\o 



NATURE 



[November 3, 1910 



applications of new discoveries in science to the improve- 

 ment of arts and manufactures and to " facilitating the 

 means of procuring the comforts and conveniences of life"; 

 and while retaining that character and those pretensions 

 it soon came to the verge of collapse. But Davy's lectures 

 and discoveries changed all that, and Faraday's genius 

 consecrated the laboratories for all time to the service 

 of pure science. 



Let us review very briefly the great principles on which 

 physical science is based. 



First, of course, there are the fundamental principles 

 of the conservation of matter and of energy, the latter 

 finally established on a quantitative basis by Joule in 1843. 

 There is the principle of uniformitarianism introduced into 

 geology by Lyell now extended so as to include, not only 

 the phenomena of this earth, but of the whole cosmos, 

 such -extension being mainly due to the use of the spectro- 

 scope by Kirchoff and Bunsen, and only a little later by 

 Huggins. The principle embodied in the so-called periodic 

 law of the elements, already referred to, has led to a 

 general belief in the evolution of matter from one primary 

 material, and physicists and chemists are vying with each 

 other in the endeavour to gain evidence as to the details 

 of the process. I need scarcely say that the principle of 

 evolution as applied to living beings is associated indis- 

 solubly with the names of Darwin and Wallace. 



Notwithstanding the discovery of radium and its allies, 

 and the discoveries by J. J. Thomson as to the disintegra- 

 tion of atoms into corpuscles a thousand or more times 

 smaller, all ordinary chemistry is built up on the concep- 

 tion of atoms introduced by John Dalton just a hundred 

 years ago. The consolidation of this theory has proceeded 

 as a consequence of the discoveries begun in 1872 by 

 Wislicenus, developed by van 't Hoff and Le Bel in 1874, 

 and confirmed by an army of other workers down to the 

 present day. We now not only suppose it probable that 

 atoms are placed within a molecule in definite positions 

 relatively to one another, but in a great many cases their 

 order and arrangement in space can be positively traced. 



Suppose all these great laws and principles never to 

 have been discovered — science and its applications would 

 jiot exist, and the world would have remained in about 

 the same condition as it was in two hundred years ago. 

 Railways, electric light and traction, telegraphs, dyes, 

 explosives, antiseptics, anzesthetics and many other drugs, 

 metals such as sodium, aluminium, magnesium, tantalum, 

 and even modern steel would be unknown. 



But these things are merely the results of the recogni- 

 tion, development, and application of the principles already 

 indicated as fundamental, and the immediate corollaries 

 from them. And so it seems that there are two fields for 

 research which are equally necessary to civilisation and 

 progress. In the one the worker watches the operations of 

 nature and puts questions in the form of experiments solely 

 with the desire to find out her ways ; in the other atten- 

 tion is given only to those laws, facts, and phenomena 

 which can be made serviceable to man. There is much 

 more public anxiety in regard to the latter, and consider- 

 ing how entirely ignorant are most people about the 

 principles of physical and natural science this is not greatly 

 to be wondered at. 



Some people are under the impression that there is an 

 art of scientific discovery which can be communicated from 

 one person to another. That is not my belief. I think 

 the history of scientific discovery shows that each successful 

 pioneer has invented methods for himself, or has at least 

 known how to select from the tools ready to his hand. 

 And with regard to personal qualifications, I do not think 

 it possible to create that combination of mental powers 

 which is called insight. Hence I have very grave doubts 

 about the advisability of spending time and energy in try- 

 ing to evoke and cultivate the capacity for research in all 

 students in colleges and universities. If this were possible 

 we ought to see greater results in those cases in which it 

 has already been tried. The judicious teacher will, of 

 course, be careful to avoid any appearance of indifference 

 toward ardour and enthusiasm whenever they appear, and 

 Tie should ever be on the look-out for indications of the 

 kind of capacity which alone repays cultivation, and give 

 it all the encouragement in his {xiwer. But the clamour 

 which has of late been raised as to the supposed desira- 

 bility of extending instruction in the principles and methods 



NO. 2140, VOL. 85] 



of research, down to the very beginners, indicates, to m. 

 mind, a lack of judgment on the part of some of tl 

 agitators. It seems to be forgotten that in every bran, 

 of experimental science, and especially of applied sclent 

 there is a great deal to learn, and it is necessary ■ that ;■. 

 the end of his career as a student a young man should 1 

 able to do things practically and usefully. The theory • 

 music and the laws of harmony are very desirable for tl 

 musician, but if he is to be a performer he must devo 

 tKe greater part of his time to practice on his instrumer 

 whether piano or violin. The case of the student of scien 

 is analogous, and if he does not devote a good deal ■ 

 time to learning the technique of his business he will n 

 be ready for research or anything else. At the prest : 

 time too many students who can write at length on th- 

 retical questions of a most recondite character, and \v' 

 boast that they have been engaged in research unci 

 eminent teachers, are yet incapable of choosing a subj 

 for themselves or of handling successfully a subject fou;. 

 for them by their teachers or someone else. 



With the object of testing the influence exercised by 

 methods of education in science on the development of the 

 faculty of research, I have lately had the curiosity to 

 compare the results indicated by the lists of Doctors of 

 Science of the University of London. Up to 1886 this 

 degree was awarded on the results of a very severe 

 examination. From 1887 onwards it has been obtainable 

 only on the production of a thesis supposed to embody the 

 ideas and the work of the candidate on some subject 

 selected by himself. The examiners are at liberty to 

 impose an examination with the object of assuring them- 

 selves of the candidate's knowledge of his subject, but as 

 a matter of practice the examination has been reduced to 

 a mere formality. It was expected that this change of 

 system would be followed by indications of much greater 

 fertility in the fields of research. Owing to the complete* 

 ness with which chemical literature is indexed, I have 

 been able to make a comparison between the number and 

 character of original papers published by the chemists in 

 these two lists within the ten years following graduation 

 in each case. I have not been able to make so strict a 

 comparison among the physicists owing to the distribution 

 of their work through so many media of publication, but 

 I have been led by a careful survey to the same conclusions 

 as in the case of the chemists. In both classes, the 

 Examinees and the Researchers, if they may be so dis- 

 tinguislied, there are cases in which the doctor, after 

 taking his degree, has done no original work — or at any 

 rate none that was fit for publication — and his name does 

 not appear in the literature of his science. On the other 

 hand both lists contain famous names. I will only men- 

 tion in passing that the names of Larmor and Lodge 

 appear among the examined. On the whole, I see no 

 indications that the procedure by thesis has had any effect 

 whatever on the character of the graduates. If anything, 

 the list of examined is of somewhat higher quality than 

 the list of graduates by dissertation, for there are nine 

 out of fiftv-four who have become Fellows of the Royal 

 Society, while among the others there are only eight out 

 of lifty-nine who can write themselves F.R.S. 



In the latter list there may be one or two who may 

 achieve this distinction hereafter, but there are no indica^ 

 tions that in the long run the amount and quality of the 

 contributions made to science by the graduates who are sup- 

 posed to have been trained to research will surpass those 

 of the men who had to face the ordeal of examination. 



Does this not seem to justify my original contention that 

 the researcher is born, not a product of educational manu- 

 facture, and that his disposition to research will survive 

 all sorts of adverse condition's, including those which are 

 by some people supposed to be inherent in examination? 



' I feel convinced that most of the great discoveries of 

 th? future will be made, as in the past, by the inspired 

 amateur, working usually alone and often on apparently 

 insignificant beginnings, and with results which may not 

 at first receive any attention from the world. 



It is, however, necessary in these days to provide for 

 some form of cooperation in research, partly for the 

 reason that the cost of some kinds of investigation is quite 

 bevond the means of most private persons, and partly 

 because of the unfortunate separation which still prevails, 

 chiefly in this country, between science and industry. * 



