NATURE 



95 



THURSDAY, OCTOBER ai,' 1915. 



SCIENCE IN NATIONAL AFFAIRS. 



WE printed last week a valuable address by 

 Prof. J. A. Fleming- on " Science in the 

 War and after the War." Though the address 

 was an introductory lecture at University College, 

 London, and was open to the public without fee 

 or ticket, only the briefest mention of it appeared 

 in the periodical Press, and the points of national 

 importance dealt with in it were unrecorded, 

 except in our columns, in which it was our privi- 

 lege to publish the address almost in full. We 

 understand, of course, that the demands made 

 Upon the space available in the daily papers are 

 many and insistent, yet we should have supposed 

 that during the progress of a war in which victory 

 will depend as much upon science and machinery 

 as upon men, a summary of some of the points 

 made by a leading authority upon applied science 

 would be of greater public interest and importance 

 than much of the unsubstantial chatter with which 

 we are supplied daily. 



In the course of his address, Prof. Fleming 

 himself supplied a reason for the neglect of 

 scientific aspects of national affairs, in comparison 

 with the attention given to the superficial views 

 of politicians and other publicists. While success 

 in science. is measured solely by discovery of facts 

 or relationships, in politics and public life gener- 

 ally it is secured by fluent speech and facile pen. 

 In scientific work attention must be concentrated 

 upon material fact, but the politician and the 

 writer attach greater importance to persuasive 

 words and phrases, and by their oratory or literary 

 style are able to exert an influence upon public 

 affairs altogether out of proportion to their posi- 

 tion as determined by true standards of national 

 value. Power, as regards government of the 

 affairs of the nation, does not come from know- 

 ledge, but from dialectics : it is the lawyer who 

 rules, with mind obsessed by the virtues of prece- 

 ent and expediency, and to him men of science 

 nd inventors are but hewers of wood and drawers 

 f water. 



Under a democratic constitution it is perhaps 



too much to expect that Parliament will pay much 



Mention to scientific men or methods ; yet, as 



/as shown in the debate upon the scheme for the 



istitution of an advisory council of scientific and 



idustrial research last May, the members of 



■^he House of Commons are ready to support 



plans for bringing science in closer connection 



with industry. The monies provided by Parlia- 



NO. 2399, VOL. 96] 



ment for this purpose are to be under the control 

 of a committee of the Privy Council, which will 

 be advised by a council constituted of scienti- 

 fic and industrial experts. The scheme was 

 conceived rightly enough, but when it passed 

 into the hands of officials of the Board of Educa- 

 tion much of its early promise was lost. 

 Most people would regard it as essential that the 

 executive officers of a council concerned with the 

 promotion of industrial research should know what 

 is done in this direction in other countries, and 

 have sufficient knowledge of science and industry 

 to formulate profitable schemes of work. The 

 success of such a body depends largely upon the 

 initiative of the secretary ; and in an active and 

 effective council we should expect him to be 

 selected because of close acquaintance with pro- 

 blems of industrial development along scientific 

 lines. But what is the position in this case? The 

 scheme is issued by the President of the Board of 

 Education, Mr. Arthur Henderson, a Labour 

 member, who owes his post entirely to political 

 exigencies, the secretary to the committee of the 

 Privy Council is the Secretary of the Board, Sir 

 Amherst Selby-Bigge, whose amiability is above 

 reproach, but who knows no more of practical 

 science and technology than a schoolboy, and the 

 secretary of the Advisory Council is Dr. H. F. 

 Heath, whose interests are similarly in other 

 fields than those of science. 



The belief that the expert — whether scientific or 

 industrial — has to be controlled or guided by per- 

 manent officials having no special knowledge of 

 the particular subject in hand is typical of our 

 executive system. While such a state of things 

 exists, most of the advantages of enlisting men of 

 science for national services must remain unful- 

 filled. The various scientific committees which 

 have been appointed recently have, we believe, 

 been able to give valuable aid in connection with 

 problems submitted to them, but they would be 

 far more effective if the chiefs of the departments 

 with which they are associated possessed a prac- 

 tical knowledge of scientific work and methods. 

 Without such experience the executive is at the 

 mercy of every assertive paradoxer and cannot 

 discriminate between impracticable devices and 

 the judgment of science upon them. While, there- 

 fore, the country has at its disposal the work — 

 either voluntary or nearly so — of experts in all 

 branches of applied science, it cannot use these 

 services to the best advantage unless the depart- 

 ments concerned with them have scientific men 

 among the permanent officials; and that is not 

 the case at present. 



I 



