296 SCIENCE PROGRESS 



The Recompense of Medical Scientific Workers 



We are very glad to hear that the Science Committee of the British Medical 

 Association has elected a Sub-committee to confer with the British Science Guild 

 and other bodies " in the matter of the inadequate recognition and recompense 

 by the Government and other bodies of medical workers in the field of science." 

 We are also glad that the Science Guild is nominating some of its members to 

 confer with this Sub-committee of the British Medical Association. The 

 members are as follows : For the British Medical Association, Sir Clifford Allbutt, 

 K.C.B., F.R.S., Dr. R. T. Leiper, Prof. Benjamin Moore, F.R.S., Mr. E. B. 

 Turner, F.R.C.S., Prof. J. S. Haldane, F.R.S. ; and for the British Science 

 Guild, Prof. Bayliss, F.R.S., and Dr. Sommerville (Chairman and Secretary of 

 the Guild's Health Committee), Sir Alfred Keogh, G.C.B., and Sir Ronald Ross. 



We have called attention to this matter in Science Progress over and over 

 again, without any definite result hitherto. There is unlimited talk just now about 

 the encouragement of science, but the vital point is almost always omitted. This 

 point is that, unless you make it worth their while for men of great abilities to 

 investigate nature, they will in many cases not be able to do so even though they 

 have the strongest inclination in that direction. We are now spending large 

 sums of money for scientific work, but most of it goes in providing laboratory 

 facilities and small salaries to junior men for "pot-boiler work." This is certainly 

 essential, and we lodge no objection to such expenditure ; but, in addition, we 

 must pay adequately for the best possible brains. There is only one way to do 

 so — by paying for discoveries which have already been made. There is really no 

 other way of detecting the best possible brain when it exists. The proof of the 

 pudding is in the eating, and, of the best brain, in the* result obtained by it. 

 We therefore think that the world should organise a system of pensions, not only 

 for medical, but for all work which has been of great value to the public at large 

 without being remunerative to the worker. Such a thing is only common sense, 

 common justice, and common morality. 



The case of the medical scientific worker is the strongest of all. Few people 

 recognise that medical science brings in almost no payment even when it results 

 in discoveries which are really revolutionising civilisation. The fact is that, of all 

 great events in history, perhaps none exceed in importance the discoveries made 

 during the last century regarding the nature of human diseases and their pre- 

 vention and cure. Yet the people who have made these discoveries have generally 

 lived, we might almost say, in extreme poverty. We believe that the salaries of 

 pathological professors amount generally to only a few hundreds a year, and 

 seldom, if ever, exceed one thousand pounds a year. Even these posts appear to 

 be seldom given to men who have themselves made leading medical discoveries. 

 Some people seem to think that such men are remunerated by medical practice ; 

 but that is far from the case, and anyway it is a poor kind of remuneration which 

 is given only by means of additional work. For example, Jenner, the great dis- 

 coverer of vaccination, found that his reputation in this line actually ruined his 

 medical practice ; and it was partly for this reason that early last century the 

 British Parliament (which was then a rational and virile body) gave him ,£30,000 

 as a reward. The reason for this is that everyone considers a famous discoverer 

 to be only a faddist or a charlatan ! Of course many other pursuits which are 

 invaluable to civilisation are in precisely the same boat — other branches of 

 science, music, literature, and sometimes even painting, travel, etc. Our proposal 

 is that every nation should keep a pension fund for really great work in these 



