CORRESPONDENCE 105 



I do not intend to labour this point. I wish only to emphasise one aspect 

 of the question. Sir R. Ross explains that for the most part he received no 

 payment for his work ; presumably he asked none. I suggest that this was 

 a wrong policy on his part, and that he would have been far more likely to 

 impress ignorant officials with its value if he had insisted on proper remuner- 

 ation, and failing that had refused to proceed. To many people the value 

 of a thing is what it costs, and when they find that scientific men are ready 

 to give advice for nothing, they attach just about that value to it. An 

 engineer employed as consultant by the Suez Canal Company or the Panama 

 Canal Commission would ask and receive, as a matter of course, a substantial 

 fee, plus all his expenses. Why should a medical expert attach a lower value 

 to his services ? and does he not, by setting this lower value, help to depreciate 

 the estimation in which his services are held ? During the war the exploiting 

 of scientific men by government departments was carried to a point never 

 before attempted, but was viillingly accepted by many as the form in which 

 they could best help forward a great national cause. Even in wartime it is 

 doubtful if they were altogether wise in submitting so completely to the 

 predatory official instincts ; in ordinary times it is certain they are unwise. 

 Science would gain, both in popular estimation and in its real influence upon 

 the nation, if its followers would discontinue this misplaced generosity and 

 would cease to give skilled and highly technical advice gratis — if, in short, 

 they would estimate their work on a similar basis to that set by engineers, 

 doctors, or lawyers. 



I am, Sir, 

 April 4, 1920. E. H. Hills. 



I entirely agree with the principles laid down by General Hills, but 

 my case was not similar to the cases which he evidently has in mind. I was 

 dealing wdth an entirely new method, which had been hitherto untried, whereas 

 engineers and others who obtain fees for their advice are generally called 

 upon to deal with perfectly definite and known questions. If I had ventured 

 to charge any fee to the Suez Canal people or to the Panama Canal people, 

 they would possibly have refused me, and a great opportunity for testing 

 my new suggestions would have been lost. In fact, I carefully considered 

 the point exactly in the light laid down by General Hills, and determined 

 that it was my duty to the world to abandon personal remuneration for the 

 sake of perfecting a new life-saving instrument. Later, when I was asked 

 to advise the Government of Mauritius, my method had already proved itself, 

 and I therefore asked the Government to give me a fee of one thousand pounds 

 for five months' work, but added that, if the colony was not able to find this 

 money, I would go there without payment. In this case I was honourably 

 dealt with ; but I cannot say the same of those other Governments and 

 Companies which have sunk to the level of using a professional man's ex- 

 periences without making any attempt to pay for them. We must remember 

 that payment to all medical men is legalty (I believe) placed upon this volun- 

 tary basis. A patient cannot be forced to pay his physician's fee ; but if 

 he does not do so he is a dishonourable person. As already frequently stated 

 in Science Progress, I am now suggesting this very point to the Chancellor 

 of the Exchequer. Some years ago, however, Mr. Lloyd George did not 

 appreciate the little obligation. 



R. Ross. 



P.S. — A case exactly apropos has occurred since the above was printed. 

 The Commonwealth Government asked me to go to Australia as its guest 

 in order to discuss the matter of the Northern Territory at a congress. As 

 this involved expert medical advice, I suggested and named a fee. It was 

 refused. — R. R. 



