April 8, 1920] 



NATURE 



165 



Letters to the Editor. 



[The Editor does not hold himself responsible for 

 opinions expressed by his correspondents. 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.'] 



Knowledge and Power. 



The question raised in the leading article on 

 "Knowledge and Power" in Nature of March 25 is 

 of great interest and importance. It is nothing more 

 nor less than the question of using experience as a 

 guide to action, which is the whole purpose of educa- 

 tion. The suggestion that its solution requires a 

 fundamental change in the organisation of the Civil 

 Services in order that the best advantage may be 

 obtained for the country from the special knowledge 

 and training of the expert brings to a focus the 

 essential difficulty of the subject. I suppose that the 

 real function of any Department of the Services, civil 

 or military, is to carry cut the policy of the Govern- 

 ment as formulated or approved by the responsible 

 Minister; and the staff of the Department is recruited 

 in such a way as to secure that object. The know- 

 ledge in the light of which the Minister's policy is 

 formed is another matter. It maybe taken for granted 

 that if it is well advised, the Government will utilise 

 all the best technical knowledge available. A Minister 

 may find it in special sections of his own Department, 

 or he may try to acquire it from outside. No doubt 

 he is largely guided by his chief permanent officers, 

 and they in turn must use their own knowledge and 

 that of their subordinates or obtain what they can get 

 from outside. How effectively to provide a Minister 

 with all the pertinent experience about technical 

 problems is not an easy question. It is made still 

 harder by the fact that even for experts the recognition 

 of the value of new knowledge is not necessarily auto- 

 matic. The reception that was given to Thomas 

 Young's theory of light is a reminder for all time 

 that new ideas require favourable environment for 

 assimilation. Consequently, some knowledge of what 

 the world is made of is necessary for all executive 

 authorities. But that, as Kipling says, is another 

 story. 



Suppose we picture to ourselves the difference 

 between a youth's progress in the Civil Service and 

 in the career of an exf>ert in science. The Civil 

 Servant is selected bv open competition in subjects 

 which may include literature or science; but from 

 the time of his joining the Service the pursuit of 

 either ceases to be a part of his working life, though 

 either may be followed as a hobby. He must leave 

 even his political opinions at home and begin to learn 

 the art of giving expression to the policv of the 

 Department which he joins. He learns from his 

 immediate superiors how things are done. Why they 

 are done does not concern him. He learns also the 

 discipline of a public office and the art of formulating 

 documents for his superior to sign. His opportunity 

 is to make himself so loyal and so efficient in carrying 

 out the policy that any chance of promotion that 

 comes his way is not lost. If he has lofty ambitions 

 beyond his own steps in the Service, he must post- 

 pone them until he reaches a position in which he 

 can gain the Minister's ear. Up to that time his life 

 is a life of self-effacement. 



The historv of the expert is altogether different. 

 His training leads him to begin his career in research, 

 and if he is successful he attains the unspeakable 

 satisfaction of having discovered for himself some- 

 thing of real importance. Thereafter he has always 



NO. 2632, VOL. 105] 



ideas of his own which he strives to realise, and as 

 his experience grows he forms lines of policy for him- 

 self, and is not very tolerant of others. His career 

 is one of continuous self-assertion from the beginning. 

 He may derive his ideas from instruction or inspira- 

 tion, but the expression of them is his own ; and what 

 may be only the natural expression of his genius may 

 look like disloyalty to his superiors in the world of red 

 tape. 



The positions of the two types with regard to 

 finance are equally diverse. The Civil Servant has 

 no difficulty in establishing the position that as the 

 Minister wants things done he will, of course, be pre- 

 pared to provide adequate remuneration for those who 

 carry out his wishes. Money is therefore forthcoming. 

 But the expert has to convince the Minister, or per- 

 suade someone else to do so, that his projects are 

 worth trying in the public interest and can be justified 

 in Parliament. He has to ask for permission and 

 facilities for research, the results of which are, ex 

 hypothesi, unknown; to ask for pay in addition is to 

 invite refusal of everything. 



Moreover, the discipline of a body of experts is 

 quite different from that of a public office. What is 

 wanted from an expert is his own spontaneous 

 opinion as a guide to action — a something which a 

 Civil Servant is not expected to possess. It seems 

 to follow that experts and Civil Servants are as 

 different as oil and vinegar, and the endeavour to 

 mix them promiscuously in one organisation will not 

 work. They belong to different atmospheres; what 

 stifles one gives buoyancy to the other. 



Somehow or other an advisory side for formulating 

 policv ought to be organised on different lines from 

 those of the administrative side which carries out the 

 policy. But if there is a separate organisation on 

 the technical side it ought to have direct access to 

 the Minister finally responsible, and not be fenced off 

 from him by a secretariat trained on different 

 lines. There' are sure to be misunderstandings 

 and ultimate despair if all the work of a pro- 

 fessional technical staff has to pass upwards and 

 downwards through the refracting and distorting 

 medium of an inexpert secretariat. The scheme of 

 organisation must be in sectors reaching continuously 

 from the Ministerial centre to the circle of recruit- 

 ment. The technical staff itself will want the assist- 

 ance of " civil servants " content to follow out the 

 policv which is indicated. The mischief begins when 

 the Civil Service forms a complete belt in the inner 

 regions of the organisation. In that case an inexpert 

 Minister is completely surrounded by inexpert advisers, 

 and then power is cut off from knowledge. 



F.O.I. 



The vast conflagration of the late war rendered 

 conspicuous manv truths that were little suspected 

 by the majoritv, "and not the least of these was the 

 importance, the necessity, of organised and accurate 

 scientific knowledge and research for national success. 

 Unfortunatelv, this is already in danger of being 

 forgotten while we are engaged in the strenuous 

 task of preserving for our country its due and fitting 

 place in the industries and activities of the world, 

 and the leading article in Nature of March 2.5 has 

 sounded a very necessary note of warning. It rightly 

 emphasises the need that the ultimate administrative 

 authority should be vested in men with technical 

 knowledge and experience, and not in Civil Service 

 officials appointed originally, for the most part, on the 

 basis of purely literary attainments. This authority 

 will, however, never be' conceded to the man of science 

 until the scale of his remuneration corresponds to 

 the importance of his work. It was repeatedly 



