October 13, 1923] 



NATURE 



543 



ago that an American who had studied the matter told 

 Tne that the world then possessed many fewer endowed 

 professorships on pathology and hygiene than on 

 Sanskrit, philosophy, and theology. This was rather 

 surprising. Every one in the world is certain to suffer 

 |from some malady at least once ; but no one need 

 puffer from Sanskrit or philosophy unless he pleases, 

 ior even from theology — during this life. But there 

 las always been a thin vein of unreality in academic 

 fairs. Now, however, even Sanskrit is beginning to 

 Jale before cancer. On the other hand, so recently 

 last June, I saw the announcement that the chief 

 bountries of the world contribute annually an average 

 Income of 9,594,254/. to the various Protestant Foreign 

 [issions. This is nearly ten times the amount which 

 conjecture the world is now giving for the whole of 

 Its scientific investigations in all fields. North America 

 ives to the Missions an average of 6,327,597/. a year 

 md Great Britain gives 2,310,000/. a year; Germany 

 las dropped out owing to the fall of the mark, but 

 )ther countries contribute the balance. We are not 

 jealous, but our mouths water at the thought of these 

 vast sums. On one side, the missionaries, from your 

 great alumnus David Livingstone onwards, have been 

 the pioneers of civilisation and have done great work. 

 On the other side, we think of the millions of people 

 now dying prematurely every year of diseases which 

 are probably easily curable or preventable, though 

 we do not know how to cure or to prevent them at 

 present. 



On the whole, I think that the war-funds of science 

 are likely to go on increasing year by year as the public 

 becomes more and more convinced of results. The 

 fundamental question is therefore now being asked, 

 How best should we spend the money ? Remember 

 that, as I have shown, the endowment of investigation 

 apart from teaching is only a recent innovation, and 

 probably, like all new methods, has not yet been per- 

 fected. How can the best results be obtained for the 

 least expenditure ? The question must ultimately be 

 decided by you young men : for us it remains only to 

 attempt a preparatory analysis. 



Regarding medical research there are two schools of 

 opinion, which we may call the Bulls and the Bears. 

 One school, the Bulls, say : " We must spend every 

 penny we can raise on constant investigations managed 

 by capable committees and carried on by trained 

 research workers, maintained if possible for life in order 

 to be sheltered from the necessity of teaching or 

 practice, and provided with the most up-to-date 

 laboratories, plenty of materials, and easy access to 

 scientific literature. It is true that some money may 

 thus be wasted, that some of the results may prove 

 wrong, that some of the workers may not turn out so 

 capable as they were thought to be : no matter. A 

 single great success will be worth all the money that 

 is likely to be spent in this way. Pour out the cash ; 

 catch all the young men you can and set them at their 

 measurements and microscopes, and keep them at it 

 as long as they are willing to stay. The larger the 

 number of seekers the larger the number of finders. 

 Drop the failures, cut the losses, and think only of the 

 profits." To them the other party, the Bears, reply: 

 " You can spend what money you like but you cannot 

 buy discovery. All that your managing committees 



NO. 2815, VOL. 112] 



and trained investigators are likely to do or achieve 

 will be the study of details along already well-trodden 

 paths. They will inoculate legions of rats and guinea- 

 pigs, and will publish profound but incomplete papers 

 every quarter, which will be of little or no use 

 in practice. They will carry out researches — yes, 

 academic researches, and too many of them ! But 

 the world does not ask for researches ; it asks for 

 discoveries — not for the incomplete but for the complete 

 article. Has a single great medical discovery been 

 made by managing committees and subsidised in- 

 vestigators ? Discoveries are made by genius — and 

 that you cannot buy." 



Such are the opinions which one hears on both sides. 

 Personally I agree and yet disagree with both. There 

 is only one way to decide. Research and discovery 

 are themselves natural phenomena, and we should 

 study them scientifically. I said we have discovered 

 discovery : let us also investigate investigation. How ? 

 By consulting the great and triumphant history of 

 science, particularly the stories of the chief advances. 

 If we do so we shall see that the two parties are merely 

 quarrelling over the two faces of the same coin. Science 

 proceeds, not in one, but in two ways : first by collect- 

 ing facts and then by basing inductions upon them. 

 Thus, in the classical example already cited, it was 

 Tycho Brahe who spent his life in collecting trust- 

 worthy observations regarding the positions of the 

 heavenly bodies, but it was his pupil Kepler who, 

 after twenty-five years' study of Brahe's figures, 

 established the great induction that all the planets 

 move in similar elliptical orbits round the sun ; and 

 it was Isaac Newton who, eighty years later, explained 

 all these orbits by the single law of universal gravitation. 

 That is, one man collected the facts, but other men 

 explained them. For a second example: by the 

 middle of last century numbers of workers, including 

 Buffon and Linnseus and a host of private enthusiasts 

 and amateurs, had observed, distinguished, and 

 described innumerable kinds of plants and animals ; 

 then came Darwin, who explained these facts — much 

 more numerous than he could ever have collected 

 single-handed — by his theory of natural selection. 

 For a third example : think of the host of physicians, 

 surgeons, and apothecaries who have studied and 

 described the characters and symptoms of human 

 maladies without being able to explain them. Then 

 came Semmelweiss, Pasteur, Lister, and Koch, who 

 created bacteriology. 



Certainly observation and induction have often 

 worked together in the same research, with brilliant 

 results. More often they pull different ways and break 

 down. Every one knows the man who begins with 

 his induction and then fits his facts to it — or thinks he 

 does. On the other hand, the " working hypothesis " 

 frequently suggests invaluable, though possibly nega- 

 tive, experiments. Then we have the men — generally 

 young men — who make a new generalisation with every 

 new observation : I was one of them once. Often, 

 however, observation and induction require very 

 different faculties, which belong to different men, often 

 living in different ages. If we were all Newtons there 

 would be no problems left to solve. 



Science needs all the faculties — the eye of one man, 

 the hand of another, and the brain of a third. Observa- 



