76 



NA TURE 



\^Nov. 26, 1885 



official position of Master of the Mint ; a position in 

 whicli he succeeded another eminent man of science, less 

 known, however, as a chemist than as an astronomer, Sir 

 John Herschel. . . . 



"So far, moreover, from his professional eminence and 

 usefulness being made a matter of reproach to the scien- 

 tific man, it should constitute rightly a claim to his higher 

 consideration ; and far from being accounted a disparage- 

 ment, should be held as an addition to his scientific 

 standing. In the professions most allied to our own on 

 the one side and on the other this is well recognised. The 

 physician and the engineer are not merely students of 

 pathology and of mechanics, however important may have 

 been their contributions to pathology and mechanics re- 

 spectively, but they are the distinguished craftsmen in 

 their respective arts. And whether or not they may have 

 made important contributions to pure science, their rank as 

 eminent scientific men is everywhere and rightly conceded 

 to them. A lucky chance happening to any professional 

 man may indeed bring him to the front, but no succession 

 of lucky chances can ever happen that will of themselves 

 prove adequate to keeping him there. Great qualities 

 are ever necessary to sustain great professional positions; 

 and to be for years one of the foremost in a scientific 

 profession is of itself at least as substantial an evidence 

 of scientific attainment as is the publication of a memoir 

 on some minute point, say of anatomy, or chemistry, or 

 hydrodynamics, for example. And it is so recognised, 

 and very properly recognised, even in quarters where 

 pure science admittedly reigns supreme. Leading engin- 

 eers and leading physicians and surgeons are every year 

 admitted into the Royal Society, not on account of the 

 importance attaching to any special contributions they 

 may have made to mechanical or pathological science, but 

 mainly because of their eminence in their several profes- 

 sions, in which to be eminent is of itself an evidence of 

 scientific character and of extensive scientific knowledge. 

 It may indeed be taken as beyond question that to obtain 

 and retain a leading position in a scientific profession, 

 needs among other things the possession of high scientific 

 attainments. I say among other things, for without 

 moral qualities in a notable degree, sympathy, endurance, 

 courage, judgment, and good faith, no such professional 

 success is conceivable. Professional eminence is the ex- 

 pression necessarily of scientific ability, but not of scien- 

 tific ability alone. The self-engrossing science of the 

 student has to be humanised by its association with the 

 cares and wants, and the disappointments and successes 

 of an outside world." 



Having given this long extract from the address, we 

 now proceed to remark on certain parts of it. 



In the whole of Prof. Odling's references to the endow- 

 ment of research, which was so warmly advocated by his 

 predecessor at Oxford, Sir Benjamin Brodie, there is much 

 evidence that he h as not even begun to understand the 

 question. No one has ever proposed to endow research 

 for the benefit of the researcher, or to endow researches 

 which are immediately remunerative. The highest needs 

 of the nation and of learning have been alone considered. 

 The idea of endowment was only suggested for the en- 

 couragement of such researches as promised no immediate 

 return in the shape of utility, except as pure knowledge. 

 Prof. Odling seems to imagine that if the Fellowships of 

 an University were awarded to men of eminence in 

 science or who had given proof of skill in research, 

 the Fellows would be but charity-boys of larger growth. 

 When Prof. Huxley told the Americans that any country 

 would find it greatly to its profit to spend 100,000 

 dollars in first finding a Faraday, and then putting him 

 in a position in which he could do the greatest possible 



amount of work, he was not thinking that Faraday would 

 thus be enabled to give nice dinners, but of the results of 

 that greatest possible amount of work — the new know- 

 ledge that would be certain to be garnered and utilised 

 some day for the nation's good. The endowment of 

 research, or aid to research in any form, seems to be so 

 objectionable to the President of the Institute, that the 

 winding up of the Research Fund of the Chemical Society 

 would seem to be one of the most desirable things of the 

 present time, if his opinion is to prevail. 



Prof. Odling employs in his argument a well-known 

 method of procedure often used to throw dust in the eyes 

 of a jury. He has put up a bogus case in order to de- 

 molish it very much to his own satisfaction. We fear that 

 in this process he has been guilty of much, doubtless un- 

 conscious, misrepresentation of many revered names in 

 science. This dummy is the assumed opinion of men 

 of science that a man of science should do nothing to 

 help industry directly. This opinion, as we have before 

 stated, nowhere exists. The opinion does exist, as we 

 have already implied, that such assistance must not inter- 

 fere with higher work if higher work has been under- 

 taken ; and the general consideration of the man of 

 science has risen enormously when it has been known 

 that such aid, when given, has been given openly to all- 

 comers, and not in secret to him who could pay the 

 highest fee. Prof. Odling, in apparent justification of his 

 case, quotes, amongst others, the names of Faraday and 

 Graham, and states roundly that they have done the 

 thing to which the superior persons to whom he refers 

 object. This is untrue ; no men were more faithful to 

 their trust than Faraday and Graham, and the proof of 

 our contention lies in the fact that their names are 

 honoured among us while others, their contemporaries, 

 the Ures and Lardners of that day, although men of 

 tremendous "professional eminence," are already for- 

 gotten, or live only in the pages of a Thackeray. It has 

 been stated over and over again that such was the fidelity 

 of Faraday to his trust that he refused sums which would 

 have amounted in the aggregate to a large fortune which 

 were oft'ered to him by manufacturers and others to tempt 

 him to neglect his public work for their private advantage. 

 It was a subject of pride to him that he had refused pay 

 for all work he had done for the Government except on one 

 occasion when he accepted it for the sake of a coadjutor. 

 The volumes of Faraday's and of Graham's researches, 

 not to mention those of other honoured names, represent- 

 ing their fidelity to pure investigation during the whole of 

 their working lives, are, after all, the best answers to 

 Prof. Odling, and when we contrast their faithful and long- 

 continued activity in this direction with that of others 

 which began with almost as fair a promise, and then 

 suddenly, before the men were in their prime, was seized 

 by a paralysis or else diverted into other channels, 

 we have an indication, by no means to be despised, of the 

 possible result of merely commercial work. 



We believe that some chemists, although they hold the 

 views which we express in this article, have allowed their 

 names to be connected with the new institution, because 

 they think that it may eventually, somehow or other, aid 

 chemical education in this countrv. We think that this 

 is an error. The College of Physicians has been pointed 

 out as a precedent for the Chemical Institute. Now what 



