556 



NA TURE 



[August 8, 1907 



The pcrplcxilios of ihemisls at the present duy do not 

 come, 1 think, from the novelty of the ideas that are 

 being presented to them, but from the great rapidity 

 with which the whole science is growing, from the in- 

 vasion of chemistry by mathematics and, in particular, 

 from the sudden appearance of the subject of radio-activity 

 with its new methods, new instruments, and especially 

 with its accompaniment of speculative philosophy. There 

 is an uneasy feeling that developments of great importance 

 to the chemist are being made by experiments on quanti- 

 ties of matter of almost inconceivable minuteness. Spec- 

 trum analysis of course took chemistry beyond the limits 

 of the balance, but the new materials which it disclosed 

 could at least be accumulated in palpable quantity. With 

 radio-activity we seem, in relation to the ponderable, 

 almost to be creating a chemistry of phantoms, and this 

 reduction in the amount of experimental materials, 

 dissociated as it is with an exuberance of mathematical 

 speculation of the most bewildering kind concerning the 

 nature, or perhaps I should say the want of nature, of 

 matter, is calculated to perturb a stolid and earthy philo- 

 sopher whose business has been hitherto confined to com- 

 paratively gross quantities of materials and to a restricted 

 number of crude mechanical ideas. He is tempted to 

 think of Falstaff's reckoning and to exclaim with Prince 

 Henry, " Oh, monstrous ! but one halfpennyworth of 

 bread to this intolerable deal of sack ! " Experimental 

 science has latterly been spun to greater and greater fine- 

 ness, until in the region ol the ii rays the objective element 

 seems to have disappeared altogether. 



I should, however, gravely abuse the position in which 

 I am allowed to speak for the moment as a representative 

 of chemists if I failed to express profound admiration 

 for the masterly work which has been accomplished by 

 the pioneers of the science of radio-activity. All that I 

 wish to say beyond that, is in explanation of a certain 

 awe or trepidation which chemists of the older school may 

 feel in the presence of such bold explorers ; and I am the 

 more tempted to say something on the subject, because 

 in recent times, before the advent of radium, a good deal 

 has happened which has given chemists occasion to ask 

 themselves whether chemistry was not beginning, as it 

 were, to drift away from them. 



The most conspicuous development of the science during 

 the past twenty years has been, of course, on the physical 

 side, and abundant have been its fruits; but it has seemed 

 to demand from chemists habits and endowments which 

 they did not normally possess, and which they could not 

 easily acquire. I was much struck by a remark made to 

 me a few years ago by a distinguished chemist, who is, 

 I think, the most perfect inanipulator I have ever seen at 

 work, to the effect that he felt himself submerged and 

 perishing in the great tide of physical chemistry which 

 was rolling up into our laboratories. Now, it is precisely 

 such men that must be preserved to chemistry. Though 

 chemistry and physics meet and blend, there is, I believe, 

 an essential difference between the genius of the chemist 

 and the genius of the physicist, and I venture to think 

 that some insistence on the primary functions of a chemist 

 is not untimely. The chemist's first qualification is that 

 he shall be master of a peculiar craft ; his greatest merit 

 that he is a consummate workman ; his distinctive power 

 a nicety of discrimination in questions affecting the com- 

 position and quantity of materials. He is not given to 

 elaborate theories and is usually averse to speculation ; 

 nor has he usually an aptitude for mathematics. Such 

 the normal chemist is, or was, and such I hope he always 

 may be — naked perhaps in some respects, but unashamed. 



There seems to be a solicitude in some quarters to 

 make a chemist something more than a chemist, a solici- 

 tude which, if gratified, will, I believe, make him some- 

 thing less than one. We are told, for example, that a 

 chemist should be a mathematician. I do not admit it 

 for a moment. Some mathematics he must of necessity 

 have — that has always been admitted — but in proportion 

 as chemistry develops on the mathematical side does it 

 become important, not that our chemists should be trained 

 in mathematics, but that they should be more than ever 

 carefully trained in the art' of exact experiment; that 

 their methods of work, their powers of observation, and, 

 if possible, their experimental conscience, if I inay use 



NO. 197 I, VOL. 76] 



the expression, should acquire a finer edge. There is 

 never more cause for anxiety than when we see a mathe- 

 matical theory awaiting the delivery of the confirmatory 

 facts, and there is nothing more important for chemistry 

 than the continual recruiting of that old guard which 

 will be ever ready to stand to arms on the appearance 

 of an eager theorist. 



I do not for a moment wish to disparage the adven- 

 turous spirits within or outside our science, still less do 

 I wish to range myself with those who meet new ideas 

 with mere objurgation or raillery. We must be conteni 

 to see new alliances and new activities on the frontiers 

 that separate us from other sciences ; content to see many 

 new kinds of chemistry arise in which we cannot all 

 effectually participate. Chemistry is becoming bewilder- 

 ing in its extent, and it would be a great misfortune if 

 this led to the notion that every chemist must try to 

 enlarge his ambit to its confines and fit himself for every 

 variety of work. Those of us who have responsibilities 

 as teachers cannot, I think, be too careful, lest in the 

 attempt to secure breadth we may encourage shallowness 

 and fail to give our students that peculiar and time- 

 honoured discipline in exactitude of work in chemistry 

 proper, which has characterised the chemists of the past, 

 and which is infinitely more important than superficial 

 dealings with a great variety of processes and appliances. 

 I confess that I have frequent misgivings as to whether 

 our modern courses of instruction may not tend to turn 

 out chemists more learned in the science and less perfect 

 in the art than was the case under the ancient rigime. 

 There was, after all, great virtue in the system which 

 often detained a student day after day, or perhaps week 

 after week, on a single problem of chemical composition 

 such as is involved in the exact analysis of fahl-ore. It 

 is not easy to meet all requirements, but I think we shall 

 all agree that, whatever is left undone, we must make a 

 chemist a good craftsman. It is of the utmost importance 

 that those whom we send out to work in the newer fields 

 shall take with them the resources that have proved most 

 serviceable in the old, and I think it is by supplying such 

 men for special service, rather than by attempting to shift 

 the centre of gravity of the whole system of chemical 

 education, that we can best serve the newer interests. 



."Vnother perturbation within the chemical camp in recent 

 times has come from the region- of philosophy. Ever. 

 before the days of radium we have been accused of cling- 

 ing too fondly to our atomic theory and of staling our 

 knowledge too exclusively in terms of that theory. We 

 are said to have drifted into a dogmatism as real as any 

 we ourselves have had to attack, and to shut our eyes to the 

 light which will enable us to orient ourselves truly in the 

 wide realm of thought. The answer that most of us would 

 give would be, that we value our hypotheses according to 

 their productiveness in new knowledge, and that it is, on 

 the whole, perhaps better to over-exalt an hypothesis that 

 is fertile than from high considerations of philosophy to 

 allow our ideas to become so fluid that they can afford 

 no rigid framework for thought. 1 think that the atteinpts 

 to view chemical phenomena apart from the atomic hypo- 

 thesis, interesting as they undoubtedly are, have not made 

 us feel that this hvnothesis- has either misled us in any 

 matter of fact or obscured any pathway that we might 

 have followed with greater profit. The value of the 

 thermo-dynamical treatment of chemical problems is 

 attested by its fruitfulness in promoting fresh discoveries ; 

 and here we mav welcome a valuable adjunct to the 

 atomic hypothesis. But I do not think we are called upon 

 to acclaim a new method of treating old questions unless 

 it promises some more tangible result than an alleged 

 improvement of our intellectual morals. 



If, as I have ventured to hint, mathematics brings with 

 it an element of danger into chemistry, 1 think that the 

 intrusion of metaphysics would give far greater cause for 

 apprehension. Philosophy always stands with open arms 

 desiring a closer embrace of all the sciences, of which 

 she declares herself to be the fond mother, whilst .Science, 

 as we understand the term, has stood reluctant, suggest- 

 ing, as someone has wittily remarked, that she regards 

 Philosophy rather as a mother-in-law. It may perhaps 

 be desirable, especially in the present state of things, that 

 scientific men should allow themselves to become a little 



