In thus strongly setting forth what must seem an indisputable
conclusion, the writer does not deny that there are drawbacks to
such a policy, as there are to every policy that can be devised
aiming at a good result. Nature offers to society no good that she
does not accompany by a greater or less measure of evil The only
question is whether the good outweighs the evil. In the present
case, the seeming evil, whether real or not, is that of
centralization. A policy tending in this direction is held to be
contrary to the best interests of science in quarters entitled to
so much respect that we must inquire into the soundness of the
objection.

It would be idle to discuss so extreme a question as whether we
shall take all the best scientific investigators of our country
from their several seats of learning and attract them to some one
point. We know that this cannot be done, even were it granted that
success would be productive of great results. The most that can be
done is to choose some existing centre of learning, population,
wealth, and influence, and do what we can to foster the growth of
science at that centre by attracting thither the greatest possible
number of scientific investigators, especially of the younger
class, and making it possible for them to pursue their researches
in the most effective way. This policy would not result in the
slightest harm to any institution or community situated elsewhere.
It would not be even like building up a university to outrank all
the others of our country; because the functions of the new
institution, if such should be founded, would in its relations to
the country be radically different from those of a university. Its
primary object would not be the education of youth, but the