NOTES 287 



" Whether, in view of the vital importance of medical research to the 

 health of the nation, the prevention or cure of disease and the alleviation of 

 pain, there can be provided a fund from which can be paid awards for dis- 

 coveries or inventions which contribute to the general health of the com- 

 munity and which are placed gratuitously at the service of the public, pensions 

 to those who have become totally or partially incapacitated in the course of 

 research, and pensions to dependents of those who have directly or indirectly 

 [suffered] as a result of their devotion to research ? " 



Mr. Balfour replied : 



" I see no ground for differentiating medical from other forms of scientific 

 research which may be of equal value to the community, and I doubt whether 

 any system of pecuniary rewards would, in the long run, be beneficial to science 

 or medicine. The difficulty of apportioning merit for even the greatest of 

 discoveries is often overwhelming ; monetary rewards would lead to jealousy 

 instead of co-operation among research workers, and might prove to be an 

 incentive to work for results which are sensational rather than for the ad- 

 vancement of scientific knowledge. The question was fully discussed at a 

 deputation which I received on March 7, 1920, at the Privy Council Office." 



On this Mr. Briant asked : 



" Does the right hon. gentleman recognise that in one branch alone, the 

 research into the value of X-rays, a great number of medical men have lost 

 their lives, and their dependents get no recognition from the nation ? " 



To which Mr. Balfour replied : 



" I believe there were in the early days of X-ray investigation very serious 

 results to some medical men, who lost their lives. Of course, their dependents 

 are eHgible for pensions. The Royal Bounty Fund is available for this 

 purpose. Whether the Royal Bounty Fund is large enough is a question 

 on which I am not competent to give an answer." 



Obviously these arguments will not bear analysis. There are good grounds 

 for differentiating medical from other forms of scientific research, at least in 

 many cases. Medical discoveries are the work of professional men who are 

 often not in receipt of any kind of subsidy or professorial salary, as frequently 

 the case with other kinds of scientific discoveries. The difficulty of appor- 

 tioning merit may sometimes, and in very rare cases, be overwhelming, but 

 in the majority of cases does not exist. The medical men who really add 

 materially to our knowledge may be counted on the fingers, and their claims 

 cannot be contested, or can easily be established by those who take a little 

 trouble to inquire into the history ; and prizes can always be divided between 

 two or three claimants if necessary. If the difficulty of apportioning merit 

 for pecuniary awards is so overwhelming, how is it that any awards at all can 

 ever be given, such as university honours, fellowships of the Royal and other 

 societies, state honours, and even prizes such as the Nobel prizes ? If mone- 

 tary awards would lead to jealousy instead of co-operation among research- 

 workers, why do not other awards such as those j ust mentioned have the same 

 effect ? The same argument would apply against the granting of all state 

 honours, such even as the Victoria Cross. Why particularly should monetary 

 awards have such a bad effect, and why should any awards be incentives to 

 work for results which are sensational rather than sound ? Surely such an 

 argument merely throws doubts on the competency of the persons who select 

 candidates for the awards, rather than on the value of the general principle for 

 rewarding service. When Mr. Balfour says that the question was fully 

 discussed at a deputation which he received on March 7 (really on March 2), 

 1920, he seems to have forgotten the circumstances. The alleged full dis- 



