country. His great contemporary, Euler, was a Swiss, transplanted
first to St. Petersburg, then invited by Frederick the Great to
become a member of the Berlin Academy, then again attracted to St.
Petersburg. Huyghens was transplanted from his native country to
Paris. Agassiz was an exotic, brought among us from Switzerland,
whose activity during the generation he passed among us was as
great and effective as at any time of his life. On the Continent,
outside of France, the most eminent professors in the universities
have been and still are brought from distant points. So numerous
are the cases of which these are examples that it would be more in
accord with the facts to claim that it is only by transplanting a
genius that we stimulate him to his best work.

Having shown that the best results can be expected only by
bringing into contact as many scientific investigators as
possible, the next question which arises is that of their
relations to one another. It may be asked whether we shall aim at
individualism or collectivism. Shall our ideal be an organized
system of directors, professors, associates, assistants, fellows;
or shall it be a collection of individual workers, each pursuing
his own task in the way he deems best, untrammelled by authority?

The reply to this question is that there is in this special case
no antagonism between the two ideas. The most effective
organization will aim both at the promotion of individual effort,
and at subordination and co-operation. It would be a serious error
to formulate any general rule by which all cases should be
governed. The experience of the past should be our guide, so far
as it applies to present and future conditions; but in availing
ourselves of it we must remember that conditions are constantly