216 SECTIONAL ADDRESSES 
quantity, which they attribute to the neglect of biology as a subject of 
study in schools. While sympathising with their views, which are shared 
by many people, I think it cannot be denied that whereas a biologist must 
have an adequate knowledge of physics and chemistry, it is not necessary 
for a physicist or chemist to have a knowledge of biology ; and if one con- 
siders the position from a cultural rather than from a practical point of 
view, it would be fair to say that the boys who need least to study 
biology as a cultural subject at schools are those who are going to study 
it at a university. The only point that remains, then, is that if biology 
were taught more widely in schools it is possible that here and there a boy 
‘ may experience from biology a pull which he had hitherto failed to secure 
from his special subject.’ For my part I feel confident that directly there 
is an assurance of reasonable careers in biology, suitable candidates will be 
forthcoming, and education at schools and in the universities will develop 
on sound lines. Lack of teaching of biology at schools has not led to a 
shortage of doctors. How, then, can it be mainly responsible for a shortage 
of other biologists? It needs no inspired prophet to foresee a great 
development some day of the biological sciences: the work of pioneers 
to-day makes that sufficiently obvious. The next generation may live 
to see a development comparable with that of the physical sciences, and 
their applications, in the last thirty years ; but the time is not yet ripe. 
Until it is, our duty at universities is to keep our biological departments 
moderate in size, but high in quality. 
There is another consideration that one has to bear in mind in deciding 
how many students to encourage to specialise on any branch of science or 
technology. If the call for such specialists is small, it is clearly necessary 
to take into account what is being done at other universities. Universities 
are very human bodies ; if one institution makes a success of any particular 
new department, others will find a strong case to develop along similar 
lines. A little competition is healthy ; but the multiplication of specialised 
departments in different universities and colleges can easily be carried too 
far, resulting in an unnecessary waste of money. ‘There are, for example, 
ten university schools of mining in Great Britain. This number can hardly 
be justified either by the demand for mining engineers at home, where 
there is little or no metalliferous mining, or by the demand overseas. In 
Germany, where there is a large metalliferous, as well as a large coal 
mining industry, there are only five schools of mining engineering of 
university rank. I feel that if the number of students were divided among 
fewer institutions the results would be better and the expenditure less. I 
do not suppose for a moment that anyone is likely to agree with me to the 
extent of abolishing any existing department, but I think we should learn 
a lesson from the past, and keep competition and local patriotism within 
reasonable bounds. 
I have thought it worth while to put these practical considerations 
before you, although they are not exhaustive and do not lead to any 
definite conclusion on the problem of the size of university departments of 
science and technology. In the end the optimum size is a matter of judg- 
ment ; my judgment, for what it is worth, is that on the whole there is 
no strong case for increasing the numbers of students of science and 
