigators in that science, the num- bers being: chemistry, 175; physics, 150; zoology, 150; botany, 100; geology, 100; mathematics, 80; pathology, 60; astronomy, 50; psychology, 50; physiology, 40; anatomy, 25; anthropology, 20. The individuals were selected by asking ten leading representatives of each science to ar- range the students of that science in the order of merit. There were for each science slips made with the names and addresses of all those known to have carried on research work of any consequence. The total number as- signed a position was 2,481, distributed among the sciences as follows: Mathematics, 201; physics, 261; chemistry, 389; astronomy, 165; geology, 257; botany, 213; zoology, 290; physiology, 101; anatomy, 89; pathology, 251; anthropology, 72; psychology, 192. These numbers inAtoded duplications when a man was given a p^ace in more than one science. The memorandum sent to those who were asked to make the arrangement was as follows : MEMORANDUM The undersigned is making a study of American men of science. The first problem to be consid- ered is the distribution of scientific men among the sciences and in different regions, institutions, etc., including the relative rank of this country as compared with other countries in the different sciences, the relative strength of different univer- sities, etc. It is intended that the study shall be continued beyond the facts of distribution to what may be called the natural history of scien- tific men. For these purposes a list of scientific men in each science, arranged approximately in the or- der of merit, is needed. This can best be secured if those who are most competent to form an opinion will independently make the arrangement. The average of such arrangements will give the most valid order, and the degree of validity will be indicated by the variation or probable error of position for each individual. It is obvious that such an order can be only approximate, and for the objects in view an ap- proximation is all that is needed. The judgments are possible, because they are as a matter of fact made in elections to a society of limited member- ship, in filling chairs at a university, etc. By merit is understood contributions to the advance- ment of science, primarily by research, but teach- ing, administration, editing, the compilation of text-books, etc., should be considered. The dif- ferent factors that make a man efficient in ad- vancing science must be roughly balanced. An effort may be made later to disentangle these factors. In ranking a man in a given science his con- tributions to that science only should be con- sidered. Thus, an eminent astronomer may also be a mathematician, but in ranking him as a mathematician only his contributions to mathe- matics should be regarded. In such a case, how- ever, mathematics should be given its widest in- terpretation. It is more difficult to arrange the order when the work can not readily be com- pared, as, for example, systematic zoology and morphology, but, as already stated, it is only expected that the arrangement shall be approxi- mate. The men should be ranked for work ac- tually accomplished, that is, a man of sixty and a man of forty, having done about the same amount of work, should come near together, though the man of forty has more promise. It may be possible later to calculate a man's value with allowance for age. In case there is noted the omission of any scientific man from the list who should probably have a place in the first three quarters, a slip may be added in the proper place with his name and address. In case there are names on the list re- garding which nothing is known, the slips should be placed together at the end. The slips, as ar- ranged in order, should be tied together and re- turned to the undersigned. It is not intended that the lists shall be pub- lished, at all events not within ten years. No individual list will be published. They will ba destroyed when the averages have been calculated, and the arrangements will be regarded as strictly confidential. The ten positions assigned to each man were averaged, and the average deviations of the judgments were calculated. This gave the most probable order of merit for the students in each science, together with data for the probable error of the position of each indi- vidual. The students of the different sciences were then combined in one list by interpola- tion, the probable errors being adjusted ac- cordingly. The list contains 1,443 names, of 540 AMERICAN MEN OF SCIENCE whom the first thousand are the material used in this research. It should be distinctly noted that the fig- ures give only what they profess to give, namely, the resultant opinion of ten com- petent judges! They show the reputation of the men among experts, but not necessarily their ability or performance. Constant errors, euch as may arise from a man's being better or less known than he deserves, are not elimi- nated. There is, however, no other criterion of a man's work than the estimation in which it is held by those most competent to judge. The posthumous reputation of a great man may be more correct than contemporary opin- ion, but very few of those in this list of scien- tific men will be given posthumous considera- tion. I am somewhat sceptical as to merit not represented by performance, or as to per- formance unrecognized by the best contem- porary judgment. There are doubtless indi- vidual exceptions, but, by and large, men do what they are able to do and find their proper level in the estimation of their colleagues. In order to obtain the 10 arrangements in each science, or 120 in all, it was necessary to ask the assistance of 192 scientific men. Twenty-three of these did not reply to my letter; 16 declined to make the arrangement, usually on the ground that it was not feasible ; 23 consented, but afterwards gave it up or did not send the slips in time, and 10 made arrangements that could not be used, in most cases because the names were arranged in groups instead of being ordered serially. As the arrangement resulted, those who made it and those who were asked but failed were distributed in the different hundreds of the thousand, as shown in Table II. TABLE II. THE STANDING OF THOSE WHO MADE THE ABBANGEMENTS AND OF THOSE WHO WERE ASKED BUT FAILED H) HH M > > < > X >-H K ^ Pi 3 Observers 47 29 26 20 20 10 9 5 6 1 3 1 3 1 1 3 4 1 2 120 72 Failed Total . . 76 46 30 14 7 3 4 2 3 5 2 192 Thus 76 of those who proved to be in the first hundred men of science were asked to make the arrangement and 47 of them did so. Only twelve of those who made the arrange- ment are not in the first five hundred. In anthropology, for example, there are only twenty representatives in the list, of whom but two would probably be in the first hun- dred, and of the twelve sciences there are only three that would be expected to have more than ten in the first hundred. It is, there- fore, evident that the ten scientific men who gave the judgments in each science are among the leaders in that science. But their stand- ing must of necessity vary with the different sciences, one half of all the anthropologists having made the arrangement and only two thirty-fifths of all the chemists. Those asked to arrange the names were dis- tributed among different institutions, as shown in Table III. TABLE III. THE DISTBIBUTION AMONG INSTITUTIONS OF THOSE WHO WEBE ASKED TO MAKE THE ABBANGEMENTS Number In 1,000. Number Asked. 'Sri S3 *3 04 Number of Observers Per Cent. of Observers. Per Cent, of Those Asked. Harvard 66.5 ?3 35 7 10 .30 Columbia 600 ?,0 33 13 ?1 .65 Chicago 390 17 44 15 38 .88 Cornell 335 6 18 4 1? .67 Geological Survey 3?i 7 ??, 4 1? 57 Depart, of Agriculture .... Hopkins. . ... 32.0 30.5 3 13 .09 43 3 5 .09 16 1.00 .38 Yale ?65 8 30 6 ?3 .75 Smithsonian Institution . . . Michigan 22.0 ?00 9 9 .41 45 5 7 .23 35 .55 .78 Wisconsin 180 3 17 ?, 11 67 Pennsylvania 17.0 10 59 fi 35 .60 Stanford 160 3 19 3 19 1.00 Princeton 145 3 ?1 New York University 95 5 53 4 4? .80 Clark 70 5 71 3 43 .60 New York Bot. Garden . . . One at each institution .... 6.0 2 46 .33 .08 2 31 .33 .06 1.00 .67 Total.. 192 120 Thus 23 scientific men connected with Harvard University were requested to sort out the slips; this was done by 7 of them. Sixty-six and five tenths of the thousand, AMERICAN MEN OF SCIENCE 541 as the list resulted, are at Harvard Uni- versity; about 10 per cent, of them made the arrangement, which is about 30 per cent, of those asked. Seventeen of the 39 scien- tific men at the University of Chicago were asked to make the arrangement, of whom fifteen accomplished it and two did not. Or 38 per cent, of all its men made the arrange- ment, who were 88 per cent, of those asked. The numbers are in most cases too few to give a correct measure of the cooperativeness in such a scheme of the different institutions, but, so far as they go, they are not altogether without interest. They are not, however, printed here for that purpose, but in order to show the geographical distribution of those who made the arrangement. It appears that different institutions are fairly well repre- sented, there being no great preponderance of any one of them. Of the 120 who made the arrangement 89 are connected with the 17 institutions given in the table, although these institutions contain only 450 of the 1,000 sci- entific men. They, however, have, as will be shown later, a much larger proportion of the more eminent scientific men. Those who made the arrangements are not likely to possess equal information, impartial- ity and good judgment. If there were only two arrangements of each group it would not be possible to decide objectively which is the better. We have, however, ten arrangements, and the average is more likely to be correct than any one of them. The conditions are the same as in the case of observations in the physical sciences. As the personal equation of the astronomer is determined by comparing his observations with those of other astron- omers, so here we can measure the accuracy of judgment of each observer by determining how far it departs from the average judgment. I have counted up the departures of each of the ten observers from the average result for one of the groups, namely, the fifty psychol- ogists. The data are given in Table IV. by groups of ten. The observer A is always more accurate than any other observer, except in one case in the fifty. The validity of judgment of the ten observers varies from 7.9 to 17.26, or about as 1:2, which is approximately the yariability that I have found in normal individuals in other mental traits, such as accuracy of per- ception, time of mental processes, memory, etc. The departures from the mean reliability of' judgment, given in the last line of the table, indicate that accuracy of judgment tends in a general way to follow the normal distribu- tion of the probability curve, though with so few cases this may be accidental. As the validity of the judgments varies to a measured degree, the arrangements made by the indi- viduals could be weighted. I have not under- taken the somewhat tedious calculations neces- sary ; they would not considerably alter . the order, but would make it somewhat more exact, at the same time decreasing the probable errors. There is here measured for the first time, I think, the accuracy or reliability of judg- ment. This is obviously a complex and im- perfectly analyzed trait, depending on a large number of varying conditions. A man's judg- ment may be good in some directions or from certain points of view, and bad in other ways. Still we understand vaguely what is meant by TABU; iv. MEASUREMENTS OF THE ACCUBAOT OP JUDGMENT OF TEN OBSERVERS A B C D E F G H I J Average. I. 1.6 5.2 2.3 3.1 1.9 2.8 1.8 2.4 5.0 2.6 2.87 II. 4.9 7.0 8.7 7.8 6.3 4.2 10.2 6.1 7.0 5.1 6.73 III. 7.1 11.1 13.5 12.4 24.2 16.2 12.5 12.0 16.9 27.6 15.35 IV. 13.8 18.0 16.7 18.4 18.8 18.1 22.7 25.4 21.9 25.5 19.93 V. 12.1 17.4 21.1 21.1 13.2 26.6 21.7 24.7 22.9 25.5 20.63 Av. 7.9 11.74 12.46 12.56 12.88 13.58 13.78 14.12 14.74 17.26 13.1 A. 5.20 1.36 0.64 0.54 0.25 +0.48 +0.68 +1.02 +1-64 +4-1* 1.60 542 AMERICAN MEN OF SCIENCE good judgment and value the trait highly in ourselves and in others. Thus most people complain that they have a bad memory, but I have never heard any one acknowledge that he had a bad judgment. It appears that the measurement of the reliability of judgment of individuals may have wide-reaching appli- cations in civil service examinations and in all cases where individuals are selected for special purposes, a balanced judgment being nearly always more important than the kind of information that can be tested by a written examination. I have measured the accuracy of observation and memory* and Dr. F. B. Sumner has measured the validity of beliefs. 7 When we learn to look upon our observations, recollections, beliefs and judgments object- ively, stating in numbers the probability of their correctness and assigning probable errors to them, there wi 1 ! be an extraordinary change in our attitude in religion, politics, business and all the affairs of life. There are two cases in which these judg- ments were subject to special conditions which it may be worth the while to notice that in which a man of science gave his own position and that in which he gave the positions of his immediate colleagues. In sending out the slips, nothing was said as to whether it was expected that a man should include his own name. Of the 120 who made the arrange- ment, 34 gave positions to themselves; 20 assigned positions to themselves lower than that resulting from the average judgment, twelve higher positions and two the same posi- tions. On the other hand, 22 gave themselves positions higher than the average grade (which is lower than the position, being related to it somewhat as the average is to the median), ten lower and two the same. The judg- ments were somewhat more accurate than the average judgments. In 21 cases the departures from the mean were less than the average departures and in 13 cases they were "Measurements of the Accuracy of Recollec- toin," SCIENCE, N. S., 2: 761-6, 1895. ' " A Statistical Study of Belief," PsycJiol. Rev., 5: 616-31, 1898. larger. It thus appears that there is on the average no constant error in judging our- selves we are about as likely to overestimate as to underestimate ourselves, and we can judge ourselves slightly more accurately than we are likely to be judged by one of our col- leagues. We can only know ourselves from the reflected opinions of others, but it seems that we are able to estimate these more cor- rectly than can those who are less interested. There are, however, wide individual differ- ences; several observers overestimate them- selves decidedly, while others underestimate themselves to an equal degree. We tend to overestimate the positions of our immediate colleagues, though the de- parture from the average judgment is not considerable. Here again there are decided individual differences; thus one man assigned positions to six of his colleagues, all of which were above the average, and another assigned positions to five of his colleagues, all of which were below the average. Most of us also overestimate those whose lines of research are similar to our own. These factors affect the order of the names in the list but slightly, though they increase the probable errors. A more considerable vari- ation is due to the fact that the names were divided among twelve sciences, whereas the lines between the sciences are artificial. A man's work may not fall naturally in one of these conventional sciences, or it may fall in two or more of them. In such cases he is likely to receive a lower position than he de- serves. It is not clear how this difficulty could have been avoided, for if more depart- ments of science had been used, the over- lapping would have been greater. Table V. gives the cases in which the thou- sand scientific men were given places in the lists of two or more sciences, even though in the science in which they were given the lower position they did not come within the thou- sand, but only in the 1,443 who made up the total list. The horizontal lines of the table give those who were assigned the higher posi- tion in the science named, and the vertical AMERICAN MEN OF SCIENCE 543 lines those who were assigned the lower posi- tion. Thus there was one man whose higher position was in mathematics, but who was also given a position in physics, and there were eleven men who are primarily physicists and secondarily mathematicians. There are 93 men who have a position in two sciences, five who have a position in three sciences and one who has a position in four sciences. It thus appears that about one tenth of our sci- entific men do work of some importance in more than one of the twelve sciences here defined. TABLE V. THE HT7MBEBS OF THOSE WHO WEBB AS- SIGNED A POSITION IN MOBE THAN ONE SCIENCE . tA MI A ^ Ml cm B - so t* Ml a r^ O o fi OQ .*- a | o o P. o 0> ^* s o O CO 5 J3 3 ii sj n .J N" B 09 ja 5 8 ^ P, O * Mathematics . . i 3 1 i 6 Physics 1 -I i 4 1 17 Chemistry .... 3 3 2 1 9 Astronomy .... 9 9 Geology 1 1 9 ? 6 Botany 1 9 1 4 Zoology 4 3 15 1 23 Physiology .... 2 1 4 2 9 Anatomy 4 3 __ 1 1 9 Pathology 3 2 1 6 Anthropology . . 1 4 1 6 Psychology .... 1 1 2 20 4 7 8 12 1 6 11 23 8 1 5 106 The chief interest of the table is that it gives a certain measure of the relationships of the sciences. Thus mathematics, physics and astronomy, on the one hand, and zoology, anatomy and physiology, on the other, are the most closely interrelated groups. This might have been foreseen, but the table gives the definite relations. There are but few who are anatomists only, whereas botany is the science which is the least likely to be combined with any other. One of the most serious obstacles to the advancement of science is the lack of men who are expert both in an exact and in a natural or biological science. There are in all the leading countries acad- emies of science, whose membership is sup- posed to consist of their most eminent, scien- tific men, and one of the principal functions of such academies appears to be the election of members as an honor. The methods of selection used in this research are more ac- curate than those of any academy of sciences, and it might seem that the publication of the list would be as legitimate as that of a list of our most eminent men selected by less ade- quate methods. But perhaps its very accuracy would give it a certain brutality. Of the first hundred scientific men on the list who are eligible, 61 are included among the 97 members of the National Academy of Sciences, and of the first 30 men on the list 28 are members of the academy. The elections to the academy tend to follow the list pretty closely in the order in which men are arranged in the separate sciences usually falling within the probable error of position. But the acad- emy has no method of comparing performance in difference sciences, and if one science has less than its proper representation, the dis- parity is likely to increase rather than to de- crease. Thus there are in the country about half as many astronomers as botanists, but there are twice as many astronomers in the academy. The second principal variation in the membership of the academy is due to the fact that men do not always retain the posi- tions that they hold when elected. Apart from the somewhat greater accuracy, the su- periority of this list consists in the assignment of probable errors of position. Thus the prob- able error at the close of the first hundred is about 25 places, that is, there are about 25 men not in an ideal academy of a hundred, whose chances of belonging there are at least one in four. A list such as this would also give us academies of any desired size the sixty most eminent men of science, as in the Paris Academy, the hundred or thereabouts as in the National Academy, or the 450 or thereabouts, as in the Eoyal Society. While under existing conditions of senti- ment, the publication of a list of our thousand leading men of science in the order of merit with the probable errors would not be toler- 544 AMERICAN MEN OF SCIENCE ated, I have indicated those who are included in the thousand in my " Biographical Direct- ory of American Men of Science," a work of reference that may be regarded as a by- product of this study. I did this with some hesitation, but it seemed best to place on record those who were the subjects of this research, more especially as this could be done without any invidiousness. The probable error toward the end of the list is about 100 places, so there are one hundred others who have at least one chance in four of belonging to this group. Further, several scientific men of standing were omitted from the lists as originally drawn up, and were not considered in making the arrangements. Consequently, while each of those indicated in the Biograph- ical Directory is probably one of the leading thousand American men of science, there are others not indicated who belong to this group. This, however, is a minor factor, and we have with sufficient accuracy for statistical purposes a group of the leading thousand American men of science arranged in the order of merit with the probable errors of position known. THE MEASUREMENT OF SCIENTIFIC MERIT Many of the problems that the writer had in view in the present research might be solved by the study of any group of. a thou- sand American men of science, so long as they had been objectively selected. The ob- jective selection of a group sufficiently large for statistical treatment is, however, essential. As cases can be quoted to illustrate the cure of nearly every disease by almost any medi- cine, so examples can be given in support of any psychological or sociological theory. The method of anecdote, as used by Lombroso, may be readable literature, but it is not sci- ence. A thousand names might have been selected by lot from all the scientific men of the country, assuming a list to have been available, but a group of the thousand leading men of science arranged in the order of merit has certain advantages. Information in re- gard to tham can be better obtained than in the case of those who are more obscure. Cor- relations can be determined between degrees of scientific merit and various conditions. The comparison with a similar group selected ten or twenty years hence, or with a similar group of British, French or German men of science, would give interesting results. The list itself, if printed after an interval of twenty years, would be a historical document of value. Lastly, the data can be so used as to carry quantitative methods a little way into a region that has hitherto been outside the range of exact science. It is the last problem that I wish to take up in this paper. It will be remembered that we have in each science the workers in that science arranged in the supposed order of merit by ten com- petent judges, who made their arrangements independently. If the ten arrangements agreed exactly, we should have complete con- fidence in the result, except in so far as it was affected by systematic or constant errors. If there were no agreement at all, the futility of any attempt to estimate scientific merit would be made clear. The conditions are naturally intermediate. There is a certain amount of agreement and a certain amount of difference of opinion. Thus taking, for example, the ten astronomers I., II., III., etc. whose average positions were the highest, the order given to them by each of the ten observers, A, B, C, etc., is as shown in Table I. Here we find complete agreement that I. is our leading astronomer. He has been se- lected as such by nine competent judges from the 160 astronomers of the country." The probability that this is due to chance is en- tirely negligible. II. stands next in scientific merit. He is placed second by four of the observers, third by two, fourth by three and ninth by one. The conditions are similar to observations in the exact sciences. The av- erage position or grade is 3.5, and the prob- able error of this position is 0.45, i. e., the * In three cases where a question mark appears the astronomer did not give a position to himself. In one case the name was not included among the slips. AMERICAN MEN OP SCIENCE 545 TABLE I. THE OBDEB ASSIGNED TO TEN ASTEONOMEBS BY TEN OBSEBVEBS I. II. III. IV. V. VI. VII. VIII. IX. X. A 1 2 4 3 10 6 9 5 11 8 B 1 4 2 5 6 ? 9 3 8 7 C 1 4 ? 5 2 *16 6 17 7 *21 D ? 2 4 3 1 5 7 13 8 6 E 1 *9 2 5 6 3 8 4 7 11 F 1 4 10 2 5 6 3 7 8 11 O 1 3 5 *16 2 6 7 13 4 8 H 1 3 5 7 6 4 9 ? 8 2 I 1 2 8 4 10 6 7 3 11 5 J 1 2 4 5 12 8 3 6 13 7 AV. 1.0 3.5 4.8 5.5 6.0 6.6 6.8 7.8 8.5 8.6 av. 1.0 2.9 4.8 4.3 6.0 5.5 6.8 7.8 8.5 7.2 m.v. 0.0 1.4 1.9 2.4 2.8 2.3 1.7 4.3 1.9 3.4 P.E. 0.0 .45 .59 .84 .84 .85 .48 1.15 .54 1.09 p.e. 0.0 .39 .57 .68 .79 .69 .48 1.28 .54 .96 chances are even that this grade is correct within one half of a unit. The grade of the astronomer who stands third is 4.8, and that of the astronomer who stands fourth is 5.5. There is consequently one chance in about fifty that II. deserves a grade as low as that of III., and one in about one thousand that he deserves a grade as low as that of IV. The order thus has a high degree of validity, and this has itself been measured. As we go further down the list, the probable errors tend to increase, the order is less certain, and the difference in merit between a man and his neighbor on the list is less. The variations in the sizes of the probable errors are, as a rule, significant. When the error is small the work of the man is such that it can be judged with accuracy; when it is larger it is because the work is more difficult to estimate. The probable errors depend on the assump- tion that the individual deviations follow the exponential law, and they do so in sufficient measure for the purposes in view. For those near the top of the list, the distribution of errors is " skewed " in the negative direction, that is, there are relatively more large nega- tive than positive errors. Thus in the table there are four judgments marked with a star, the deviation of each of which is more than three times the average deviation, and these observations would be omitted by an ap- proximate application of Chauvenet's cri- 36 terion. If these four observations are omit- ted, the grades of the ten astronomers are those given in the second line of averages. The omitted judgments are not extremely divergent, barely exceeding the limits set by Chauvenet's criterion, and I do not regard them as invalid. Indeed, I believe that in view of the presence of systematic errors in these estimates the chance that they represent correct values is greater than that assigned by a strict application of the theory of proba- bilities. But the incidence of an extreme judgment might in special cases do injustice to an individual, and in the order used Chau- venet's criterion has been applied.' This means that a compromise has been adopted between the median and the average judg- Among the some 15,000 observations under consideration several variations might be expected to occur in a normal distribution as much as six times as large as the probable error, and among the 1,500 or more individuals, several might be expected to deserve positions departing consider- ably from those assigned. But assuming that we have " normal errors " to deal with, there is no reason why the particular individuals' on whom the divergent errors fall should receive them rather than any other individuals. Such errors should apparently be distributed among all the individuals. Similar conditions must occur in the case of errors of observation in the exact sciences, but so far as I am aware their signifi- cance has not been considered. 546 AMERICAN MEN OF SCIENCE ment; but the departure from the average judgment is small, affecting less than one fifth of the individuals and only to a slight degree. The average deviations and probable errors used are those found when all the judgments are included. Two probable errors are given in the table, the first obtained through the error of mean square, the second by taking it as directly proportional to the average devia- tion. The differences are not significant, and for work of this character I regard it as use- less to calculate the probable errors by the ordinary formula. I have published else- where 10 a more technical discussion of the treatment of errors or deviations of this char- acter, and may return to the subject at some subsequent time. The theory of errors com- monly applied in the exact sciences is too crude for psychology, and probably for the sciences in which it is used. Progress here will be blocked until there are psychologists who are mathematicians or mathematicians who are psychologists. In order to illustrate further the serial dis- tribution and the probable errors, I have made a diagram for the fifty psychologists. The grade of each, no judgments being omit- ted, is shown by the vertical mark, and the length of the line indicates the probable error or range within which the chances are even that the true position falls. Thus the psy- chologist who stands first on the list, was, like the astronomer, given this position by the in- dependent judgment of all. The psychologist who stands second has, as shown on the dia- gram, a position of 3.7 and a probable error of 0.5, i. e., the position 3.7 is the most prob- able, but the true position is equally likely to be within the short horizontal line, between 3.2 and 4.2, or outside it. It must, however, be remembered that the chances of the true position being far outside the range of this line decrease very rapidly. Over it is roughly drawn the bell-shaped curve of the normal probability integral. The true position is along the base line covered by this curve, and the chances of its being at any given point 'Am. Journ. of Psychol., 14: 312-328, 1903. are proportional to the ordinate or height of the curve above the base line. There is only one chance in about six that the true grade is above 2.7 or below 4.7, and only one chance in about 150 that the true grade is above 1.7 or below 5.7. It will be seen from the dia- gram that while the positions of the psycholo- gists II., III. and IV. are the most probable, the relative order is not determined with cer- tainty. On the other hand, the chances are some 10,000 to one that each of these psy- chologists stands below I. and above V. It is evident that the probable errors in- crease in size as we go down the list. The X 10 30 foO FlO. 1. The positions and probable errors of the fifty psychologists. curve of distribution drawn over No. XL. in- dicates that the chances are even that the true position falls between the grades of XXXIV. and L. and that there is one chance in four that he does not belong among our fifty lead- ing psychologists. The increase in the size of the probable errors is irregular, it being more difficult to assign a position to some men than to others. It will be noted that the psychologists fall into groups, the first twenty being set off from the next group, though the two groups are bridged over by three cases. At this point also the probable errors become almost sud- AMERICAN MEN OF SCIENCE 547 denly about three times as large. There are altogether about 200 psychologists in the country, and it looks as if the first tenth forms a separate group of leaders. There is a similar, though less marked group of the first twenty astronomers, but these groups seem to be partly accidental. There is, how- ever, as shown below, an inflection point in the curve of distribution after about the first tenth of our scientific men. The first twenty psychologists fall into four distinct groups, and there are groupings in the other sciences. They do not, however, appear to be sufficiently marked to lead us to distinguish species, such as men of genius and men of talent. It is, however, possible that the complicated condi- tions may ultimately be analyzed so as to give such groups. The probable errors not only tell the accu- racy with which the psychologists can be ar- ranged in the order of merit, but they also measure the differences between them. This, indeed, I regard as the most important result of this paper, as science is advanced chiefly by the extension of quantitative methods, and it might not have been foreseen that it would be possible to measure degrees of scientific merit. Our data are concerned with the recognition of scientific performance, not with abstract ability, if such a thing is conceivable. Merit is in performance, not in non-perform- ance, and expert judgment is the best, and in the last resort the only, criterion of perform- ance. The difference in scientific merit between any two of the psychologists whose positions and probable errors are shown in the chart is directly as the distance between them and inversely as their probable errors. If two of them are close together on the scale, and if the probable errors are large, the difference between them is small, and conversely. If the psychologists II. and III. were sepa- rated by 0.5 and their probable errors were 0.5, as is approximately the case, then the difference between them is so small that there is one chance in four that the position of III. is above the grade of II. If again the psy- chologists XL. and XLIX. were separated by 6 and their probable errors were 6, as is ap- proximately the case, then there is again one chance in four that the true position of XLIX. is above the grade of XL. The dif- ference between II. and III. is thus about the same as that between XL. and XLIX. If we take the fifty psychologists in groups of 10, and thus partly eliminate the chance variations, the average probable errors of the five groups are 0.7, 1.8, 4.2, 5.8, 6.2. These probable errors are subject to a correction for the range covered by the grades. Thus the first ten cover a range of about eleven points, and the last ten a range of about six points, and the differences between the psychologists at the top of the list would be nearly twice as great as between those at the bottom of the list if the probable errors were the same. When we take account of both factors, the probable errors in the five groups are 0.6, 1.9, 1.8, 6.4 and 10.7. While the probable errors are determined with a considerable degree of exactness, which is itself measured, the ranges covered by the grades seem to depend on the special conditions in the science; they are not the same in the different sciences, and their validity can not be determined with any exactness. Subject, however, to a consider- able probable error, the range of merit covered by the fifty psychologists is inversely as the figures given, and reduced to a scale of 100 would be: 55.6, 17,5, 18.5, 5.2 and 3.2. Thus we can say that the psychologists at the top of the list are likely to differ from each other about 18 times as much as the psychologists at the bottom of the list. We have no zero point from which we can meas- ure psychological merit. Men who are 6 ft. 2 in. tall are likely to differ from each other about ten times as much as men who are about 5 ft. 8 in. tall, though the difference in their height is only as 68 : 74. Even though we assumed the zero point to be where psy- chological performance begins or at the sur- vival minimum of human ability, we should only obtain relative differences. The astronomers and the psychologists have 548 AMERICAN MEN OP SCIENCE been used as illustrations. The number of students of astronomy and of psychology in the country does not differ greatly, and it is assumed that they represent an equal range of scientific merit. It is possible that it requires more ability to be an astronomer than to be a psychologist, and it is equally possible that, in view of the larger endowments, longer history and more conventional problems, less ability will suffice for the astronomer. The curves of distribution might also vary; for example, it might be relatively easier to be an astronomer of moderate performance, but more difficult to be a great astronomer. There are indications of such differences, but the data at hand do not disclose them with any degree of certainty. There are 100 geologists and 100 botanists on the list, who are about one fourth of all the geologists and botanists of the country. These are assumed to cover about the same range of scientific merit as the astronomers or the psychologists. The average difference between the geologists would consequently be about half that between the astronomers, and the probable errors of position should theoret- ically be about twice as large. The anthro- pologists are the smallest class of scientific men, numbering in all about ninety, of whom 20 are included in the thousand under con- sideration. They are again assumed to cover a range of performance equal to that of the astronomers or geologists, the average differ- ence between them being two and a half times as great as between the astronomers or five times as great as between the geologists. The chemists are the most numerous class of scien- tific men, 175 being included in the thousand. There are 150 physicists, 150 zoologists, 80 mathematicians, 60 pathologists, 40 physiolo- gists and 25 anatomists. In the accompanying table are given the grades and probable errors of the twenty men of science who were assigned positions at the TABLE rr. GBADES AND PEOBABLE EEEORS OF THE TWENTT MEN OF SCIENCE WHO STAND FIRST IN EACH OF THE SCIENCES bo X ~s J L a Q bo x bo B -a bo o M a 3 a o o [o o "o a. o o rt I g O I 1 O ~o pa "o o N e a a I 1 a > w > H a * w * H > w > W > w > H > H ! > W > W' ^ DJ ^J OH J * P* < OH' < fc <{ P-I < a! < ft < fe ^ I. 2.5 .6 1.6 .7 3.6 .6 1.0 2.5 .4 2.9 .8 2.7 .2 2.0 .3 1.5 .3 1.0 1.7 .2 1.0 II. 3.3 3.0 3.2 2.5 4.4 .5 *2.9 .4 3.3 .4 3.3 .5 3.2 1.0 2.6 .3 *1.8 .2 3.9 .3 2.6 .2 3.0 .5 III. 3.7 .7 8.7 2.7 5.5 1.7 *4.3 .6 5.4 1.6 5.0 1.6 4.3 1.3 *4.3 .5 5.7 1.0 3.9 1.5 2.7 .8: 3.2 .4 IV. 5.7 .5 9.0 .8 6.8 1.2 4.8 .5 7.0 2.2 6.7 1.1 4.6 .9 5.7 .5 6.6 1.3 4.8 .6: 4.5 .4 4.4 .6 V. 5.7 1.6 9.6 7.9 8.8 1.5 5.5 .7 8.8 1.2 7.1 3.9 7.0 .9 6.1 .6 *6.7 .9 8.6 1.7 4.6 1.1 6.2 .9 VI. *5.7 3.9 11.5 1.8 9.7 1.4 6.0 .8 11.3 1.9 7.5 .6 8.9 .9 6.2 1.1 7.0 1.2 11.1 1.5 7.2 1.0 7.1 1.2 VII. 9.2 1.0 *11.7 6.7 9.8 1.6 6.8 .4 12.2 1.5 8.1 2.6 12.6 5.2 7.5 1.1 8.0 1.2 12.0 2.7 8'.4 .7 7.2 2.3 VIII. 9.6 3.6 11.8 2.1 11.4 1.7 7.2 1.0 17.1 2.3 8.5 .8 13.1 1.5 10.3 .8 *8.5 1.4 13.3 .7 8.5 .9 7.5 1.2 IX. 12.1 2.0 12.0 5.3 15.5 2.9 7.8 1.2 17.1 2.5 11.3 1.7 13.4 1.8 11.0 .9 *8.8 .8 14.8 5.6 10.4 1.6 8.0 .3 X. 13.1 1.5 12.2 1.7 15.8 1.5 8.0 .5 18.3 2.5 12.3 1.8 14.1 1.8 13.0 .8 *15.2 1.7 16.9 3.7,11.0 .8 9.5 .6 XI. 14.0 1.3 13.5 1.7 16.4 6.1 10.2 .3 19.3 4.5 13.2 1.3 17.3 5.0 15.2 1.7 *15.7 2.2 17.6 2.5 11.4 1.5 12.3 1.1 XII. 14.6 2,0 14.2 6.2 16.8 3.6 11.0 .3 19.4 3.7 13.7 1.9 17.6 5.2 15.7 2.2 *16.2 2.2 18.0 2.6 15.8 2.4 14.7 1.4 XIII. 14.7 3.1 14.8 8.0 17.8 3.7 13.6 1.1 19.4 4.6 14.8 1.3 *19.1 5.0 19.1 3.1 *16.4 1.5 18.5 4.1 17.5 1.817.1 1.5 XIV 17.4 1.7 18.3 3.5 19.8 3.7 14.2 1.2 19.5 2.9 16.3 1.9 19.7 2.2 20.1 2.6 16.8 2.1 *20.6 2.2 18.0 1.2 17.9 2.3 XV. 19.1 3.4 19.4 4.8 20.7 1.5 14.3 .4 21.5 2.919.8 2.0 20.1 2.9 21.2 2.2 18.5 2.3 22.7 3.6 18.6 1.8 18.1 2.3 XVI. 21.5 2.8 19 5 2.2 21.3 3.4 17.0 .7 22.1 2.3 20.2 3.2 20.4 3.4 *21.3 2.7 18.6 2.3 25.5 2.7 19.1 1.6 18.7 1.5 XVII. 21.8 3.1 19.7 5.622.0 4.621.4 1.4 22.2 1.5 23.9 3.9 20.8 3.1 21.8 2.2 18.8 4.0 26.8 2.719.5 1.419.2 1.1 XVIII. *22.8 2.6 21.1 2.3 24.7 2.5 22.7 1.2 *24.8 5.1 27.2 4.0 20.8 3.5 22.4 3.0 19.3 1.5 27.4 4.4 20.5 1.7 19.6 1.6 XIX 23.1 2.9 21.2 3.7 25.3 6.4 22.9 3.0 26.5 3.5 27.9 3.2 23.0 3.2 24.4 3.0 21.1 1.9 27.5 4.5 21.8 1.5 20.0 3.4 XX 23.8 2.6 22.1 4.9 25.4 12.7 23.3 2.6 *27.4 4.5 27.9 4.5 24.4 2.3|*25.4 3.7 22.7 3.7 29.9 4.0 22.0 3.6 20.4 1.3 AMERICAN MEN OF SCIENCE 549 head of each of the twelve sciences. All the anthropologists are thus included in the table, but only two fifths of the astronomers, one fifth of the geologists, etc. In cases in which an individual stands relatively higher in an- other science a star is attached. It will be observed that the grades are, as a rule, lower than the positions. As has been stated, the distribution of the judgments or errors in the upper part of the list is "skewed" in a negative direction, so that the average judgment is lower than the median judgment. Further down the list this tendency disap- pears, and towards the bottom, not given in the table except for the anatomists and an- thropologists, the " skew " is in the opposite direction. Chauvenet's criterion has been ap- plied; it causes but an insignificant difference in the order, and for statistical purposes the extra calculations involved were superfluous. As has been explained, however, the incidence of a divergent judgment, which might be due to ignorance or prejudice, might be unjust to an individual. The probable errors have been obtained by taking them directly proportional to the average deviation and assuming that there were always ten judgments. In the comparatively few cases where there were less than ten judgments the probable errors of the average are too small, but the differences are not significant. In the measurement of sci- entific merit, we are concerned not with the probable error of the average, but with the average probable error, which does not depend on the number of cases. Figures for both might be given, but they are so nearly alike and so lacking in significance that it is not worth while. As the table shows, there are in astronomy, pathology and psychology men who are placed distinctly at the head. In the other sciences those who stand first have grades varying from 1.6 to 3.6. In most cases the differences in grade are less than the probable errors, or not much larger, and the position is not deter- mined to a single place, though it is deter- mined with a theoretically high degree of validity within a very few places. Various groupings occur, which seem to represent the existing conditions of the sciences. Thus there are breaks of two or more units after chemists 4 and 8; physicist 2; zoologists 4 and 6 ; geologists 2, 5 and 7 ; botanist 8 ; math- ematicians 3, 6 and 8; pathologists 1, 4, 5 and 9; psychologist 1; physiologists 7 and 9; anatomists 2 and 9, and anthropologist 5. On the other hand, there are cases in which con- secutive numbers are bracketed or practically bracketed. Thus mathematicians 4, 5 and 6 have a grade of 5.7. These various groupings appear to be about what the probable errors would lead us to expect. The probable errors tend to increase as we go down the lists, but with considerable ir- regularity. This irregularity is in part due to normal variability where the number of observations is small and the average devia- tions are relatively large, but the larger de- partures are usually significant, it being easier to assign a position to some men of science than to others. Thus, for example, it is not easy to compare a man who has made one or two important discoveries with a man who has accomplished a large mass of useful work. The tendency of the probable errors to in- crease is, however, significant. It is easier to assign the order at the top of the list, and the difficulty increases as we go downward. This subjective fact is measured by the probable errors. It is in part due to less knowledge of those whose work is less important. I know of no way to eliminate this factor or to measure its influence. But the main factor is the real differences between the men, and these are assumed to be inversely as the prob- able errors and directly as the differences in grade. In Table III. are given all the probable errors averaged in six groups for each of the sciences. In the first and second groups are included one tenth of those in each science, and in the remaining groups one fifth. That is, the probable errors are divided into five equal groups, but the first group is divided into two subgroups, in view of the fact that 550 AMERICAN MEN OF SCIENCE HI. PBOBABLE EEBOBS IN EACH OF THE SCIENCES, THE MEN OF SCIENCE BEING DIVIDED INTO IX GBOTJP8 Mathematics. 8 3 >, fi Chemistry. Astronomy. Geology. tA a 5 2 t>, bo _o "o 1 Physiology. Anatomy. Pathology. Anthropology. Psychology. Average. W OH' CRUDE PKOBABLE ERRORS ! f 1.8 3.8 2.5 .4 1.7 1.6 2.4 .4 .4 .9 .2 .5 L i 2.2 4.0 5.7 .8 3.5 2.7 4.1 .9 .9 3.0 .3 .9 ii. 4.1 8,5 6.9 1.3 5.2 4.8 6.8 2.0 1.3 3.7 .9 1.8 in. 4.5 10.1 13.4 3.8 6.7 7.6 9.8 3.0 2.1 6.8 1.6 4.2 IV. 6.0 9.4 15.0 3.6 7.0 8.7 9.6 2.9 2.7 5.9 1.6 5.8 V. 6.4 8.5 13.9 3.2 6.7 8.3 9.6 2.9 3.4 6.0 2.0 6.2 PROBABLE ERRORS CORRECTED FOB THE BANGE : ; 1.3 3.1 2.0 .4 .9 1.3 1.9 .3 .2 .5 .2 .4 * i 1.8 2.8 3.4 .9 3.6 1.7 3.3 .7 1.7 2.8 .3 .9 n. 3.0 6.2 5.0 .8 7.0 4.2 5.3 1.5 .8 3.3 .6 1.9 in. 7.1 14.0 16.4 6.3 6.4 8.2 11.3 2.9 3.6 8.6 .9 1.8 IV. 7.3 28.5 22.7 3.9 8.3 8.3 15.3 2.6 2.6 12.6 3.2 6.4 V. 6.2 24.8 25.3 4.6 7.3 15.6 17.0 4.2 3.8 6.2 2.1 10.7 THE SAME SEDUCED TO A COMMON STANDARD FOB THE THOUSAND MEN OF SCIENCE T f 16 21 11 8 9 13 13 8 8 8 10 8 11.1 .8 L 1 22 19 19 18 36 17 22 18 68 47 15 18 26.6 2.9 II. 37 41 29 16 70 42 35 38 32 55 30 38 38.6 2.2 III. 89 93 94 126 64 82 75 73 144 143 45 36 88.7 6.4 IV. 91 190 129 78 83 83 102 65 104 210 160 128 118.6 9.1 V. 78 165 145 92 73 156 113 105 152 103 105 214 125.1 8.4 the probable errors of the first tenth are dis- tinctly smaller than those of the second tenth. In the middle part of the table the probable errors have been adjusted to the ranges cov- ered by each group, and in the lower part these figures have been reduced to a common standard of a thousand, so that the results for the different sciences may be comparable. If the range of ability is the same in each science and if the difficulty of assigning the order in each science is the same, then the figures in the lower third of the table should tend to be the same in the different sciences. As the averages include from 2 to 35 cases, they are subject to a probable error which varies considerably. Thus, to take, for ex- ample, an intermediate case the botanists the probable errors of the six entries in the upper part of the table are: 0.25, 0.33, 0.18, 0.28, 0.22, 0.25. They thus seem to be de- termined with considerable validity. When the probable errors are adjusted for the ranges, a considerable " chance " variation is intro- duced. If the figures were broken up into groups of different sizes, the results would be different. The figures in the last three groups of each of the sciences seem scarcely to be significant of real differences in the sciences, though they to a certain extent measure the actually existing conditions. The figures in the table give the validity with which the positions are determined, and at the same time measure the relative differ- ences between the men in the several groups. Thus the first tenth of the chemists have on the average their positions determined rela- tively to other chemists with a probable error of two places and the last fifth with a probable error of 25 places. In relation to the first hundred scientific men, a chemist in this AMERICAN MEN OF SCIENCE 551 group has his position determined on the average (apart from the error due to the in- terpolation) with a probable error of 11 places, whereas in relation- to the last 200 scientific men, the place is determined with a probable error of 145 places. The figures also show that the average dif- ferences between the chemists who are in the first tenth are about eight times as great as between the chemists towards the middle of the list and about twelve times as great as between the chemists towards the bottom of the list. As has been stated, there are considerable variations in the figures for the different sci- ences. In general, however, those in the first hundred differ from each other about ten times as much as those in the last four hun- dred, among whom there are no constant dif- ferences. It is scarcely safe to draw infer- ences from the variations in the different groups and in the different sciences. If the probable errors in one science were consist- ently higher than in another, it would mean that in the former science it is more difficult to make the arrangement, which might be due to greater diversity in the work to be com- pared or to greater similarity in the men. The greater similarity in the men would prob- ably be due to there having been relatively too many men included in that science. But such consistent differences do not appear. Thus the psychologists have the largest prob- able error in the last group, but the smallest in the third group, and the mathematicians have the second smallest probable error in the last group, but the second largest in the first group. In so far as these figures are signifi- cant, they might mean that our able psycholo- gists are more able than our able mathemati- cians, whereas our lesser psychologists are less able than our lesser mathematicians. It is probably true that our leading psychologists would compare more favorably with those of Germany, France and Great Britain than our leading mathematicians, but inferences as to the variation in the distribution of ability in the different sciences can not be made from the data at hand with any considerable degree of validity. It would, however, be of interest to have comparable data for different nations and for different periods. The workers in the twelve sciences have been combined into one series by interpola- tion, it being assumed that the range of ability in each science is the same. The probable errors have at the same time been increased to correspond with a thousand cases, as shown in Table III. This makes the probable errors relatively correct, but does not allow for the additional chance variations caused by the interpolation. The list is of considerable in- TABLE IV. THE OBDEB, THE SCIENCE, THE GBADE AND THE PROBABLE EBBOB OF EACH OF THE FIBST FIFTY MEN OF SCIENCE ON THE LIST Order. Science. Grade, P. E. Order. Science. Grade. P. E. Order. Science. Grade. P. E. I. Astron. T XVIII. Chem. 38.8 6.9 XXXV. Physiol. 65.0 7.0 II. Path. ? XIX. Math. 41.3 37.1 XXXVI. Psychol. 65.0 7.3 III. Psychol. ? XX. Math. 46.3 8.7 XXXVII. Path. 65.0 24.7 IV. Physics. 10.7 4.8 XXI. Zool. 46.7 6.0 XXXVIII. Chem. 65.1 9.9 V. Zool. 18.0 1.3 XXII. Physiol. 50.0 7.7 XXXIX. Bot. 67.8 10.6 VI. Chem. 20.5 3.2 XXIII. Bot. 60.0 15.9 XL. Geol. 70.0 21.8 VII. Zool. 21.3 6.9 XXIV. Chem. 50.2 8.3 XLI. Math. 71.3 5.9 VIII. Physics. 21.3 18.2 XXV. Geol. 54.4 16.2 XLII. Math. 71.3 19.6 IX. Geol. 25.0 4.7 XXVI. Chem. 55.4 7.8 XLIII. Bot. 71.3 39.2 X. Chem. 25.1 2.4 XXVII. Chem. 56.0 9.3 XLIV. Bot. 75.5 6.2 XI. Zool. 28.7 8.6 XXVIII. Physics. 58.0 17.7 XLV. Physics. 76.7 11.8 XII. Bot. 29.0 8.1 XXIX. Zool. 59.3 6.2 XLVI. Physics. 78.7 14.2 XIII. Zool. 30.7 5.9 XXX. Physics. 60.0 5.2 XLVII. Path. 80.0 10.7 XIV. Math. 31.3 7.0 XXXI. Psychol. 60.0 9.8 XLVIII. Physics. 80.0 35.3 XV. Chem. 31.4 9.8 XXXII. Anat. 60.0 12.3 XLIX. Bot. 81.1 27.2 XVI. Bot. 33.0 5.3 XXXIII. Physics. 64.0 53.4 L. Physics. 81.3 11.2 XVII. Geol. 33.3 4.7 XXXIV. Path. 65.0 4.2 552 AMERICAN MEN OF SCIENCE terest, as it enables us to compare with more or less accuracy men of science working in diverse directions. The order, grades and probable errors of the fifty who stand first are given to illustrate the method. We can thus say that the work of a certain physicist is equal in value to the work of a certain zoologist, or that a certain chemist has one chance in four of being as competent as a certain pathologist, a result that would not be possible by direct compari- son. The various factors which limit the ex- actness of the method should be kept in mind, but we have at least the beginning of a method which with further effort can be made more accurate. Similar methods can be applied to comparing the value of performance in fields even more diverse than the several sciences. -to 104 FIG. 2. Distribution of the thousand men of science. In the accompanying curve which is based on substantially the same figures as are given in Table III., except that a man is given a position only in the science in which he stands the highest is shown the distribution of the thousand men of science. The 1,000 scientific men are divided into ten groups, the range of eminence or merit covered by each hundred being proportional to the space it occupies on the axis of the abscissas, and the number of each degree of ability being proportional to the ordinates. The range of merit covered by each hundred becomes smaller and there are more of each degree of merit as we pass from the first to the second hundred and so on for the first five hundred, after which the differences become very small. The first hun- dred men of science cover a range of merit about equal to that of the second and third hundreds together, and this again is very nearly equal to the range covered by the re- maining seven hundred. The average differ- ences between the men in the first hundred are about twice as great as between the men in the second and third hundreds, and about seven times as great as between the men in the remaining groups. Or the differences among the first hundred are almost exactly ten times as great as among the last five hundred, who differ but little among themselves. It would be desirable to compare this distribution with that of the normal probability integral and with the salaries paid to scientific men, but the data are not as yet at hand. THE DISTRIBUTION OF AMERICAN MEN OF SCIENCE From a conventional point of view the dis- tribution of men of science would not be regarded as a psychological problem, perhaps not even as a scientific problem. But in re- 4 cent years the distribution of plants and ani- mals has received increasing attention in bot- any and zoology, and apart from its perti- nence as a correct description of the world in which we live, it has proved, on the one hand, to have certain practical applications, and, on the other hand, to throw light on certain general problems of heredity and evolution. Similar results may accrue from a scientific study of the distribution of human ability and performance. The birthplace and the present residence of the thousand leading men of science of the United States are shown on the table on page 554, the divisions used being those of the census. Figures are given separately for the five hundred (I.-V.) who are more distin- guished and for the five hundred (VL-X.) whose reputations are less, followed by the totals and their number per million of the ^population. As the average age of the scien- tific men is about 45 years, their birth rate AMERICAN MEN OF SCIENCE 553 is referred to the census of I860." Thus the first line of the table shows that 29 of the 1,000 scientific men were born in Maine, and four now reside there. Of the 29 scientific men born in the state, 19 are among the 500 who are more eminent and 10 among the 500 who are less eminent. The number born was at the rate of 46.1 per million of the popula- tion at the approximate time of their birth, or one for each 22,000. The scientific popula- tion of the state is now only at the rate of 5.7 per million of the population, or scarcely more than one for each 200,000. There are striking variations in the origin and in the present residence of scientific men throughout the United States. Massachusetts and Boston have been the intellectual center of the country. The birth rate of these leading men of science is in Massachusetts 108.8 per million population; it is 86.9 in Connecticut, and decreases continually at greater distances from this center. It is reduced to about one half in the surrounding states 46.1 in Maine, 46 in New Hampshire, 57.1 in Vermont and 47.2 in New York. There is a further reduc- tion to one half in Pennsylvania to 22.7 and this proceeds as we go southwards, the rate being 8.8 in Virginia, 5 in North Carolina, 2.8 in Georgia, 2.1 in Alabama, 1.3 in Missis- sippi and 1.4 in Louisiana. In the north central states the conditions are intermediate between New York and Pennsylvania. Thus the birth rate per million is 32.1 in Ohio and 36 in Michigan. Here again it decreases as we go southward. The rate is 45.1 in Wis- consin, 24.5 in Illinois, 11.8 in Missouri and 6.9 in Kentucky. Westward the total num- ber of scientific men is too small and the pop- ulation has been too rapidly increasing for the figures to be reliable. Each individual should be considered in connection with the population at the time of his birth, but even "This is not exact, as the age distribution is not symmetrical, and the rate of increase of the population in the different states is not uniform, but the results are as nearly correct as is neces- sary. * in this case the validity of the results would be small. Of the 1,000 scientific men, 126 were born in foreign countries 34 in Canada, 38 in Great Britain and 19 in Germany. The birthplace of seven is not known. The num- ber per million is for the native population 13.2, and for the foreign-born population 12. These figures have, however, no significance, as the foreign-born population contains a much larger proportion of adult males. The percentage of the white native population in the United States over 40 years of age is 18.4, and of white foreign-born is 44.4. The native population consequently produces more than t twice as many scientific men as the foreign- born, even without regard to the excess of males among the foreign-born, the inclusion of the colored races among the native-born and the fact that many of the foreign-born have been called to this country on account of their scientific standing. The different na- * tions contribute scientific men in very unequal measure, the numbers per million foreign- born being as follows: Switzerland, 68.9; Scotland, 37.9; England, 29.6; Canada, 28.7; Austria-Hungary, 10.4; Russia, 7.4; Germany, 7.1; Sweden, 5.2; Italy, 2.1; Ireland, 1.8; France, 0. These differences can not be at- tributed to race, as they do not represent the scientific productivity of these nations, but only of the classes that have emigrated to this country. While it is not possible to deny that the variations are dependent on the kinds of family stocks, it is probable that they are due in much larger measure to social and > economic conditions. The native-born sons of Irish-born parents may not be inferior in scientific productivity to other classes of the community. The inequality in the production of scien- tific men in different parts of the country seems to be a forcible argument against the view of Dr. Galton and Professor Pearson that scientific performance is almost exclu- sively due to heredity. It is unlikely that there are such differences in family stocks as would lead one part of the country to produce 554 AMERICAN MEN OF SCIENCE a hundred times as many scientific men as other parts. The negroes may have a racial disqualification, but even this is not proved. The main factors in producing scientific and other forms of intellectual performance seem to be density of population, wealth, oppor- tunity, institutions and social traditions and ideals. All these may be ultimately due to race, but, given the existing race, the scien- tific productivity of the nation can be in- creased in quantity, though not in quality, almost to the extent that we wish to increase it. There may be no significant difference in the distributions of the first and second groups TABLE I. DISTRIBUTION OF THE THOUSAND MEN OF SCIENCE Birthplace . Per Million Residence. Per I.-V. VI.-X. Total. 1860. I.-V. VI.-X. Total. 1900. North Atlantic Division. Maine 19 10 29 A6 1 o 4 4 5 7 New Hampshire 7 8 15 46 2 6 8 19 4 Vermont 9 9 18 67.1 o 2 2 58 Massachusetts 60 74 134 108 8 74 70 144 51 3 Rhode Island 4 1 5 28 6 7 1 8 18 7 Connecticut 26 14 40 86 9 27 16 43 47 3 New York 99 84 183 JL7 2 93 99 192 26 4 New Jersey 9 19 28 41.6 17 18 35 18 5 Pennsylvania 32 34 66 22.7 28 37 65 10 3 South Atlantic Division. Delaware 2 2 17.8 1 1 5.4 Maryland 12 14 26 87 8 24 23 47 89 5 District of Columbia 1 2 3 39.9 69 50 119 426.9 Virginia 5 8 13 8.8 8 2 10 5.4 West Virginia 1 1 2 1 3 8.1 North Carolina 1 4 5 5.0 3 3 6 S 2 South Carolina 2 3 5 7 1 Georgia 1 2 3 2.8 1 1 1 4 South Central Civision. Kentucky 6 2 8 6.9 1 2 3 1.4 Tennessee 5 1 6 5.4 2 1 3 1.5 Alabama 1 1 2 2.1 1 1 2 1.1 Mississippi 1 1 1.8 Louisiana 1 1 1.4 1 1 .7 Texas 3 3 4.9 2 5 7 2.8 North Central Division. Ohio 42 33 75 82.1 13 21 34 8.2 Indiana. . . . 17 11 28 207 4 8 12 4 7 Illinois 24 18 42 24.5 36 27 63 13.1 Michigan 12 15 27 86.0 22 5 27 11.1 Wisconsin 11 24 35 45.1 11 12 23 11.1 Minnesota 1 3 4 ff)G> ff) 3 10 13 7.4 Iowa . . 6 14 20 29 6 6 2 7 S.I Missouri 4 10 14 11.8 7 14 21 6.7 North Dakota 2 2 6.2 South Dakota 2 2 3.9 Nebraska 1 1 2 69 8 4 5 9 8.4 Kansas 5 2 7 65 3 2 3 5 3.4 Western Division. Montana 2 2 8.2 Wyoming 1 1 10.8 Colorado 3 3 87.2 3 5 8 14.8 New Mexico 2 2 10.2 Arizona 1 1 2 16.3 Washington 1 1 86.2 California 5 6 11 28.9 23 30 53 85.7 Alaska o 1 1 15.7 Hawaii 1 1 Philippine Islands 2 1 3 Total 432 435 867 27.6 496 498 994 18.3 AMERICAN MEN OF SCIENCE 555 ] Birthplace Per Million Residence. Per I.-V. VI.-X. Total. 1860. I.-V. V.-IX. Total. 1900 Canada 11 23 34 28.7 1 1 2 Brazil 1 1 Cuba 1 1 England 10 15 25 29.6 1 1 Ireland 2 1 3 1.8 Scotland 6 3 9 S7.9 Wales 1 1 10.7 i West Indies 1 1 69.1 Germany 15 4 19 7.1 Austria-Hungary 4 2 6 10.4 Norway 1 1 2.9 Sweden 2 1 3 6.2 Denmark 2 2 12.9 Switzerland 4 4 8 68.9 Russia 4 2 6 7.4 Italy 1 1 2.1 Spain 1 137.3 Turkey 1 1 India 4 4 193.3 China 1 1 2 18.7 Total 64 62 126 4 2 6 Grand Total 496 497 993 500 500 1000 of 500. Some states have produced men of higher average standing than others, but the differences are within the range of possible chance variations. Thus Maine has produced 19 men of the first rank and 10 of the second. But if 29 pennies are tossed up, there is one chance in 14 or 15 (P .068) that there will be 19 or more heads. It is, however, true, as a matter of fact, that Maine, Connecticut, Ohio, Indiana and Illinois have produced men of decidedly higher average standing than New Jersey, Wisconsin, Iowa and Missouri. Those born in Germany are considerably above and those born in Canada are below the av- erage, and the figures may here represent a real difference in the classes drawn to this country. The fact that there is not a significant dif- ference in the average standing of scientific men born in different regions of the country tends to support the conclusion that scientific performance is mainly due to environment rather than to innate aptitude. If the fact that Massachusetts has produced relatively to its population four times as many scientific men as Pennsylvania and fifty times as many as the southern states were due to a superior stock, then we should expect that the average standing of its scientific men would be higher than elsewhere; but this is not the case. Like most arguments intended to disentangle the complex factors of " nature and nurture," this, however, is not conclusive. If scientific abil- ity were innate, each tending to reach his level in spite of environment, then a potentially great man of science would become such wherever born, and we might expect a favor- able environment to produce mediocre men, but not great men. But this argument is answered by the small number of scientific men from certain regions of the country. Differences in stock can scarcely be great enough to account for this; it seems to be due to circumstance. A further analysis of the curves of distribution might throw light on the problem. Thus it might be that the men of greatest genius were independent of the environment, while men of fair average per- formance were produced by it. Examples might be given in favor of this view, but I can not see that it is supported by the forms of the curves of distribution. I hope at some time to take up the question from a study of individual cases, but I have not as yet the data at hand. My general impression is that certain aptitudes, as for mathematics and 556 AMERICAN MEN OF SCIENCE music, are mainly innate, and that kinds of character and degrees of ability are mainly innate, but that the direction of performance is mainly due to circumstances, and that the environment imposes a veto on any perform- ance not congenial to it. The present distribution of the 1,000 men of science is somewhat the same as their origin. The population of the country has more than doubled since 1860, and the num- ber of these scientific men per million popula- tion is consequently less than half the num- ber per million at the period of their birth. There are in Massachusetts 144 of the 1,000, which is 51.3 per million of the population, according to the census of 1900. The num- bers then decrease to 26.4 per million in New York, 10.3 in Pennsylvania, 13.1 in Illinois, 8.2 in Ohio, 3.1 in Iowa, 1.1 in Alabama, 0.7 in Louisiana and in Mississippi. The most striking development has been the attraction to Washington of a large group of scientific men, 119 of the thousand, nearly all in the service of the government. This number has been almost exactly supplied to the country by the excess of scientific men born abroad 120. This leaves an equal balance between the gains and losses of other parts of the country. The greatest gain has been made by California, which has drawn 42 of the scientific men from other states; Illinois and Maryland have -each gained 21. Other states have gained consider- ably in proportion to their total scientific pop- ulation New Jersey 7, Minnesota 9, Mis- souri 7, Nebraska 7 and Colorado 5. These gains appear to be significant, attributable to the establishment and growth of universities. Massachusetts, New York and Pennsylvania have remained nearly stationary. Massachu- setts has gained ten of the scientific men and New York nine, while Pennsylvania has lost one. The conditions in New York are by no means creditable to that state, in view of its great increase in wealth. Outside New York City, the state has lost 31 men of science, nearly one third of those it has produced, and half the others are concentrated at Ithaca. The conditions are somewhat similar in Mass- achusetts and Pennsylvania, outside Boston, Cambridge and Philadelphia. The rural New England states, Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont, have lost 48 of the 62 scientific men whom they have produced. This is a loss that they can ill afford ; it signi- fies a distinct decadence. Had each of these states provided an income of $50,000 to retain these men in their service, they would have been repaid manyfold, commercially as well as intellectually. The conditions in some of the north central states are also ominous, though more likely to improve. Thus Ohio has lost forty-one of its scientific men, more than half of those whom it has produced; Indiana has also lost more than half and Iowa just half. The south remains in its lamentable condition of scientific stagnation, but we may hope that material progress will be followed by an intel- lectual awakening. All these figures become more impressive when we remember that they indicate performance in scholarship, in litera- ture and in art, as well as in science. It would be well if they were widely known, as they would tend to awaken civic pride and to im- prove the conditions of intellectual activity. The average standing of the scientific men residing in different parts of the country varies a little more than the standing of those produced in different regions and is perhaps less likely to be due to chance variations. This appears to be somewhat paradoxical from the point of view of the theory of probabilities. The fact that of the 75 scientific men born in Ohio, 42 belong to the first group and 33 to the second is a natural result of chance dis- tribution, and the fact that of the 34 scientific men remaining in the state, 13 belong to the first group and 21 to the second might equally well be the result of chance distribution. But apparently it is not. Ohio has lost more than half the scientific men it has produced; it has lost two thirds of its better men and one third of its more mediocre men. The state has not provided for its scientific men, and has pro- vided less adequately for the better men than for those who are not so good. Indiana has lost three fourths of its men of the first class AMERICAN MEN OF SCIENCE 557 and one fourth of those of the second class. The three rural New England states have lost seventeen eighteenths of their men of the first class and one half of those of the second class. These conditions are significant and serious. Other states have improved their positions. Thus, thanks to its great university, Michigan has 22 men in the first group as compared with five in the second. Thanks again to its uni- versities, Illinois has increased its number of scientific men from 42 to 63, of whom 36 are in the first class. California, Missouri and Minnesota have, on the other hand, called men who are below the average. The large centers of scientific population in Massachusetts and New York have about maintained their positions, having produced men of about average standing and their resi- dent men of science being of about average standing. Massachusetts has, however, gained % little and New York has lost a little. Of the 119 scientific men in Washington, 69 are in the first group and 50 in the second. This appears to me to be a fact of very great impor- tance. It is commonly said that less able sci- entific men are attracted to the government service, that those who are able leave it for university positions and that those who stay are not encouraged to do their best work. Such statements are refuted by these statis- tics. The average performance of the scien- tific men at Washington is higher than in Massachusetts or in New York. This con- clusion is most gratifying to those of us who believe that the future of scientific research depends largely on its support by the nation, the states and the municipalities. The writer has on various occasions called attention to the economic conditions which limit scientific research. As one of the ob- " jects of the present work is to improve these conditions, it may be well to repeat here the argument. Our economic system rests on the free exchange of services. A state of society may some day be reached in which each will aim to give as much as he can and to take as little, but at present it appeals to our sense of fairness that each should ask for his services what someone else is willing to pay. In the increasing complexity of our society this method is working two serious injustices. One of these is the formation of monopolies. Thanks chiefly to the applications of science, many services can now be supplied at a cost less than people would be willing to pay. When free competition is excluded, either by the conditions of the case or by ingenious combination, people may be made to pay more than a fair return for certain services. The problems of monopoly are being discussed on all sides, and remedies are being sought in all directions; but the injustice which in a way *is the converse of monopoly has scarcely been noticed. This is the case in which an indi- vidual gives services without an adequate re- turn, owing to the fact that they are not ren- dered to a single individual or group who will pay for them, but to society as a whole. A surgeon may ask for an operation for appendi- citis as large a fee as his^atient is willing to pay, but should he after years of research dis- cover a method of preventing appendicitis altogether, he would receive no payment at all, but would, on the contrary, give up all future fees for the operation. The surgeons who by risking and sacrificing their lives discov- ered how to suppress yellow fever have re- ceived no return for their great work. The two most important services for society the bearing and rearing of children and creation in science and art are exactly those for which society gives no economic returns, leaving them dependent on instincts which are in danger of atrophy. This state of affairs not only does injustice to the unrewarded in- dividual, but works immeasurable harm to society a greater injury probably than all existing monopolies. There are more than a hundred thousand physicians in the United States who are practising on their patients for fees, while there are scarcely two hundred who are studying seriously the causes of dis- ease and the methods of preventing it. The conditions are similar in law and in all pro- fessions and trades. The scientific investi- gator is usually an amateur. He has wealth 568 AMERICAN MEN OF SCIENCE or earns his living by some profession, and incidentally does what he can to advance sci- ence for love of the work. This has its good side in producing a small group of men who are not subject to purely commercial stand- ards. But this is after all a minor factor, and the scientific man is likely to look for fame, which is scarcely more ideal tTmn money and can be supplied to but few. Satisfaction in the work itself is the best reward for work; but no one can know that his work is of value except by the reflected appreciation of others, and in the existing social order the simplest and probably the most adequate expression of this appreciation is direct payment for the service rendered. The methods that society has devised to meet this situation, apart from the conferring of honors and fame, are recent and inadequate. Copyrights and patents are the most direct acknowledgment of property in ideas. They have accomplished a good deal, and their scope should be extended. At present only a small part of discovery is covered by the patent office, and this perhaps not the part requiring the greatest genius. It is, however, leading, especially in Germany, to the development of discovery on a sound commercial basis. It is said that one chemical firm employs three hundred doctors of philosophy to carry on sci- entific investigations. Research has hitherto been forwarded mainly by the universities, where again Germany has led the way. The professorship is given as a reward for success- ful investigations, and the holder of a chair is expected to devote himself to investigation as well as to teaching. There is a tendency to permit certain professors to engage almost exclusively in research. Thus the astronom- ical observatories of Harvard, Chicago and California universities are purely research in- stitutions. A further step has been taken in the endowment of institutions, such as the Carnegie Institution and the Rockefeller In- stitute, explicitly for research. The moat log- ical and important advance, however, consists in the direct conduct of research by the gov- ernment. As the government should control monopolies, so it should conduct the work which is not for the benefit of a single indi- TABIX n. DISTRIBUTION IK DtTTEKOT PLACES \-.'.r,t'\: ngtoBi r. ;-.,- I*.-* Per M- ion VI.-X TotaL ISM. New York, N. Y Boston, Mass. 33 24 25 19 58 43 71JS Philadelphia. Pa- Baltimore, Md. . 12 9 16 11 28 20 494 94J. Cincinnati O 6 12 Brooklyn, N. Y. 3 I 11 39^ Chicago IDs f 3 8 Buffalo, N. Y.. . 3 4 7 86JS St. Louis, Mo. . 2 7 Cambridge, Maas Cleveland, O . . 4 4 2 2 6 6 -10.2 , I.'/- 5 Salem Maw 1 5 6 969 <7 * Milwaukee. Wia 1 4 5 j, f , j Newark, N. J. . 3 2 5 69J San Francisco, Cal 2 3 5 Total 112 115 227 A. ^ '",'", r-i . :.? v, I:* >.: !';:.' Per I.-V. VL-X. TotaL IMff. Washington, D. C New York, N. Y. \ Brooklyn, N. Y. j .. Cambridge, Mass . 69 61 1 30 50 54 3 22 119 115 4 52 oS.f* 676 Chicago, IDs. . 29 16 45 Baltimore, Md 22 16 38 74.3 New Haven, Conn. . . . Philadelphia, Pa. 24 14 10 20 34 34 314-7 CttJ Boston, Mass. . 14 19 33 ffftj 17 u 32 -?.:.?>"../ Ann Arbor. Mich .... Madison, Wis . . 20 7 11 25 18 Berkeley, Cal.. 8 17 /fa&f Palo Alto. Cal . 9 7 16 080DU Princeton, * 8 14 Minneapolis, Minn. . . St. Louis, Mo 3 S 11 11 54 3 19.1 7 4 11 (',. ,.'^r ,> f, f, 4 10 MJ Columbus, O . . . 3 7 10 79JS San Francisco, Cal . . . Columbia, Mo . . 1 1 S 10 9 9.1 169*4 Lincoln, N'-Sr . . . 4 9 9 83J) Cincinnati, O. . 2 6 8 Bryn Mawr, Pa . 2 5 7 1 Evanston, IDs. . 5 2 7 3634 Middletown, Conn . Bloomington, Ind . . Brookline, Mass Chariottesville, Va . Iowa City, la 2 3 4 4 5 3 2 1 2 7 6 6 6 6 -yj.o 900* 9903 751Jt Mt. Hamilton. Cal . Northampton, Mass Providence, R I 4 2 5 2 4 1 6 6 6 T 3S1J Albany, N. I 2 5 63.1 Amherst, Maas. 3 2 5 9944 Chapel Hill. N. C Lawrence, Kan*. New Brunswick. N. J. 3 2 2 2 3 3 5 5 5 To'-U. . 415 367 782 AMERICAN MEN OF SCIENCE 559 vidual, but for the people as a whole. There are, of course, no end of difficulties in the control of monopolies or the conduct of re- search by a municipality, state or nation; but it is exactly these difficulties that it is our business to overcome. We may congratulate ourselves that our national government is at present accomplishing more for research and the applications of science than the govern- ment of any other nation, and that the men of science working under the government are doing their full share for the advancement of science. Table II. gives the cities in which five or more of the thousand scientific men were born, and the cities in which five or more of them now reside. The tendency towards concentra- tion which we know to exist is here measured. Two hundred and twenty-seven of the scien- tific men were born in places producing five or more, and 782 of them live in places where there are five or more. This is, of course, natural, and probably desirable; scientific work is accomplished where men gather to- gether. Still the fact that three fourths of our scientific men live in 39 places with a good many more in the suburbs leaves rather a scanty number for the rest of the country. We have, however, more separate scientific centers than foreign countries, and by this circumstance we both gain and lose. The lack of men of distinction in whole regions and large cities is a serious indictment of our civilization. The existence of cities such as Brooklyn and Buffalo is an intellectual scandal. Of the 866 men native to the United States, 224 were born in the cities which in 1900 had a population of more than 25,000. These places had in 1860 a population of about 4,500,000 as compared with a rural population of about 27,000,000. The urban population TABLE III. DISTRIBUTION ACCORDING TO PRESENT POSITION OF THE THOUSAND MEN OF SCIENCE I. II. III. IV. V. VI. VII. VIII. IX. X. Total. Harvard 19 8.5 3 6.5 3.5 6 4.5 5.5 3.5 65 66.5 Columbia 7 6 6.5 4.5 5 4.5 5.5 6 4 11 60 Chicago 7 10 3 6 2 2.5 3 2 1.5 2 39 Cornell 3 6 3 2 3 1.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 33.5 U. S. Geological Survey 6 a 4 4 4 1 3 3 2 2 32 U. S. Department Agriculture Johns Hopkins 3 9 4 2 2 5.5 4 3 1.5 2 2 3 4.5 3 0.5 3 1 5 4.5 32 30.5 California 1 2 2 4 3 4 1 5 1 4 27 Yale 2 5.5 3 3.5 5.5 2 1 2 2 26.5 Smithsonian Institution 3 2 4 4 2 1 3 1 2 22 Michigan 1 3 6 3 3 1 1 2 20 Mass. Inst. Tech 1 2 2.5 4 2 3 2 3 19.5 Wisconsin 1 3 1 2 3 2 4 2 18 Pennsylvania 2 1 1 3.5 2.5 1.5 1 2 05 2 17 Leland Stanford, Jr 3 1 1 1 3 2 2 1 1 1 16 Total. Princeton Minnesota, Ohio State New York University Missouri, Nebraska, Northwestern National Bureau of Standards, U. S. Navy, Am. Mus. Nat. History Carnegie Institution, Clark, Iowa, Syracuse, Virginia, Wesleyan Bryn Mawr, Cincinnati, Dartmouth, Illinois, Indiana, N. Y. Botanical Garden, Smith Brown, Kansas, North Carolina, Texas, Washington (St. Louis) Field Columbian Museum, General Electric Co., St. Louis, Western Reserve, Pennsylvania State, Rutgers Lehigh Philadelphia Acad. Nat. Sciences, Amherst, Case, College of City of New York, Colorado College, Colorado University, Haverford, Purdue, Rockefeller Institute, Simmons, Tufts, Vassar, Worcester. . Grand Total . 459.5 14.5 J 9 9\5 9 8 7 6 5 4 3.5 730 560 AMERICAN MEN OF SCIENCE was about one sixth of the rural population and produced more than a quarter of the sci- entific men. The urban birth rate was 50 and the rural birth rate was 23.8. The su- perior position of the towns is doubtless due to a more favorable environment, but it may also be in part due to the fact that the parents of these scientific men were the abler clergy- men and others of their generation who were &. drawn to the cities. Table III. gives the institutions with which three or more of the scientific men are con- nected, and in the case of institutions in which there are more than fifteen the details of their rank are shown, I., II., etc., representing the first hundred, the second hundred, etc. I give this table with some hesitation, but it appears that in the end it will be for the advantage of scientific research if it is known which institutions obtain and retain the best men. Harvard has 66.5 of the scientific men, the half (0.5) being used when a professor is emeritus or gives only part of his time to an institu- tion. Columbia follows with 60, and Chicago comes next with 39. In both the U. S. Geo- logical Survey and the Department of Agri- culture there are 32. About half of the sci- entific men are connected with 18 institutions. Harvard has not only the largest number of scientific men, but they are also of the highest rank, 19 being in the first hundred and 8.5 in the second hundred. Johns Hopkins has nine in the first hundred and Columbia and Chi- cago each has seven. A table such as this might have some practical influence if the data were made public at intervals of ten years. Table TV. gives the institutions at which the 1,000 men of science pursued their studies. A man is credited for his degree to the first institution at which he took it, but in the case of graduate study, he may have attended sev- eral institutions. He is not, however, credited as a graduate student to the institutions from which he received the doctorate." The total "The doctorates include the comparatively few cases in which the degree of doctor of science has been conferred in course. influence of Harvard is 237, of the Johns Hopkins 171, of Yale 93, of Columbia 78 and of Cornell 74. About one tenth of the men of science received their bachelor's degree from Harvard and about the same number their doctor's degree from the Johns Hopkins. It is not certain that a preponderance of scien- tific men has been produced at any institution as compared with the total number of stu- dents, and it appears that those who attend the larger universities are not of higher av- erage performance than others. Thus of the 106 who have taken the bachelor's degree at Harvard, 55 are in the first rank and 51 in the second. Yale, Cornell and Michigan have produced men above the average rank, and the excess is such that it is probably significant, though the departures fall within the limits of possible chance variation. On the whole, however, there is no significant difference in rank between the 515 men who attended the larger institutions and those who attended smaller colleges or none. It might be sup- posed that abler students would be attracted to a university such as Harvard, and that they would have greater opportunities there, but this appears not to be the case. So far as it goes, this favors the theory that men of science are born such and are not dependent on the environment for the quality of their performance. It may, however, be that rela- tively more men of mediocre ability are led to take up scientific work at an institution such as Harvard, whereas only those of genius are likely to break through the barrier of an un- favorable environment. The conditions are similar in the case of the doctor's degree. Of the 487 men who have received it from the larger institutions, 244 are of the first rank and 243 of the second ; nor do any institutions excel, unless it be Leipzig and Gb'ttingen. Those who pursue graduate studies at institutions from which they do not take the degree are of distinctly higher standing than the average A.B. or Ph.D. This is probably because the abler and more energetic men have attended several in- stitutions, more especially abroad, many of AMERICAN MEN OF SCIENCE 561 them having worked in foreign universities even after having obtained scientific distinc- tion. The thousand men of science under consid- eration pursued their graduate studies on the average from fifteen to twenty years ago. Since that time a considerable change has oc- curred in the relative numbers of students attracted to different institutions. Owing to the improvement of our universities relatively fewer students now frequent foreign institu- tions. The number of doctorates conferred in the natural and exact sciences during the past nine years is as follows: Johns Hopkins, 147; Chicago, 145; Columbia, 137; Harvard, 129; Yale, 120; Cornell, 94; Pennsylvania, 85; TABLE IV. ATTENDANCE OF THE THOUSAND MEN OF SCIENCE AT DIFFEBENT INSTITUTIONS Bachelor's Degree. Graduate Study. Ph.D. Grand Total. I.-V. VI.-X. Total. I.-V. V.-IX. Total. L-V. VI.-X. Total. Harvard 55 12 35 12 19 23 11 13 12 5 4 5 9 4 6 6 5 6 7 3 4 2 5 2 2 51 15 17 16 12 12 12 2 13 11 10 10 7 7 4 5 8 5 4 4 2 4 4 13 1 106 27 62 28 SI S5 23 2 26 23 16 14 12 16 8 10 14 10 10 11 5 8 6 18 S 2 38 27 9 9 4 4 5 3 3 2 5 2 1 3 2 2 4 2 2 1 2 1 1 3 3 53 30 18 27 13 13 10 10 5 9 4 21 36 15 4 3 13 4 7 11 6 3 11 2 4 3 3 4 2 2 1 2 1 2 2 3 3 5 42 15 18 14 5 4 5 4 6 3 3 7 74 42 IS 12 17 8 12 14 9 5 16 4 5 6 5 6 6 2 S 4 2 2 S S 6 S 8 95 45 86 41 18 17 16 14 11 12 7 28 30 50 14 11 10 8 4 12 4 3 2 3 4 1 3 1 2 11 27 19 7 6 3 3 2 1 3 27 52 14 27 16 2 4 11 1 8 6 2 1 1 1 1 3 3 11 12 14 8 7 3 1 2 2 2 1 57 102 28 38 26 10 8 23 1 12 9 4 4 4 2 1 1 6 1 6 22 39 S3 15 13 6 4 4 S 5 1 237 171 93 78 74 53 43 39 35 29 28 28 23 22 21 18 18 17 14 14 13 13 11 10 24 11 10 117 84 69 56 31 23 19 18 14 12 12 29 Johns Hopkins Yale Columbia Cornell Michigan Princeton Chicago Mass. Inst. Tech . . . Amherst Clark Pennsylvania Wisconsin California Wesleyan Indiana Nebraska Williams Dartmouth Oberlin College City N. Y. . . Geo. Washington. . . Brown. . . . Iowa Toronto Edinburgh Cambridge Berlin Leipzig Gottingen Heidelberg Munich Strasburg Freiburg Bonn Zurich Vienna Wvirzburg Paris Total 266 249 515 351 278 629 244 243 487 1631 37 562 AMERICAN MEN OF SCIENCE Clark, 75. There is then a drop to universi- ties that have conferred fewer than 25 de- grees in the sciences during this period. Relatively more work is done in the sciences in some institutions than in others. Thus the percentage of degrees in the sciences in these universities is as follows: Clark, 95; Cornell, 58; Johns Hopkins, 54; Columbia, 49; Chi- cago, 48; Pennsylvania, 43; Harvard, 42, and Yale, 41. Table V. shows the institutional origin of men who have pursued different sciences. The Johns Hopkins University has excelled rela- tively in chemistry, physics, zoology and physiology; Harvard in zoology and botany; Columbia in zoology, botany and mathematics ; Cornell in physics and botany; Clark in psy- chology, and Michigan in botany and pathol- ogy. Of the foreign universities, Berlin has excelled in physics, Leipzig in psychology and Gottingen in chemistry and mathematics. The table also shows that men are more likely to pursue graduate studies and to take the doctor's degree in some sciences than in others. Of the fifty psychologists, 35 have received the doctor's degree from the institu- tions given in the table, and of the 150 zoolo- gists 90 have received it, whereas only two of the 25 anatomists and only five of the 60 pathologists have received a non-technical higher degree from these universities. While important improvements in the practise of surgery and medicine have been made in this country, it must be admitted that we are not doing our share for the advancement of pathol- ogy, anatomy and physiology. TABLE v. SUBJECTS OF THE THOUSAND MEN OF SCIENCE WHO HAVE PUBSUED GRADUATE STUDIES OB TAKEN THE DOCTOB'S DEGBEE AT DIFFERENT INSTITUTIONS Graduate Study. Ph.D. Grand Total. I 6 E be _0 o N 0) D 2 O ca la a o "c J3 C3 PH to "o 5 8 o a 2 1 o PH c i c a i o H C i 0) a 'a fi 3 "3 g 1 CS S tc "3 J3 I bo c "3 " K I c o hi to _0 o a a _0 "S c to o "3 3 c 3' S Johns Hopkins 3 10 3 1 3 2 1 1 18 10 10 18 10 4 3 2 6 1 2 5 113 8 8 4 4 2 4 2 1 4 1 2 24 2 5 2 1 1 3 1 4 5 13 3 2 1 6 6 2 1 1 1 5 7 1 2 2 4 5 1 3 3 4 8 2 2 4 3 3 3 8 2 1 3 3 12 3 3 1 5 2 2 7 5 10 . 1 2 1 5 1 1 5 4 9 3 1 1 4 7 1 1 2 10 2 3 2 1 2 2 10 1 3 2 7 1 1 2 1 2 14 8 5 4 1 2 1 6 1 2 1 2 2 1 3 3 1 1 1 4 5 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4^ 74 12 17 IS 14 16 12 8 4 6 6 95 45 86 41 18 17 15 14 11 12 7 28 18 9 5 8 1 1 3 1 3 11 17 12 5 1 2 24 2 5 14 2 1 1 3 2 1 12 2 2 2 1 4 22 20 9 2 2 11 2 2 1 3 2 1 8 1 1 2 1 9 7 1 5 3 1 1 1 2 3 3 1 10 5 5 1 2 4 1 2 1 3 2 1 2 1 8 3 6 1 5 3 1 1 2 4 12 1 1 1 1 1 3 6 4 2 3 2 5 1 1 1 9 1 2 2 1 3 1 1 10 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 57 SS 26 28 23 12 8 10 9 4 4 22 S9 S3 15 IS 6 4 4 S 5 1 466 144 131 50 43 41 37 28 20 18 13 10 10 117 84 69 56 31 23 19 18 14 12 12 29 Harvard Columbia Cornell Yale Chicago Clark Princeton Michigan Pennsylvania California Indiana Berlin Leipzig Gottingen Heidelberg Munich Strasburg Freiburg Bonn Zurich Vienna Wiirzburg Paris Total 83 74;43 38534759 12 24 13 4 563 987890 3641 49 5 35 10 18 2 4 1029 AMERICAN MEN OP SCIENCE 563 It would be desirable to compare the scien- tifi men and the scientific work of the United States with those of other nations, and I hope to collect data on this subject. It is my im- pression from such information as is on hand that we produce from one seventh to one tenth of the world's scientific research, but that we have not produced one tenth of its recent great discoveries or of its contemporary great men. With our vast population and unlimited resources, it would be shameful and intolerable to let the future be no better than the present. It is obvious that we should collect without delay the information that would tell us whe*e we stand among the nations. It is not altogether without interest to find that it is possible to reduce to order facts which might be supposed to be outside the range of the natural and exact sciences. The present articles are, however, only a beginning of a study of scientific men as a group and of the conditions on which scientific performance de- pends. We have in a large measure explored the material world and subdued it to our uses ; it is now our business to secure an equal in- crease in our knowledge of human nature and to apply it for our welfare. If he is a bene- factor to mankind who makes two blades of grass grow where one grew before, his services would be immeasurably greater who could enable two men of science to flourish where there had been but one. A FURTHER STATISTICAL STUDY OF AMERICAN MEN OF SCIENCE THE advancement of science and the im- provement of the conditions under which sci- entific work is done are of such vast impor- tance for society that even the most modest attempt to introduce scientific method into the study of these conditions has some value. It is truly both exhilarating and appalling to face the opportunities and responsibilities of science and of scientific men. The applications of science have quadrupled the wealth which each individual produces and have doubled the length of human life. In many cases the gain has been greater than this. In trans- porting freighl or printing a newspaper, the products of each man's labor have been multi- plied a hundredfold; in equal measure the danger from smallpox, cholera and the plague has been diminished. As intercommunication increases between the nations, bringing them all within the circle of our civilization, and as the total population of the earth grows, the number of scientific advances becomes continually larger and the value of each of ever greater magnitude. It is thus an economic law that the means of sub- sistence tend to increase more rapidly than the population. 1 When the applications of elec- tricity increase the efficiency of each individ- ual on the average by twenty per cent. as may now be the case in civilized countries the economic value would be in the neighbor- hood of twenty billion dollars a year. In 1 This inversion of the law of Malthus, to which the writer has called attention on several occa- sions (e. g., SCIENCE, December 18, 1896) has recently been given a most interesting expression by Professor T. H. Norton (The Popular Science Monthly, September, 1910). Both the number and the value of scientific advances being directly proportional to the total population, the means of subsistence tend to increase as the square of the population. comparison with a sum so inconceivable, the cost of science since the days of Faraday and Henry is altogether insignificant. In the United States at present there are scarcely more than a thousand men engaged in serious research work, and they do not on the average devote more than half their time to it. Throughout the world there may be seven to ten times as many. The investigations of these men may cost a total of $20,000,000 a year, perhaps one thousandth of what may be gained by the applications of electricity, or one hundredth of what is saved by the use of the phosphorus match. But man does not live alone by the applica- tions of electricity and the use of the phos- phorus match. Science has given us a new heaven as well as a new earth, for it has checked not only poverty and disease, but also superstition, ignorance and unreason. It has done away with slavery and with the need of child labor; it has made excessive manual labor by women or by men unnecessary. By giving the possibility of leisure and education to all it has made democracy possible. Fi- nally science has not only given us leisure, but also the means to occupy that leisure in a worthy manner; its intellectual and emotional appeal is almost equal to the art and religion which were so much earlier in their origin. Science has been more successful in the production of wealth than in its distribution and use, and it has been more effective in its control of the material world than of human conduct; but this is a natural result of neces- sary lines of development. The methods which have slowly extended from physics and chemistry to the more complicated phe- nomena of biology will give us sciences of psychology, sociology and anthropology and applications of these sciences commensurate AMERICAN MEN OF SCIENCE 565 with their dominant importance. Science has, indeed, already profoundly altered not only the material conditions of life but also social relations and mental contents and atti- tudes. The conditions of heredity and cir- cumstance which determine the whole course of life are subject to its control. We need only to obtain the knowledge and to apply it. If an improvement of ten per cent, in the cereal crop will yield a billion dollars a year, in what terms of money should an increase of ten per cent, in the annual output of science be stated? The application of scientific methods to the advancement of science is in one sense the be- ginning of science and in another one of its latest undertakings. We are at present al- most wantonly ignorant and careless in regard to the conditions which favor or hinder scien- tific work. We do not know whether progress is in the main due to a large number of faith- ful workers or to the genius of a few. We do not know to what extent it may be possible to advance science by increasing the number of scientific positions or how far such an increase might be expected to add to the number of men of genius. We do not know to what ex- tent increased salaries, better facilities and greater leisure would favor the quantity and quality of our work. We do not know to what extent non-rational sanctions, such as reputation, offices, titles, degrees, prizes, membership in exclusive societies and the like are effective. We do not know whether it is wise to combine teaching with research or ap- plied with pure science. We do not know whether it is better for the professor and in- vestigator to have a moderate salary, a life position and a pension, or to engage in severe competition for large prizes; whether obedi- ence and discipline should be prescribed or the largest individual liberty allowed. We know but little as to the kind of education, methods of work and mode of life, which are most favorable to scientific productivity. In the face of endless problems of this character we are as empirical in our methods as the doctor of physic a hundred years ago or the agricultural laborer to-day. It is surely time for scientific men to apply scientific methods to determine the circumstances that promote or hinder the advancement of science. We should begin where and when we can; even though the results of the first efforts may ap- pear somewhat trivial, we may proceed in the confident belief that in the end the advance- ment of science will become an applied sci- ence. In a series of three articles published in the numbers of SCIENCE for November 23 and 30 and December 7, 1906, the writer described the methods which he used to select a group of a thousand leading American men of science, the application of these methods to the meas- urement of scientific merit, and the origin and distribution of the group. About seven years having elapsed since the selection of the group treated in these articles and a second edition of the " Biographical Directory of American Men of Science " being in prepara- tion, it seemed desirable to repeat the process of determining the thousand leading scien- tific men in the United States. It is worth while to learn what changes have taken place in the composition of this group and in the distribution of the scientific men among vari- ous institutions and in different parts of the country. A list of scientific men as nearly contemporary as might be was also wanted for some further studies of the conditions of heredity and environment which are favorable to scientific productivity. The methods used to select the group of a thousand leading men of science were sub- stantially the same as before and need not be redescribed in detail. The scientific men were distributed among twelve sciences as previ- ously. It was intended that the number in each science should be proportional to the total number of investigators in that science, and it was as nearly so as is needful for the purpose in view. The distribution was as fol- lows: Chemistry, 175; physics, 150; zoology, 150; botany, 100; geology, 100; mathematics, 80; pathology, 60; astronomy, 50; psychology, 566 AMERICAN MEN OF SCIENCE 50; physiology, 40; anatomy, 25; anthropol- ogy, 20. In each science twice as many names were selected and written on slips with the ad- dresses and positions. The ten men of science who stood at the head of the list in each sci- ence in the previous arrangement were asked to arrange the names in that science in the order of merit. The memorandum of instruc- tions read : " It is obvious that such an order can be only approximate, and for the objects in view an approximation is all that is needed. The judgments are possible, because they are as a matter of fact made in elections to a so- ciety of limited membership, in filling chairs at a university, etc. By merit is under- stood contributions to the advancement of science, primarily by research, but teaching, administration, editing, the compilation of text-books, etc., should be considered. The different factors that make a man efficient in advancing science must be roughly balanced." There were thus at hand in each science ten arrangements of those known to have done research work in the order of the value of their work, as estimated by those having ex- pert knowledge. The ten positions assigned to each individual were then averaged, and the workers in each science were arranged in order. The lists for the twelve sciences were interpolated to form a combined list of a thousand scientific men. A second group in each science and a second group of a thousand scientific men were in like manner obtained. This was not done before, and the second thousand has less validity than the first thou- sand. It has, however, a certain interest for purposes of comparison. The average of ten judgments is not neces- sarily more correct than any one of these judgments; the conditions are similar to ob- servations in the exact sciences. One good observation may have more validity than the average of a number of observations made under less favorable conditions. But if ten scientific men concerning whose competence it is not possible to discriminate in advance make a judgment, we may take the average as the most probable value. If we had but a single judgment we should not know its valid- ity, but with ten judgments the probable error can be calculated. These probable errors tell us not only the limits within which the place of an individual in the series is likely to be correct, but also measure the differences be- tween the individuals. This method of converting a qualitative series into a series of quantitative differences may be illustrated by the case in which it was used by the writer for the first time. 2 Some two hundred shades of gray were made, giving approximately equal differences in illumina- tion between white and black. In such a series the grays toward the white end ap- pear more alike than those toward the black end, and two adjacent grays are indistinguish- able. Psychologically it is a qualitative series. If now the grays are arranged in the order of brightness a number of times by the same or different observers and the average position in the series of each gray is determined, the mean variation is inversely proportional to the psychological differences between the grays. There is thus determined the quantitative differences in the perception and its relation to the physical differences between the lights. The same methods have been used in the Co- lumbia laboratory of psychology to measure the validity of beliefs, the beauty of pictures, differences in traits of character, literary skill and efficiency in various performances. The method used enables us to measure not only differences in scientific merit, but also the accuracy of judgment of those who make the arrangements. It would be possible to de- termine whether those more eminent have the more accurate judgments, at what age the individuals are most competent and the like. As a matter of fact, the judgments in the present case were made by those most eminent in each science who were willing to undertake the task. Of the ten in each science who were placed at the head of the list in the previous ' " The Time of Perception as a Measure of Differences in Intensity," Philos. Studien, 19: 63-68, 1902. AMERICAN MEN OF SCIENCE 567 study, 8 or 120 in all, 80 consented to under- take the arrangement, and of these 68 sent in valid lists. Others in the order of eminence were then asked until ten lists were obtained in each science. This study has thus only been made possible by the cooperation of those whose time is of much value. My personal obligations to them are very great. The names of those selected for arrange- ment included all who were known to have done research work of any consequence, and those who arranged them were asked to add any who had been omitted. Some names de- serving consideration were doubtless neglected and consequently would not find a place in the first or second thousands as ultimately selected. Each of those included in the first group is probably among the leading thou- sand scientific men in the United States, but there are a few others who belong to this group though not included. It might be a service to science to print the list of our thousand leading scientific men in the order of merit together with the probable error of each position, but it would require courage to do this, and perhaps it would not be possible to obtain the arrangement if it were to be made known. In the " Biographical Directory of American Men of Science " those are indi- cated by stars who belong either to the group as selected seven years ago or as selected now. Those who have won a place in the group can be identified by a comparison of the two edi- tions of the book. Those who have lost their places in the group can not be known. The arrangements of each of the two lists extended over a period of some months. The first list may be dated as approximately of January 1, 1903, and the second list as ap- proximately of January 1, 1910. The distri- butions given in the previous paper refer approximately to January 1, 1906, the resi- dences and positions used being those given in 8 Six were not asked owing to their illness or absence from the country. These conditions also account for a number of those who did not reply to the letter or did not consent to make the arrangement. the first edition of the directory. For the present list, the residences and positions are those of January 1, 1910. It would be better if the arrangement of the first list and the distributions referred to the same date, but it was not possible to work up the data more promptly, as the writer was able to attend to the compilation of the directory and the statistics only during the summer months. In collecting and compiling the data he has had the very valuable assistance of Professor V. A. C. Henmon, of the University of Wis- consin, and of Mr. E. K. Strong, Jr., fellow in psychology in Columbia University. Those included in the list of 1903 who died prior to 1910 number 58. It is a roll of honor which may be given here: 1903 (in part) BOLTON, HENBY CABRINGTON Chemistry RHOADS, EDWABD Physics 1904 BEECHEB, CHABLES E. Geology DBOWN, THOMAS MESSENGER Chemistry HATCHES, JOHN BELL Geology HERBICK, CLARENCE LUTHEB Zoology PALMER, ARTHUR WILLIAM Chemistry DE SCHWEINITZ, EMiL ALEXANDEB Chemistry 1905 BBACE, DEWITT BRISTOL Physics ELDRIDGE, GEORGE HOMANS Geology ELLIS, JOB BICKNELL Botany EWELL, EBVIN E. Chemistry MATTHEWS, WASHINGTON Anthropology PACKARD, ALPHEUS SPBINO Zoology PRESCOTT, ALBERT BENJAMIN Chemistry WARDER, ROBERT BOWNE Chemistry WOOD, EDWARD STICKNEY Chemistry 1906 LANGLEY, SAMUEL PIERPONT Physics MACCALLUM, JOHN BRUCE Anatomy MILLER, EDMUND HOWD Chemistry MORGAN, ANDREW PRICE Botany PAULMIEB, FREDERICK CLARK Zoology PEIRCE, JAMES MILLS Mathematics PENFIELD, SAMUEL LEWIS Mineralogy RUSSELL, ISRAEL COOK Geology SHALEB, NATHANIEL SOUTHGATE Geology 568 AMERICAN MEN OF SCIENCE 1907 ATWATEB, WILBUR OLIN Chemistry CALDWELL, GEORGE CHAPMAN Chemistry CARROLL, JAMES pathology CLARK, GAYLORD PARSONS Physiology GARDINER, EDWARD GARDINER Zoology GATSCHET, ALBERT SAMUEL Anthropology HEILPRIN, ANGELO Geology NEWELL, WILLIAM WELLS Anthropology REES, JOHN KHOM Astronomy SAFFOHD, JAMES MEBBILL Geology 1908 ANTHONY, WILLIAM ARNOLD Physics ASHMEAD, WILLIAM HARRIS Zoology AUSTEN, PETER TOWNSEND Chemistry BROOKS, WILLIAM KEITH Zoology DAVENPORT, GEORGE EDWARD Botany GIBBS, OLIVER WOLCOTT Chemistry JOHNSON, SAMUEL WILLIAM Chemistry KELLEBMAN, WILLIAM ASHBBOOK Botany LEE, LESLIE ALEXANDER Zoology MASCHKE, HEINHICH Mathematics MASON, OTIS TUFTON Anthropology SNOW, FRANCIS HUNTINGTON Zoology UNDERWOOD, LUCIEN MARCUS Botany WHITEHEAD, CABELL Chemistry YOUNG, CHARLES AUGUSTUS Astronomy 1909 DUDLEY, CHARLES BENJAMIN Chemistry HARRIS, WILLIAM TORRE Y Psychology HOUGH, GEORGE WASHINGTON Astronomy NEWCOMB, SIMON Astronomy STEARNS, ROBERT EDWARDS CARTER Zoology STBINGHAM, WASHINGTON IRVING Mathematics TUFTS, FRANK LEO Physics The death rates for the six past years have been 6, 9, 9, 10, 15 and 7, on the average 9.3 per thousand. The rates for those under and over fifty, respectively, were approximately 3 and 21. The number of cases is too small for reliable data, but they show a youthful scien- tific population. In Great Britain there are annually elected into the Eoyal Society fif- teen new fellows, and a membership of about 450 is maintained. The death rate is conse- quently over 30. It has been claimed that scientific men live longer than the average, and they probably do, but this can not be proved from the age at which they die, unless the age at which they become scientific men is known. If, however, we assume that scien- tific men live to the average age, we can from the age at which they die determine the age at which they become scientific men or reach a given degree of eminence. In addition to those who died, there were removed from the thousand nine foreign men of science, who are no longer residents of the United States, and one other man whose ad- dress is unknown. There would thus be 68 vacancies on the list of 1910 to be filled by new men. In the order of the list, there is a probable error which increases from about 10 places at the top to about 100 places at the bottom. Consequently if the same scientific men were rearranged under the same condi- tions, each of those in the last hundred would be subject to a chance of one in four or more of being dropped from the list. In a general way 37 from the last hundred, 15 from the next to last, or ninth hundred, five from the eighth hundred and one from the seventh hundred 58 in all might be expected to drop from the thousand as a result of rear- rangement. Apart from the 68 who died or were re- moved and the 58 changes due to a chance variation, there were 143 on the list of 1903 who failed to find a place on the list of 1910. These are the scientific men who did not main- tain their positions in competition with their colleagues. There were 269 who attained a place on the list of 1910 for the first time. It seems best to remove from this group those who would probably have been given a place on the list of 1903, but were not considered at the time. They number 31, of whom only one is a foreigner who came to this country in the period of seven years. There were 126 foreign-born men of science on the list of 1903. While the majority came to this country before attaining scientific reputation, a large number were called from Canada, Great Britain, Germany and other countries to fill positions in our universities, of whom seven were among our leading hun- AMERICAN MEN OF SCIENCE 569 TABLE I. BIBTHPLACE AND RESIDENCE OF THOSE ADDED TO AND DEOPPED FBOM THE LIST Birthplace. Residence. Men Added. Men Dropped. Men Added Men Dropped. 1 d o 1 l g fc T3 o | I 3 O tj 1 <0 a "5 "o H i fc 22 13 11 11 9 8 8 8 8 6 6 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 46 238 d O 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 18 "3 o _H_ 23 14 12 12 10 10 9 8 8 7 6 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 64 269 O 6 3 6 3 2 1 12 1 11 6 3 3 4 1 2 1 2 4 3 1 1 2 1 3 2 4 2 1 111 d m A 3 1 4 1 1 3 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 5 28 o a o O 1 3 1 5 10 3 J_ 9 4 4 6 4 2 1 16 1 11 5 7 4 4 6 1 3 1 1 2 4 3 2 1 2 1 1 4 3 9 2 1 144 Harvard Chicago Wisconsin Yale Johns Hopkins Illinois Mass. Inst. . Carnegie Inst Columbia Stanford Dept. of Agr. . . . Michigan Cornell Princeton Geol. Survey Bur. of Standards California Missouri Nebraska Bryn Mawr Western Reserve Amer. Museum, N. Y. University Pennsylvania Minnesota Brown .... ... P. I. Bur. of Sci. . Catholic Cincinnati Goucher Indiana Kansas North Carolina Northwestern Ohio Rockefeller Inst Smithsonian Inst, Texas Washington (St. Louis) . . Wellesley Elsewhere Total 31 201 58 269 cance and deserve careful consideration. When we remember that seven adjacent states have not a single one of these men within their borders, it is not a small thing for insti- tutions such as the University of North Caro- lina or Goucher College to have two of them. We may well ask why Pennsylvania should compare so unfavorably with Yale, or Minne- sota with Wisconsin. Among the non-teaching institutions there is the same direct correlation between the men added and dropped. Institutions which have a good record in one case have it also in the other. It seems almost incredible that it should be possible to measure the efficiency with which an institution is conducted by such simple means, yet the differences can not be attributed to chance. The Carnegie Insti- tution has the largest gains, though in view of TABLE III. THE INSTITUTIONS FBOM WHICH MEN GRADUATED WHO WERE ADDED TO OB DROPPED FROM THE LIST Men Added. Men Dropped. M 20 5 15 5 9 4 8 8 7 6 5 3 5 6 5 4 3 3 3 1 2 3 70 G > Math 3 2 1 1 i i i 3 2 1 1 1 3 3 1 1 2 1 1 1 3 3 2 2 3 2 3 2 1 2 7 5 1 3 2 1 1 1 3 1 3 8 6 2 4 5 5 2 4 1 2 5 9 1 1 4 6 3 1 1 2 8 8 4 6 4 1 2 1 2 4 7 9 2 1 1 8 7 4 1 4 21 44 44 7 16 23 29 15 6 17 5 11 26.2 29.3 25.1 14.0 16.0 23.0 19.3 37.5 24.0 28.3 25.0 22.0 Physics Chem Astr Geol Bot. Zool Physiol Anat Path. . Anth Psychol. . Number 7 4 1 2 7 10 2 4 4 14 1 2 7 3 1 14 21 1 5 10 3 1 1 21 27 1 4 13 9 27 40 1 5 15 12 3 2 2 40 33 1 6 11 9 3 3 33 38 7 14 9 6 2 38 48 1 10 17 11 6 3 48 238 KS.8 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 Not known 6 45 92 62 19 7 7 238 Number 10 Table IV. shows the distribution of the 238 new men among the twelve sciences in rela- tion to their positions in the thousand and the relation of their ages to the positions. The additions to each science are in the neighborhood of 25 per cent, and the depar- tures from this average are within the limits of chance variation, but only 14 per cent, of the astronomers and 16 per cent, of the geol- ogists are new, while 37.5 per cent, of the physiologists are new. Astronomy and geol- ogy are the sciences which were the most for- ward in the last generation, and this would lead us to expect a smaller number of changes apart from deaths. None of the new men attains a place in the first hundred, seven reach the second hundred, ten the third and fourteen the fourth. Those who reach the highest positions are in the mathematical and exact sciences; men of exceptional ability advance more rapidly than 576 AMERICAN MEN OF SCIENCE in the natural and descriptive sciences/ Their success probably depends more on innate genius and less on persistent work. There are more " prodigies " in mathematics than in any other science, and they are more likely to maintain their promise. In this and in cer- tain other respects mathematics is related to music and chess. Nearly all the men obtain recognition be- tween the ages of 30 and 45. They do their work earlier and have their ideas still earlier. Those who do not have their ideas before they are thirty are not likely to have them, and those who do not do good work under forty- five are not likely to do it. Not a single man over fifty-five has attained a place on the list, and only one man over forty-five has attained a place as high as the fifth hundred. The average age of those added to the thousand is 38.1 years and of those dropped from it 53.6 years. The corresponding median ages are 37.9 and 50.9 years. The writer knows a num- ber of men who think that they have been hindered from doing research work by teach- ing or other distractions and intend to take up such work later, as when they retire on a pension, but they will almost inevitably fail. While those added to the thousand are com- paratively young, there are only six under thirty years of age, and only the same num- ber in the complete list of the thousand 'lead- ing scientific men. This is significant and dis- quieting. A man of genius is likely to do his work at an early age and to receive prompt recognition. Kelvin was appointed full pro- fessor at Glasgow at 22, Thomson at Cam- bridge at 26, Eutherf ord at McGill at 27. Men of science of this age and rank simply do not exist in America at the present time; nor is it likely that we are faring better in scholarship, in literature and in art. It will be shown further on that the increase in the number of scientific men of standing is only about one * In the complete list of the thousand the young- est man among the first 20, among the first 50 and among the first 100 is in each case a mathe- matician. half so large as the increase in the population of the country. It is sometimes urged that our men of genius are drawn into medicine, law and busi- ness owing to the large financial rewards of these pursuits. Any one acquainted person- ally with some of those who earn or get the largest money returns will probably doubt whether they are in fact men of genius su- perior to our scientific men. The hundred physicians who have the largest incomes se- lected from the hundred thousand physicians of the country, and the hundred multi-million- aires selected from the million men of busi- ness, do not obviously surpass in ability or character the hundred leading scientific men selected from five thousand. It is indeed probable that the conditions ex- isting in this country are paralleled in Great Britain, Germany and France. In no coun- try does there seem to be a group of younger men of genius, ready to fill the places of the great men of the last generation. This holds not, only for science but also for other forms of activity. There is no living peer of Lin- coln, Bismarck or Cavour. An Academy of Letters is just now being planned in Great Britain, and its proposed membership is trivial compared with what it might have been in the middle of the Victorian era. It may be argued that we suffer from an illu- sion of perspective, that many a newspaper writer is the equal of the men of letters of the past, that our young doctors of philosophy would discover laws of motion if Newton had not anticipated them. But it would appear to be a sufficient answer to write the names of Kipling, Barrie, Shaw, Wells and Chesterton besides the names of Carlyle, Kuskin, Mill, Spencer, Tennyson, Browning, George Eliot, Meredith, Dickens and Thackeray, or the names of the leading British, German or French scientific men now active with the corresponding list for forty years ago. It is doubtless in part a question of relativ- ity. By the nature of things there can only be a limited number of famous men, and it is not fair to compare a period of twenty years AMERICAN MEN OF SCIENCE 577 with the most productive period of all history. Both physical science and biological science have been rewritten within a generation, and it is possible that our scientific advance is more rapid to-day than it ever was before. None the less it is ominous for the future that there should be only six men of science of standing in the country who are under thirty years of age, and that the number of scien- tific men of standing should increase more slowly than the population. There may be a racial senescence such as we seem to find in comparing the peoples of the Mediterranean with the Scandinavians and Sclavs, but it would be contrary to all our biological knowledge to suppose that the human stock could alter in a generation. In this period the number of individuals who have the education opening the gates to a scientific career has at least quadrupled. But eminent men are lacking; and this we must attribute to changes in the social environ- ment rather than to deterioration of the stock. The progress of science opposes a real bar- rier to its further advance. This is not be- cause all the great discoveries have been made. The field of science is not a circumscribed territory which can be completely explored, but rather an area which the larger it becomes, the greater is the contact with the unknown and the more numerous and momentous are the problems pressing for solution. But as the known country becomes larger, each ex- plorer has further to go before he reaches the undiscovered regions, and as he travels over the well-mapped land he loses the strength and vigor required for daring exploration. In plain English, the young man who must spend his early manhood in acquiring knowledge has passed the age at which he is most likely to have new ideas. The inherent difficulty we exaggerate by our educational methods. By our requirements for degrees, by our system of examinations, by our insistence on irrelevant information and ridicule of desirable ignor- ance and promising mistakes, we crowd on fat when the athlete should be relieved of every superfluous ounce. The doctor's thesis 38 is supposed to be the first productive work; it is completed at the average age of twenty- eight years and is likely to be the working over of the old ideas of an old professor. In t^e meanwhile the creative instinct has atrophied. Racial senescence^ the lack of emotional stimuli and the accumulations of knowledge will probably set limits to the further advance of science. In the presence of racial senes- cence we should be entirely helpless, but it is possible that there is no such thing. Twenty years ago the Chinese were called a senile race, but such a statement could not be justi- fied to-day. In a way our stock is as young as any, and the germ plasm may increase as much in complexity as it has since the amosba. Still a highly specialized organism is likely to become unplastic and extinct, and apart from physical exhaustion of the stock there is likely to be a social senescence. This is closely re- lated to the lack of emotional stimuli. Great men and great achievements are likely to be associated with national excitement, with wars, revolutions, the rivalry or consolidation of states, the rise of democracy and the like. Such stirring events will probably disappear from the world civilization of the future, and it may be impossible to devise artificial stim- uli adequate to arouse men from a safe and stupid existence. But exactly because within a century the great achievements of science may belong to the past, where the great crea- tions in poetry, art and religion may perhaps now only be found, it is our business to do the best we can to assure the race of an adequate endowment policy. It is probable that we do not attract to the scientific career the best possible men. There is perhaps no harm in our fellowships and underpaid assistantships, though a subsidized theological education seems to have drawn in- ferior men to the church. Those who carry on investigation for the benefit of society should be paid for their services by society, and the average doctor's thesis is worth at least $500. We must open the scientific career to many in order to catch in our net the few 578 AMERICAN MEN OF SCIENCE who count. But large prizes are lacking at both the beginning and the end of the scien- tific career. It is too closely bound up with college teaching and routine administration; its modest preferments are too often pur- chased by subservience rather than by inde- pendence, by neglect of research rather than by devotion to it. Permanent tenure of office so long as no offense is given, small advance- ments by the favor of a superior, long vaca- tions and retirement on a pension, are not the rewards to attract the best men or to lead men to do their best work. The apprentice system in which the be- ginner assists the expert is the best educa- tional method, and if the right spirit exists on both sides it is the method most conducive to fruitful research. But the teaching of large classes of students having no real interest in the subject is not favorable to investigation. It not only takes the time and strength of the teacher, but to lecture continually " als dictirt euch der heilig' Geist" cultivates an attitude of superficial omniscience subversive of both the caution and the daring which should ani- mate the investigator. Three fourths of our leading scientific men hold teaching positions and earn their livings by teaching. The accomplishment of research work is usually a factor in the original ap- pointment, and to this extent investigation is encouraged in the graduate schools of our universities. But the reward offered usually an instructorship at about $1,000 a year is small, and it is not adjusted to discriminate between men of possible genius and the com- monplace squatter. The appointment once received, men are likely to advance by a kind of civil service routine, being on the average assistant professors with a salary of $1,800 at the age of 37 and full professors a little later at a little higher salary. The small advances in salary which may thereafter be given have but little connection with successful research. At the age of sixty-five the professor is no longer regarded as worth his salary, and is put aside on a pension at a time of life when men in other callings earn more than ever before. The only reward open to the professor is the presidency or some other executive position which takes him away from research work. Money is certainly not the main thing in the world, but the desire for money is by no means so materialistic as is commonly as- sumed. The pursuit of wealth is an idealistic passion; it is rarely for the gratification of sensual pleasures and usually at the sacrifice of these. It is closely associated with the family the creation of a home, the education of children, their establishment in life, the transmission of family sanctions and tradi- tions. The pursuit of fame or reputation ia usually far more selfish. It is further the case that we measure performance in terms of money. In each career those who do the best work are likely to receive the largest money rewards. These are consequently not only desirable as improving the conditions of living and of the family, in giving security for the future and in providing facilities for further work, but they are also ideal symbols of useful service. If the university president receives three times the salary of the professor and the professor's salary depends on the president's favor, the office of the professor is degraded. If the scientific man in the government service re- ceives the salary of a clerk and is subject to the orders of a superior, he will be treated like a clerk and in the end will deserve no better treatment. As the writer has said:" " Professors and scholars are not sufficiently free or sufficiently well paid, so there is a lack of men who deserve to be highly re- warded, and we are in danger of sliding down the lines of a vicious spiral, until we reach the stage where the professor and his scholarship are not respected because they are not re- spectable." University professors and scientific men doubtless belong to the privileged classes. If their salaries are too small in comparison with the incomes of the classes, they are ample in comparison with the wages of the masses. But the salaries and rewards are not adjusted 8 " The Case of Harvard College," The Popular Science Monthly, 76: 604-614, June, 1910. AMERICAN MEN OF SCIENCE 579 to performance. In Germany the docents in the universities have had a meager support, but the professorship has been maintained as a high office. Promotion to it has not as a rule accrued through favor, through length of service, or even through personal presenta- bility or skill in teaching, but as a reward for research work in which a man is judged by his peers. To this method of university ad- ministration must in large measure be at- tributed the primacy of Germany in research during the past century. In Great Britain and in France also the exceptional man has received exceptional honors. In this democracy we face conditions into which the other nations are likely to follow us. Geheimrats, knights and academicians may become no more reputable than our LL.D's. As scientific men increase in numbers and their work becomes more highly specialized, it becomes more and more difficult to use fame and social distinction as rewards. The most plausible expedient would appear to be the establishment of research positions in our universities, in our endowed institutions and in the government service, better paid and more free than any now existing. By the will of Senator Vilas, the University of Wisconsin will have ten professorships with salaries of $10,000 and freedom from routine teaching. If each large university has such a scheme, the vacancies being filled by the professors and the position and salary being for life, a com- paratively small expenditure would go far toward attracting exceptional men to the academic and scientific career and stimulating them to do exceptional work. The difficulty confronting us is that our competitive system of payment does not apply to services rendered to society. The physi- cian must promote health, the lawyer prevent litigation and the editor conserve decency at their own cost and to their own cost. The scientific man is not directly paid for his re- search work; he often has difficulty to find a charity that will publish it. The man of let- ters was formerly dependent on a patron, but thanks to the printing press, the increase of the reading public and the copyright laws, his condition has improved. The patent office has been of assistance to discovery; its scope should be extended to cover, for example, the production of new varieties of plants and ani- mals, and, if possible, the production of new kinds of ideas. But methods should be de- vised by which scientific work will be rewarded in some direct proportion to its value to so- ciety and this not in the interest of the in- vestigator, but in the interest of society. At the same time we must remember that human nature is extremely complicated and imperfectly understood. The fine flower of genius may wither in the sunshine more quickly than in the shade. Children are loved and cherished in direct proportion to the sac- rifices made for them. There is a subtle dis- tinction between play and work. It might happen that the joy of creation in art and science would be crushed by professionalism. The dominant motives of conduct vary from age to age, from land to land, from group to group, from individual to individual. But in spite of our ignorance of the causes of conduct we may have some confidence that among the restless nations of the west, poverty, celibacy, obedience and obscurity are exotic ideals which can not be used to make the scientific career attractive. In addition to the 269 men added to the thousand, whose origin, education, distribu- tion, ages and standing have been considered, there were 731 men on the list of 1903 who retaine'd places on the list of 1910. Some of them maintained about the same places as before, some improved their positions and some dropped down to lower places on the list. The number of places that each indi- vidual moved up or down is known. A gain or loss of a hundred places at the bottom of the list would not be significant, as the prob- able error of the change would be about 100 X V2- A gain of a hundred places at the top of the list, where the probable error is under twenty places, would represent a certain and important advance in the estimation in 580 AMERICAN MEN OF SCIENCE which the work of the individual is held. The value of gains or losses in different points in the series is inversely as the probable error corrected by the range, and it is thus possible to represent the gains or losses of individuals wherever they occur in comparable figures. If a gain of one place in the last five hundred is taken as the unit, a gain of one place in the upper hundreds would be approximately as follows: V. = 1.5; IV. = 2; III. = 3; II. = 6, and I. = 10. Dividing further the first hun- dred, a gain in the lower fifty equals 8, and gains in the two upper twenty-fives, respect- ively, equal 10 and 14. On such a scale the gain or loss of each individual has been as- signed. It is a truly dramatic figure express- ing with almost brutal conciseness the efforts, the successes and the failures of seven years of a man's life. The gains and losses of those on the list of 1903, apart from the 68 who died or removed from the country, are shown in the accom- panying curve: FIG. l. It is a tolerably symmetric surface of dis- tribution, in view of the limited number of cases and the complicated conditions. 357 men improved their positions and 575 lost ground, of which latter 201 dropped out of the thousand. The average loss was 113 places, these being places in the lower five hundred, equal to one tenth as many places in the first hundred. Apart from this average change in one direction, or constant error, there was an average change of position, or variable error, which referred to the age groups in 305 places. This variable error is due to two factors the chance error of arrangement (say 141) and the real change in the position of the men and is equal to the square root of the sum of their squares. The real variable error is con- sequently 270. Men on the list thus lost on the average 113 places, and from this average there was a loss or gain of position, which on the average amounted to 270 places. The removals from the list would tend to give higher positions to those remaining on it. If the 68 removals were equally distributed over the list, they would allow on the average an advance of 34 places to each man, or, weighting the places, an advance of 73 places of the value of those in the lower five hundred. Instead of such an advance, there was an average loss of 113 places and consequently a total average loss of 186 places. With a gross variable error of 305 places there might be expected to be dropped from the list about 155 men, apart from any negative constant error or any positive advance due to the deaths. In a stationary scientific population it might be reasonable to assume that the losses by death would be filled by those below the thousand and that those in the thousand would maintain the same or an improved average position, while only so many would be dropped from the thousand as are accounted for by the variable error. In an increasing scientific population, however, the standard of the thou- sand would become higher. If there were an increase of ten per cent, in the number of scientific men in the course of seven years, then there should be 110 of the same rank as the first hundred in the thousand of 1903 and 1,100 of the same rank as the thousand. A man in the lower part of the list who main- tained his absolute position would lose nearly a hundred places in relative position, and, apart from the variable error of position, 91 of those in the thousand would drop to the eleventh hundred. As a matter of fact the average loss in position was 113 places, and the number dropped from the list was 46 in excess of those accounted for by the variable error. According to this argument, the in- crease in the number of scientific men of standing in seven years would be from 5 to 11 per cent., or about one half the increase of AMERICAN MEN OF SCIENCE 581 the population. There has certainly been no increase in the number of scientific men of standing commensurate with the increase in the instructors, students and endowments of our universities, with the larger appropriations for scientific work under the government, or with the new foundations for research. improve their positions, while the older men are likely to fall back. The nine men now under thirty-five have, on the average, gained 364 places and the 77 now between thirty-five and thirty-nine have, on the average, gained 144 places. Of those under forty, 54 gained and 32 lost. In the next five-year period men TABLE V. GAINS AND LOSSES IN BEFKBENCE TO POSITION AND TO AGE Position. 1-100. 101-200. 201-300. 301-400. 401-500. 501-600. 601-700. 701-800. 801-900. 901-1000 Totl. Number 90 91 95 92 91 92 97 93 94 97 _ 932 No. gained 44 40 37 34 35 28 40 31 26 42 _ 357 No. lost 46 51 58 58 56 64 57 62 68 55 __ 575 Constant error -53.3 -93.9 -99.4 -64.5 -115.8 -160.8 -95.3 -165.0 -182.9 -89.1 Age. 30-34. 35-39. 40-44. 45-49. 50-54. 55-59. 60-64. 65-69. 70-74. 75-85. * *W "rt I Total number 9 77 187 194 155 104 85 52 38 24 7 932 No. gained 6 48 94 79 60 23 17 14 11 1 4 357 No. lost 3 29 93 115 95 81 68 38 27 23 8 575 Constant error +364 + 144 +29 -103 -134 -276 -268 -262 -227 -438 Variable error 485 328 see 284 SOS 285 252 299 258 185 Table V. gives the gains and losses of the thousand scientific men of the list of 1903 (apart from the 68 who died or removed from the country) in reference to their standing and their present ages. It thus appears that in each hundred of the thousand the men were more likely to lose in position than to gain, but that those in the first hundred lost the least and those in the upper hundreds lost less than the average. Of those in the first hun- dred 44 gained in position and 46 lost, the average loss being 53 places. They were not subject to the competition of an increasing population, and only seven men not on the list of 1903 attained places among the second hundred. It thus appears that even men of established reputation do not maintain their positions, they do not advance as they grow older, and death removes more eminent men whose places they might fill. The losses tend to increase as the men are of lower rank, but the differences are not considerable. The variable error being 305 places, the probable error of the figures given in the table is rather large. In the case of age it is clear that the younger men in the thousand are likely to are about as likely to lose as to gain, whereas older men are likely to lose. There appears to be a plateau between the ages of those now between fifty -five and seventy-four; in the course of the seven preceding years they have about the same record. They tend to lose about 250 places or about twice the average of all the men on the list. The 24 men who seven years ago were sixty-eight years of age or older have nearly all lost in position. It is not likely that any one of them has done any- thing to lower his scientific reputation; but men of the younger generation have accom- plished work of greater importance, or the- work of older men is forgotten because it is- less contemporary. It thus appears that under existing conditions in this country, scientific men are likely in the course of seven years to lose about 100 places. Men who have obtained recognition among the thousand are likely to gain if under forty; if between forty and fifty they are likely to lose, and if over fifty-five they are likely to lose more than the average. 5 " * The coefficient of correlation between age and gain in position is 31.7. It is, however, doubt- ful whether the Galton-Pearson method can be used to advantage in such cases. 582 AMERICAN MEN OF SCIENCE The average age of the thousand scientific men on the list of 1910 is 48.12 years. The age distribution is as follows: Age Number 25-29 6 30-34 54 35-39 155 40-44 214 45-49 176 50-54 137 55-59 82 60-64 68 65-69 40 70-74 33 75-79 13 80-84 7 Unknown 15 In Table VI. is given the average age of the men in the ten groups of one hundred making up the thousand f jr the lists of 1903 and 1910.' The probable errors of the averages are less than one year. It thus appears that the more eminent scientific men are likely to be older; TABLE VI. AVEBAGE AGE ACCOBDING TO POSITION IN 1903 AND 1910 Average Age. Average Age. 1903. 1910. 54.78 48.94 48.34 48,62 48.50 1903. 1910. I. II. III. IV. V. 50.12 49.76 47.04 45.38 44.09 VI. VII. VIII. IX. X. 43.70 41.97 42.36 43.50 42.32 46.40 .45.60 47.82 45,94 46.14 Average 45.02 48.11 but the differences are small apart from the first hundred, who in 1903 were 5.1 years older than the average, and in 1910 6.7 years older. Scientific men do not become more eminent as they grow older unless they have obtained a good position at a comparatively early age. The men on the list of 1910 are, on the average, three years older than those on the list of 1903. An increase in age would be expected, as we have to do with a youthful * The list for 1903 used for ages consisted of the 1,000 scientific men who stood first before the adjustments had been made to secure a fixed number in each science. and increasing scientific population. Some part of the increase in age is probably caused by the long period of education now likely to precede productive scientific work, but it is not easy to analyze the factors. In so far as the increased age is due to higher standards through increasing competition, it is gratify- ing ; in so far as it is due to the postponement of scientific productivity, it is unfortunate. For the list of 1903 data have been compiled in regard to the ages at which academic de- grees were received. The average age at which 758 men received the bachelor's degree was 22.2 years, and the average age at which 544 men received the doctorate of philosophy or science was 28.4 years. The corresponding median ages were 21.8 and 26.9 years. Table VII. shows the details in reference to the dif- ferent sciences and the ten groups of a hun- dred composing the thousand. The age differ- ences are small, but men have received the TABLE VII. AGES AT WHICH THE BACHELOB'S DE- GBEE AND THE DOCTOBATE OF PHILOSOPHY WEBE BECEIVED ACCOBDING TO SCIENCE AND TO POSITION IN THE THOUSAND Bachelor. Ph. D. No. Age. No. 64 87 114 14 43 56 96 19 2 6 , 6 37 Age. Mathematics 67 112 132 34 85 83 117 29 15 30 8 46 21.9 22.1 21.6 21.6 22.8 23.7 22.6 21.7 23.7 20.7 22.0 21.7 28.4 28.6 26.7 29.3 28.5 30.5 28.8 26.7 30.5 27.2 27.5 27.6 Physics Chemistry Astronomy Geology Botany Zoology Physiology Anatomy Pathology Anthropology Psychology No. or average 758 22.2 21.6 21.9 22.3 22.2 22.2 22.0 22.4 22.2 22.8 22.8 544 28.4 26.9 27.3 27.7 27.5 28.2 29.3 28.6 28.8 29.3 29.1 I 74 77 80 74 74 74 79 76 74 76 57 52 56 52 53 63 52 58 49 52 II Ill IV V VI VII VIII IX X No. or averaee . . 758 22.2 544 28.4 AMERICAN MEN OF SCIENCE 583 bachelor's degree at an earlier age who have become pathologists than those who have be- come anatomists or botanists. The chemists have received the doctor's degree at the earli- est age and the anatomists and botanists at the latest. The mathematicians have received the doctorate at exactly the average age, not earlier, as the writer would have anticipated. In the different sciences there are decided differences in the proportion of those who have received academic degrees. Only half the pathologists have the bachelor's degree and one twelfth the doctorate of philosophy, their men the earlier the age. Those in the first hundred have received both the bachelor's and the doctor's degree at the earliest age, the former 0.6 and the latter 1.5 years below the average. The second hundred are the next youngest, the ages for the two degrees being 0.3 and 1.1 below the average. Those in the lower two hundred were 0.6 year older than the average in receiving the first degree and 0.8 year older in the case of the second de- gree. There is no correlation between stand- ing and the possession of one or the other of the degrees. TABLE VIII. OCCUPATION OF THE THOUSAND MEN OF SCIENCE ACCORDING TO SCIENCE AND TO POSITION Teaching. Government Work. Applied Science. Research Institutions. Museums and Academies. Botanical and Zoological Gardens. Amateurs. State Work. Physicians. Architects. Artists. Editors. Missionaries. Mathematics 77 1 1' 1 80 Physics 104 18 6 150 Chemistry 126.5 12 9^ 8.5 175 Astronomy 38 5 4 3 60 Geology 52.5 30.5 g 1 2 1 5 100 Botany 66 12 6 2.5 12.5 1 100 Zoology 112.5 14 3 15.5 1 2 1 1 150 Physiology 37 1 2 40 Anatomy 21 2 1 1 25 Pathology 51 4 3 9 60 Anthropology 7.5 8 3 5 1 20 Psychology 45.5 0.5 1 1 50 738.5 106 59 35.5 24.5 13.5 11 5 3 1 1 1 1 1000 1- 100 79 7 1 6 3 2 9 ? ? . I 100 101- 200 78 12 2 4 1 1 100 201- 300 80.5 12 3 2 1.5 100 301- 400 67 18 8 1 2 3 100 401- 500 69 11 5 4 4 2 1 100 601- 600 78 9 7 2 3 100 601- 700 67.5 11 6 8 3 2.5 2 100 701- 800 72 12 q 3 3 100 801- 900 69.5 6 11 4.5 3 1 4 100 901-1000 78 8 8 3 2 1 100 738.5 106 59 35.5 24.5 13.5 11 1000 education having been in the medical school. Of 50 psychologists 46 hold the bachelor's and 37 the doctor's degree. The doctor's degree is held by nearly two thirds of the zoologists, while it is held by less than half the geologists and less than a third of the astronomers. There is a small but definite correlation be- tween standing and the age at which the men received their degrees the more eminent the Our thousand leading men of science are occupied as shown in Table VIII. 738. 5 T are engaged in teaching, or have been so engaged, and now fill administrative educational posi- tions or have retired from active service. Nearly three quarters of our scientific men * The decimal here and elsewhere refers to a man who gives part of his time to teaching or to the institution to which he is credited. 584 AMERICAN MEN OF SCIENCE earn their livings by teaching, and a large proportion of the others have done so. In this country, as in Germany, the advancement of science depends mainly on those who hold chairs in our colleges and universities. Some ten per cent, of our scientific men are engaged in work for the government, among whom the geologists predominate. Only six per cent, earn their livings by direct applications of science. Apart from one actuary, this work is in applied chemistry, engineering and mining. There is no one who earns his living by appli- cations of the natural sciences. Research in- stitutions, nearly all of recent foundation, employ 35 men. There are 24 connected with museums, academies and libraries and 12 with botanical gardens. Only eleven among the thousand may be classed as amateurs, and these include several married women who should perhaps be given a separate place. This contrasts with Great Britain, where Dar- win, Huggins, Rayleigh and many other great scientific men, not needing to earn their liv- ings, have devoted their lives to scientific re- search. Only three physicians not connected with medical schools have done scientific work of consequence. One architect, one artist, one editor and one missionary appear on the list, but no lawyer or man of business. It seems that in this country the time has gone by when science can be advanced by any except by those engaged in certain definite profes- sions, while these professions require men, with a few exceptions, to earn their livings by teaching or by applied science. The standing of those in the different pro- fessions does not show a considerable differ- ence. There are in the upper three hundred relatively more men engaged in teaching and in the research institutions, and fewer in ap- plied science, but the differences are scarcely significant, except that those engaged in ap- plied science are of somewhat lower standing. Those in the government service and the offi- cers and curators of museums and botanical gardens are of average standing. There were 19 women on the list of 1903. None of them died but seven were not placed on the list of 1910. This is a somewhat larger proportion than in the case of the men, but the figures are too small to have significance. Six women found a place for the first time on the list of 1910, the highest being in the fifth hun- dred. It thus appears that women have not improved their position in science in the course of seven years, and it is not an impor- tant one, only 18 women among 982 men, with none in the first hundred, two in the second, two in the third and three in the fourth. There are now nearly as many women as men who receive a college degree; they have on the average more leisure; there are four times as many women as men engaged in teaching. There does not appear to be any social preju- dice against women engaging in scientific work, and it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that there is an innate sexual disqualification. Women seem not to have done appreciably better in this country than in other countries and periods in which their failure might be attributed to lack of opportunity. But it is possible that the lack of encouragement and sympathy is greater than appears on the sur- face, and that in the future women may be able to do their share for the advancement of science. Table IX. gives the distribution on January 1, 1910, of the thousand leading scientific men of the country and the gain or loss of each state in a period of about four years. The distribution of the second thousand is also shown. In respect to the first thousand, the main facts have already been considered in connection with the men who have acquired or lost places in the group. This table shows in addition the changes which have occurred as the result of men removing from one state to another who have retained their places on the list. Massachusetts, as has been noted, gained 14 men owing to the fact that 43 of the new men reside in that state, while but 29 were lost to it through death or through dropping below the standard. In addition it has gained seven men, the excess of those having places on both lists who have moved into the state above those who have left it. AMERICAN MEN OF SCIENCE 585 TABLE IX. DISTBIBUTION OF THE FIBST AND SECOND THOUSANDS First Thousand. Second Thousand. 6 fc tH 2 o 5^ o _o i| o fc a s So gj North Atlantic. Maine 3 8 1 165 9 50 183 26 60 39 109 10 2 7 1 2 4 4 34 11 77 25 36 13 6 24 1 1 5 6 9 4 1 50 2 - i - i +21 + 1 + 7 - 9 - 9 - 5 - 1 - 8 -10 - 1 + 1 - 1 - 3 - 2 + 3 - 3 - 1 +14 - 2 +13 1 + 3 - 1 1 - 3 - 2 - 1 + 1 - 2 + 2 + 1 - 3 + 2 14.3 19.4 2.9 58.7 20.9 55.0 251 13.2 9.5 32.8 391.0 5.4 2.0 3.7 0.5 1.1 2.9 1.3 8.2 4.4 15.9 10.3 17.4 7.4 2.7 7.7 3.1 2.4 3.4 5.6 16.6 34.2 2.4 33.6 12.9 5 8 6 103 11 32 166 29 69 4 30 111 14 3 7 3 1 3 5 8 2 1 1 10 2 1 39 21 87 31 14 20 15 19 4 2 14 11 3 1 13 1 2 5 1 2 6 1 38 1 1 7.2 19.4 17.4 36.7 25.7 35.2 22.8 15.3 10.9 21.7 25.2 399.2 7.5 3.1 3.7 2.2 0.4 5.7 2.3 3.9 1.1 0.7 0.7 3.2 5.0 0.7 9.3 8.3 18.0 12.8 6.7 11.4 6.7 6.1 12.5 4.9 9.5 10.3 12.3 10.9 24.1 5.1 16*.4 18.1 21.4 12.4 11.6 2.4 25.6 6.5 New Hampshire Vermont Massachusetts Rhode Island Connecticut New York New Jersey Pennsylvania South Atlantic. Delaware Maryland Dist. of Columbia .... Virginia West Virginia North Carolina South Carolina Georgia Florida South Central. Kentucky Tennessee Alabama Mississippi Louisiana Texas Oklahoma Arkansas North Central. Ohio Indiana Illinois Michigan Wisconsin Minnesota Iowa . Missouri North Dakota South Dakota Kansas .... . . Nebraska Western. Montana Wyoming . . Colorado New Mexico Arizona Utah Nevada Idaho Washington Oregon California Hawaii Porto Rico First Thousand. Second Thousand. A OB fl o 'MM O Per Million 1900. 6 fe Per Million 1900. Panama i 4 1 1 1 2 1 1 .0 + 1 + 1 - 1 + 2 + 1 + 1 8 1 2 1 1 Philippines Canada Mexico Cuba Brazil Argentine Peru France Germany Switzerland Turkey Number 1000 1000 Its total gain in scientific men of standing is consequently 21, and it has 58.7 of these scien- tific men per million of its population accord- ing to the census of 1900, as compared with 51.3 about four years ago. The increase in the number of scientific men is nearly 13 per cent. This is an honorable record. It ia commonly assumed that Boston has yielded to New York City the position of literary center of the country, and if the facts were not known the same assumption would probably be made in regard to science. As a matter of fact Boston has 126, New York 120 and Wash- ington 110 of our leading scientific men. In comparison with population and with wealth, Boston is far in advance of New York, though it is Cambridge and Harvard University which give Boston its preeminent position. New York and Pennsylvania have in part retrieved the loss due to men dropping out of the first thousand by calling men of this rank from other states. Though they have lost, respectively, 22 and 12 through the failure of their men to maintain their positions, they have drawn an excess of 13 and 7 from other states, so that their total losses are 9 and 5. It appears that the immense wealth of these states has been but sparingly used to bring new men to them, whereas the conditions are such that those residing there are more likely to lose than to gain in scientific position. It 686 AMERICAN MEN OF SCIENCE may be unsafe to draw sweeping conclusions from such figures, but they certainly indicate that residence in these states is unfavorable to scientific productivity. It may perhaps be the case that the salaries are below the ex- pensive standards of living and that oppor- tunities for commercial and hack work are tempting, so that men are drawn away from research. The District of Columbia has lost nine men. Eleven have been removed by death, and this loss has not been made good by men improving their positions or going to reside in Washington. In view of the in- creasing appropriations made by the govern- ment for scientific work and the endowment of the Carnegie Institution this is not a favor- able record. Illinois and Wisconsin show the gains due to men who have improved their positions, there being no significant changes due to re- movals. The same is generally true in regard to the gains or losses in the other north cen- tral states and in the west and south. The numbers are too small to be as a rule signifi- cant. Missouri and Louisiana have each gained three men, Arizona two and Colorado one. Ohio and Minnesota are exactly station- ary. Indiana, Michigan, Iowa, Texas and California have in each case lost from one to three men. The southern states (except Louisiana) have been losing even the few sci- entific men whom they had. Table IX. shows also the distribution of the thousand scientific men standing below the first thousand. The men are not as well known and they can not be arranged as accu- rately in the order of merit. They were not independently selected from a larger group by the judges, but were those not assigned a place in the first thousand. The first five hundred were selected from the thousand with a tol- erable degree of validity, but the second five hundred can only be regarded as representa- tive of the scientific men who have done re- search work, but are not of the rank of the first fifteen hundred. The men are, however, arranged in the order of merit, and probable errors can be assigned to the positions as in the case of the first thousand. The number from each science is the same as in the case of the first thousand. It is an honor to belong to this second group of a thousand men; they deserve well who have accomplished research work and have obtained recognition as scientific men. But those who are young have far greater promise than those who are older. All young men of ability must pass through the second thousand before they reach the first, though they are likely to escape notice in a period which may be short. The group is thus heter- ogenous, including those who may become our leading men of science and those who have attained a mediocre though creditable position beyond which they will not advance. The same conditions hold for the lower hundreds of the first thousand. In the preceding paper the scientific men were divided into two groups of 500 each, and no considerable differences were found in their origin or distribution. This appears to have been in part due to heter- ogeneous character of the second group. Thus Massachusetts had 74 men in the first five hundred and 70 in the second, while New York had in the two groups 93 and 99, re- spectively. But in the intervening period more men in Massachusetts than in New York have retained or improved their positions. It thus appears that Dr. F. A. Woods* is cor- rect in holding that Massachusetts has not only produced more scientific men, but also men of higher standing. The second thousand includes those who have dropped down from the first thousand (201), to whom consideration has already been given. The others have been divided into those above and those below the median age (42 years), but the conditions are almost too complicated to admit of analysis, and it seems to be scarcely worthwhile to give the figures. In New York 43 are below and 68 above the median age ; in Illinois 37 below and 28 above, and in California 9 below and 18 above. The excess of older men in New York may be '"American Men of Science and the Question of Heredity," SCIENCE, N. S., 31: 205-209, 1910. AMERICAN MEN OF SCIENCE 587 attributed to its earlier development and to the fact that older men, especially in applied science, tend to reside in New York City. Chicago is of more recent origin and has called younger men to its universities. In Massachusetts and the District of Columbia there are about equal numbers below and above the median age. Older men reside in Boston and Washington, and younger men have been called to the institutions of learning in the former city and to the government service in the latter. The eight scientific men in the Philippines are all below the median age. The men of the second thousand are more equally and widely distributed over the coun- try than those of the first thousand. The regions and institutions which are the strong- est in numbers tend to have also the larger share of men of the higher rank. Thus Massachusetts has 165 men of the first thou- sand and 103 men of the second thousand; Connecticut 50 of the first and 32 of the second. The educational institutions of these states have called and kept good men. They have relatively more in the first thousand than in the second, as they have relatively more in the first hundred than of lower rank. New York has a smaller preponderance of the better men. In the District of Columbia the scien- tific men are drawn equally from the first and second thousands. Thanks to the recent de- velopment of its great university, Wisconsin has 36 men in the first thousand and 14 in the second. The superior men are in the majority in Missouri, but the other north central states have fewer men of the first rank than of the second. California has 50 men of the first thousand and 38 of the second. In general the western and southern states which have but few scientific men have relatively more of the second thousand. It is of course impor- tant to have even men of this rank. There are advantages and disadvantages in concen- trating the better men in a few regions and institutions. The standards of the men in both thousands are becoming higher, though more slowly than would be wished. The distribution of our scientific men is almost entirely determined by educational and scientific institutionSj including under the lat- ter the government bureaus. Table X. shows the institutions with which three or more of those among our thousand leading men of sci- ence are connected, together with the gain or loss in a period of about four years. The table also gives the ratio of the number of leading scientific men in each institution to the total number of instructors, to the total number of students, to the value of buildings and grounds and to the current income. Harvard, Wis- consin, the Carnegie Institution, Illinois, Yale and Chicago have made the most notable gains. Columbia, California, the Geological Survey, the Smithsonian Institution and the Department of Agriculture have suffered the most severe losses. Four years ago Harvard had 66.5, Columbia 60 and Chicago 37 of our leading scientific men, as selected three years previously. After this short period it has resulted that Harvard has 31.5 more than Columbia and Chicago the same number. Such changes are only to a small degree due to the probable errors of the arrangements, though in the case of Columbia the fact that last time there were 11 and this time but two men in the last hundred may be attributed in part to the probable error and account in part for the loss of that university. There is also a different kind of chance variation due to the date to which the census refers. Thus since January 1, Harvard has lost two of its great- est men, while the losses of Columbia occurred earlier and certain important positions were vacant at that time. It is, however, a fact not without significance that Columbia and California, in which faculty control is re- garded by the administration as less important than executive efficiency, have suffered the most serious losses, whereas Harvard and Yale, where the methods of appointment and promotion are more democratic, show most gratifying advances. Yale has disproved the assertion that a faculty is not able to select its own members. The Smithsonian Institu- tion and the government bureaus, which are 588 AMERICAN MEN OF SCIENCE somewhat autocratically controlled, show seri- ous losses, but these should be in part at least attributed to the inadequate salaries. The gain of 50 per cent, in the Bureau of Stand- ards shows that losses are not inevitable. Wisconsin and Illinois are the state univer- sities which have made the most notable prog- ress. Wisconsin has moved ahead of Mich- igan and is nearly equal to the Johns Hopkins and Cornell. The gain of almost 200 per cent, at Illinois is in the main due to the departments of chemistry and mathematics, to the heads of which the university was so wise as to call men of high scientific standing. Michigan has a gain of 3.5, Missouri of two and Indiana of one. Minnesota and Kansas are exactly stationary. Ohio has a loss of one, Iowa and Texas of two and California of 8.5. The Johns Hopkins has gained three men, which is satisfactory in view of its limited endowment and the high standards it has al- ways maintained. The Massachusetts Insti- tute of Technology has gained 5.5, Cornell 1.5, Pennsylvania 1, Princeton 2 and Stan- ford 5. We may hope for a considerable fur- ther advance at Princeton in the near future. It will be noted that in general the larger in- stitutions have gained, and this relative gain represents a greater absolute gain as the standard of the thousand becomes continually higher with the increase of the numbers of scientific men. Among universities with which fewer sci- entific men are connected, Western Reserve has gained four men and Brown, Missouri and Tulane have each gained 2, whereas Ne- braska has lost 3 and Wesleyan, Syracuse, Northwestern, Cincinnati and Texas have each lost two. Bryn Mawr, Vassar and Wel- lesley have gained and Smith has lost. Small changes of this character are not necessarily significant, as they may be accounted for by the chance error of arrangement or the chance date to which the data refer. Still in each ease the change is probably a real one and of importance when considered in rela- tion to the total number of professors in the institution. The gain of a scientific man of standing is worth more to an institution than a building costing $100,000. Table X. gives also the ratio of the number of scientific men of the thousand in each in- stitution to the total number of instructors, to the total number of students, to the value of the buildings and grounds and to the in- come for current expenses, the figures being based on the report of the commissioner of education for 1909.' The institutions vary greatly. One half of all the instructors at Clark are among our leading men of science, whereas in certain institutions there is but one in fifty. The institutions which stand the highest are Clark, the Johns Hopkins, Chicago, Stanford, Bryn Mawr, Harvard, Wesleyan, Case and Princeton. These insti- tutions have at least one scientific man of standing among each ten instructors. It is of interest to note that the five institutions that have the best record are of comparatively recent establishment. They have given a rel- * Unfortunately the figures in the report do not seem to be uniformly accurate. For example, the value of the buildings of Columbia University are reported by the commissioner of education at $2,238,800, and those of the U. S. Military Acad- emy at $20,000,000, whereas the buildings on the Columbia campus have apparently cost much more than those at West Point. The treasurer gives the assessed value of the Columbia buildings (apart from Barnard College, Teachers College and the College of Pharmacy) as over $6,000,000. The commissioner of education reports the total receipts of Columbia University, exclusive of gifts for endowment, to have been $5,572,943, whereas the treasurer reports for the same year an income fo.- the Columbia College corporation of $1,614,- 166. The correct figures have been substituted in the case of Columbia, but it is to be feared that other figures in the report are misleading. The writer considered using the figures collected by the Carnegie Foundation, but these also seem to be difficult to interpret. Thus Illinois is said to have an annual income (for running expenses) of $1,200,000 and to spend $491,675 on salaries of teachers, and Pennsylvania to have an annual income of $589,226, and to spend $433,311 on salaries. AMERICAN MEN OF SCIENCE 589 TABLE X. THE NUMBEB OF SCIENTIFIC MEN CON- NECTED WITH INSTITUTIONS WHEN THESE ABE THBEE OB MOBE d fe n o ^ a 3* Ratio to Instr. To Students. 'O 'O m "~* 3 T3 *D * fl 02 OQ S boo .2o A oS H a M Harvard 79.5 4^.5 48.0 38.0 35.0 33.5 30.0 280 25.5 25.0 23.5 21.0 190 18.5 18.0 17.0 16.5 16.0 12.0 11.0 10.0 9.0 8.5 7.5 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 5.5 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 +130 + 8.5 -12.0 + 11.5 + 1.5 + 3.0 +12.0 - 4.0 - 6.5 + 5.5 + 3.5 + 5.0 +12.0 - 8.5 + 1.0 +11.0 + 2.0 - 6.0 + 4.0 + 2.0 - 1.0 - 1.0 - 0.5 + 1.0 + 4.0 + 2.0 + 2.0 + 2.0 + 1.0 - 2.0 + 3.0 + 1.0 - 3.0 - 0.5 + 1.0 - 1.0 - 2.0 + 1.0 + 1.0 + 1.0 + 1.0 - 1.0 - 2.0 - 2.0 + 3.0 + 2.0 + 1.5 + 1.0 + 1.0 - 2.0 - 4.0 7.8 6.0 13.3 10.6 16.5 S-.6 13.2 10.1 12.3 6.9 21.3 25.2 29.2 9.8 14.7 20.1 22.1 28.1 2.0 24.5 7.2 12.9 43.0 10.4 44.6 15.7 36.1 15.4 27.4 36.2 30.6 46.8 8.8 54.2 25.3 29.2 42.3 8.5 52.0 35.3 61.0 19.0 61.6 16.7 28.6 49.2 114.9 96.7 90.3 113.9 21.8 150.7 58.5 200.8 80.3 191.9 229.0 251.9 79.7 259.4 264.9 281.7 446.5 17.7 126.3 52.5 141.9 353.0 112.0 319.3 131.0 544.3 224.1 211.6 442.0 494.4 627.2 111.3 279.5 254.5 393.0 348.5 80.5 365.6 427.3 414.3 225.3 502.6 162.6 611.0 138,364 187,741 259,954 122,966 186,095 126,104 24,729 35,986 45,989 34,142 41,106 10,121 50,499 20,859 57,539 39,571 81,387 56,368 99,647 24,964 54,870 133,348 85,784 49,062 17,585 30,496 37,185 65,813 50,349 36,194 134,191 27,191 101,509 55,338 113,408 91,775 109,620 148,350 12,204 54,501 145,015 90,212 68,624 25,613 54,967 127,937 122,529 29,166 58,437 110,691 Chicago Columbia Yale Cornell Johns Hopkins . Wisconsin Dept. Agric. . . . Geol. Surv Mass. Inst 53,480 87,649 333,810 281,761 111,971 157,591 387,008 323,889 435,294 66,562 187,996 243,649 257,142 85,842 306,714 103,833 210,225 345,454 220,000 328,938 550.051 207,500 616,421 329,875 367,030 220,616 601,297 423,841 309,844 362,667 111,500 340,234 Michigan Stanford Carnegie Inst. . . California Pennsylvania . . Illinois Princeton Smithsonian . . . Bur. of Stan. . . . Missouri Minnesota Ohio State New York Amer. Museum. Clark West. Reserve . Bryn Mawr .... N. Y. Bot. Gar. Brown Indiana Virginia Northwestern . Rockefeller Inst. North Carolina . Nebraska Dartmouth .... Washington (St. Louis) . . . Kansas Iowa State Syracuse Case Field Museum . . Tufts Vassar Smith Cincinnati Wesleyan Wistar Inst Tulane Wellesley Conn. Sta. Pittsburgh Colorado Coll. . Gen. Elect. Co. G. Washington Worcester Texas U. S. Navy atively more prominent position to science than the older institutions and have selected better men. At certain other institutions the ratios are: Yale, 10.6; Michigan, 12.3; Wis- consin, 13.2; Columbia, 13.3; Cornell, 16.5; California, 21.3; Pennsylvania, 25.2. The in- stitutions having more than forty instructors to one scientific man of standing are George Washington, Pittsburgh, Tufts, Tulane, Syra- cuse, Northwestern, Indiana and Cincinnati. These differences are truly remarkable and should be widely known in the interest of scientific education and the advancement of science. Institutions differ in the relative strengths of their departments, but it will be found that those which have men of distinc- tion in the natural and exact sciences also have such men in other subjects. Students should' certainly use every effort to attend in- stitutions having large proportions of men of distinction among their instructors. It will be ordinarily the case that in such institu- tions the younger instructors are also of higher standing. Scientific men, especially those beginning their careers, should try to accept positions only where the higher stand- ards obtain. In general the institutions which have a large proportion of scientific men of distinc- tion among their instructors will also have a large number in comparison with the student attendance. But institutions vary greatly in the number of students for each instructor from 3.9 at the Johns Hopkins to 18.1 at Chicago. 10 For each scientific man among the thousand, the numbers of students are : Clark, 18; Johns Hopkins, 22; Harvard, 49; Bryn Mawr, 52; the Massachusetts Institute, 58; Princeton and Stanford, 80; Yale, 90; Co- lumbia, 97. These are the institutions which have at least one scientific instructor of dis- tinction for each hundred students. The in- stitutions not having one such instructor for five hundred students are Syracuse, Texas, Nebraska and George Washington. "These remarkable differences are confirmed by the report from the Carnegie Foundation, which gives the ratios as 3.7 and 17.4. 590 AMERICAN MEN OF SCIENCE There are extraordinary differences or dis- crepancies in the relation between the value of the buildings and grounds of different in- stitutions and their annual incomes for cur- rent expenses as given in the report of the commissioner of education. Some institu- tions, as Michigan and Illinois, are said to spend nearly as much annually on their edu- cational work as the total value of their build- ings and grounds, whereas others, as New York, Stanford and Tulane, are said to spend scarcely more than a tenth as much. Apparently but little reliance is to be placed on such figures. In so far as they are correct the Massachusetts Institute has one scientific man of standing for each fifty-three thousand dollars invested in buildings and grounds. The other institutions having at least one scientific man for each hundred thousand dol- lars so invested are Clark, Michigan and Indiana. The institutions having but one scientific man of standing for four hundred thousand dollars or more invested in build- ings and grounds are Vassar, Tulane, Syra- cuse, New York and Wellesley. The Johns Hopkins supports one leading scientific man for each ten thousand dollars that it spends. The other institutions which have at least one scientific man for each twenty-five thousand dollars spent annually are Clark, the Massa- chusetts Institute, Harvard and Princeton. Vassar, Northwestern and Minnesota are the institutions that spend the most in proportion to the number of their scientific men. Men who stand toward the upper end of the list are of far greater consequence than those toward the bottom. Here too Harvard shows its primacy and in unmistakable terms. Of our hundred leading men of science nineteen are at Harvard, as compared with nine at Chicago and seven at Columbia and the Johns Hopkins. 11 Of the second hundred Harvard has 10.5, Chicago 15, Columbia 6 and the Johns Hopkins 3. "The membership of the National Academy of Sciences corresponds closely with these figures 18 at Harvard, 9 at Chicago, 8 at Columbia and 7 at the Johns Hopkins. It is not possible to estimate the value of a great scientific man in terms of other men. It may even be argued with plausibility that the progress of science depends exclusively on the few men of genius, while the mass of sci- entific men erect obstacles, and are only of use as a group which on occasion supplies the great man. But in a comparison of this kind we have in mind men such as Galileo, New- ton, Laplace and Darwin. In the list of a thousand living American men of science, those in the lead are not incomparable with the others. As a matter of fact, we under- take to measure them by the salaries we pay. These are obviously imperfectly adjusted to merit, and there are kinds of merit other than scientific distinction. If, however, a univer- sity pays its more distinguished professors three times as much as its younger assistant professors,' it estimates the one to be worth three times as much as the other. In the case of the salaries and earnings of psychologists, it appears that those in the first hundred of the thousand earn about three times, and those in the second and third hundreds about twice as much as those in the lower half of the list. With numerous individual exceptions some men of high standing even paying for the privilege of doing scientific work, while some men of medium standing may receive comparatively large salaries 12 we find that the salaries increase with distinction and roughly measure it, placing it about three times as high in the upper hundred as in the lower third of the list. It is also the case u It is scarcely necessary to point out again the failure of our competitive system to reward scientific research, but it may be illustrated by an example. Lord Kelvin made a large fortune by his inventions and engineering advice; he earned a modest salary as professor at Glasgow; he was paid nothing for his great contributions to mathematical physics, though he might have earned large sums in the time devoted to these. His technical work was doubtless worth far more to society than he was paid for it, but it was worth less than his scientific research. In his three lines of work he was paid inversely as the value of his services. AMERICAN MEN OF SCIENCE 591 that the range of merit in the curve of dis- tribution covered by the first hundred is al- most exactly equal to the range covered by the second and third hundreds, and each of these is equal to the range covered by the remain- ing seven hundred. 13 It may not be possible to fix a zero point at which scientific merit begins, but it can plausibly be placed at a point below the first thousand, about equal to the range of merit covered by the other three groups. In this case the merit of those toward the bottom of each of the three groups in the thousand the first hundred, the second and third hundreds, and the last seven hun- dred would be as 3:2:1. In order, therefore, to sum up in one figure the strength of a university or department, weights have been assigned to the men on this basis a man in the lower four hundred being the unit, those in the other hundreds were assigned ratings as follows: VII. and VI. = 1.2; V. = 1.4; IV. = 1.6; III. = 1.9; H. = 2.2 ; and I. = 3. The first hundred were subdivided, the lower fifty being assigned 2.5, and the upper twenty -fives,, respectively, 3 and 4. These ratings scarcely measure the real value of the men to society; they are nearly all paid less than they are worth, and the greater the performance of a man the more out of proportion is the payment for his ser- vices. They do, however, give with tolerable accuracy the value attached to men in our competitive system. A university can obtain a man of the first rank for from $5,000 to $7,500, or a man in the lower hundreds of the list for from $2,000 to $2,500. It is further the case that a moderate alteration in the weights adopted would not considerably alter the comparative results. The scientific strength of our strongest in- stitutions rated in the manner described, to- gether with the gain or loss in a period of four years is shown in Table XI. Thus Har- vard has a total scientific strength equivalent to 146 men in the lower part of the thousand and has made a gain equivalent to 16.3 such men in the course of about four years. In 18 Cf. p. 552 above. general the figures in this table correspond with those in the preceding table, but they tell us more. They take account not only of the number of men gained or lost, but also of the rank of these men and of the changes which have taken place through men improv- ing their standing or failing to maintain it. TABLE XI. THE SCIENTIFIC STRENGTH OF THE LEADING INSTITUTIONS Weighted Number. Gain or Loss. Harvard 146 +16 3 Chicago 94 6 +18 Columbia 79 3 13 3 Hopkins 63 4 -1-42 Yale 61 7 + 12 2 Cornell 57 6 4-46 Wisconsin 49 +22 3 Geol. Survey 43 8 12 2 Dept. Agric 40 9 4 9 Mass. Inst 37 7 + 95 Michigan 37 1 3 5 California 32 4 5 Carnegie Inst 30 9 +19 4 Stanford 30 4-48 Princeton 28 6 4-75 Smithsonian Inst. . . . 26.0 7 3 Illinois 25 +16 7 Pennsylvania 244 4 5 Bur. of Standards 18 9 4-01 Clark 16.0 + 2.0 If only the number of men is considered, Columbia and Chicago are equal and Harvard has made a larger gain than Chicago within the past four years. But Chicago has in- creased the number of men in the first hun- dred by two and in the second hundred by five. When we count up the total scientific strength, we find that Chicago is in advance of Columbia by the equivalent of 15.3 men and has gained more than Harvard by the equivalent of 1.7 men. Wisconsin and Illi- nois also show larger gains than Harvard. While Yale has more scientific men in the thousand than the Johns Hopkins, and Stan- ford than California, the order of the insti- tutions is in each case reversed when the effective strengths are calculated. The fig- ures on the table appear to be significant and important, and it would be well if they could be brought to the attention of those respon- 92 AMERICAN MEN OF SCIENCE Bible for the conduct of the institutions to which they relate. Assuming the validity of the method of weighting used or, at all events, its relative validity for purposes of comparison, consid- erable reliance may be placed on the figures given in the table. The probable error of a man assigned a weight of one is greater owing to the break at the bottom of the thousand, and this is the largest factor in the probable error of the total. Men just coming within the thousand and men just falling below it are of almost equal merit, yet the former are counted and the latter are not. Still the prob- able error of a man assigned the weight of one is less than 0.5. When the errors are algebraically added the probable error of the sum increases as the square root of the num- ber, and we may assume the probable errors of the figures given in the table to be not greater than one half of their square root. Thus in the case of Harvard, we may assume that the chances are even that its real strength is between 142 and 152 and its real gain between 14.3 and 18.3. The scientific strength of an institution does not necessarily measure its total strength. Common observation would lead us to believe that the Johns Hopkins and Cornell are rela- tively stronger in the natural and exact sci- ences than Harvard and Yale. We may 'per- haps assume that the relative strength of a university in different departments tends to be proportional to the number of research de- grees conferred. Data concerning these the writer has each year collected and analyzed. 14 Chicago has in the past thirteen years con- ferred exactly half its doctorates of philosophy in the exact and natural sciences. The per- centages for the other universities which con- fer most of these degrees are: Cornell, 63; Johns Hopkins, 57; Yale and Pennsylvania, 43; Harvard and Columbia, 39. On this basis, the total strength of these universities, the unit as before being a man in the lower part of the thousand scientific men, is: "Cf. for the last report SCIENCE, N. S., 32: 231-238, August 19, 1910. Harvard 374.4 Columbia 203.2 Chicago 188.2 Yale 140.7 Johns Hopkins 111.1 Cornell 91.9 Pennsylvania 56.7 These figures represent with tolerable ac- curacy the strength of each institution, so far as the subjects leading to the doctorate of philosophy are concerned. They do not, how- ever, give adequate recognition to the pro- fessional schools, schools of law being prac- tically ignored. Harvard has the strongest schools of law and medicine and has a school of theology, so its primacy would not be af- fected if these were fully accounted for. In its strength Harvard is nearly double Co- lumbia and Chicago, which come close to- gether. Each of these universities has nearly double the strength of the Johns Hopkins, which again has double the strength of Pennsylvania. The figures at hand enable us to measure the strength of the scientific departments of the different universities. They are given in Table XII. for the ten strongest departments in each of the twelve sciences, together with the gain or loss within the period of four years. The institutions are arranged in the order of strength of the department, but when this is less than four the figures are omitted to avoid giving possible information as to the standing of individuals. The probable errors of the figures given in the table are somewhat less than one half their square root. Thus the strength of the department of mathematics at Chicago is equivalent to 16.8 men on the lower part of the list, and the chances are even that this figure is correct within two places. The gain in four years has been equivalent to 2.8 such men, and this figure is likely to be cor- rect within 0.8. A gain of this kind may be due to the calling of new men or to the win- ning of higher places by the same men. It should be kept in mind that the figures refer only to men included in the first thou- sand, and that these are graded for distinction AMERICAN MEN OF SCIENCE 593 TABLE XII. THE TEN STRONGEST DEPARTMENTS 1W EACH SCIENCE TOGETHEB WITH THEIB GAIN OB LOSS IN A PERIOD OF ABOUT FOUR TEARS Mathematics. Physics. Chemistry Astronomy. Chicago . . . Harvard . . . Columbia . . Yale 16.8 14.2 8.4 8.1 8 6.9 6.9 6.7 4.1 +2.8} +1 -1.3 + 1.2 +8 +2.7 +0.1 +6.7 +1.9 Harvard . . . Bur. Stand. Princeton . . Hopkins . . . Chicago .... Columbia . . Mass. Tech. Cornell .... Carnegie . . . Dept. Agr. . 19.6 15.9 9.6 9.4 9.3 9.1 9 8.3 8.1 6.1 +6.1 +3.4 +3.9 +3.2 +4.1 -8.9 +2.8 -1.6 +4.9 -0.9 Mass. Tech. Yale 19 13.6 12.8 11.3 11 8.9 8.5 8.3 8.2 8.1 + 5.9 + 4.4 + 6.5 - 2.5 + 3.6 - 0.7 + 1.4 + 73 + 1.8 + 2.4 Chicago .... California . . Harvard . . . Carnegie . . . Yale 8.9 8.7 7.9 6.8 +1.9 -1.2 +1.4 +3.6 Dept. Agr. . Harvard . . . Hopkins . . . Cornell .... Columbia . . Illinois Illinois. . . . Princeton . . Cornell .... Wisconsin. . Mass. Tech. Stanford . . . Columbia . . U. S. Navy . Wisconsin . . Penna Michigan . . . Wisconsin . . Chicago .... Geology. Botany. Zoology. Physiology. Geol. Surv. Yale 40.3 9.6 7.9 7.4 6.4 5.1 4.9 4.6 -5.3 +0.4 -1.2 -1.3 +2.2 +1.3 -0.3 +1.5 Harvard . . . N. Y. Bot. . Dept. Agr. . Chicago .... Cornell .... Stanford . . . Wisconsin . . Mo. Bot Carnegie . . . Hopkins . . . 18.3 13.5 13 12.9 10 5.9 5.2 52 5.1 + 3.2 -11.6 + 2.3 + 2.8 + 2.2 + 1.1 + 1-4 + 5.1 Harvard . . . Columbia . . Chicago . . . Am. Museum Cornell .... Yale 22 18.1 13.8 10.9 8.8 8.3 7.6 7.6 6.5 5.6 +3.3 +1-4 + 1.6 -2.6 +2.3 +2.3 +0.9 +0.7 -2.4 +2 Harvard . . . Yale 9.9 7.1 6.1 4.9 4.6 4.2 4 +0.1 +2.2 -1.1 +2.7 +1.4 +4.2 +1.8 Harvard . . . Chicago . . . Wisconsin . . Smithsonian Cornell .... Hopkins. . . Stanford. . . Columbia . . Hopkins . . . Rockefeller . Chicago . . . W. Reserve. California . . Wisconsin . . Cornell .... New York . Stanford . . . Dept. Agr. . Smithson . . . Princeton . . Anatomy. Pathology. Anthropology Psychology. Hopkins. . . Harvard. . . Michigan . . Wistar Wisconsin . . Minnesota . Columbia. . Missouri. . . Penna Chicago . . . 6.8 4.9 - 1.0 - 0.3 Harvard . . . Hopkins . . . Chicago . . . Columbia . . Rockefeller . Michigan . . Penna New York . . P. I. Bur.Sci. Wisconsin . . 16.5 11.5 7 6.2 6.1 6 4.8 +4.1 +1 +2 +0.2 + 1.5 -1.3 -0.3 Smithson. . . Columbia . . Harvard . . . Field Mus. . California . . Am. Museum Brooklyn . . . Clark 10.1 -3.3 Columbia . . Harvard . . . Clark 11 10.2 5.2 5 4.4 + 1.4 + 0.5 + 0.5 + 2.8 Cornell .... Chicago Iowa Wellesley . . . Wisconsin . . Stanford . . . Indiana .... in scientific work, ability in teaching and ad- ministration being given a subordinate place. A university may conceivably have a depart- ment consisting of men of moderate scientific standing, but of personal distinction and su- perior teaching ability. Some universities even have collegiate professors who are not supposed to permit research work to distract them from teaching and the personal oversight of students. The writer believes that such men belong to the past rather than to the present generation. Under existing condi- tions scientific men of ability and character will be investigators, and there is a high cor- relation between these traits and teaching skill. However, this is one of the numerous questions awaiting scientific solution. Another factor not taken into account by 39 the figures is the age of the men. As a matter of fact, this should not be considered in the present strength of an institution or depart- ment, for if a man of forty and a man of sixty have about the same position, they may be regarded as of about equal value for the pres- ent. There are drawbacks and advantages of both youth and age which nearly balance each other or regarding which we have at present no exact information. The writer would pre- fer the merits and faults of the younger men. However this may be, the departments or in- stitutions having the younger men are in a better position as to the future. In some cases the strength of the depart- ments should be considered in relation to other factors. Thus, to take an example, the Bussey Institution, the Arnold Arboretum and 594 AMERICAN MEN OF SCIEMCE the Museum of Comparative Zoology are parts of Harvard, whereas the New York Botanical Garden and the American Museum of Natural History are not parts of Columbia, though their heads and other officers may be professors at Columbia, and their facilities may be used for graduate study to the same extent as the Harvard institutes and museums. Or to take another example from the institution with which the writer is connected, the School of Pharmacy has but small educational connec- tion with Columbia, but its professors would be added to the strength of its departments, whereas the Union Theological Seminary, now adjacent to Columbia, is closely affiliated with it educationally, but the professors would not be counted in its strength. The geologists of the TJ. S. Geological Sur- vey form the strongest group of men in the same science and under the same institution. The zoologists of Harvard stand next with about half the strength. There then follow in order the physicists of Harvard, the chemists of the Massachusetts Institute, the botanists of Harvard, the zoologists of Columbia, the mathematicians of Chicago, the pathologists of Harvard and the physicists of the Bureau of Standards. These are the departments which have a strength equivalent to fifteen or more men of standing. Reviewing the sciences in order, it appears that in mathematics Chicago and Harvard are far in the lead, followed by Columbia, Yale and Illinois, the advance of the last institu- tion being noteworthy here and in chemistry. In physics Harvard has double the strength of any other university and has gained largely. Columbia, which four years ago stood first, has lost more than any university in any department. In chemistry, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology stands clearly first, followed by Yale, Harvard and the Johns Hopkins. In astronomy, the great observa- tories Yerkes, Lick and Harvard give their universities precedence. The Mt. Wilson Observatory of the Carnegie Institution has entered this group, while the U. S. Naval Observatory has dropped from it. In geology the U. S. Survey overshadows the universities, among which Yale, Harvard, Chicago and Wisconsin are in the lead. In botany Har- vard is far in advance, followed among uni- versities by Chicago and Cornell. The New York Botanical Garden and the Department of Agriculture stand next to Harvard. The Department of Agriculture has, however, suf- fered severe losses within four years and is now as strong in chemistry as in botany. In zoology Harvard, Columbia and Chicago have by far the strongest departments. The Amer- ican Museum of Natural History is twice as strong as the U. S. National Museum. In physiology, under which physiological chem- istry and pharmacology are included, Harvard is followed by Yale and the Johns Hopkins. In anatomy the Johns Hopkins is followed by Harvard and Michigan. In pathology Har- vard is followed by the Johns Hopkins, which precedes Chicago, Columbia and Michigan. The dependencies of the Smithsonian Institu- tion employ nearly half the anthropologists of the country, but they have lost ground in recent years. Columbia, Harvard, California and Clark are the only universities with ade- quate departments. In psychology Columbia and Harvard have about double the strength of Clark, Cornell and Chicago. Reviewing the same figures from the point of view of the institutions, the primacy of Harvard among our universities is unchal- lenged. It stands first in physics, botany, zoology, physiology and pathology; second in mathematics, geology, anatomy, anthropology and psychology, and third in chemistry and astronomy. In every science of the twelve, it is so nearly first that a small change would place it there. This is a remarkable record, and all honor should be given to the men responsible for it. The departments of Chi- cago and Columbia stand next to Harvard with about half its strength. Chicago stands first in mathematics and astronomy; second in botany and third in geology, zoology and pathology. Columbia stands first in anthro- pology and psychology, second in zoology and third in mathematics. The departments at AMERICAN MEN OF SCIENCE 595 Chicago and Columbia are much more un- equally developed than at Harvard. This, however, is not a disadvantage, as with limited resources it is probably desirable for a univer- sity to have certain strong departments rather than to have all of equal mediocrity. The departments of mathematics, geology, botany and zoology at Chicago, and of zoology, an- thropology and psychology at Columbia are well developed, while in certain other sciences these universities stand at the bottom of the list or even fail to be included among the ten strongest departments. The Johns Hopkins stands first in anatomy, second in pathology and third in physics and in physiology. Yale stands first in geology (which includes min- eralogy) and second in chemistry and physi- ology. The Massachusetts Institute of Tech- nology stands first in chemistry. The most important recent development of science has been the establishment of endowed institutions for research. The astronomical observatories, often officially but loosely con- nected with universities, are of earlier origin. Botanical gardens as centers of research also have a long history. There is every argument for similar institutions in each science, either as integral parts of universities, in affiliation with them or as independent institutions; and they are probably being established as rapidly as men can be found to do the work. In all our leading universities there are professors whose attention is devoted to advanced stu- dents and investigation, and their laboratories may be regarded as research institutions. Then there are specially endowed foundations, such as the Bussey Institution of Harvard or the new Crocker Cancer Research Fund of Columbia. The Wistar Institute of Biol- ogy, affiliated with Pennsylvania, is perhaps the most important institution of its class. Then We have independent institutions endowed for research, of which the most noteworthy are the Smithsonian Institution, the Carnegie Institution of Washington and the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research. The Smith- sonian is of special interest, owing to its early and peculiar foundation, but its endowment is not large according to modern standards, and its energies are mainly taken up in di- recting government bureaus. It does some publication, but very little research work. The Carnegie Institution with its endowment of $12,000,000 has been a disappointment to those who hoped that it would act the part of a special providence for science and scientific men. It is at present conducting research institutions in various places and publishing the work accomplished. It holds a good posi- tion in physics; astronomy, botany and zool- ogy, having in all its departments a total strength of 30.9 men. It has an endowment about equal to the part of the Harvard endow- ment which may be allotted to the natural and exact sciences, which supports the equivalent of 146 men, who teach as well as carry for- ward research, so its money, though well spent, does not seem to go so far. A considerable part of the income has, however, been used for construction, equipment and publication. The Rockefeller Institute stands high in pathology and physiology and is continually improving its position. It has been placed under the direct control of scientific men and appears to justify this procedure. The Marine Biolog- ical Laboratory at Woods Hole is also con- ducted by scientific men and although without endowment is an important center for re- search. The zoologists working there in sum- mer would have a strength greater than any department in any science, including the geol- ogists of the national survey. Bureaus under the national government stand first in geology and anthropology, second in physics and third in chemistry and botany. Excellent work is accomplished by these and other bureaus, but it is probable that foreign governments which spend far less on science have in their service men of greater distinc- tion. There is a wide-spread belief that the government should only cultivate utilitarian science. In the opinion of the writer this is a mistaken point of view. Applied science can be left to commercial enterprise more safely than research in pure science. The work which is of value to the whole nation 596 AMERICAN MEN OF SCIENCE and to the whole world, but has not immediate commercial value to any individual or group, is the kind of work which' requires public support. If the man of genius exists he should be given opportunity to use his genius to the best advantage of all. It is extremely difficult to find the men most competent to do research work and to plade them under the most favorable conditions, but if the immeas- urable importance to society were realized, the difficulties would be solved. It is possible to imagine a national research university to which the ablest men should be drawn, some permanently and some temporarily, there to be given all possible facilities for their work, together with such honorable consideration and such salaries that science and scholarship would attain their due place and be made at- tractive to the fittest. One can even dream of an international research university to the support of which each nation would contribute a part of the cost of the armaments which it would tend to make useless. The figures here given show the advantage of statistics over general impressions. The writer is perhaps as well informed as any one in regard to the distribution of scientific men, but some of the figures came as a surprise to him. He knew, or thought he knew, that Harvard had gained and Columbia had lost, but he had no idea of the extent of the change. He supposed that Chicago had lost and that Yale had stood about stationary, whereas both institutions show decided gains. He had no idea that Princeton had among its instructors a larger proportion of scientific men of stand- ing than Columbia, or that the proportion in different universities varied from one half to one sixtieth. And so in many other cases he had wrong impressions, and others probably had wrong impressions of the same or other kinds. We are apt to form general conclu- sions from striking individual cases without regarding all the conditions. Prominent men lost by or called to an institution attract at- tention rather than the gradual improvement in the performances of a considerable body of men. The eminent man that an institution loses is not as a rule supplied by a new man, but a large loss in one case is made up by small advances in many cases. It may be hoped that an exposition of the true conditions will be of service to science. From the point of view of abstract philosophy it may not matter whether a scientific advance is made in Russia or America, at one univer- sity qr another. But abstract philosophy in- fluences conduct less than concrete loyalties. A man who cares as much for other people's children as for his own is not likely to care greatly for any of them. The president of a leading university has recently urged the im- portance of increasing salaries, not in order to attract better men to the academic career or to enable them to do better work, but in order that his professors may not be paid less than those of a sister institution. Such a point of view may seem rather nai've, but it is sound human nature and should be appealed to for the improvement of the conditions under which scientific work is done. If the loyalty of alumni could be transferred from football to scholarship, there would result a decided gain to scholarship. The fact that each state wants its university to be as strong as its neighbor's is one of the most potent factors in the advance of the state universities. Individual conduct is in the main automatic response to chance circumstance. But the organism and the circumstances and especially their interrelations may be altered. Organic life consists of adjustments brought about by the slow processes of nature. We have now reached the extraordinary position from which it is possible to make such adjustments for our own welfare by foresight and scientific method. The individual can prescribe a life of reason more readily than he can follow it. But r.u environment can be formed in which desirable conduct becomes a reflex response. Reason can have no better use than to select indi- viduals and to arrange circumstances so that science may be advanced and applied for the good of all. .nw*d b