426 

tried already to some extent, but unfortunately without 
sufficient success to justify an expectatior. of their 
being able completely to accomplish the desired 
change. 
In considering this question we ought, it appears to 
me, to search for some distinct difference between our 
educational practice and that of Germany, some differ- 
ence great enough to be likely to have an important 
effect. Such is indeed easy to find, for there exists a 
difference so great that it might quite readily lead to 
very important results, and one which, probably 
because of its obviousness, is generally ignored. This 
far-reaching difference is simply that in Germany 
research work is absolutely indispensable for the 
ordinary degree (by ‘“‘ordinary”’ I mean that. ordin- 
arily taken by students), and it is at least a very 
reasonable contention that the moment research work 
becomes essential for our ordinary degree (B.Sc.), 
with, naturally, any necessary lengthening of the 
course, so soon shall we have taken the step which 
will, not to-morrow, but in ten or fifteen or twenty 
years’ time, perhaps place us on something like an 
equality with Germany in respect to the point at issue. 
Two most important results might be expected to 
follow the introduction of compulsory research into 
the B.Sc. degree : (1) There would be provided through- 
out the country a considerable body of young 
chemists with some experience, say one year, at least, 
of research work. There is such a thing as a general 
method in research, and after even only one year’s 
training in it the young chemist would be able to 
attack, with very much greater confidence than at 
present, many of the problems which arise in indus- 
trial practice, for in research work, emphatically, it is 
the first step that counts for most, and this first step 
being a thing that can be taught, it is the duty of the 
universities to teach it. (2) Sons of manufacturers 
who go to the university and take a science degree 
would of necessity carry out some original investiga- 
tion, and from this particular class—composed of men 
who, for the most part, are possessed of some means 
and leisure—there would be likely to emerge a number 
of really capable chemists, who might indulge in the 
higher degree of D.Sc., men likely to carry their 
chemistry intelligently into their businesses. But even 
in those least interested there would necessarily be 
acquired some idea of what research means, some 
notion of how it might be applied to their own parti- 
cular requirements, and it is probable that in a com- 
paratively short time, say twenty years, the lack of 
appreciation of research work which is now attributed 
to the manufacturer would have wholly or largely 
disappeared. 
In fact, the introduction of research into the ordinary 
degree would be likely to act in several ways. First 
upon the student, secondly upon the manufacturer, 
and thirdly upon theoretical chemistry by the achieve- 
ment of the excellent educational principle, that the 
science would be the richer in some fact or in some 
theory for every graduate who had devoted himself to 
it. Fourthly, it would react upon the teachers. 
Although this is, essentially, an exceedingly simple 
reform, there would doubtless be great difficulties in 
carrying it out; it would probably be urged 
that M.Sc. degrees have been _ instituted 
this especial object, but that would be to misunder- 
stand the present suggestion, the essence of which is 
that there shall be no degree at all, or anything 
resembling a degree, which does not require research 
work. At the present time, however, when tradi- 
tional prejudices of all sorts are going by the board, it 
would probably be easy for the teachers to bring 
sufficient pressure to bear upon Parliament, or con- 
versely, for Parliament or a resolute Government to 
NO. 2381, VOL. 95 | 
NATURE 


with | 

[JUNE 17, 1915 

bring sufficient pressure to bear on the teachers, to 
secure the immediate accomplishment of this desirable 
improvement. ; 
It must, however, be sorrowfully admitted that such 
a change is not likely to make any particular financial 
difference to the young chemist, but in all probability 
it would give him a better opportunity for advance- 
ment once he had established himself in a technical 
post, and there is little doubt that the advantage to 
the country would be very great. 
/ T. S. PATTERSON. 
University of Glasgow (Organic Chemistry 
’ Department), June 8. 
Galileo and the Principle of Similitude. 
Wuen I said in Nature (April 22) that Herbert 
Spencer was the first to apply the principle of similitude 
to dynamical problems in biology, I spoke in haste. 
I might have remembered that Borelli had shown, by 
help of this principle, that a man would never be able 
to fly by his own muscular power, and why (for in- 
stance) small animals are more active and leap higher 
than big ones. But Iwas quite ignorant of the fact 
that Galileo had treated the whole subject on the 
broadest lines and with the utmost clearness. His 
discussion will be found in the “‘ Dialogues concerning 
Two New Sciences,’ admirably translated by Prof. 
Henry Crew and Alfonso de Salvio (New York: The 
Macmillan Co.; London: Macmillan and Co., Ltd., 
1914). So numerous and interesting are the subjects 
dealt with in this wonderful book that the writer of 
a long and laudatory notice in Nature (December 24, 
1914) had not time or space to mention that the prin- 
ciple of similitude and the subject of animal mechanics 
are alluded to therein. The following extract (op. cit., 
p- 130) is but a small part of what Galileo has to say 
upon the principle of similitude :— 
“Salviati: ‘From what has already been 
demonstrated, you can plainly see the impos- 
sibility of increasing the size of structures to 
vast dimensions either in art or in nature; likewise, 
the impossibility of building ships, palaces, or temples 
of enormous size in such a way that their oars, yards, 
beams, iron-bolts, and, in short, all their other parts 
will hold together; nor can nature produce trees of 
extraordinary size, because the branches would brealx 
down under their own weight; so also it would be 
impossible to build up the bony structures of men, 
horses, or other animals so as to hold together and 
perform their normal functions if these animals were 
to be increased enormously in height, for this increase 
in height can be accomplished only by employing a 
material which is harder and stronger than usual, or 
by enlarging the size of the bones, thus changing their 
shape until the form and appearance of the animals 
suggest a monstrosity. To illustrate briefly, I have 
sketched a bone the natural length of which has been 
increased three times and the thickness of which has 
been multiplied until, for a correspondingly large 
animal, it would perform the same function which the 
small bone performs for its small animal. From the 
figures here shown you can see how out of proportion 
the enlarged bone appears. Clearly, then, if one 
wishes to maintain in a great giant the same propor- 
tion of limb as that found in an ordinary man, he 
must either find a harder and stronger material for 
making the bones, or he must admit a diminution of 
strength in comparison with men of medium stature; 
for if his height be increased inordinately, he will fall 
and be crushed under his own weight. Whereas, if 
the size of a body be diminished, the strength of that 
body is not diminished in the same proportion; indeed, 
the smaller the body the greater its relative strength- 
