On the whole, the story of the CSPP has been one of accomplishment and success. But we cannot say that all the questions and problems that beset the Society – and plant physiologists – have been resolved. The future may bring more successes, and it will undoubtedly bring some difficulties and disappointments. One thing is certain: Canadian plant physiologists will continue to work, as they have during the past 25 years, to make the Society and the lot of plant physiologists as good as it can possibly be made.

A few major concerns will need to be tackled in the near future, and it may be worthwhile to examine them briefly here. Perhaps the most difficult are the direction of research, funding levels and sources, government control of research, the problem of pure versus applied research, and the erosion of the Canadian research base. The allied problems of student intake, employment, and the state of the universities are going to need some savage thinking. Finally, there is the vexing and long standing question of a "special" place for the publication of Canadian plant physiological papers.

Research directions have swung periodically over the years from "wholist" to "divisionist" extremes. During the period covered by this history we have traveled from the whole plant physiology to the biochemical extreme, and are now well on the way back. However, it now appears that the trend of modern molecular biology may serve to rationalize and unite these points of view in a way that has hitherto been difficult or impossible. For a time it looked as if plant physiology might virtually disappear in a welter of conflicting and almost unrelated sub-disciplines of development, metabolism, translocation, etc. But the new Renaissance the true holistic approach seems to have been sparked by the new insight into plant behaviour at all levels of organization provided by molecular physiology and biophysics. This is the "new biology" that we have been waiting for.

The support of research seems to be fluctuating fitfully and without purpose, in terms of both levels and overall directions of research support. It is inevitable that the institution (or government) supplying the funds will exert some control over research. How much that control can be shaped or modulated by scientists for the advance of science depends in large measure on the success of scientists in satisfying national goals. This does not mean that only "goal oriented" research should be pursued. Pure science is a perfectly good goal in itself. But much depends on what the government, politicians, and ultimately the population, perceive to be the national goals. Surely scientists must work more vigorously and more effectively than ever to modify public opinion about the values, quantities and directions of science.

Universities are now altering their basic character in response to the demands of a changing society. Just how these changes will affect plant sciences, and plant physiology in particular, is difficult to predict. The needs of world agriculture as it responds to the pressures of growing population and environmental deterioration (caused by the "improvement" of life style) must be met increasingly by high technology. In our case, high technology (or biotechnology) really means good sound plant physiology. However, to produce good plant physiologists, as we now can and do, is not enough. They must have both the motivation and the facilities, including funds, to do the required research, and the universities must have the facilities and funds to train them. These requisites will only come as the population at large begins to appreciate the need for them, and when that will happen is hard to foresee.

A specific problem that faces Canadian plant physiologists is their rather low level of funding relative to the USA and other developed nations. While Canadian scientists are reasonably well served by their granting agencies, the scope of support is far too narrow. It is acceptable that some scientists, for whatever reasons, should not receive very large grants. But it is wholly unacceptable that virtually none of our top ranking scientists should receive funding that is adequate in terms of their ability, and relation to foreign competition. To have, train, and maintain first class scientists while paying them only enough to work at a fraction of their capacity is poor economy. Apart from all else, it stifles initiative. Furthermore, many Canadian scientists have had the discouraging experience of losing good ideas to large research groups in other countries before their own limited resources could develop them. This problem faces all Canadian scientists, and plant physiologists in particular need to work on a remedy. The cost of doing big research at the forefront of the field is getting very large. While this may not be for everyone, it should not be denied to everyone.

We shall end our gazing into the crystal ball with a mention of publishing. As long ago as 1959 the President was urging members to "publish in the Canadian Journal of Botany, indicating by footnotes all papers presented at CSPP meetings." The question of a Canadian journal of plant physiology was raised then and frequently during the next decade, but it was recognized that the volume of papers would be insufficient to support a reputable journal. In 1966 the Editor of Plant Physiology suggested that the Proceedings of the CSPP (which are often cited) should be published in the Canadian Journal of Botany, but the Editorial Board of the NRC refused on the grounds that what is done for one society must be done for all.

Recently the editorial policy of the Canadian Journal of Botany has been to group papers with a section on "Plant Physiology and Biochemistry." This at least serves to focus attention on papers in this group, and it partly answers the problem. However, in view of the successful Australian Journal of Plant Physiology, the suggestion has come forward from time to time to found a comparable Canadian journal, not only to publish the papers of Canadian plant physiologists but equally important to catalogue the activities, Proceedings, etc. of the CSPP. This question may be a hard one to settle, and it will doubtless be raised from time to time in the future.

The problem with prophesy is that people love to play the game "cheat the prophet" by doing just the opposite of what was prophesied. If the prophets are in conflict, people still manage to confound them by following none of the prophesies, and just continuing to do what they were doing before. That will probably be the way with the CSPP. It seems safe to say that Canadian plant physiologists will continue to grow and develop as a health organism should. Let us end this history with a toast to the future: May the next twenty-five years be as good for Canadian plant physiologists and for the CSPP as the first twenty-five years!