48 
Franklin Kidd. 
To return, Sir, to your own remark about the National Union, 
1 agree thoroughly with you that the interests of science and of 
scientific work would seem to deserve at least an equal place with 
the economic interests of its members in the programme of a union 
of scientific workers and that there appears to he no insuperable 
difficulty in combining the two classes of aims. But I think that 
in formally interpreting the provisional resolutions passed by the 
body which elected the committee to proceed as they think fit with 
the formation of the union, you have missed the point that 
they are so combined in the programme of the National Union of 
Scientific Workers as outlined by that committee in its pamphlet 
issued in January last, with which you dealt. The following lines 
of action are therein suggested among others:— “ To seek represent¬ 
ation on public committees considering scientific reconstruction ; to 
unify and support energetically all schemes for improving scientific 
education ; to conduct educational propaganda on the importance 
of scientific research in the national life; to set up a permanent 
committee to propose, support and oppose new legislation in 
connection with other bodies ; to conduct a journal, etc.” It is 
quite clear that these are matters affecting “ the interests of 
science and of scientific work ” as distinguished by you from the 
economic interests of the workers. 
You say in another place that the proposed union, judged by 
the declared aims of its promoters appears “to have its place 
rather in the world of labour.” This statement applies correctly 
enough to such a body as the Association of University Lecturers, 
but it does not appear to march so well with the character and 
objects of the National Union of Scientific Workers. 
It appears that there is some urgency in the interests of 
national efficiency and scientific efficiency for the scientific commun¬ 
ity to get together and organise itself. A revolution in the scientific 
world is practically necessary. It must be either towards a thoroughly 
bureaucratic system, or towards a thoroughly democratic one. If 
bureaucratic, then let there be an authority to choose the bureaucrats 
for efficiency and for efficiency only . Otherwise the organisation 
achieved will be worthless. . It is doubtful whether there can be 
such an authority in this country. If democratic, organisation is 
none the less vital. Its success, and therefore the success of 
science, turns upon the capacity for individual and sectional 
accommodation and sacrifice, which is only possible on the basis of 
a large-minded spirit of compromise in the interests of the whole. 
The National Union will clearly stand opposed to any development 
