NA TURE 



[July 4, 1907 



matters. With respect to the public attitude, it may be 

 said that such appreciation of Perl^in's wortc as was ex- 

 pressed through our Press was just what might have been 

 anticipated in a country where the true position of scien- 

 tific research is imperfectly understood. The rejoicing was 

 over the purely practical achievement — the discovery of 

 the convertibility by chemical processes of so many 

 otherwise useless tar products into saleable articles of 

 commerce. The public cannot, as matters now exist in 

 this country, go behind such proximate results. More- 

 over, the limitation of the appreciation in this way brings 

 out very clearly the difliculties which must be encountered 

 in any attempt to raise the status of scientific research in 

 general, and of chemical research in particular, in the 

 national estimation. Consider, by way of contrast, the 

 works of the litterateur or artist ; these appeal directly 

 to the public or to some section of the public, and can be 

 appreciated according to their merits. Not so the labours 

 of the scientific investigator ; his achievements are 

 measured solely by the utilitarian standard ; he is, as I 

 said before, paid strictly by results. In other words, while 

 literature and art have taken their position as " cults " in 

 all civilised nations — a position to which they are fully 

 entitled — science is judged by a lower and narrower 

 standard, and certainly cannot be said to occupy in this 

 country the same position as its sister branches of culture. 



My contention is that scientific research, like every other 

 branch of human culture, is worthy of national homage, 

 virhether it leads to immediately " practical " results or not 

 ■ — that its position in the scale of civilising agencies is not 

 dependent upon such occasional stimulants as the jubilee 

 of the foundation of a new industry or the announcement 

 of a sensational discovery which furnishes materials for 

 newspaper paragraphs. It would, I think, be generally 

 admitted that any country which limited its appreciation 

 of research to such branches of science as were likely to 

 lead to industrial developments was on a low level in the 

 scale of civilisation. 



In maintaining the principle that scientific research has 

 been, is being, and can always be carried on independently 

 of its practical applications, I have no desire to give 

 countenance to the view, somewhat prevalent, I fear, in 

 this country, that there is some kind of antagonism 

 between pure and applied science ; that the scientifically 

 trained chemist, for example, and the " practical " man, 

 instead of being allies, as they should be, arc in opposi- 

 tion. The days when such notions were held are, happily, 

 passing away ; if but slowly in this country much more 

 rapidly abroad. My plea simply amounts to a claim for 

 the re-adjustment of the positions of pure and applied 

 ■science in the public estimation. The course of industrial 

 development in the future is bound to become more and 

 more interwoven with the development of pure science, and 

 the perpetual ion of erroneous ideas on this point cannot 

 but act injuriously on both causes. In our own domain it 

 is absurd to suppose that there is any antagonism between 

 the two aspects of chemistry. Far from this being the 

 case, it may safely be asserted from the experience 

 furnished by the coal-tar industry that the rate of progress 

 is actually measurable by the degree of substitution of pure 

 science for empiricism. Those manufacturers who fail to 

 recognise this principle do so at their own peril ; those 

 who have realised its truth cannot but admit that the more 

 enlightened views respecting the function of science in the 

 factory have been largely due to the influence of Perkin's 

 work and example half a century ago. 



Clicmica} Research in Echicational and Manufacturing 

 Centres. 



I do not propose dealing in detail on this occasion with 

 the very large question of the position of research in our 

 universities, but putting the case broadly, we should, I 

 think, all agree that after making allowance for the few 

 noteworthy exceptions, the actual contributions to our 

 science from these centres are far below the standard, both 

 of c|uality and quantity, which might be expected and 

 which we should all like to see attained. If any doubt 

 on this point should exist, it is only necessary to' call to 

 rnind the productive activity in the' Continental universi- 

 ties as compared with our own. Judged by this standard, 

 there can be only one conclusion — that many of our uni- 

 NO. 1966, VOL. 76] 



versifies are distinct failures as centres of chemical re- 

 search, and that the total output of work from university 

 laboratories is by no means worthy of the great tradition> 

 of this country as a pioneering nation in scientific dis- 

 covery. If these seats of the highest learning, called into 

 existence for the dissemination and promotion of know- 

 ledge, can give such a comparatively poor account of 

 their achievements in chemistry, it is evident that then- 

 must be deterrent causes at work. It would be going 

 beyond my province to attempt a detailed analysis of these 

 causes here ; they are numerous and not easy to 'deal with 

 in a limited time, but some of them are of the same nature 

 as those affecting the position of chemical research in other 

 educational centres. They may be summed up under such 

 headings as ancient traditions, defective educational 

 methods, want of sutVicient means leading to the frittering 

 away of the research faculty by the drudgery of " coach- 

 ing," the poor outlook for chemical research as a career, 

 and the pedantic notion that a subject requiring for its 

 advancement something akin to manual labour is de- 

 rogatory to high scholarship. Behind these causes is the 

 general public ignorance of and apathy towards research, 

 to which I referred at the outset, and if I may paraphrase 

 the utterances of recent authorities in the educational 

 world, over them all is the trail of the examining board. 



If we ask whether the modern educational development 

 brought about by the technical education movement has 

 fulfilled our expectations with respect to the advancement 

 of chemical science, I for one must confess to a feeling 

 of profound disappointment. There may be better times 

 ahead when that era of public enlightenment dawns, but 

 at present, with a few notable exceptions, these twenty- 

 three London polytechnics are, on the whole, so little pro- 

 ductive that we may discount them as active centres of 

 research. It must be remembered, moreover, that this 

 class of institution has spread all over the country, and 

 that the total expenditure in the way of money and teach- 

 ing energy is so great in comparison with the output of 

 original work that chemists have every right to ask why 

 this state of affairs should exist. 



Turning now to the consideration of the causes of this 

 failure on the part of the new educational establishments, 

 I must, in the first place, guard myself against the imputa- 

 tion that I am disparaging their work. The most acute 

 form of disappointment is that which is experienced when 

 we find weakness where we had looked for strength, and 

 in "emphasising their weakness from our standpoint I am 

 not shutting my eyes to their usefulness in other directions. 

 It is not a depreciation of the work which they are doing 

 if we deplore their failure in another branch of work 

 which they might be doing. From what I know of these 

 institutions, and from information furnished by very good 

 authorities, I am satisfied that in some directions, and 

 more especially in connection with engineering and trade 

 subjects and handicrafts — in all of which the artisan is an 

 important element — they are doing a certain amount of 

 good to the various industries concerned. But the danger 

 for us is the general tendency in this country to ram the 

 whole scheme of education into one mould, utterly regard- 

 less of the fact that the requirements of, let us say, an 

 engineer are quite different from those of a chemist. It 

 is for this, among other reasons, that our subject has 

 suffered both in its scientific and industrial aspects, because 

 the time and energy of the teachers of chemistry in these 

 institutions are so largely frittered away in what might 

 be called inconsequential labour on behalf of a class of 

 student quite unprepared by previous training for assimil- 

 ating the principles of our science and for the most part 

 unable to give sufficient time to the subject to acquire any 

 real working knowledge of it. 



There is another factor to be added to those which are 

 acting detrimentally towards the cause of research in these 

 institutions, and that is the want of sufficient endowment. 

 I am afraid that it is characteristic of our countrymen 

 to neglect the most important interests until they are 

 forcibly awakened to their danger, and then to try and 

 make up for past neglect by rushing precipitately into the 

 first plausible scheme that is presented. There is no doubt 

 that the new educational development suffered much 

 the outset from this characteristic mode of procedure. The 

 wrong kind of person was often allowed to frame the 



I 



I 



