NATURAL SCIENCE: 



A Monthly Review of Scientific Progress. 



No. 26. Vol. IV. APRIL 1894. 



NOTES AND COMMENTS. 



Independence in Scientific Journalism. 



MR. ROBERT LOUIS STEVENSON, in his delightful " Letter 

 to a Young Gentleman who proposes to embrace the Career of 

 Art," insists that it is "far more necessary that a man should support 

 his family than that he should attain to — or preserve — distinction in 

 the arts." So also in journalism, it is the first business of a journal to 

 prove the utility of its existence by paying its way. The splendid 

 memoirs of endowed institutions are necessary and honourable, the 

 periodical caprices of the wealthy are amiable follies, but neither are 

 journalism. On either side the path of a scientific journal are many 

 pitfalls. Mere popularity may be lucrative but is a descent from 

 science, mere technical science for the most part requires external 

 financing. But there are pitfalls more perilous because less apparent. 

 Suppose the necessary condition of a journal be attained — that it can 

 pay its way — the next thing is for it to take a strong, fearless, 

 independent line on all questions affecting its subject-matter. It 

 must distribute praise and blame ; it must criticise freely where 

 criticism may lead to improvement ; it must attempt in every way 

 to serve the best interest of science. For these purposes, especially 

 in matters of blame, the most competent and complete information is 

 necessary. 



Now, in England the number of those who are competent to deal 

 efficiently with all matters concerning the advancement of science is 

 strictly limited. Necessarily, most of them are connected with the 

 Universities, great societies, and institutions of this country — connected, 

 in fact, with precisely those social mechanisms the working of which 

 must be passed in review. Natural Science, therefore, believes 

 that in the best interests of science and of individuals a certain part 

 of its columns must be open to anonymous criticism. It is the 

 editorial business to distinguish between anonymity and irresponsi- 

 bility. In many matters this distinction does not exist : fortunately, 

 in scientific matters the degree of reasonableness of any criticisms is 



