UNIVERSITY AND EDUCATIONAL

NEWS

IT is stated in Nature that the first list of donations in response to the appeal of the University of Birmingham for £500,000 shows gifts or promises to the amount of more than £250,000. Nearly half of this amount is given to the Petroleum Mining Endowment Fund. The largest single gift is an anonymous one of £50,000 for the general fund. A sum of £5,000 is for a chair of Italian, and an equal amount is given by the James Watt Memorial Fund for a James Watt research chair in engineering.

ASSISTANT PROFESSOR EUGENE TAYLOR, of the University of Wisconsin, has been appointed professor and head of the department of mathematics at the University of Idaho.

DR. J. C. WITT, assistant professor of analytical chemistry in the University of Pittsburgh, has resigned, to become chief research chemist for the Portland Cement Association with headquarters in Chicago. Dr. C. J. Engelder, of Hornell, N. Y., has been appointed to the position at the University of Pittsburgh.

MR. WILLIAM B. BROWN, associate physicist of the aeronautic power plants section of the Bureau of Standards, has been appointed instructor in physics at the Ohio State University.

DR. RODNEY B. HARVEY has resigned as plant physiologist, bureau of plant industry, Washington, D. C., to accept the position of assistant professor in plant physiology at the University of Minnesota and assistant plant physiologist in the Minnesota experiment station.

DR. BENJAMIN SCHWARTZ, assistant zoologist in the Bureau of Animal Industry, has been appointed professor of protozoology and parasitology in the University of the Philippines and will sail for Manila late in December.

DISCUSSION AND CORRESPONDENCE HELIUM AND HYDROGEN MODELS

TO THE EDITOR OF SCIENCE: In a communication to the SCIENCE issue of June 18 Dr. Irving Langmuir proposed a model of the

helium atom consisting of a nucleus of charge 2e accompanied by a pair of electrons which execute symmetrical oscillations about two nearly circular arcs on opposite sides of the nucleus. In the issue of November 5 he has proposed a similar model for the hydrogen molecule, and another, of a somewhat different type, for the positively charged H, ion. The writer was particularly interested in these models, for in each case the resultant angular momentum is zero, a circumstance which seemed to offer an explanation of the diamagnetic behavior of helium and hydrogen, and of the failure of the theories of the specific heat of hydrogen based on the assumption that the molecule is gyroscopic.

Unfortunately, Dr. Langmuir did not see how to apply the Wilson-Sommerfeld quantum conditions to the determination of the energies of these models, and therefore was not able to fix the theoretical energies and ionization potentials definitely. These quantum conditions are

S p1dq1 = S (37) dq1 = n1h,

S podq;= S (37) dqz

=

(1)

where T is the kinetic energy of the atom or molecule, 41, 42, are a properly chosen set

...

of coordinates, P1, P2, are the corresponding momenta, and n1, në · are any integers. Each integral is to be extended over a complete cycle of values of the corresponding coordinate. Dr. Langmuir states that he is unable to apply these equations to his models1 because he does not know what systems of coordinates to use. The choice of a proper coordinate system is not essential, however, to the application of these conditions to the type of problem under consideration. For whatever coordinates are used, they will have a common period t, which makes possible a con

1 With the exception of the positive H, ion. He does apply the conditions to this model, and correctly, but expresses doubt concerning the validity of the somewhat unsatisfactory result on account of his uncertainty regarding the coordinate system.

This integral is invariant of the choice of coordinates and can be evaluated easily if the orbit and potential energy function are known. Equation (3) is not equivalent to the quantum conditions (1), but it is a deduction from them for the type of problem under consideration, which is sufficient to fix the possible energy values of the atom or molecule. In the normal state the atom will have the least energy possible and the quantum number n should therefore be small, though the value zero must be ruled out if there is to be any dynamic equilibrium at all. In the case of the helium atom or the hydrogen molecule, it is to be expected that n will be either one or two.

I have carried through the numerical evaluation of the action integral for the helium atom model and regret to say that the calculation shows that if the atom is given an energy corresponding to its ionization potential, the quantum condition (3) is not satisfied.

In making the calculation I have used an approximate expression for the path of the electron. This is permissible, since, by the principle of least action, the variation in the integral produced by a small variation in the

path, holding the total energy constant, vanishes to small quantities of the first order. The determination of the approximate path was based on the data furnished by Dr. Langmuir. He says that the path of each electron is very nearly an arc of an eccentric circle subtending an angle of 155° 56′' at the nucleus. The radius vector from the nucleus to the midpoint of the orbit is 0.2534 X 10-8 cm. for an ionization potential of 25.59 volts, and the radius vector at the end of the orbits is 1.138 times as great. By expanding the expression for the radius vector into a power series in (the angle between the momentary radius vector and the radius vector to the midpoint), and discarding higher power terms, it is easy to show that an equation of the form

where s is the rectified length of the path from its midpoint to the point (r, 0), and s, is the maximum value of s. The graphically deter mined value if the integral which forms the right hand member of (7) is 1.57 h. This re sult is in conflict with the quantum condition (3) and shows that if the quantum conditions (1) are correct, the Langmuir model of the

helium atom will not account for the observed ionization potentials of that element.

EDWIN C. KEMBLE JEFFERSON PHYSICAL LABORATORY, HARVARD UNIVERSITY

REPRINTS FROM SCIENTIFIC INSTITUTIONS THE librarian is not alone, I imagine, in considering the bound scientific reprints issued as contributions from a given laboratory, most difficult to handle. There should really be no place for articles already published to appear except as reprinted separates. Without doubt, a bound volume of the publications of an institution serves as a report of the work done. But a list of the authors and titles of papers with the place and time of publication would serve this purpose just as well or better. Certain universities issue such lists of the publications of their staffs, and give these lists under the different departmental heads. This seems eminently worth while even where the number of publications in a department is scant.

The department of physiology of one university and the department of botany in another send to this library serial lists of their publications and with the lists the separates themselves, placed in order in a folder. This seems as nearly a perfect method as can be devised. The lists may be filed in any convenient way and the separates dealt with according to the method found most useful to the recipient. The expense of binding is saved to the institution issuing these separates, and while the distribution of the separates may be selective, the printed lists can be given a wide publicity. Such lists if issued very generally would make useful bibliographies and could be systematically filed. At the same time, the departmental library, so important in these days of disappearing private libraries, would have to handle a given article but twice, the original in journal form and the separate.

PRISCILLA B. MONTGOMERY

ASSISTANT LIBRARIAN,

MARINE BIOLOGICAL LABORATORY,
WOODS HOLE, MASS.

OBSERVATIONS ON THE PHILOSOPHY AND ETHICS OF RESEARCH AND PUBLICATION TO THE EDITOR OF SCIENCE: Dr. Erwin F. Smith may have performed a service to the plant pathologists in publishing his "Introduction to bacterial diseases of plants," as I have no doubt he has; but he has surely performed a service to scientists everywhere, of every denomination, in publishing the last chapter of that book, "Part V. General Observations." In this he has collected the results of observation in the realms of the literature of science, the scientific method, the life of science and the science of life, all of which really does not express the material he has there collected. A catalogue of the headings the author has used will be more revealing. Here they are:

On subsidiary studies
On seeing things

On experimentation

On beginning work thoughtlessly
On interpretation of phenomena

On repetition of experiments-other people's, one's

own

On publication

On clearness in presentation

On brevity of statement-when brevity is not desirable

On the ethics of research

On keeping one's own counsel On team work

On sharing credits

On attending meetings and keeping up membership in societies, and on being generally publicspirited and helpful in science

On rest and recreation

The student of science will find here counsel of the greatest value on such a subject as the preparation of a paper. Would that I might quote all that he says! Many a big book could have been boiled down to a few chapters, and in some cases to a few sentences, or to nothing at all, had its author been possessed of clear ideas." "Easy writing is hard reading." ... it is your solemn duty to sum up the substance of your contribution in a series of brief conclusions which everyone will read, and which, if well put, may induce many to turn back and read your whole

paper." "Either journals should publish no abstracts whatever, or else exact, useful ones." "... before you have gone very deep into any subject search out the literature of it and prepare a proper bibliography."

These are some aphorisms that strike one who is interested in the literary side of science. Ethics and philosophy as Dr. Smith relates them to science are equally intriguing. The value of this chapter, which appears unassumingly at the end of the book, is such that the attention of every student of science is earnestly invited to it.

FRANK PLACE, JR.

THE DIRECTORSHIP OF THE MAINE AGRICULTURAL STATION

THE Maine Agricultural Experiment Station is by act of legislature created as a department of the University of Maine. Its governing board is the trustees of the university. The director reports to the president of the university. The heads of the station departments report to the director. At the reorganization of the station in 1888 the trustees created a representative body to be called the station council for "the development and management of the station."

By act of legislature the experiment station was directed to conduct investigations into animal husbandry. The prime object was to try to learn how milk production and milk fat production are inherited. As one part of this work a herd made up of reciprocal crosses of high and low producing cows was essential. Such a herd was developed at the university in cooperation with the College of Agriculture. In November, 1919, without consultation with the station staff or the station council the trustees ordered this investigation stopped and the animals making up the herd sold. In January, 1920, after station council action, a committee from that body waited upon the trustees and presented a plan for continuing this investigation at Highmoor Farm. This plan was unanimously approved by the trustees. Among the items approved and as taken from the trustees records of that meeting is "The plan includes the use of certain barn space at

the farm and the construction of an additional barn for housing, and water supply and equipment for caring for the animals and their products." Acting under this authority the council committee and the station director immediately took steps to put this action into effect. A barn was erected, the old barn remodeled, a well drilled and equipment purchased. The building of the barn was inspected in June when it was about half completed by a committee of the trustees who were appointed by the board with full authority relative to the new construction at Highmoor Farm. The committee from the station council met with the committee from the trustees. Neither at that time nor at any time while the construction was in progress did the trustees make any suggestion as to change or modification of the trustee action of January, 1920.

November 29 without previous notice the director of the station was requested by telephone to go to Bangor to meet the board of trustees. When he appeared he was told by the president of the board that the trustees unanimously demanded his immediate resignation. On asking why, the director was informed that by building a barn at Highmoor Farm he had exceeded his authority. The director denied that he had exceeded authority and cited the paragraph from the trustee records above quoted. He refused to resign. At about 10 o'clock the morning of November 30 he received a notice signed by the clerk of the board of trustees notifying him that the trustees had removed him from being director, the removal to be effective December 1. The director spent the remainder of the 30th putting station matters in the best shape possible for leaving in the limited time. As the trustees had delegated no one to take his place and as they had ignored the president of the university in the matter by sending the communication of removal direct to the director, the director suggested to the heads of the station that they should continue to act automatically in station management as they would were the director temporarily absent. And there the matter now rests.

The Maine Station in its 35 years of existence has through its discoveries added many millions to the wealth of the state. It is the only research agency the state has for discovering the laws underlying successful agriculture. Research is slow painstaking work. The research worker must be kept from harrowing concern. For it is only by concentration on his project that success can be had. This action of the trustees has fundamentally disturbed the confidence of the research man. He argues if the director after a quarter of century of faithful work is dismissed without adequate reason, where does he stand, what hope has he of being able to complete a study that must extend over long periods of time? At no time in the history of the station does it so need the steadying hands of friends of agriculture. The last request of the removed director is to the friends of agriculture, and he is happy and proud to know they are for the most part his personal friends as well, to come to the support of the station. It has been receiving $5,000 a year from the state for its support. To tide it over until increased federal appropriations which are being asked for in a nation-wide movement are available, this amount must be increased to $25,000 a year.

Otherwise it will not be possible for any one to hold the present very efficient organization together. Help will come from the outside eventually but for this help to be efficient the agriculture of the state must see to it that the legislature makes provision for its immediate support. CHAS. D. WOODS

QUOTATIONS

SCIENCE AND THE NATION

MOST of us receive daily appeals for war memorials of various kinds. Would not the best, and, in the end, the cheapest, war memorial be a growing and efficient body of brain-workers, able and willing to solve the problems which the war has left in its train, and to help the nation in its hour of need? For leaders both in peace and war we must find and train men who will be competent to

use the national resources in the most effective manner. Scientific workers are naturally marked out by their progressive instincts and severe training to serve not merely in an advisory capacity in the councils of the nation, but also as executive officers. Moseley and others of his type will not have died in vain if the Cenotaph reminds us that men of science must take an active part in the affairs of state, in guiding the development and thought of the nation, and in seeing that the bitter lessons learnt during the last six years are not forgotten.

This end will not be attained by service on committees, whether for chemical warfare or any other subject. If the War Office seeks to be scientific it should establish within itself, as the Admiralty has done, a research department with distinguished men of science as permanent members of the staff to suggest and supervise work on methods of modern warfare. It would be the business of such officers to make use of science for purposes of national security, and workers in university or other laboratories could please themselves whether they cooperated or not in particular researches or experiments. We can understand the objections offered by Professor Soddy and others against men of science associating themselves as a body with problems of this type, but until human nature reaches a higher ethical plane than it occupies at present we must have a War Office, and an essential part of it should be an able scientific staff, the members of which would be responsible for making us strong enough to meet any crises which the future might bring. No committee of sixty or more associate members can do this, and none would be necessary if the War Office ranked a scientific service with the General Staff, as it should do, instead of inviting scientific workers to devote their time and knowledge to "offensive and defensive aspects of chemical warfare" for little more than out-of-pocket

expenses.

We claim for science a much more responsible position, and a far higher appreciation of its worth, than our war leaders offer to it even now; and we do so because we remember that