NOTES 639 



grace when the value of a discovery to the public (or to a Government) 

 greatly exceeds the emoluments of the investigator ; and I consider that 

 this principle should hold even in the case of men who were directly paid 

 in advance for the researches which led to their discoveries— especially when 

 such payment was (as usual) small, and the resulting discovery great. 



The following particular cases, which sometimes occur, should be specifi- 

 cally noted : 



(1) Men who have refused lucrative posts in order to complete their 

 researches. 



(2) Men who have refused to patent their work for fear of limiting its 

 application. 



(3) Men who have carried out investigations for Governments for little 

 or no payment, on patriotic grounds. 



The following considerations must generally be borne in mind : 



(a) Honours (which are always much esteemed) are usually given as 

 much (or more) for clinical success as for medical discoveries, though the 

 latter possess a far wider influence and application than the former do. 



(b) When given for clinical work or for discoveries under Class B, honours 

 often confer distinct pecuniary advantages by enhancement of practice ; 

 but for discoveries under Classes A and C, they have no such effect, and 

 I have even heard of cases where they tend to reduce emoluments by un- 

 fitting recipients for certain posts. 



(c) Most people enter the medical profession (at considerable expense), 

 not only from altruistic motives, but also in order to make a living ; and 

 it is usually only at a later period that they take up scientific investigation — 

 either from a sense of duty, or from predilection, or merely because a good 

 opportunity offers. When, therefore, a man finds that his scientific work, 

 however successful and important it may have been, has actually yielded 

 him less emolument than he might have obtained from ordinary clinical 

 work, he feels naturally disappointed ; and his experience prevents young 

 men of ability from following his example, and therefore tends to check the 

 prosecution of studies which are of the highest value for humanity. 



(d) In the public interest, then, I think that the Committee should insist 

 upon the principles : 



(1) That no medical discovery should be allowed to entail financial loss 

 upon him who has made it. 



(2) That the compensation or reward which he deserves should be assessed 

 as being equal to the difference between the emoluments which he has actually 

 received, and those which he might reasonably expect to have received if 

 he had devoted all his time to a successful clinical practice. 



This is obviously the principle which was accepted by Parliament in the 

 case of Jenner in 1802 and 1807 — to whom, however, I think Parliament 

 gave both compensation and reward. 



Additional reasons for insisting upon this principle are : 



(1) That few medical discoveries are patentable. 



(2) That such discoveries seldom give good grounds for promotion or 

 for administrative appointments in the public services. 



V. Particular Assessments 



Whether a particular discovery should receive a large or small assess- 

 ment will depend, not only on the considerations given above, but also 

 on the following : 



(1) Width of Application. — For example, the work of many of the older 

 anatomists, physiologists, and parasitologists, of Pasteur and of investigators 

 of immunity, has affected most recent discovery. Discoveries on wide- 

 spread diseases, such as the work of Lister, of Laveran, and of Koch, are 



