METHODS OF SECURING BETTER CO- THE accumulated experience of nearly fifty years enables the Bureau of Fisheries to speak with some degree of assurance and definite- ness on relations with working zoologists of It is a pleasure and an honor to have this opportunity to refer to the nature and value While other government institutions may 1 A symposium before the American Society of Zoologists, held at Baltimore on December 26, 1918, Professor C. E. McClung presiding, included papers and discussions as follows: Representing the Bu- reau of Entomology, Dr. L. O. Howard. Discus- sion by J. G. Needham. Representing the Bureau of Fisheries, Dr. Hugh M. Smith. Discussion by Dr. H. B. Ward. Representing the Bureau of Animal Industry, Dr. B. H. Ransom. Discussion by Dr. Herbert Osborn. Representing the Bureau of Bio- logical Survey, Dr. E. W. Nelson. Discussion by Dr. R. K. Nabours. Relation of the Council of National Defense and the National Research is to express in mild terms what must be obvious to every one familiar with the facts. As one consults the early records of the bureau and recalls the later activities and developments, the conclusion is inevitable that our relations with the laboratory zoologists have been not only invaluable but actually indispensable to us. There is some ground for the belief that zoologists have obtained a measure of profit from the cooperation, but there can be no doubt that the balance of benefits is on the government's side. The mutual relations that have existed from the beginning have consisted essentially of (1) personal service rendered to the bureau by university zoologists for particular investigations or special duties and (2) the extension of facilities to zoologists-professors, instructors, students-for conducting investigations in laboratories, on vessels, or in the field. The advantages of this arrangement from our standpoint are: (1) That we have been able to obtain the personal aid of men preeminently qualified for studying special problems, often at the time when those problems have been most pressing; and (2) that we have been able to secure this cooperation at a cost to the government that must be considerd merely nominal, for no funds provided by Congress would have been adequate to command such services had it been necessary to compensate them at their full worth. It was at the very outset of our career that we enlisted the services of the university zoologist Verrill for fundamental systematic work on the invertebrate animals of the northeast coast, which work, though now necessarily obsolete, has remained a standard. Verrill was followed by a veritable host of university men engaged for essential systematic work on the fauna of the fresh and salt waters of the country and its outlying possessions, and by a similar host who dealt with almost every other phase of aquatic zoology. I need not extol or discuss their work. I will merely recall to you, as some of those university zoologists whose labors in behalf of the bureau have been fruitful, Gilbert, Jordan and Snyder in systematic ichthyology; Bigelow, Forbes, Hargitt, Holmes, Linton, J. P. Moore, Osburn, Sidney Smith and Wheeler in systematic invertebrate zoology; Birge, Bumpus, Dean, Grave, Greene, C. J. Herrick, F. H. Herrick, Kellogg, Kofoid, Lefevre, Mast, Mead, Parker, Pearse, Peck, Reighard, Ryder, Tower and Ward in anatomy, physiology, embryology, ecology and life history. This list is not by any means complete. As for the future relations of the bureau with universities-and this is the important matter before us-we ask for a continuation of the existing cooperative spirit and, further, we hope that, as far as practicable, the uni versity zoologists may adapt some of their own researches to subjects of directly useful application and, whenever possible, let creatures of obvious economic importance receive more attention in the regular laboratory courses. The universities will not fail to appreciate the great need, especially in the immediate future, for affording every possible aid to the material as well as the intellectual welfare of the country. The noble response of the universities to the country's call to service in the great crisis through which we have been passing-when hundreds of members of the faculties placed at the disposal of the government their technical and professional skill and knowledge for practical use in every branch of public activity-has made a deep and lasting impress on the nation and has had a particularly happy influence for government bureaus engaged in scientific work, and, at the same time, should not fail to produce a sympathetic attitude among university men toward laboratories established and maintained at public expense for the conduct of scientific work with a practical object or application. There should result a more general recognition of the fact that government scientific bureaus whose function is public service should properly concern themselves chiefly with the applications of science to public welfare, and should devote their energies to pure science only in so far as may be necessary to launch successful enterprises in applied science. Without having had an opportunity to confer with university men on this special subject, I venture to offer some views and suggestions regarding a proposed cooperative arrangement between the zoological laboratories of the universities and the scientific bureaus of the government. The universities can perform an invaluable service to the government by keeping in touch with the progress and demands of the applications of science in operations of the bureaus. The government can render a useful service to the universities by keeping them informed of zoological problems with which the bureaus are confronted and of subjects in which the researches of pure science would be of value. The results of university research that are of significant value to the government should be promptly communicated to the respective bureaus. To render the proposed cooperation effective, there should be some kind of organization in which the universities and the government are adequately represented, to the end that the needs of the government are fully made known and the possibility of the universities' filling those needs is fully canvassed. There might be maintained a catalogue or register of zoological students and instructors in the universities, with their peculiar qualifications and their special subjects of study, and a statement of the conditions under which they might accept government employment, and a catalog of current and proposed governmental zoological investigations, with an account of their objects, scope, duration, needed personnel, etc. The definite aims to be met would be to locate men for permanent or temporary service in government bureaus and to encourage the pursuit of promising investigations. It not infrequently happens that the government has need for men of peculiar qualifications and fitness for special zoological work, and the usual method of advertisement fails to reach or appeal to available men well fitted for that work. A central organization or committee could locate such men and bring to their attention the government's needs. It sometimes occurs that in the course of investigations in the commercial or technical aspects of zoology, lack of scientific data may impede or prevent progress, so that work must be suspended until the required data are obtained. At the same time it may, and probably not infrequently does, happen that advanced zoological students are in position to take up investigations where the subject is not of so much consequence as the training in research. In such cases the government bureaus may supply problems that will afford excellent research training to the students, give promise of definite results for publication, inspire students with the feeling that they are contributing to the general welfare, and at the same time expedite work undertaken by the government. One of the real hindrances to the proper development of the fishery service is the difficulty in securing assistants who, with such a knowledge of zoology as is imparted in a university course, are willing to enter the lower grades, work their way upward, and make this subject their life work or at least give it serious thought for a reasonable time. In aquatic biology, in aquiculture, in the various branches of technology as applied to water products, there is an inviting field in which there is ample opportunity for interesting and important original investigation. A drawback hitherto has been the comparatively low compensation paid. There are, however, certain perquisites that must be taken into consideration, and there is reason to hope that Congress will soon make a readjustment of salaries. Pending the time when various schools of fishery may be established at the universities on a par with schools of forestry, the universities can render a distinct service to the Bureau of Fisheries (and to the fishery departments of the various state governments) by making an effort to direct the attention of students and graduates to the inducements and attractions afforded by the government fishery work, and perhaps to adapt parts of zoological courses and the research work of graduate students to practical problems associated with the country's aquatic re sources. It can not impair, but may enhance, the value of zoological study or scientific research to have it deal with subjects that may have a direct practical value in commerce, industry, legislation or administration. In the readjustment of national and international relations growing out of the Great War, the aquatic resources of the world are certain to assume a more prominent place than ever before. It appears to me that for Americans one of the real compensations of the war is going to be an increased appreciation of and dependence on aquatic foods, many of them hitherto neglected or spurned because of our ignorance, prejudice or wasteful habits. This new attitude, evidence of which already exists, if properly encouraged and directed, can become an important factor in our national life. Among the questions that arise are: How can our matchless water resources best be adapted to the country's and the world's needs? How shall they be most adequately utilized and at the same time preserved from dissipation, or, in other words, what steps should be taken by the federal government, in cooperation with the state governments, to secure maximum production consistent with an unimpaired source of supply? The Bureau of Fisheries will need all possible outside assistance in meeting increased duties and responsibilities that have already begun to devolve upon it; and there will be a greater necessity than ever before arose to invoke the cooperation of practical zoologists in the elucidation of problems connected with the administration of the fisheries and the conduct of fishery and aquicultural enterprises. Knowing as I do the limitations that are necessarily imposed on the make-up of our permanent scientific staff, it seems to me to be incontrovertible that our ability to measure up to the situation and meet the needs of the coming years will depend in large part on our success in enlisting for personal service and sympathetic counsel the trained minds in the university zoological laboratories or the trained students sent therefrom. BUREAU OF FISHERIES, WASHINGTON, D. C. H. M. SMITH THE most cordial relations have always existed between the zoologists of the country and the Bureau of Fisheries. When the bureau was established, its work was placed in charge of one who was recognized as a scientific authority and who commanded the support of investigators in zoology because of his scientific standing. The same recognition is accorded to the present head of the Bureau of Fisheries and to his able corps of assistants. The characteristic feature of these relations, however, has been the individuality of the situation. Recognition has been given the individual leader by the individual investigator and that cooperation in the activities of the bureau, which has been referred to so cordially by Dr. Smith, has resulted from individual initiative, for the teacher or investigator has responded to the personal requests of the scientific leaders in the bureau. Now, admirable as these relations have been in many ways, I do not look upon the cooperation as the most effective which can be secured, for it has not been animated and directed by the institutions of the country which concern themselves with the training of investigators and with the encouragement of research. So far as I know there have been no fixed and formal relations in the past between the government bureau and the public or private colleges and universities. The results which have come from individual initiative are so conspicuously satisfactory, however, that one may confidently look forward to much greater benefits, if more extended and definite relations can be established between the Bureau of Fisheries and the educational research institutions of the country. The next question is naturally the direction, scope and character of such relations as are likely to yield greater results. The paper of Dr. Smith has justly emphasized the need for greater work on the problems of aquatic resources and their utilization for human welfare. No comment is needed to demonstrate the social significance of the present high prices of food and of the heavy draft on the world's reserve of food stuffs in consequence of the war. To counteract the reduction in food supplies and the increased prices of food articles no movement offers greater hope than that which draws into the realm of human consumption new foods and thereby lessens the demand on old supplies while at the same time it offers for the dietary of man a greater variety than was included before. This is precisely the work of the U. S. Bureau of Fisheries. In various ways it contributes to the perpetuation and increase of the supply of well-known and long-utilized varieties of food fishes while at the same time it endeavors to find and utilize unknown or undervalued aquatic products. It has met with marked success in both lines of activity; but to make further progress, especially in the direction of discovering and utilizing new kinds of fish, and perhaps also of other aquatic organisms, research must come in to demonstrate the what and how in the situation. The universities of this nation are already many of them organized for research and others have made partial progress in the achievement of that organization so that they are able to do the research that is needed with less expenditure of money, time and energy than any other agency, especially in comparison with a new organization that must be built from the ground up. Furthermore, the universities have a multitude of young workers eager to find opportunities for a future career, and hence likely to be attentive to the appeals from this new field. To realize all the possibilities of this movement, therefore, there is need of more effective cooperation as well as more extended and more active effort. There are two real educational problems, or two real points of attack on the one great problem, which are outlined in the presentation of Dr. Smith: (1) Technical training of young men for this work. This involves the introduction of courses of study which shall fit them to carry on the work demanded by the U. S. Bureau of Fisheries and by the corresponding state organizations. (2) Organization of science to permit the exchange of knowledge and formulation of plans, as well as to secure cooperation in solving the problems. In spite of what has been said by others to day I feel sure that the future of research is bound to be different from its work in the past. In the past the dominant note in scientific work has been a high degree of individualism; in the future I believe it will be a pronounced tendency towards correlation in the investigation of significant problems. When the U. S. government brought together chemists in Washington and set them to work on poison gases in warfare, this action broke down the ancient barrier supposed to exist between any control over individual activity and success in research. It assigned men a prescribed problem-and you all know how successfully this was met and solved. Individual action which has been so general in the past will, in my opinion, disappear gradually until men in scientific circles are working not under restraint, but under some general direction in a joint attack on these problems, the solution of which is of evident and most immediate value for the human race. Training Younger Men for Expert Work of Bureaus.-To furnish scientific training for attacking and solving the problems of existence is a characteristic function of our universities. These institutions have sought, in recent years at least, to keep in touch with applied science, perhaps chiefly along individual lines; but no one of our universities is without some work in applied science, and the various schools of agriculture, engineering and laboratory science have reached a development truly characteristic of those institutions. It is natural that a similar training should be provided for aquiculture. To be sure, there are certain limits to this as the demand in the field is small as compared with that in agriculture and the number of men interested in pursuing such work is limited. Furthermore, the funds in the possession of institutions are limited and it is impossible to enter on the study of all problems. But even after all has been said and done, one must recognize a real demand upon the university to furnish help in this evident and increasing need. Let me emphasize at this point the fact that in the course of their growth universities must come naturally to the same sort of spe |