-2- 
 
 
          (ixality of research personnel. Are all the unit leaders suf- 
ficiently 'choosy' in selecting men? In cases accidentally known to me, 
units have taken on graduate students whom I had culled as not sufficiently

able. Are we sure that student selections are rigidly scrutinized after a

period of trial? 
 
          On the average campus graduate students are selected "by mail,"

i.e., on the basis of letters, photographs, and grades. My experience is

that for wildlife research this is an insufficient "sieve" for
human material 
"Supervision," in respect of this question, is a matter of moral
backing for 
the unit leaders in adopting more stringent standards. Can such backing be

given unless the supervisors are around long enough to go into individual

cases? Generalized admonitions are useless. 
 
          Campus pressures. I never knew of a unit not subjected to local

pressure of one sort or another. To detect, anticipate, and help ward off

these situations takes an inordinate amount of time. I have known personally

of campus pressures, damaging to the unit on which they were exerted, which

I am almost sure, from correspondence with your office, the U.S.B.S. was

unaware of. 
 
          Not infrequently the danger lies not in campus groups pressing

each other, but rather ignoring each other. One graduate of a unit, a "Joint

major" in forestry and wildlife, called on me this spring fbr help in
finding 
a job. I learned that he did not know the name of and had never read the
papers 
of the principal wildlife researcher on his own campus. 
 
          These cases are a matter of somebody with an outside point of view

simply "being around" long enough to absorb local situations. The
mere 
presence of an independent outsider is often of great help in bringing adjust-

ments. 
 
          Quality of publications. I detect in some units a scramble to get

into print. One cannot put the brakes on such a situation without being 
around long enough to soak up the detail sympathetically and fully. Generalized

admonitions are useless. 
 
          It was clear even in the 15-minute "reports" at Detroit
that some 
units are proceeding on expensive investigations without knowing the literature

bearing on their projects. They 'haven't time to read." There is no
short 
remedy for this. No supervisor who must travel in a high lope from one unit

to another can know the literature himself. 
 
          Are we sure that budding authors in each unit have good consultation

in statistical theory, in editing, in library work, and inthe dozens of new

scientific "fields" (from animal psychology to physiology) which
are opening 
up month by month? These consulting services cannot all be delivered by any

individual, but any good advisor with enough time can find out what consultation

is needed, whether it is available onthe campus. The literature being published

by sons units definitely shows the lack of rudAmentary statistical consultation.