CORRESPONDENCE 



To the Editor of Science Progress 

 BACTERISED PEAT 



From PROF. W. B. BOTTOMLEY, Ph.D. 



Dear Sir, — In view of the interest now being taken by the 

 Board of Agriculture in bacterised peat I am reluctant to 

 criticise the strict accuracy of some of the statements made by 

 Sir Sydney Olivier in your April issue, but in fairness to my 

 work a more detailed account of some of the " facts " he 

 mentions is necessary. 



In April 1 914 an application was made by King's College to 

 the Board of Agriculture for a grant in aid of research on 

 bacterised peat. In June a representative from the Board 

 called at King's College and informed me that the attention of 

 the Advisory Committee had been drawn to the fact that I had 

 patented the process of manufacture of bacterised peat, and 

 they could not recommend the grant unless I gave up my 

 patent rights. This I refused to do. Eventually it was 

 suggested that I could retain my patents and that a grant 

 might be recommended for a purely scientific investigation if 

 I wrote a letter disclaiming any intention of using the grant 

 for experiments with a patented substance. 



On July 23 I wrote : " With reference to our conversation 

 yesterday I quite understand the position of your Advisory 

 Committee in being unable to make a grant for research in 

 connection with a patented substance. I beg, however, to state 

 that the grant for which I have applied would not be used for 

 any research in connection with bacterised peat. ... It is to 

 this purely scientific investigation — the presence and work of 

 accessory food substances in germinating seeds and soil organic 

 matter, and their interrelationship — that any grant made would 

 be applied. As regards the method of manufacture of bacterised 

 peat being the subject-matter of a patent, I would willingly 

 grant permission for its preparation and use for scientific in- 

 vestigation, and supply as far as possible all necessary cultures 



