Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1902-09-18
TARGET OF CRITICISM
Issue Taken With Carnegie
Institution Trustees.
VIEW OF SCIENTISTS
REORGANIZATION OF WOODS
HOLE MARINE LABORATORY.
Proposed Provision of $40, 900 Year
for It's Maintenance-Advers
Comment Answered.

The announcement that the Carnegie In
stitution's first gift to science would con-
sist of the purchase, reorganization and
thorough equipment of the Marine Biologi-
cal Laboratory at Woods Hole, Mass, has
resulted in a certain amount Of criticism of
the policy of the institution; criticism which
those familiar with the intentions of the
trustees regard as entirely unwarranted.
DR.. Albert P. Mathews, professor Of phys
biological chemistry at the University OF
Chicago, has made public a communication
in which he takes issue with the trustees
of the Carnegie Institution and states his
belief that in SO doing he expresses the
opinion of the majority of the scientific m
Of the country. In the course of his re-
marks DR.. Mathews. after stating that
heretofore the income of the laboratory
has not exceeded 5000 per annum and
that the Carnegie Institution has agreed to
provide $4,000 per annum for its mainte-
nance, says: From the financial point Of
view Of the laboratory, looking to the fu-
ture, it is eminently desirable then, that the
final transfer Of the property should not be
contaminated. but that grant be made to
the laboratory from the Carnegie funds.
The purchase Of buildings or grounds
could safely be left with the present man
agement. who could determine in what way
the money granted could be best invested,
confidence in the future" The burden of
DR.. Mathews argument is that because
emineQtly valuable scientific work has been
accomplished at the Marine Biological Lab
oratory, its management, including the
management Of its finances, should be left
in the hands Of the original proprietors.
An Editorial Criticism.
In the latest issue of the Popular Science
Monthly there appears editorial critics.
ipO Of no TnStitutian
along similar lines. The editor states that
the majority Of men Of science prefer that
the Carnegie Institution should cooperate
with existing agencies" which, being fur
ther elucdated, is explained to mean that
the majority Of scientists prefer that the
Carnegie Institution contribute to the en-
terprises for which they stand sponsor,
rather than that it take their management
into it's own hands. In fact, the editor prac-
tically states this in these words: 1T may
be said that the various scientific and edu-
cational institutions throughout the cuun-
try are selfish, hoping to share in the dis
tribution of funds or fearing a new rival"
Two remaining statements from the same
source are worthy of notice. 1.-The labora-
tory has illustrated both the strength ana
weakness OF democratic organization.
There has been friction in the management
and the finances have never been in sat
isfactory condition" eff the Wood Hole
laboratory Is conducted from Washington
1t will go forward with the efficiency of the
scientific departments Of the government,
and will be practically one of these, being
for all essential purposes coordinate with
the fish commission or the geological sur
vey, but with scarcely one-fifteth the in
come. There will not. however, be found a
director who will devote himself to the serv-
Ice Of the laboratory without dreaming of
dollars salary, or men Of science ready to
give time freely and money, Of which they
have little to spare. Those connected with
the laboratory will no longer seek to give
what they can. but rather to get what they
can, and the whole spirit of the place win
change"