374 



NATURE 



[November i8, 1920 



deavours as something distinct from their own, on 

 a diflerent, if not precisely a lower, plane, or — shall 

 I say? — on a sta^e such as that on which the dogs 

 danced for Dr. Johnson's admiration. .Such miscon- 

 ceptions are good for no one. They ignore two funda- 

 mental facts : that science is universal, and that, 

 nevertheless, scientific work may be undertaken on 

 difTorcnt lines, and even in a somewhat different spirit, 

 under different conditions. 



I am convinced that the British .Association might 

 do a great deal to dispel the mirage by making a 

 feature of discussions (of course, on quite general 

 lines) on overseas work in different branches. There 

 are always members present at the meetings from 

 manv parts of the Empire as well as from various 

 foreign countries, but they are too often silent 

 members from whom expression of opinion is neither 

 encouraged nor invited. In zoologv, at anv rate, what 

 we want nowadays is not so much isolated fragments 

 of research, however accurate the observation mav 

 be, as syntheses of results. Zoologv, indeed, and 

 perhaps other branches of biologv also, are in danger 

 of destruction by the toxins produced in their own 

 vital processes, such, for example, as nomenclature 

 and purelv museum taxonomv. Yet comparatively 

 few of the subjects discussed at meetings of the 

 British .Association, to judge from reports, rise much 

 above this level. What is wanted, so far as the 

 scientific man from overseas is concerned, is more 

 informal discussion on fundamental subjects, more 

 expression of reasoned opinion and well-thought-out 

 aims as opposed to details of observation, and less of 

 the specialist atmosphere. .At anv rate, that is what 

 f want on the rare occasions on which I am able to 

 attend a meeting of the British .Association. 



N. .Annandai.e. 



Indian Museum, Calcutta, October iq. 



Chemical Warfare and Scientific Workers. 



Pkok. Soddv has directed the attention of readers 

 of Nature (November 4, p. 310) to the issue on the 

 part of the War Office of a letter in which the active 

 co-operation of men of science is invited towards the 

 intensive development of chemical warfare. The list 

 of ordinary associate members embraces more than 

 sixty names of chemists, physicists, and medical men 

 — a list apparently drawn up without consultation with 

 the various members concerned. On receipt of the 

 letter referred to, I replied at once with the request 

 that my name should be removed from the list of 

 associate members, and in this refusal to serve I was 

 actuated by the following considerations : 



The use of poisonous gases in warfare was a 

 nefarious novelty introduced by the Germans in viola- 

 tion of the conventions prescribed for civilised bel- 

 ligerents, and the Entente Powers had no option but 

 to undertake methods of retaliation. During the later 

 period of the war I acted as an associate member of 

 the Chemical Warfare Committee, and, like many 

 other chemists, did all in my oower to assist by 

 scientific investigation the .progress of gas warfare 

 on the offensive side. .At that time my services were 

 given most willingly. But the position has entirelv 

 altered now that the war is over. Mv present point 

 of view is that I do not think it right that men of 

 science should, two years after the armistice, be 

 approached with the request to undertake work on 

 a method of conducting warfare which has not vet 

 been recognised as legitimate. 



If gas warfare is to be adopted in the future, one 

 result follows of necessity : every nation will be com- 

 pelled in self-defence to cultivate this form of devilrv. 

 Yet we have just listened to the earnest appeal of the 



NO. 2664, VOL'. 106] 



Prime Minister for more goodwill amongst nations, 

 amongst people, amongst the classes! The recogni- 

 tion of chemical warfare even on the basis of a peace 

 organisation must certainly engender an atmosphere 

 of suspicion. It will, however, be the hope of many 

 that if nations will by mutual consent unite in the 

 abolition of an instrument which adds so much to the 

 horrors of war, they will also have the strength and 

 the determination to make their decision effective. 



The successful development of chemical warfare 

 will obviously be dependent on scientific work, and it 

 is easily understood that the authorities should look 

 to the universities to give them some assistance in 

 its prosecution. University teachers should be on 

 their guard before they bind themselves to a policy 

 in the framing of which their opinion as a body has 

 never been taken. Surely the universities, ought to 

 have been asked their views. Why should a professor 

 of chemistry by joining the Chemical Warfare Com- 

 mittee pledge his university to a course of action of 

 which the university may not approve? 



Alex. McKenzie. 



Prok. Soddy (Nature, November 4, p. 310) seems 

 to have overlooked some arguments. Lack of pre- 

 paration for war is no guarantee against an aggres- 

 sive policy. Recent British history shows a close cor- 

 relation between Jingoism and military inefficiency. 

 In this country Jingoes are seldom intelligent enough 

 to provide against the risks they incur. 



.Again, the more scientific war becomes, the more 

 difficult it will be to wage it without the consent of 

 scientific workers. If they really desire a saner state 

 of international relations, scientific workers should 

 seek so to develop the engines of war that they 

 alone can use them. 



Lastly, if Prof. Soddy really wishes to stop the 

 application of science to warlike purposes, he should 

 surely welcome w-ith open arms the War Office Com- 

 mittee. Can he suggest any means for discouraging 

 the application of scientific study to war (or to any 

 other problem) so entirely efficient as the placing of 

 the matter in the hands of a large Governmental 

 Committee composed exclusively of eminent persons? 



Norman R. Campbell. 



November 9. 



British Laboratory and Scientific Glassware. 



Prof. Bayliss in his letter published in N.-vture of 

 November 4 appears to attribute the breakage of 

 British laboratory glassware, when exposed to 

 changes of temperature, to inadequate annealing, 

 citing table glassware as an example of a com- 

 mercially well-annealed article. 



I have at different times examined many hundreds 

 of pieces of table glass under the polariscope, 

 and have never yet found one entirely free from 

 strain. On the other hand, I have often found labora- 

 tory beakers, taken at random from average samples, 

 in which no strain whatever can be detected. When 

 strain does occur in beakers and flasks it is generally 

 at the lip, and is caused by the flanging operation. 

 In this connection it is interesting to note that beakers 

 which contain bad striae, and are, consequently, in 

 a state of strain which cannot be removed by anneal- 

 ing, give figures for thermal endurance as high as 

 those obtained from beakers free from strise. 



The difference in thermal endurance between 

 German and English laboratory glassware is inherent 

 in the composition of the glasses selected for their 

 manufacture. The predominant factor controlling the 

 variations in thermal endurance is the coefficient of 

 expansion of the glass, since this property changes 



