B.— CHEMISTRY 49 



hurt anybody in my life. All I do is to research.' Gridley : ' Yes, and 

 look at the result. Blowing us up, burning us alive, poisoning us. Just 

 stop your damned research.' 



This view of research, although it may be crude and ill-informed, 

 nevertheless confronts the scientist with the question whether he is not 

 assenting too readily to the misuse of his knowledge and skill. Impelled 

 by patriotic motives, most scientists have put themselves freely at the 

 disposal of the State in time of need, but many are hesitating to admit 

 that patriotism must always override considerations of humanity. 

 Whatever be our individual attitude in this matter, it is time for chemists 

 and scientists in general to throw their weight into the scale against the 

 tendencies which are dragging science and civilisation down and debasing 

 our heritage of intellectual and spiritual values. 



Reference has already been made to the increasing recognition by the 

 State of the value of chemical research, but it is surprising how slowly 

 those responsible for the machinery of government learn to appreciate 

 the real scope of the chemist's work. A comparatively recent instance of 

 the lack of clear thinking on this matter was furnished by the first draft of 

 the formal rules dealing with the manufacture of pharmaceutical prepara- 

 tions containing poisons. Those allowed to control the manufacture 

 were required to possess ' qualifications in chemistry,' and on this basis 

 general medical practitioners were to be eligible equally with pharmacists 

 and trained chemists. The idea that the general medical practitioner has 

 qualifications in chemistry is ludicrous and the later drafts of the Poison 

 Rules showed that this had been realised. The contention put forward 

 in a Home Office Memorandum on these Rules that certain operations can 

 be pharmaceutical but not chemical was equally ill-informed. 



Inadequate realisation of what the chemist even now means for the 

 community and failure to grasp his potentiality for development and 

 progress may have unfortunate consequences in the commercial world. 

 How often is it the case, although there are notable exceptions, that an 

 industrial concern depending essentially on the successful operation of 

 chemical or physico-chemical processes is controlled by a board of directors 

 elected solely by virtue of their financial qualifications. Such men, as a 

 rule, are without real appreciation of scientific method and scientific 

 research, and, in the absence of a technical member who can speak with 

 authority on these matters — a technical employee obviously cannot carry 

 the same weight — such a board may make serious mistakes of omission 

 or commission. No amount of financial manipulation, however skilful, 

 can make up for the lack of enlightened scientific control. 



If we chemists feel, as we certainly do, that the fundamental and 

 widespread part which our science now plays in the community is not 

 sufficiently realised, and if we consider that our profession should have 

 greater influence in commercial, industrial, and national affairs, the 

 remedy lies to some extent with ourselves, both individually and collect- 

 ively. May I suggest that the phrase ' serving the community ' not only 

 describes what has already been extensively achieved by the chemist, but 

 stands also for a high aim, such as has inspired, for example, the best 

 traditions of the medical profession ? The idea of service as a background 



