PHOTOELECTRICITY, ART AND 
Peo Les. AN FS TORTCAT  STUpy 
BY 
N. R. CAMPBELL anp C. C. PATERSON, O.B.E. 
(Ordered by the General Committee to be printed in extenso.) 
UNTIL a few years ago any speaker addressing the general public at the 
meetings of the British Association for the Advancement of Science regarded 
it as one of his chief duties to plead that science should play a larger part in 
the affairs of the nation. But of late a new note has been evident in our 
discourses. We have all come to realise that science may be abused as well 
as used, and that some of the evils of our present state to which our thoughts 
are most constantly directed arise from that abuse. Whether we discuss 
war or unemployment, we cannot ignore the social effects of our increasing 
scientific knowledge. We are not quite so sure that science is the unmixed 
blessing that we once believed it to be. 
Some bold spirits have no qualms. They conduct a vigorous counter- 
attack and urge that such evils as have arisen are due to a half-hearted use 
of science. If we were only consistent and would hand over the conduct 
of all our affairs to the charge of fully instructed scientists and engineers 
all our difficulties would vanish. We may readily admit that there are large 
regions of immense social import that lie barren for lack of public interest, 
and that there are still those who think that ignorance of science is the first 
qualification of the statesman and the administrator. While such things 
remain, the work of this Association will never be done. Nevertheless 
many of us feel that there is another side to the question, and should be 
happier if our champions were readier to distinguish between the value of 
science and the merits of scientists. 
For if the value of science is stated quite impersonally, it becomes clear 
that the problem is not one with which scientists, as such, have any concern. 
In its application to practical affairs, scientific knowledge is merely a means 
whereby man may fulfil his desires. Its results will depend on the nature 
of those desires. In determining them scientists have, and should have, 
no greater influence than any other body of citizens ; they are not actually 
united in their social and political aims, and, if they were, their special 
interests might not coincide with the good of the whole community. The 
business of scientists is to provide the means ; the determination of ends 
belongs to the political institutions of the state. 
But this assumes that science is not more likely to provide means for 
bad ends than for good. Those who regard all material satisfactions as 
bad would no doubt dispute that ; but they are all either monks or million- 
aires, and our words will not reach them. However, the assumption may 
also be denied for a rather subtler reason, which demands our attention. 
It might be urged that science favours the bad rather than the good, because 
the changes that it induces are sudden and unexpected. Communities, 
like individuals, need time to think; if presented with an unexpected 
situation, they act by instinct, which is always self-regarding, and not by 
