NATURE 



433 



SATURDAY, APRIL 8, 1922. 



Editorial and Publishing Offices : 



MACMILLAN Sr CO., LTD., 



ST. MARTIN'S STREET, LONDON, W.C.2. 



Advertisements and business letters should be 



addressed to the Publishers. 



Editorial communications to the Editor. 



Telegraphic Address: PHUSIS, LONDON. 

 Telephone Number : GERRARD 8830. 



The Development Fund. 



IN a recent leading article (Nature, February i6) 

 on the subject of the Geddes Report in its relation 

 to Education and Research, allusion was made to the 

 seemingly precarious condition of the above Fund. 

 While it is a matter for congratulation that the 

 Chancellor of the Exchequer, agreeing with the 

 views which we expressed, rejected the suggestions 

 that, the funds provided by Parliament for additional 

 research should be used to fill a gap to be created 

 in existing expenditure, he did nothing to allay the 

 anxiety created by the depletion of the Development 

 Fund. A White Paper (No. 15, price ^d. net) just 

 published contains the accounts of this Fund for the 

 year ended March 31, 192 1. It appears that the 

 surplus at the credit of the Fund on that date was 

 1,170,000/. ; but of this about one-third represents 

 outstanding loans, and the amount available for current 

 needs on April i of last year was only 795,000/. Re- 

 ferring to the Report of the Commissioners for the same 

 year we find it stated that " against this balance must 

 be set liabilities ... in respect of advances recom- 

 mended up to that date . . . there was a balance, 

 therefore, of 250,000/. for annual advances required 

 to meet the cost of existing schemes." 



The published accounts show that in the year 

 1920-21 alone advances totalling 568,000/. were made, 

 and, so far as it is possible to interpret the accounts, 

 at least 300,000/. of this sum was required to meet the 

 recurrent cost of existing schemes. It seems doubtful, 

 therefore, whether the balance available on April i of 

 last year was sufficient to meet the normal liabilities of 

 the Fund for the succeeding twelvemonths. There is, 

 however, a reserve not disclosed in the accounts, for in 

 NO. 2736, VOL. 109] 



their Report the Commissioners go on to say : " In the 

 estimates ... for the following year (1920-21) Parha- 

 ment voted a similar amount [1,000,000/.] for the 

 general purposes of the Development Fund. In view 

 of the urgency of restricting issues from public funds, 

 the Commissioners agreed that the grant voted should 

 be surrendered ... on the understanding that Parlia- 

 ment would be invited to revote the amount in the 

 year 1922-23." But in the statements that have been 

 published from time to time in connection with the 

 economy campaign, this sum of one million has not 

 been specified. It is to be hoped that when Parhament 

 is " invited " to provide the money it will be realised 

 that, without it, the whole organisation of research 

 in the sciences bearing on agriculture and fisheries 

 must collapse. 



With the help of the Development Fund a number 

 of research institutions have been established on a 

 permanent basis, and yet there is no guarantee that 

 the money required for their maintenance will be 

 forthcoming even one year hence. Under our Con- 

 stitution no continuing guarantee can be given, but 

 it might be considered whether greater stabihty would 

 not be secured by transferring the liability for all 

 permanent schemes to a regular vote head, thus 

 leaving the Fund for real " development " purposes. 



The Teaching of Physics. 



AT the Orono meeting of the New England section 

 of the Society for the Promotion of Engineering 

 Education held recently, the question was discussed, 

 "What is the matter with physics teaching ? " We have 

 received two of the opening papers, from which it appears 

 that in American technical colleges and universities, en- 

 gineering students dislike and even despise the physics 

 taught them. For this the teacher is blamed, on one 

 hand for not being sufficiently precise and exact in his 

 definitions and reasoning, and on the other for trying to 

 force on the engineer the C.G.S. system of units. Most 

 of the illustrations of bad teaching are taken from 

 dynamics, an accurate knowledge of which is, of course, 

 indispensable to the really scientific engineer. 



The trouble is also traced to some extent to the 

 academic text-book, which teems with artificial prob- 

 lems having little relation to what is met with in 

 practice. Students whose minds are gripping the 

 mechanism of water-wheels, pumps, and engines are 

 too often expected to find satisfaction in the study of 

 levers, " simple machines," and systems of weightless 

 and frictionless pulleys. It appears, moreover, that 

 the text-book is being more and more neglected, and, 

 as one writer puts it, " physics has degenerated into 

 interminable class-room coaching, making our teaching 



