March i6, 191 6] 



NATURE 



59 



THE REFORM OF THE 

 OF SCIEXCE. 



MAX 



i^OME correspondence has recently appeared in 

 -^ the Morning Post under the title that stands 

 t the head of this article. Lt.-Col. J. W. Barret, 

 if the Australian Army, a Melbourne doctor, well 

 mown for his active participation in the educa- 

 ional world there, writing- respectfully of British 

 nen of science, laments their exclusiveness. They 

 re, he implies, too much dominated by the idea of 

 tudentship ; they regard the sphere of science too 

 iiuch as that of the laboratory and the academy ; 

 hey do not acknowledg^e brotherhood with men 

 1 the greater world, who, in the spirit of enter- 

 irise and with the kind of method that prevail in 

 oHventional science, are solving great problems 

 f industry, commerce, and national development, 

 vnother writer goes further, and would hail as a 

 rother in science the man who elucidates the 

 uthorship of Shakespeare's plays or the tech- 

 lique of an old master. 



; It is not proposed here to enter upon a discus- 

 'on of the legitimate use of the term science. We 

 jiay be all for brotherhood, but the circumstances 

 ( life compel us largely to separate into groups 

 j)r purposes of action, and there can be no real 

 'jmplaint if the word science is used in a re- 

 Iricted sense for what is perhaps better called 

 atural science. This should not prevent men of 

 pience from recognising their kinship with all 

 ithful workers for the elucidation of truth, in 

 jhatever sphere of action. 



' Let us avoid a controversy about mere words. 

 i.-Col. Barret's complaint is a more substantial 

 ne — not one of terminol(^f\'. It is essentially 

 lis, that when operations relating to the forces 

 j nature transcend a certain scale they are no 

 Inger recognised as science, and that men of 

 jience in the limited sense thus lose a ereat com- 

 jnionship and an invaluable link with the greater 

 prld. He gives as an illustration the work of a 

 ijilroad president whose operations "involve the 

 jicing of towns and even cities in new positions, 

 tje reorganisation of the agricultural education of 

 <|itricts, the estimation of future markets, and 

 fper complicated actions involving scientific ima- 

 ffiation of the first order." 



'It is probable that most men of science would 



V admit that some solid advantages would 



lined by having in their camp these great 



ors, with all their intellectual energy, their 



prise, and their influence, and perhaps many 



^puld admit their claim to inclusion. There is 



Ldoubtedly a tendency for an increased scale of 



cjerations to remove a^ man from the scientific 



ss if he was once in it, or to prevent his acces- 



n if he did not originally enter through the 



M-ial portal. The case may be well illustrated 



fj>m engineering. A scientifically trained en- 



g,ieer who betakes himself to great problems of 



•-irineering, constructing some almost impossible 



ly or irrigating a whole parched province of 



■ seems to be moving away from science. 



\ engineer who has acquired such powers with- 



oj^ having received the hall-mark of formal scien- 



i NO. 2A20. vni (TtI 



tific training, will find it hard to get his place 

 acknowledged in the ranks of science. 



We may ask, What is really at the bottom of this? 

 Is it merely narrow-mindedness, or is there some- 

 thing more excusable? It is pleasant to think that 

 there may be. Scientific men in their most august 

 society are banded together " for the improvement 

 of natural knowledge." They are by implication a 

 body of students working in the temple of Nature 

 for truth's sake alone, heedless of the world and 

 its rewards. What they garner is their gift to 

 the world : they fill another page in the Revelation 

 that brings men nearer to the angels. Let a man 

 wander into the world with his science as wares 

 to sell for money profit, and he has passed from 

 the true brotherhood. Surely this idea, perhaps 

 here rather fancifully stated, is at the bottom of 

 much of our exclusiveness. It is certainly ex- 

 pressed very often in the privacy of small delibera- 

 tive councils and in personal intercourse, and it Is • 

 strongly, though silently, operative in the outer 

 world. 



If this were the chief reason for the detachment 

 of men of science we should have to ask whether 

 it be really good and sufficient. That it has ele- 

 ments of good in it, no one would deny. There 

 should be much strength in the union of disin- 

 terested people, and the flame of disinterested — 

 that is, unworldly — study is the most sacred light 

 of knowledge. But there is this great fact of 

 history and actuality against an austere brother- 

 hood : natural science has had its roots in the prac- 

 tical avocations of mankind, and from them it has 

 received its chief stimulus. The application of 

 science to the practical arts has not more benefited 

 them than it has benefited science. In this place 

 it Is unnecessary to illustrate or amplify the argu- 

 ment. It is therefore not only not unbecoming, but 

 It Is vitally necessary that the improvement of 

 natural knowledge should t^ bound up with solv- 

 ing the problems of the busy world, and the man 

 of science who looks with any kind of disdain on 

 those who are engaged in solving these problems, 

 be they labelled brewer, baker^ or candle-stick 

 maker, and be they incidentally making fortunes, 

 is despising his best friends and declaring himself 

 a pedant. 



As a matter of fact this disdain does linger. It 

 Is the Inevitable product of the seminary ; it is the 

 fatuitv of the cloister, arising, no doubt, from 

 the theological beginnings of our educational 

 system— this notion of keeping science unsp>otted 

 from the world. It has much to answer for. The 

 neglect of applied science— what Is It not meaning 

 now in the fortunes of our nation ! It Is comfort- 

 able for us to blame anyone but ourselves. Have 

 we not loner proclaimed the vital importance of 

 science for the ser\-Ice of Industry and the State? 

 Industry and the State are doubtless much to 

 blame, but surely no fair-minded person would 

 say that the scientific world is exempt. Rather let 

 us acknowledge that Lt.-Col. Barret is in essence 

 right ; the scientific world has been too exclusive ; 

 It has not bound itself as much as It might have 

 I done to great workers In the world, whose tasks, 

 ' if not the same, are much akin to those of the 



