536 



NATURE 



[January 13, 19^6 



of our civilisation IS evalu'i&ted into sirtiple terms 

 by means of proved psychological conclusions. 



But the whole social organism is one, and the 

 influence of the school is only one factor; whether 

 with rich or with poor, the home and the " street " 

 have a majority influence. 



The subject is all-important for the future of a 

 race, but the intrinsic character of the race always 

 supervenes unless and until acquired characters 

 become transmissible. 



A. E. Crawley. 



LETTERS TO THE EDITOR. 

 [The. Editor does not hold himself . responsible for 

 opinions expressed by his cor respondent s. Neither 

 can he undertake to return, or to correspond with 

 the writers of, rejected manuscripts intended for 

 this or any other part of Nature. No notice is 

 taken of anonymous communications,] 



The Organisation of Science. 



Sir William Crookes hit the nail oh the head when 

 he said that the nation's attitude towards science is 

 "largely due to the popular idea that science is a .kind 

 of hobby" (Nature, December 2,1915) ; and " F-R.S." 

 directed the poiht of it when he said : — "What, else 

 can the general public do while men of science, in 

 dealing with one another, generally act upon the prin- 

 ciple that scientific investigation is a hobby for which 

 facilities are required^ not payment?" (Nature, De- 

 cember 23, 1915). Tjiere is in this a distinct dereliction 

 of duty, both by the public and by "len of science. 

 Science is not an amusement, but the most important 

 of industries; and it is a premier obligation, of the 

 public, of Government, and of men of science them- 

 selves, to advance it by every means in their power. 

 No\v what is the truth? Of all the occupations which 

 individual men can possibly follow, the serious inves- 

 tigation of nature is the most profitable to the world at 

 large — and the least profitable to the person who 

 undertakes it. The result, controlled by ordinary 

 economic laws, is that Very few persons indeed ever do 

 really engage in it, and if they do they suffer in conse- 

 quence. 



There is, of course, much scientific dabbling being 

 done — precisely as a hobby; but as I take it, what 

 may be called high science has for its end. not the 

 mere recording of isolated observations, of plausible 

 speculations, and of interesting curiosities, but the 

 solution of difficult problems. Petty science is one 

 thing; high science is another. Petty science is often 

 extremely useful, and even occasionally leads to dis- 

 coveries of the first importance; but the general ad- 

 vancement of our knowledge of nature depends upon 

 the indefatigable, the laborious, and often the un- 

 availing, search for solutions. It is preciselv this last 

 and greatest kind of effort which the hobbv idea 

 renders almost impossible — except perhaps for 'a few 

 comparatively wealthy persons. 



Consider, for example, the case of the dysentery 

 problem. One form of this disease was found more 

 than thirty years ago to be caused by certain amoebae. 

 Since then innumerable petty papers liave been written 

 on this subject, giving the results of a few weeks' or 

 months' work, scattered observations, brilliant specu- 

 lations, and beautiful coloured pictures. But even 

 to-day we do not know how these organisms enter our 

 bodies, and many questions which are fundamental 

 NO. 241 1, VOL. 96] 



as regards both treatment and prevention remain un- 

 answered. The result is that thousands if not hundreds 

 of thousands of persons die annually from a mxjst 

 painful disease; that our armies suffer in the field;, 

 and that the taxpayer is forced to expend large sums^ 

 of monev, a tithe of which would probably have solved 

 the problem if it had beeri expended on proper research. 

 But certain bodies which disburse small doles for so- 

 called scientific research will hold up their hands in 

 horror, and willsay, "We have given such-and-such 

 sums; we haVe paid so-and-so's salary; we have pro- 

 vided laboratories and microscopes here and there." 

 So they have; but the result has been almost nil,^ be- 

 cause no individual man capable of solving the difticult 

 problem has set his intellect to the task. Supposing 

 that such a man exists, why should he set himself to 

 the task? Should he give up his medical practice, or 

 his professorship, or his leisure, to undertake a difficult 

 inquiry which might prove fruitless in the end, just 

 because a Govcnment grant v^-ill provide him with 

 apparatus and possibly a laboratory assistant? Per- 

 sonally, I think that such a man would not be likely 

 to possess the capacitv to solve any problem. 



We mav acknowledge with thanks that the natiort 

 does appear to be wakening to the necessity for assist- 

 ing science ; but it has not yet awakened to the funda- 

 mental issue— namely, that it must pay for work 

 actually done — for results actually achieved — and not 

 only for the expenses of research students and of 

 professors who wish to indulge their " hobbies." This 

 is the proper and most economical way to encourage 

 science. For example, suppose that some person has 

 solved, after years of toil, the dysentery problem,, 

 what would he receive for it? He would almost cer- 

 tainly lose his medical practice (as Edward Jenner 

 did),' much of his work would be pirated, he would 

 be hampered at every turn b}- jealousies, and the only 

 reward which he would be likely to receive might be 

 a knighthood (which is the gift of the King and not 

 of the country). 



Men of science are themselves mostly to blame for 

 this state of thirtgs. They show no solid front and 

 have no courage in enforcing their demands. Besides 

 this, there are many of them who actually make a 

 cult of pretending that scientific work should be 

 gratuitous. They- are thertiselves too noble to accept 

 payment ; but I observe that few of these gentlemen 

 have ever done important scientific work, but that, on 

 the other hand, they are always first in the field when 

 lucrative appointments are going. Indeed, quite a 

 profession has grown up — that of persuading other men 

 to do gratuitous scientific work for Government depart- 

 ments and for the public ; and our grateful 

 Governments respond at once by giving these people 

 honours and lucrative posts, which they too often 

 withhold from the men who have actually done the 

 Investigations. 



Our learned societies are not less to blame Although 

 they profess to encourage science in every way, they 

 do nothing, or almost nothing, for the workers. What 

 efforts have they made to remedy the innumerable 

 abuses now existing In connection with science — the 

 wretched salaries without pensions, the uncertain 

 tenure of office, the misappropriation of appointments, 

 the piracies, the farming out of scientific men by 

 certain Institutions for their own profit, and a dozen 

 others? Indeed many of these societies do themselves 

 lead the way In perpetuating such abuses. One of their 

 grossest faults Is to obtain gratuitous scientific work 

 from their members for the advantage of Government 

 departments and private institutions — thus, to speak 

 plainly, acting as touts for the departments referred 

 to, and at the same time depriving their expert mem- 

 bers of the emoluments which thev should receive for 



