November i8, 1920] 



NATURE 



37S 



Letters to the Editor. 



[The Editor does not hold himself responsible for 

 opinions expressed by his correspondents. Neither 

 can he undertake to return, or to correspond with 

 the -jxriters of, rejected manuscripts intended for 

 this or any other part of Nature. No notice is 

 taken of anonymous communications .] 



Einstein's Shift of Spectral Lines. 



Referring to my suggestion from Gullane on p. 280 

 in Nature of October 28, Lord Rayleigh has recalled 

 my attention to Prof. Eddington's admirable report on 

 "The Relativity Theory of Gravitation," whereby I 

 have been reminded that the predicted shift depends 

 not on gravitational intensity, but on gravitational 

 potential. This makes my revolving disc quite in- 

 efficient ; it would seem that bodies of astronomical 

 size are necessary for the test. 



But since the shift is proportional to the square of 

 peripheral velocity, instead of to the acceleration, it 

 occurs to Lord Rayleigh that the high speed of positive 

 rays curved in a magnetic field might facilitate its 

 detection ; for, as he points out, if their speed were 

 10* c.g.s., their radiation shift would be comparable to 

 a fortieth of an Angstnim unit. 



But this same proportionality to u'/c' raises the 

 question whether, after all, the shift expected is any- 

 thing more than the natural consequence of self- 

 inductive increase of inertia due to speed. If a satel- 

 lite suddenly gained a spurious inertia not subject to 

 attractive force, its orbit would enlarge and its period 

 lengthen. So it may be with electrons in a violently 

 projected Bohr atom. 



I appreciate Dr. Chree's friendly experimental 

 caution in your issue of November 11. 



Novemter 12. Oliver Lodgb. 



The British Association. 



We have been asked by the executive of the 

 National Union of Scientific Workers to send a con- 

 tribution to the discussion in Nature on the cause 

 of " the apathy of local people of the educated classes 

 to the presence of the .Association " in the centres 

 where it meets. 



The majority of those who have taken part in the 

 discussion appear to assume that this apathv is due 

 to the failure of the Association to interest the general 

 public in the utilitarian applications of science and 

 their contributions to the material benefits of civilised 

 life. Only one or two writers seem to have attempted 

 to follow up the lead given in your editorial «f 

 September t6, which attributes the public apathy to 

 " the neglect of national bodies like the British .Asso- 

 ciation to adjust themselves to changing national 

 needs. . . . The .Association makes little endeavour 

 to show the bearing of scientific methods and principles 

 upon most subjects of vital importance in national 

 politv and industrial affairs." 



Prof. .Soddy strikes the .same note in Naturk of 

 September 2^, where he says " the vast body of the 

 (jeneral public, disillusioned bv the war, looks to 

 them fsrientific men] to provide a way of escape from 

 the evils that threaten our civilisation." He points 

 out that " scientific synthesis and the direction of the 

 unique mental attitude, induce<l only bv the actual 

 di-irovery of new knowWIge, to the conduct of public 

 affairs are the real and peculiar functions of the 

 Association if it is to regain its national position." 



The executive of the union would like to endorse 

 these views, and to suggest that it is not necessary to 

 invoke the outstanding genius of Huxley and his con- 

 temporaries and to hold them up in invidious com- 



NO. 2664, VOL". 106] 



parison with the men of the present day in order to 

 explain the apathy of the public. The explanation 

 lies rather in the message which Huxley and his con- 

 temporaries had to give to the lay public. Their 

 appeal was not based upon holding up to public ad- 

 miration the utilitarian benefits offered by science, 

 important as these undoubtedly are. Their message 

 appealed to the deep-seated complex of ideas, experi- 

 ences, beliefs, and emotions which conditions everv 

 man's outlook on life. It challenged the static view 

 of man's relation to his environment which was the 

 heritage of dogmatic theology, and offered in its place 

 a dynamic view, which revealed man as himself a 

 part of the great stream of natural causation. .As 

 such it tore old prejudices up bv the roots, roused 

 fierce resentment in those who could not free them- 

 selves from such prejudices, and an equally fierce 

 exultation in others who were smarting under repres- 

 sions imposed by the authority of theological dogma. 



.Science (or, we should rather say, the bulk of the 

 institutions and men who claim to represent science) 

 has no such message at the present dav. .As is shown 

 bv the Rev. .A. L. Cortie in his letter in Nature of 

 September 30, the sections which discussed questions 

 such as the constitution of the atom and relativitv 

 drew good and numerous attendances; we suggest 

 this was because these subjects touch on ideas of 

 the nature of matter, soace, and time — ideas which 

 find a place, however vague, in the philosophy of 

 life of a large number of people. 



Aye believe that if the British .Association and other 

 bodies representing organised science are to regain 

 the place in the public estimation which thev held in 

 the latter half of last century thev will have to 

 come out with a new message which, like that of 

 Huxley and his contemporaries, challenges old-estab- 

 lished points of view. Where the .Association is to 

 find a field ripe for such a message is suggested in 

 vour editorial and amplified bv Prof. Soddv. While 

 Huxlev's message forced people to revise their old- 

 established ideas and prejudices as to man in his 

 relations to his natural environment, the public is 

 now ripe for a le.id from science in the direction of 

 a fundamental revision of that part of its outlook 

 on life which concerns the relations of man to the 

 social and economic environment which he has 

 created. 



John W. Evans, 

 President. 



H. Lystrr Jameson, 



Member of Executive. 



A. G. CiU'Rcii, 

 .Secretary. 



National l"nion of .Scientific Workers, 

 25 Victoria Street, AAVstminster, 

 T.nnrlon. S.W.T, November 12. 



I' Mum Uie corrispondcnce that has recently appeared 

 in Nature it is evident that there is a healthy deter- 

 mination on the part of scientific men in Great Britain 

 that the British .Association shall not be allowed to 

 stagnate, but must exhibit progressive evolution as well 

 as the solid dignity implie<l in its full title. One point 

 that I have recently noticed in your columns with 

 great satisfaction is that in future representatives 

 from similar associations in other countries will be 

 invito to attend each meeting. We who work in 

 parts of the British Empire n-mote froin its centre, 

 and are content to do so, although perhaps our 

 scientific atmosphere is not so rarefied as some main- 

 tain, are urxloubtedlv apt to get out of touch, if not 

 tHit of s\Tnpafhy, with the work of our colleagues nt 

 home, while they are equally apt to view our en- 



