226 



NATURE 



[May 22, 1919 



once peace is signed, tliis journey will not be delayed. 

 Meanwhile, the average zoologist who reads Kam- 

 merer's paper may be pardoned if he feels that the 

 hypothesis of wholesale premeditated fraud is a diffi- 

 cult one to sustain. 



It may perhaps be said that no notice should be 

 taken of Kammerer's results until some other inves- 

 tigator repeats them. Such a course is not pursued 

 with regard to any other zoological investigations. 

 When new discoveries are published we thankfully 

 receive them. We keep, perhaps, an open mind until 

 they are repeated, but freely concede that a prima- 

 facie case has been made out for them. 



To Mendelian critics I would point out that the 

 difficulty of instituting experiments designed to test 

 the inheritability of acquired characters is colossal. 

 Compared with them, the carrying out of experi- 

 ments in Mendelian inheritance is child's play. 

 With the kind concurrence of Dr. Chalmers 

 Mitchell, I have persuaded Mr. E. Boulenger, 

 Curator of Reptiles, to make preliminary arrange- 

 ments to have some of Kammerer's experiments 

 repeated in the Zoological Gardens. I found that a 

 minimum of six years would be required before de- 

 cisive results could be obtained. This new paper of 

 Kammerer's appears to represent the result of seven 

 or eight 5'ears' work. The proper rejoinder of the 

 Mendelian is not to gibe at the absence of confirmatory 

 evidence from other investigators (and some even of 

 this is available), but to obey the Scriptural injunc- 

 tion, "Go thou and do likewise." 



E. W. MacBride. 



Imperial College of Science, May 7. 



The Conditions attached to Government Grants for 

 Scientific Research. 



May I again direct attention to the conditions under 

 which grants are made to individual research workers 

 by the Committee of the Privy Council for Scientific 

 and Industrial Research (London : H.M. Stationery 

 Office, 1919. Price 6d.)? The matter is of some im- 

 portance, as not only' are those who refuse to accept 

 these conditions debarred from participating in the 

 grants made from the public purse for scientific re- 

 search, but other sources which used to be available, 

 and to which such conditions were not attached, 

 are also being cut off. I understand, for example, 

 that the Carnegie Trust for the Universities of Scot- 

 land intends very largely in the future to discontinue 

 its grants in aid of research, and to refer applicants 

 to the Government. 



By accepting a grant under these conditions, a 

 research worker undertakes not to publish his or her 

 results without the consent of the Committee, and 

 gives up the ownership in the commercial rights of 

 his discoveries, which otherwise, under the Patent law, 

 belong to him. It is the Committee, not the inventor 

 or discoverer, that is to determine to what extent 

 and in what proportion the Committee and those 

 who have made the discoveries are to secure the 

 ownership of the results by patent, presumably on 

 the ground that the Committee has provided the funds 

 for the research. If that is the ground, ought riot 

 the Committee to state precisely what is the share 

 it claims, whether the share is limited to the amount 

 of the monetary contribution, or if it intends to make 

 a profit? I understood the money was given by Par- 

 liament to foster research, not to exploit it. As it is, a 

 worker accepting a grant places himself absolutely, as 

 regards the legal right to his own property, in the 

 hands of a Committee, and if, as is bound to occur, 

 differences arise as to what is the share of the dis- 

 coverer or who is the discoverer, the matter is not 



put into the hands of an impartial arbitrator to settle,, 

 but is settled by one of the parties in the dispute. 

 In precisely the same way, with existing secret 

 patents, if a dispute arises between a patentee and 

 the Government, it is the Treasury, who pays for 

 the use of the patent, that settles the dispute. 



The condition is justified on three grounds. First, 

 on the ground of national interest, especially in the 

 present abnormal circumstances, and that it is not 

 in the national interest that results of commercial 

 value should be made available to other countries to 

 the detriment of our own. As regards actual war 

 conditions, patents containing any information likely 

 to be of use to the enemy have not been published, 

 so this is secured independently of the question of the 

 ownership of the patent. As regards the future, one 

 is justified in asking whether it is the intention of 

 the Committee that the results of researches obtained 

 by the expenditure of national funds should be kept 

 secret, as most scientific men would regard this as 

 short-sighted. 



The second ground is that, where results are to be 

 patented, delay in publication is in the interest of the 

 investigator. This is scarcely relevant. It is surely 

 in the highest degree dangerous to delay applying 

 for a provisional patent until the results have been 

 communicated to the Committee and its consent 

 obtained, for any person who, by lawful or unlawful 

 means, gets the information is then in a position to 

 prevent the real discoverer from protecting himself. 



The third ground is that it is the object of the De- 

 partment to secure to the discoverer a fair share in 

 any profits that may accrue from his discovery. Ad- 

 mittedly, the class of inventors and discoverers is in 

 very great need of being protected from the sharp 

 practices that have sprung up under the shadow of 

 the Patent law, and primarily from the Government 

 itself. But why should a small part of them, who 

 receive Government funds, be singled out and pro- 

 tected? If the discoverer prefers to secure for him- 

 self the legal ownership of his discoveries, rather than 

 for the Committee, I do not think he should be de- 

 barred from participating in this money. The most, I 

 think, the Committee has a right to stipulate is that 

 its interest is limited to the amount it has con- 

 tributed, and that, in the event of a dispute, the 

 matter shall be referred to an impartial arbitrator for 

 settlement. Frederick Soddy. 



THE ATLANTIC FLIGHT. 



THE attempt to cross the Atlantic by aeroplane, 

 though as yet unsuccessful, has produced one 

 record-breaking long-distance flight. The Amer- 

 ican seaplane, NC4, has flown from Newfound- 

 land to the Azores, a distance of 1380 miles, thus 

 establishing a record for distance. Trepassey 

 Bay was left on May 16 at 10.05 p.m. G.M.T., 

 and Horta, Island of Fayal, Azores, was reached 

 at 1.23 on the following afternoon, the duration 

 of the flight being 15 hours 18 minutes. 



Mr. Harry G. Hawker and Commander 

 Mackenzie Grieve started from St. Johns, 

 Newfoundland, on May 18, at 5.45 G.M.T., 

 for a direct flight to the British Isles, but 

 no news has since been heard of them. 

 It is greatly to be regretted that this daring 

 attempt has failed, and we sincerely hope that 

 the two brave aviators, who flew the Sopwith 

 machine, have been rescued by a passing ship. 



NO. 2586, VOL. 103] 



