SCIENCE AND INDUSTRY. 
If you do not, so intend, then you ought to at once modify the title of your 
magazine, as well as your extensive programme of “intentions,” as set out in 
your “ Foreword.” 
I should like to add that, as soon as you begin to deal with these questions 
fearlessly, your magazine’s independence of Governments and Ministers—whether 
Federal or State—will be put to the test; for if you, or your Advisory Council— 
of which the magazine professes to be the official organ—allow the idealization of 
truth, as the objective—at all costs—of true science,-to be interfered with, 
because it may not be palatable to the “powers that be,” you may at once 
discard the wording and the spirit of your magazine title. 
Yours, «&e., 
; A Bruce Smiru, K.C., M.P. 
Commonwealth Parliament, 
Melbourne. 
us 
When our local Department of Agriculture was 
established 27 years ago with a small scientific staff 
consisting of a vegetable pathologist, botanist, entomologist, 
and chemist, there was just the same shaking of wise 
heads as one anticipates now. Certainly the farmers, who 
were to benefit the most from the future operations of the 
young Department, were amongst its most scornful critics. 
The idea that the scientific man could be of any assistance 
to the so called “practical” farmer was considered 
ridiculous. Surely the old cow knew better what kind of 
food was good for her than did the chemist with his 
“balanced rations,” and so the old cow went on “blowing” 
herself on clover or ate immature sorghum and poisoned 
herself with Prussic acid. 
—F. B. GUTHRIE. 
128 
