September 30, 1920] 



NATURE 



145 



arouse interest in science amongst the general public. 

 How this is to be done is not an easy problem. One 

 thinj; that might certainly be done is to adopt the sug- 

 gestion of the Electrician, and arrange that the latest 

 discoveries in science should be described in simple 

 language. It seems to me that this should be done 

 by several individual workers rather than by one lec- 

 turer alone, even in the case of a subject of com- 

 paratively narrow field. It is not always possible to 

 know where a hearer may find difticulty of appre- 

 hension, and different ways of putting things aid in 

 clearness of grasp. In fact, something more in the 

 nature of a public discussion might be more stimu- 

 lating and instructive. I am somewhat igporant as 

 to how far the popular lectures as at present given 

 can be considered to be successful. Personally, I find 

 a sft lecture of a length approaching an hour some- 

 what tiresome; but opinions differ as to this. The 

 presentation of a new discovery by more than one 

 p«-rson might tend to overcome the difficulty referred 

 to in the article in Nature, namely, the fact that 

 genius for discovery is not always associated with 

 facility of popular exposition or with an attractive 

 manner of bringing out its importance. .\t the same 

 time it should not be forgotten that there is a natural 

 interest in hearing an account of a new discovery 

 from the lips of the man who made it, even though he 

 may not be able to make it as clear as may another 

 speaker whose gifts are of a different kind. Men of 

 science themselves are not devoid of this interest or 

 curiosity. If the practice of formal lectures is fol- 

 Iowe<l, I feel sure, from remarks that I have heard, 

 that the method adopted at the Koyal Institution is 

 th<' lx'st--I mean the absence of any introduction or 

 votes of thanks. M th<- end of an hour's lecture the 

 audience is more or less fatigued and apt to be 

 impatient of the kind of remarks usually made. 



If the .Association were known to be made up of 

 members from all kinds of callings and positions in 

 life, its pronouncements on such national problems as 

 the teaching of science in schools, the relation of 

 science to the public services, and so on, would have 

 a >,'reater influence. It has already done good work 

 in this way, and could do more. 



There is another way in which I venture to 

 think the .Association might be useful. .Sensational, 

 • xa^'geratcd, and inaccurate statements with regard 

 to supposed new discoveries appear from time to 

 timt- In the daily Press. Those unfamiliar with the 

 farts find it difficult or impossible to learn the truth 

 .'ibout them, and when the statements are found at a 

 later date to have no basis scientific credit is likely 

 ti> suffer. Such assertions as the overthrow of 

 Newton, and even of th<! foundations of science, by 

 Kinstein's work, and the wild statements about the 

 transplantation of glands of internal secretion and 

 .ibout B<>sredka's work on immunity, require authorita- 

 tive correction. Possibly committees of a more or less 

 IX'rmanent character might meet throughout the year, 

 liut it Is not easy to see how it could best be done. 



The mention of commitle<'s suggests an appreciative 

 reference to the Special Reports issui>d from time to 

 time by the .\ssociation. Tlx^se are frequently of 

 ^reat value as showing the wide bearing of fact.s in 

 one branch of science upon other branches. The 

 reports on " Colloid Chemistrv " may illustrate my 

 nie.ining. These various reports are bv no means so 

 widelv known as thcv should Ix", and this part of the 

 activitv of the .\ssociation might well b*- continued. 



I feel some doubt as to whether the research com- 

 mittees repav their cost, and whether their work 

 would not he Ijetter transferred to the Hepartment 

 of Scientific and Industrial Research or to the Medical 

 ReM-arch Council, as tlv cas*' may be. 



Thi<) letter contains little, it is to be feared, in the 



\0. 2657, VOL. 106] 



wav of suggestion for constructive advance, but I 

 should like to add my testimony in support of the 

 position taken up in the article in Nature. 



VV. M. Bavliss. 

 University College, London, September 21. 



The leading article in Nature of September 16 

 brings out very clearly what many of us feel to be 

 an increasing difficulty at the meetings, not only of 

 the British .Association, but also of most other 

 scientific societies. In fact, it is scarcelv an exag- 

 geration to say that members sit through the bulk of 

 meetings and listen to the majority of papers out of 

 mere courtesy. Only in rare instances, when the 

 paper read happens to touch the listener's special line 

 of work, can one take an intelligent interest in the 

 proceedings. Even then it is wise to wait until a 

 paper is in print before forming an opinion. Some 

 good-natured person, however, often sacrifices him- 

 self and offers a few trite, and usually irrelevant, 

 remarks which pass muster for a discussion. Under 

 these conditions one is tempted to ask oneself what 

 real good is achieved by such meetings and in what 

 way they can help the progress of research. I admit 

 this state of things is far worse in some subjects than 

 in others; in mathematics it exists in an aggravated 

 form. On the other hand, I have rarely attended a 

 meeting of the Royal .Astronomical Society without 

 being stimulated and interested. But this defect is 

 found, in varying degrees, at every scientific meeting, 

 and it grows steadily worse as years go bv. 



Much of the trouble .seems to be due to the in- 

 creasing subdivision of the departments of science and 

 the tendency of each subdivision to create a nomen- 

 clature of its own, so that science is being rapidly 

 threatened with the curse which fell upon the builders 

 of the Tower of Babel. Often a mere name, which if 

 explained in terms known to all scientific workers 

 would b<> at once mastered, proves a decisive 

 stumbling-block. Thus it is not infrequent to hear 

 the engineer complain of the general unintelligibility 

 of the ordinary mathematician or physicist, but he 

 seems entirely unaware that he himself uses what 

 seems to the others an equally unintelligible jargon. 



.Another contributory cau.se, to which vour leading 

 article alludes, is .that the rapid growth of manv border- 

 line sciences is now- overshadowing the old recognise<l 

 domains. In much of the new physical chemistrv, 

 for instance, both the physicist and the chemist 

 brought up on classical lines feel themselves equally 

 at sea. The thing has grown up unnoticed, as it 

 were ; they have had a glimpse here and a glimpse 

 there, but they have no clear understanding of the 

 new foundations or of how their own work is affected 

 by the new developments. Many would like to obtain 

 this understanding, but find that in order to do so 

 they must first read up hundreds of scattered original 

 papers containin^r 00 per cent, of matter of no interest 

 to them, and thev may have neither the time nor the 

 inclination for the task. The fact is that research 

 in such border-line sciences has outstripp<'d the text- 

 book writer ; and although text-books are often bad, 

 thpy nevertheless have n useful, even an essential, 

 function to fulfil. 



If such are the difficulties confronting the trained 

 scientific worker, what are we to say of the intelligent 

 amateur in a provincial town, such as the British 

 .Association regularly visits? To him. indeed, much 

 must be Gre<"k, even of the presidential .iddresses; 

 .nnd the papers, many of quite special and trivial 

 interest, which make up the bulk of the business of 

 the sections, can make no appeal whatever. Indeed, 

 the only surprising thing to rrw is that nny such 

 D«'rsons attend the meetings at all: it speaks volumes 

 for their keenness and devotion that some do. 



