A Time to Remember

by Alexander Todd

  I believe this frustrated class is, to some extent, already with us and that, together with the continued segregation of science in our schools and universities, it is in part responsible for the so-called' drift from science' which is said to be visible in schools. This drift probably reflects also the 'anti-science and technology' attitude which in recent years has raised its head as a modern form of anti-intellectualism. This anti-science attitude originates, of course, in man's reluctance to accept radical change in his way of life; he is aware that technology is imposing such change, and if an individual has no understanding of science or technology he begins to regard science as some kind of monster over which he has no control whatever. People holding this view feel further justified by current concern over pollution and deterioration in the natural environment. There is no doubt that pollution of the environment by industry is a matter of grave concern to all of us. It is not, however, a necessary consequence of technological advance - it can be prevented. The fact is that pollution is not a new problem; only the scale is new. Hideous past examples of pollution and destruction of the environment abound - think of many of the industrial areas developed during the last century in north-east England, south Wales and in Scotland -but these tended to be ignored because they were local in their effect. Today the scale of industry accords not just with technological progress, but with the demands of an ever-increasing population, and so it is becoming evident that we must take serious steps to prevent or minimize pollution and undesirable change in our natural environment - steps which in the past we never bothered to consider. There are, of course, some difficulties about nature conservation; man always tries to alter the environment in his favour and it is inevitable that in doing so some of the changes he makes will be fatal to some other living species. This is something we must recognise, and we can only hope that in deciding whether interference with some part of nature is justified by the technological ends we seek, we will make our choices more wisely than we have sometimes made them in the past.

  The making of correct choices, not only here but over the whole field of national and international affairs does, however, depend on the existence of an informed public opinion. In developing such an opinion, not only schools and universities, but also the British Association for the Advancement of Science, have their parts to play. It is interesting to see how the role of the Association has changed during its span of existence from the heyday of the First Industrial Revolution to the present day. In its beginnings, although the popularisation of science was borne in mind, its most important function was to provide a forum for the discussion of advances in science by those directly involved. With the passage of time this latter function has been largely taken over by the professional scientific societies; but as the Association's value in that sense has declined so its importance in spreading an awareness of science and technology among the public and particularly perhaps among its younger members has grown. That is why our BAYS activities seem to me to be so important. But since the young people of today are the adults of tomorrow we ought now to be giving serious thought to the pattern of the Association's other activities. Some changes we have made in recent years, but I doubt if they have gone far enough. It will not be a very easy task, for organisations, like individuals, tend to resist change or, at least, to insist that it be gradual. And there is the rub - technological advance and rapid change in our everyday life are synonymous. In the world of today and of tomorrow rapid change will continue, and if society is to survive it must so adapt itself that its members can not only live with change, but derive the maximum benefit from change. In talking around this subject I have emphasised the central position of education; but educational changes take time to show their effects and time is running short. Truly, for all of us, this is a time to think.

  APPENDIX II. Extract from Anniversary Address 30 November 1976

  Reprinted from Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B. 196, 7-22 (1977)

  Many of us can remember those difficult but heady days at the end of the last war when it seemed as though science, the application of which had achieved so much in war - radar, penicillin and the atomic bomb to mention but three examples - would, in the brave new world of amity and justice between nations symbolised in the Charter of the United Nations, soon usher in the Millennium. Well, as we are all only too well aware, the Millennium hasn't arrived yet and, indeed, it seems in many ways rather further off now than it did in 1945. Social and economic problems abound and many people, especially the young, feel disappointed, frustrated and indeed let down by the society in which they live. Now when people are frustrated they always look around for a scapegoat and I fear that far too many cast science in that role today. This is not merely wrong; it is indeed dangerous if it leads, as it has led, to a swing away from science among young people entering higher education in many advanced countries. For our standards of living cannot be maintained, let alone improved, save through science or more precisely through the application of the scientific method and the results of scientific research to practical ends or, if you will, through technology and technological innovation; this is as true of environmental as of industrial problems. The real reason for most of our troubles lies not in science but in our social and political ineptitude when it comes to realising the potential of the advances which science has made and continues to make. And so today we live in a turbulent and unhappy world. The hoped-for spirit of amity among nations has failed to materialise. Deep divisions exist between them and this has inevitably led to increasing secrecy and mutual suspicion and all too frequently to violence and even open warfare.

  Secrecy has always been the enemy of scientific progress. This I hold to be true, but it is manifestly absurd in the imperfect world in which we live to appeal for the total abolition of secrecy and for the free and untrammelled circulation of all new knowledge. For example, one could hardly envisage the abandonment of all secrecy in defence research or free publication of all results obtained in the search for new drugs in the pharmaceutical industry. The existence of patents, of course, underlines the general acceptance of at least temporary rights of a proprietary nature in the results of research. In discussing secrecy I think it necessary to try to distinguish between two kinds of activity both of which are usually lumped together under the heading of research. The first, which is sometimes described as 'pure' research, is typically concerned with advances in our understanding of the natural world. As a general rule it is not undertaken in pursuit of any specific economic objective and it is characterised by a high creative content. From it come the new laws and hypotheses on which the progress of science depends. Since these require for their full establishment a consensus of opinion derived from widespread discussion and experimentation by many scientists it is clear that secrecy should be avoided at all costs in this type of research. The case is rather different with the second type of research, which we may call applied research and which often includes development - it is in fact the activity commonly described as research and development or, shortly, R. and D. Here the research is undertaken to solve particular problems, usually of an economic or military nature, with a view to technological innovation, and its most characteristic feature is ingenuity rather than creativity - ingenuity in the manipulation of existing knowledge and understanding. Of course, there is no clear-cut boundary between these types but broadly speaking the distinction can be made. In the world as it is, a measure of secrecy is usually inevitable in this second type of research; such secrecy will not actually promote the research, but it need not be unduly damaging provided freedom of exchange and discussion is preserved in the first type. As far as the individual scientist is concerned the type of research he undertakes should be a matter for individual decision, but having taken the decision he must abide by the rules.

  All this may seem a statement of the obvious but I believe it needs saying at the present time. The danger of interference on political grounds with the free flow of scientific information and even dictation of
the type of research which may be undertaken is still with us and may indeed be increasing. Persecution of a scientist because his findings conflicted with current religious dogma did not stop with Galileo, and the furore over Darwin's theory of evolution has not wholly died down even today. Yet it is fair to say that even two hundred years ago science had achieved a status which ensured for its practitioners quite a remarkable degree of tolerance and immunity from interference, always provided they followed the rules laid down for the Royal Society by Robert Hooke in 1662 [Cf. Weld, History of the Royal Society (London, 1848), vol. 1. p. 146].

  The business and design of the Royal Society is - To improve the knowledge of naturall things, and all useful Arts, Manufactures, Mechanick practises, Engynes and Inventions by Experiments - (not meddling with Divinity, Metaphysics, Moralls, Politicks, Grammar, Rhetorick, or Logick).

  So it was that two hundred years ago when America and Britain were at war, Benjamin Franklin, a Fellow of our Society and Founder of the American Philosophical Society, was able to obtain right of passage and freedom from molestation by American warships for ships of the Royal Navy under the command of Captain Cook engaged on a scientific expedition organised by the Royal Society. During the Napoleonic wars we know that Count Rumford travelled extensively in France, holding discussions with scientific colleagues, and it is also on record that in 1796 a French sailor and scientist, Chevalier de Rossel, at the time a prisoner of war in England, dined at the Royal Society Club as a guest of Alexander Dalrymple, the hydrographer to the Navy. As a final indication of the attitude of governments in the past one may quote the following excerpt from the instructions issued to the captain of H.M.S. Rattlesnake in 1846 (in which, incidentally, Huxley sailed as 'a surgeon who knew something about science'):

  You are to refrain from any act of aggression towards a vessel or settlement of any nation with which we may be at war, as expeditions employed on behalf of discovery and science have always been considered as acting under a general safeguard.

  I doubt very much whether such sentiments are widely shared by nations today and it is pertinent to ask why this should be so. I am no historian but I think the reason for the deterioration which has occurred is fairly clear. It had become recognised by the end of the seventeenth century that, particularly in matters concerning navigation, safety and progress were bound up with scientific discovery and invention; moreover, science was a common interest of mankind and its discoveries were not associated or identifiable with any sectional interests in society. That it should have been granted a substantial measure of tolerance and immunity from interference by civilised communities is thus understandable. From about the middle of the nineteenth century, however, men began consciously to apply science, or more particularly the results of scientific research, to the solution of practical problems in agriculture, industry, medicine and defence. It was this - the new science-based technology - that enormously speeded up technological innovation and led to the fantastic and ever-increasing rate of advance in our material civilisation which has been the characteristic feature of the past hundred years. As a result science has come closer to its practical utilisation, and governments are increasingly interested in it. In its discoveries lie the seeds of power. The temptation to support and to control science in the interest of national political aims has therefore grown apace and the results are all too evident. Tolerance and freedom from persecution can no longer be taken for granted.

  Flagrant examples of interference, like the promotion of the unsound ideas of Lysenko for political reasons with concomitant suppression of any work on genetics which might contradict them, may be rare, but persecution of scientists on political or racial grounds did not stop with Lavoisier. We have in recent times seen it happen in, for example, the McCarthy investigations in the United States, in the Soviet Union, in South America and before that in Nazi Germany. Closely associated is the danger that, even in the highly developed countries of the Western world, dictation of the nature of research permitted to individual scientists could develop not only from governments but also from militant, politically motivated minorities. Nor should we think that we in Britain are free from such intolerance. Not so long ago demonstrators in London prevented a well-known scientist from presenting and discussing his results simply because they believed that he might reach conclusions which would be at variance with their politically preconceived ideas.

  Much of the creative work leading to fundamental advances in science is carried out in universities and research institutions. This work is for the most part uncommitted in the sense that it is not directed to any specific economic objective and, as it advances, its direction may and frequently does change as fresh areas of scientific ignorance are revealed. But today we are all too aware of the parrot-cry about the need for 'relevance' in academic research. Catch-phrases like 'cost-benefit analysis' and 'management of research' are bandied about and we are told of the need to orient research towards the fulfilment of national goals (these latter being, of course, determined by the particular political party which happens to be in power). This is ominously close to the direction of research on political grounds - a thing against which in an age of increasing political intolerance we must constantly be on our guard. The Royal Society, in accordance with the spirit of its Charter, has, throughout its history, sought to uphold the freedom of scientific enquiry and the exchange and discussion of experimental findings and theoretical ideas without regard to race, creed or national boundaries. But let us not forget that if scientists are to be accorded the privilege of tolerance and freedom from interference they must obey the rules. And these rules are most clearly expressed in my earlier quotation from Robert Hooke, in which he enjoins that there is no meddling 'with Divinity, Metaphysics, Moralls, Politicks, Grammar, Rhetorick or Logick'. To avoid meddling with some of these presents few problems but nowadays the scientist may find it less easy to keep clear of divinity, morals or politics. Yet if science is to lead to the advancement and not the destruction of mankind it must refuse to meddle with or be dominated by them. Science advances through the free interchange of experimental results and ideas and the main vehicles for advance are publication and open discussion. For the scientist therefore freedom to travel to attend scientific meetings and to confer or debate with colleagues at home and abroad is very important. Yet today arbitrary restrictions on such travel are not uncommon in some countries; moreover, they are often imposed at short notice and without any explanation being given. I would appeal to the governments concerned urgently to reconsider their attitude. For the welfare of their own countries will depend ultimately on the welfare of science; and there is no such thing as national science - no British science, no American science, no Soviet science - only science.

  Refusal to allow a scientist to leave his own country and travel abroad is sometimes attributed to his possession of secret or classified information. This could be justifiable, in some cases, although surely only in a small minority. It is, however, extremely difficult to see any justification for the refusal of some countries to permit entry to scientists who have been invited to attend a scientific meeting simply on the ground that they are citizens of a country whose government pursues a political course which is unpopular with that of the host country. Perhaps even more deplorable is the way in which Unesco has decided to withhold financial support from any scientific meeting which allows participation by scientists whose governments are unpopular with a majority of its member states. Here is something which is in my view totally contrary to the spirit of the United Nations and is a threat to the freedom of science which should be resisted by every scientist, whatever his nationality.