March 25, 1920] 



NATURE 



103 



Organisation of Scientific Work. 



^ I HAVE not read the report of Sir Thomas Holland's 

 Commission which has led to a discussion in the 

 columns of Nature, and I do not wish to express 

 an opinion on its conclusions. Those who know some- 

 thing;; of the conditions of India and of the many 

 economic problems awaiting attack will at least agree 

 that the country offers a great field for the investiga- 

 tor, and a difficult one from the point of view of those 

 engaged in the administration of funds for research. 



My purpose in writing is to support Dr. Russell's 

 views on the importance of team-work in scientific 

 investigations (Nature, March 4, p. 7). It seems to 

 me that in discussing the proper relation of the State 

 to scientific work our conclusions will depend chiefiv 

 on the precise meaning which we attach to "research." 

 Prof. Bateson writes (ibid., p. 6): "Research, 

 like art, literature, and all the higher products of 

 human thought, grows only in an atmosphere of 

 freedom." But should not the word used here be 

 "science"? Is not "research" the art by which 

 knowledge is advanced? And is it not the case that 

 in this art there is need for the co-operation of men 

 differently endowed? "Bricklayers" may be wanted 

 as well as "architects " in the building up of know- 

 ledge, nor are delays in programmes, other than 

 housing, necessarily due to the lack of a plan. 



If by "research worker" one meant onlv the 

 "master," then I should agree with Sir Ronald Ross 

 (ibid., p. 6) that the policy of organising institutes 

 for scientific research and institutes for the writing 

 of poetry might be considered together. But research 

 workers are not all "masters." There are other 

 grades essential to progress in certain branches of 

 knowledge, never likely to make great discoveries, 

 perhaps, but, since the State needs them, it must 

 enable them to live; and it is the function of the 

 "official" not to direct their work (that must be left 

 to the " master "), but to see that they live under 

 conditions likely to promote eflficiency. I am not sure 

 that I agree with Prof. Bateson.' There may be 

 danger in State action, but it seems to me to be safer 

 than inaction. 



While arguing for the recognition of the importance 

 of co-operation in research, let me add that, whatever 

 part the worker in a research laboratory mav be called 

 upon to fill, it is essential that he should recognise 

 clearly that he is part of a team for the advancement 

 of knowledge, and that he should regard himself as a 

 potential discoverer. I welcome Dr. Russell's analysis 

 of the functions of the staff of an institution main- 

 tained for research, as it brings out what seems to me 

 a fundamental point in this discussion, but I feel sure 

 that he would agree with me in deprecating any rigid 

 classification of workers as tending to cause dis- 

 couragement. Whatever the natural qualifications of 

 the members of a team of workers may be, two are 

 essential for real progress : the desire to learn more 

 and the willingness to help others. 



T. H. MiDDLETON. 



6a Dean's Yard, Westminster, S.W.i, 

 March 19. 



Science and the New Army. 



Your leading article of March 18 on " Science and 

 the New .\rmy " directs attention to some hopeful 

 features in our future military organisation, but many 

 will share with \ou the doubt whether any real funda- 

 mental reform lias yet been effected. The new policy 

 of "farming out" research work to civil institutions 

 sounds suspiciously like the old policy, so well practised 

 in the past, of getting technical work done and advice 

 given without the obligation of paying anything for it. 

 NO. 2630, VOL. 105] 



Doubtless It may be argued that so long as scientific 

 men are complaisant enough to work for nothing a 

 Government Department which paid them would be 

 guilty of extravagance. Ultimately, however, it will 

 be found good policy and sound economv to recognise 

 that skilled knowledge is worth its hire,' and scientific 

 men, in their turn, may perhaps learn that in attach- 

 mg a low valuation to their own labour thev help to 

 confirm the widely held idea that expert trafning is a 

 thing of small account. The Army would keep more 

 closely in touch with all scientific progress in any 

 remote degree affecting the conduct of warfare— and 

 who can set limits to this qualification?— if it retained 

 men of proved competence with the duty of posting 

 the General Staff in all such advances of knowledge. 

 These men need not, in fact should not, give their 

 whole time to the work ; it would be an essential 

 condition that they should be in full activity as re- 

 searchers, teachers, or professional engineers, chemists, 

 etc., and it woOld be equally essential that thev should 

 be remunerated at adequate rates. No unpaid com- 

 mittee, however august the membership, will fill the 

 want. 



I must confess that I scarcely understand what is 

 ment by "preliminary design of apparatus," stated to 

 be part of the functions of the military institutions. 

 Of wha.t value is a preliminary design if the under- 

 lying principles are not understood, and wherein does 

 it differ from a mere statement of what some un- 

 instructed amateur thinks can be done by "electricity" 

 or by _" cog-wheels "? Furthermore, unless these mili- 

 tary institutions are directed by trained specialists, 

 the "applied re.searches " entrusted to them are not 

 likelv to be crowned with any consoicuous measure of 

 suf'cess. H. H. Hills. 



Cotton-growing in the British Empire. 



In Nature of February 26 Sir George Watt reviews 

 in a critical spirit the report to the Board of Trade 

 of the Empire Cotton-Growing Committee. Much 

 of his^ criticism is based on an expressed aversion to 

 committees, which has misled him into stating that 

 we propose our central (cotton-growing) research 

 institution should be staffed by a "committee of 

 voluntary workers." This is quite erroneous. The 

 report itself describes in some detail the permanent 

 staff which is suggested. 



Some of the criticisms are due to the reviewer not 

 having realised that the Committee was dealing with 

 cotton-growing alone, and that the British Cotton In- 

 dustry Research Association is working in co-operation 

 with the Empire Cotton-Growing Committee through 

 a joint body (of which I happen to be chairman), so 

 that his desire for the Cotton-Growing Committee to 

 establish its central research institution in Manchester, 

 where no cotton will grow, is invalid. 



Nor do I think that his suggestion of a programme 

 for the members of the research institution as being 

 "research, education, and cotton production" makes 

 a suflicientlv clear discrimination between means and 

 ends ; but chiefly I regret that the reviewer has missed 

 our main thesis, which concerns the need for know- 

 ledge, based on pure science, as the essential to pro- 

 gress in this rnatter. Indeed, he seems to be com- 

 pletely antagonistic to this view of ours when he states 

 that " general principles of education must never be 

 allowed to take the place of soecific training and 

 definite results." It is no little thing that a utilitarian 

 body, representing all aspects of the cotton trade, 

 from the native cultivators to spinners and manufac- 

 turers, should have come into the open with such a 

 plea for the encouraerement of pure science, as being 

 the basis of useful development, and it is indeed un- 



