December 15, 1921] 



NATURE 



499 



but which have effected or contributed to the attain- 

 ment of any medical or surgical purpose (specified or 

 not as may be prescribed) of general utility or advan- 

 tage which it is deemed desirable, in the national 

 interest, to subserve." 



Paragraph 29 of the Report of the Commission 

 above referred to commences as follows : — "' In a 

 previous paragraph dealing primarily with patented 

 inventions, it has been stated that, in the case of un- 

 patented inventions also, the general principle has been 

 adopted that rewards are not recommended in respect 

 of inventions publicly proclaimed and thrown open to all 

 the world to use." And after reference to the case of 

 medical or surgical discoveries it is stated in this 

 paragraph : — " Suggestions have recently been made 

 elsewhere that a fund should be created for the 

 pecuniary reward of investigators who have conferred 

 great benefits on the public by such discoveries as 

 those, for instance, which have resulted in the pre- 

 vention of disease by inoculation and the like. But 

 we have taken the view that all such matters as these 

 lie entirely outside our province." 



I may mention that in his letter appearing in the 

 Times of July 13 last Sir Ronald Ross referred to a 

 conjoint committee of the British Science Guild and 

 the British Medical Association having written to the 

 Prime Minister " suggesting that the powers of the 

 Royal Commission on Awards to Inventors might be 

 enlarged so as to include medical and sanitarv dis- 

 coveries and inventions." Replving in the Times of 

 July 15 to this letter, Mr. Tindal-Robertson. the 

 secretary of the Commission, in explanation of the 

 general practice of the Commission, quoted the para- 

 graph of the Report of the Commission which I have 

 mentioned above. 



In the case of unpatented inventions the Commis- 

 sion, it appears from reference to paragraph 27 of 

 the Report, attached more importance to 'priority of 

 communication " than to "priorits- of discoverv." And 

 as showing that even these considerations mav be out- 

 weighed by other counteracting considerations, the 

 following statements are made in paragraph 28 of 

 the Ref>ort : — 



" ^^ ^^f f^"n<J t>y the Commission that the credit 

 of designing and producing the weapon of warfare 

 known as the • Tanks, ' as actuallv used, was to be 

 attributed to Sir William Tritton and Major Wilson, 

 who. in fact, carried out their work in the latter part 

 of the year 1915 and the eariv part of the vear 1916; 

 and It was recommended that a large award of i.:;,ooor. 

 should be made to them. On the other hand, it was 

 found that Mr. L. E. de Mole, an Australian en- 

 gineer, had made and reduced to practical shape, as 

 far back as the year 1912, a brilliant invention which 

 anticipated, and in some respects surpassed, that 

 actually put into use in the year 1916; and that this 

 invention was, in fact, communicated at the time to 

 the proper Government Department, but was not then 

 appreciated and was put aside and forgotten. The 

 result in this case was expressed as follows :— ' We 

 regret that we are unable to recommend anv award 

 to him. But we are bound to adhere to the general 

 rule in such cases that a claimant must show a causal 

 connection between the making of his invention and 

 the user of any similar invention bv the Government ' 

 It need hardly be said that, had Mr. Mole's invention 

 been brought either directlv or indirectiv to the notice 

 of Major Wilson or Sir William Tritton', as was clearlv 

 not the case, a ver\- different result would probablv 

 have been arrived at J^y the Commission." 



From the foregoing remarks I think it will be 

 apoarent that the conditions affecting priority and 

 validity of claims to discoveries in the case of un- 

 XO. 2720. VOL. 108] 



patented inventions for war purposes are unsuitable 

 for adoption in the case of any future provision for 

 awards, not only in regard to medical and surgical, 

 but also scientific, discoveries the publication of which 

 is desirable in the national interest. 



Mr. Tindal-Robertson 's letter, to which reference is 

 made above, concluded with the following statement : 

 " I need hardly say that this letter in no way touches 

 the broader question raised by the first paragraph of 

 Sir Ronald Ross's letter — namely, whether some new 

 body should be constituted for the purpose of recog- 

 nising and rewarding discoveries or services such as 

 are there referred to." 



I venture to say that, as a condition precedent to 

 the constitution of such a body, it is necessan,- to 

 define the principles uf>on w'hich priority in discoven*' 

 should be established and the validity of claims to 

 discoveries should be determined. I have suggested 

 such principles in my scheme, and they resemble in 

 certain respects the principles uf>on which priority in 

 the invention of patentable inventions is established 

 and the validitv of claims to such inventions is deter- 

 mined on application for patents or on proceedings to 

 revoke patents. 



In my Memorandum G (p. 18) I observed : "Another 

 potent deterrent to research is the absence of any 

 trustworthy means of establishing claims to discoveries, 

 and the contentions that frequently arise as to the 

 validity of such claims must tend to make research 

 workers less disf>osed to attempt to solve problems of 

 fundamental importance." 



In exemplification of this I referred to letters ap- 

 pearing in the Times that succeeded and had relation 

 to the insertion in the issue of the Times of May 22, 

 1918, of an article from a correspondent on the sub- 

 ject of trench-fever research, and reference was made 

 in the correspondence to the Commissions on Malta 

 fever, sleeping sickness, and trench fever. 



I may mention that trench-fever research might have 

 been promoted during the war by the allocation of 

 grants (to be administered under conditions similar to 

 those specified in my scheme) to unremunerative dis- 

 coveries which advance the knowledge of the causa- 

 tion, prevention, or treatment of trench fever. 



I may add that co-operative research, as well as the 

 research of individuals working independently, can be 

 promoted in accordance with the principles of my 

 scheme. Priority in discover}' could be established on 

 similar conditions in both these kinds of research, and 

 research by a co-operative body might be encouraged, 

 without causing jealousy among the co-operative 

 workers, by their agreeing to assign prospective grants 

 to a nominee empowered to hold such grants for the 

 purposes of the research. Walter B. Priest. 



Gresford, Wrexham, November 28. 



The Smoke-veil. 



.\ curious instance of atmospheric pollution came 

 to my notice on November 26 while walking from 

 Hayfield into Edale over the central watershed of 

 England in the Peak of Derbyshire. Below 1500 ft. 

 on the w-estern side there was hazy sunshine with a 

 rime frost, but at this level we entered a thin cloud, 

 with a temperature scarcely below freezing point, 

 formed by a steady easterly wind blowing over the 

 Peak plateau from the east. Friends in Edale in- 

 formed us that these conditions had obtained since 

 the morning of the previous day, and the hoar-frost 

 thus formed was peculiar; the stream-lines of air-flow 

 round stones were clearly mapped by curling lines of 

 ice, while everv' blade of grass and stem of Juncus 

 bore a deposit of ice-crjstals which resembled the 



