6i4 



'NA TURE 



[October 15, 1908 



find ourselves confronted with the same sort of problems 

 as have beset other unions of all degrees of complexity, 

 from family life to a United Germany or a United States 

 — the problems, namely, which arise from the new mutual 

 relations of the parts. In my opinion there is nothing to 

 be gained and much to be lost if we do not frankly face 

 these problems and see — yes, and foresee, so far as possible 

 • — the limitations, the responsibilities, the foundations, and 

 perhaps the dangers of union. 



In these days we do not need to be persuaded that 

 union is strength, for it may be called the panacea of the 

 age, and men fly to it as their only method of accom- 

 plishing every kind of object ; but we do not so clearly 

 see that a union is not necessarily strong in direct propor- 

 tion to its numbers. The bridge-builder should not need 

 to be reminded that there is a point beyond which length 

 becomes a danger, yet we find in practice that there is 

 still a temptation to make an engineering work the largest 

 in the world — a temptation, in fact, to measure greatness 

 by size. That we may be less likely to fall into this 

 error, let us set before ourselves some ideals as to the 

 quality of our union. I shall be forgiven, I am sure, if 

 I seem to speak of the old and the obvious. 



In any union of equals, if the members are to be loyal 

 to the idea which has brought them together, they must 

 remember that it is possible for selfishness to entrench 

 itself in the care of one's particular and special depart- 

 ment and in the ambition for its paramount influence, 

 and that in this case, as in individual instances, he finds 

 himself best who loses himself. This last resort of selfish- 

 ness, as we may call it, not infrequently becomes apparent 

 when there is a question of unequal advance. It is not 

 unnatural that in such a case there should be a lurking 

 sense of injustice, particularly if, as often happens, the 

 new privileges fall to the share of the new departments 

 and leave the old apparently unrecognised. The elder 

 brother is not extinct even in the twentieth century. Yet, 

 viewing the matter more largely, not only is it absolutely 

 true that an increased advantage to, or an increased 

 demand for, any special part increases the value and 

 reputation of the whole, and therefore of all other parts, 

 but if we think of it this is the usual method of growth 

 in institutions which are not altogether the creation of 

 Aladdin's lamp. Usually there is not enough of money to 

 go all round at once, and we must be content if it goes 

 around in time. In parenthesis, let it be taken for granted 

 that it will be someone's duty to see that the time is not 

 too long deferred. 



Next, may I remind you that in a union of equals re- 

 sponsibilitv falls equally on all? How often do we hear 

 it said, " I cannot help it, they would do it ! " How 

 often does a man rest content with not being an obstruc- 

 tionist, and never reflect that there is an active duty re- 

 quired from each person if the general good is to be 

 achieved. What right has a man to sit down and let 

 another do his share? It may be quite as bad to be 

 indifferent as to be too anxious to lead. .'\s to being an 

 obstructionist, that is to put oneself outside the pale 

 altogether — for it is to be a positive source of disunion. 

 In order to secure wisdom as well as energy in the taking 

 of personal responsibility, it will be well to think of the 

 real foundations of union, which, for our present purpose, 

 T may briefly put as : — first, a common object ; second, a 

 common method of obtaining it ; third, a spirit of mutual 

 respect and good-will. 



The first and second will require in this instance a more 

 lengthened discussion ; the third we can count on in a 

 convocation of educated and right-minded men, yet as the 

 association is so close and the possibilities of clashing so 

 many, it is well to keep it in mind as an essential. 



Two dangers only I shall mention, opposite tendencies 

 which, not seldom, are the fruitful sources of much evil. 

 The first is the evil of courting popularity — of waiting to 

 see which way popular opinion may lean. About this 

 many things might be said which there is no time to say, 

 but in general we may perhaps assume that the evil lies 

 in shaping our course with any reference to the security 

 of our own position, either in fact or in the esteem of 

 others. 



Then there is the reverse danger of being alw.avs in the 

 opposition. It seems unlikely that every man who finds 



NO. 2033, VOL. 78] 



himself solitary should be an Elijah, and if he is like 

 Elijah he should leach himself to recognise the 7000 like- 

 minded. 



Let us now consider a few suggestions as to our 

 common object in the Imperial College and the best 

 method of attaining to it. First, then, as to our object. 



It may be well to think a little of our title as express- 

 ing our aims. Why do we separate science and technology 

 in the title of this institution? Does it come from some 

 feeling that technology is different from science, or that 

 it is science pli(s something else? Some time ago I had 

 occasion to study the relations of science and technology, 

 and came to certain conclusions, which I may be allowed 

 to give you without entering into the discussion of them. 



Perhaps the most clear and concise definition I have 

 come across of pure science is that it is " the knowledge 

 of powers, causes, or laws considered apart or as pure 

 from all applications." It Involves the making of experi- 

 ments, by which these laws have been made manifest. 

 Compare this with the will of Count Rumford concerning 

 the founding of a chair at Harvard in 1816 for teaching 

 " the utility of the physical and mathematical sciences for 

 the improvement of the useful arts." If we examine the 

 curricula of the best modern schools of technology, we 

 find advance has been made in this conception, and that 

 thev include : — 



First, a study of selected laws of nature (i.e. those which 

 have been or may be applied to practical purposes) (a) as 

 seen in nature ; (h) as seen in examples or descriptions of 

 the means by which they have been utilised. This includes 

 the study of all types of machinery, implements, and instru- 

 ments. 



.Secondly, a distinct aim to train the mind of the student 

 so as to develop what may be called the scientific mind ; 

 as yet this has been mainly attempted only by causing the 

 student to study in a scientific manner. 



Thirdly, (a) a research into the nature of the practical 

 facts essential to any art with the view of finding out the 

 known laws of nature on which they depend ; (b) original 

 research into the problems arising otit of industrial pro- 

 cesses with the view of finding out unknown laws of 

 nature, and especially those which must be investigated on 

 a large scale. 



We see that technology, while in one department a pure 

 science, investigating any problems arising out of the 

 artificial working up of natural products, is in the main 

 to be called an applied science — that its applications, even 

 when exactly similar in outward appearance to the experi- 

 ments called for by pure science, differ from the latter in 

 one important particular. In the case of pure science the 

 resulting fact is viewed as an instance of a law ; in the 

 case of technology, the fact itself is the important thing. 

 Therefore the idea of utility seems to be the real key to 

 the difference between the two — which seems to be a differ- 

 ence of aim. If our purpose is to establish a law we call 

 it pure science ; if our purpose is to establish a fact we 

 call it applied science or technology. 



Having thus more or less defined the difTerence between 

 the two, we mav say that our common object in the 

 Imnerial College is to give the right education in science 

 and technology, and if we agree with the conclusions I 

 have quoted we shall see that there should he great 

 economy in combining the training in these two, the 

 foundations being, in both cases, practically similar, and 

 the only real difference coming from a wish to specialise 

 either on the theoretical or on the practical side in one's 

 professional life. 



We may take it, in fact, that there will be less waste 

 in the world's advance if the scientific man is influenced 

 in his choice of his research by oractical necessities, and 

 if the practical man is influenced by pure science so .as to 

 be interested in and to recognise the light which mav be 

 shed on scientific relations bv accidental or intentional 

 changes of circumstances in the course of his work. There 

 is no necessity in the nature of thinsfs that pure science 

 should be absolutely lost in applied science. An education 

 in the same place and under the same influences should 

 therefore be desirable as giving opportunities for the in- 

 crease of mutual knowledge and respect. 



Our common object might be now a little more fully 

 stated as the attempt to develop the ideal scientific and 



