NATURE 385 
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 1897. 
THE NATIONAL PHVSICAL LABORATORY. 
HE case for the establishment of a National Physical 
Laboratory is very simple. The Kew Observatory 
began in a humble way, but became famous in the last 
generation for the work done there in connection with 
terrestrial magnetism. As the President of the Royal 
Society remarked, in his last annual address, the late Sir 
William Grove, more than thirty years ago, expressed 
the hope that Kew might become “an important national 
establishment.” ‘And if so,” he added, “while it will 
not, I trust, lose its character of a home of untrammelled 
physical research, it will have superadded some of the 
functions of the Meteorological Department of the Board 
of Trade, with a staff of skilful and experienced observers.” 
In the interval which has elapsed since Grove uttered 
these words Kew has advanced. It has become a con- 
siderable standardising institution. Including a large 
number of clinical thermometers, about 21,000 instru- 
ments are now examined there annually, and in spite of 
this commercial success, it still maintains its character as 
a home of physical research. 
During the last ten years a similar institution has been 
established, on a much larger scale, at Charlottenburg. 
It is needless to describe the Reichsanstalt in these 
columns, It is sufficient to say that it is divided into two 
Departments—the one devoted to physical research, the 
other to technology. The work which the new Institution 
has done is very good, its reputation stands high, and after 
full consideration the chief scientific and technical 
Societies of this country decided to ask the Government 
to assist in placing Kew ina position to be similarly useful. 
A Committee was appointed, consisting of represent- 
atives of the Royal Society, of the British Association, of 
the Royal Society of Edinburgh, the Royal Irish Academy, 
of the Physical, Chemical and Astronomical Societies, and 
of the Institutions of Civil and Electrical Engineers. A 
memorial, prepared during the meeting of the British 
Association at Liverpool, was signed by a large number 
of representatives of science and industry. The request 
made to the Government suggested that the grant should 
be expended partly in improving the work of standardis- 
ing, partly in promoting researches of a kind which can- 
not be undertaken by individuals or educational estab- 
lishments. The terms in which this last request were 
made were almost a literal translation of those used in 
the memorandum in which von Helmholtz set forth the 
aims and objects of the Reichsanstalt. Lord Salisbury, 
however, entirely declined to accept this part of the 
programme, though he held out hopes that something 
might be done to help in the work of standardisation and 
verification. With this decision we do not quarrel. It 
is impossible for the Prime Minister to go beyond public 
Opinion in such matters. We hope that the good work 
done at Kew may receive State aid, but the outburst 
inthe Z’es of Saturday is sufficient to show that the in- 
nate tendency of the English people to distrust and reject 
all opinions based on special or expert knowledge is 
aroused by the terrible word “research.” It is curious 
NO. 1426, VOL. 55 | 
to observe in how many ways this tendency displays 
itself. 
The official head of science in this country is a man on 
whom a peerage has just been conferred for an appli- 
cation of science to surgery by which thousands of lives 
have been saved. Lord Lister is also the head of an 
Institute for Preventive Medicine, which, if properly 
supported, would give to England all the benefits which 
are to be derived from the most modern methods of con- 
tending with infectious disease. The reward that he 
receives for these further efforts to benefit this curious 
Anglo-Saxon race is that a monster petition is presented 
to the Home Secretary against the licensing of the Insti- 
tute for the performance of vivisection. If, therefore, a 
Pasteur Institute in London is anathema, we can hardly 
wonder if the gorge of the average Briton rises at the 
suggestion that there should be a Reichsanstalt at Kew. 
The “splendid isolation,” which we prefer to an 
alliance with either France or Germany, appears to 
include a rejection of their methods of avoiding rabies 
and correcting thermometers. 
Some measure of the logical weakness of the opposition 
is, however, afforded by the misrepresentations of the 
Times article. The allegation that the memorandum 
attributed the loss of trade in thermometers to improve- 
ments in verification made abroad, is absolutely incorrect. 
The assertion that the Reichsanstalt and the proposed 
institution would be very different, is made in spite of 
the fact that the published descriptions of the work of the 
one, and of the proposed work of the other, are almost 
identical. Absolute ignorance was displayed as to the 
part which official science has played in the development 
of improved thermometers. For those who care for the 
reputation of a great journal, the article was painful 
reading. But it is needless here to describe or to defend 
the idea of a National Physical Laboratory, and we 
prefer to discuss another point on which we are glad to 
be at one with the Zzmes. We agree that Germany 
beats us in scientific industries, not only because she 
fosters them, but because the examiner does not loom so 
large there as in this country. 
It is, however, absurd to tell scientific men to remedy 
this. Who is responsible for the delay in making the 
University of London other than the mere college of 
examiners which at present itis? Almost every scien- 
tific man in London has done what he can to bring 
about that desirable consummation. The delay is due to 
those who claim to represent the views of the average 
Briton, as represented by the average passman of the 
University. Who is it that refuses to receive from 
candidates for scientific appointments in the Civil 
Service any evidence of scientific ability other than that 
which can be displayed in an examination? Not the 
Professors, but the State. It is a common experience 
of every teacher of advanced students, that he has 
to advise some member of his class as to whether 
he should undertake a piece of practical work or prepare 
for a particular examination. The teacher has no 
right to play fast and loose with the future of those who 
have placed their careers in his hands, and, even at the 
risk of being called a pedagogue, he is too often reluc- 
tantly obliged to confess that the future will be better 
NS) 
