A Time to Remember

by Alexander Todd

  When the war ended Britain was faced with tremendous problems; impoverished by its efforts, many of its cities devastated and its industrial economy distorted by the demands of total war the outlook was grim. But victory had been achieved, owing in no small measure to the sensational advances which had been made by science and technology and there was a feeling almost of euphoria - what science had done in war it could assuredly do in peace also. So the cry went up - let us have more scientists and technologists, let them have all the money they need and the millennium will be just around the corner. Given enthusiasm and some guidance from a scientific advisory committee like the one we had during the war, all would surely be well.

  There is no doubt that at the end of the war the reputation of the Royal Society was high and its involvement with national policy greater than ever before; but these very facts faced it with a dilemma. What should be its future role? Three possible courses seemed open to it. First, it could have dropped all contact with government and reverted to being an isolated scientific elite with little or no influence on affairs - a pattern adopted by the national academies of the Latin countries and Japan. Secondly, it could have gone to the other extreme and become closely integrated as an organ of government with its officers holding political appointments; this is, of course, the pattern found in the Soviet Union, Eastern Europe and China. The third possibility was to adopt an intermediate stance in which the Society would retain its independence of government and avoid political involvement while maintaining informal contacts and being available to offer objective scientific advice as appropriate. It was entirely in keeping with Dale's passionate belief in the freedom and universality of science (a view reinforced by what had happened in Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union) that he chose the third of these possible modes of action; that choice was too, much closer to the tradition of the Society than any of the others. The resulting pattern has also been in varying degree adopted in Commonwealth countries, South Africa and Scandinavia. The National Academy of the United States although not integrated with government has much closer links with it than the Royal Society and carries out quite large-scale investigations or studies on its behalf.

  Before it finally dissolved, the Scientific Advisory Committee to the War Cabinet instigated the setting up of the so-called Barlow Committee to advise inter alia on the best way in which scientific advice could be made available to government at Cabinet level in time of peace. The Committee proposed that two bodies should be set up, an Advisory Council on Scientific Policy (A.C.S.P.) to deal with the whole field of civil science and technology and a Defence Policy Research Committee (D.P.R.C.) which for obvious reasons had to be a separate body. Under this scheme, which was in fact adopted, the link between these two bodies was provided by a common chairman, Sir Henry Tizard. As originally constituted in 1948 A.C.S.P. consisted of seven independent scientists and technologists from the academic and industrial worlds (one an Officer - not the President - of the Royal Society) together with an equal number of officials (secretaries of the Research Councils, chairman of the University Grants Committee and three others representing the Treasury, atomic energy and government science). When Sir Henry Tizard retired in 1952 I, who had been with Solly (now Lord) Zuckerman an original member of A.C.S.P., became its Chairman on a part-time basis with no personal commitment to the D.P.R.C. which had a separate chairman. (This position I held continuously until the dissolution of A.C.S.P. in 1964.) This seemed a very satisfactory arrangement at the time, giving as it did to the Royal Society a direct contact with the main civil science advisory body in government reporting to the Lord President of the Council who in those days was the Minister responsible 'for the formulation of government scientific policy' and indeed was given the added title of Minister for Science a few years later. The stage then seemed set for an effective system of advice to government in which the Society could play a role but which still ensured its essential independence and freedom of action.

  Unfortunately the Society did not take full advantage of the situation. From 1950 under three successive Presidents the Society gradually lost influence and drifted away from matters of public policy; it became rather introspective and the Presidents were mainly concerned with such problems as accommodation, celebration of the Society's tercentenary and the like. This had unfortunate results in the early 1960s when a number of important - and in my view retrograde - steps were taken which radically altered the relationships between government, science and perhaps more especially the Royal Society. At that time there was much unease about the way in which Britain seemed to lag behind some other nations in technological innovation and there was a feeling that we were not making full use of the talent available in our rising generations because of inadequacies in our educational system. The Robbins Report recommending a huge (and to my mind ill-considered) expansion of higher education was accepted, in toto and almost without discussion, by both Government and Opposition in Parliament and the responsibility for science, the Research Councils and the University Grants Committee transferred to the new Secretary of State for Education and Science. The advent of a Labour Government in 1964 with its wild talk of a 'white hot technological revolution' completed the story. A.C.S.P. was abolished, technology was separated from science in a new ministry and a new Council for Scientific Policy was set up under the Department of Education and Science. Apart from recommending the pattern of division of available resources between the various Research Councils, this body had really very little function coexisting as it did with a Ministry of Technology with its own advisory council, and with the newly created post of Chief Scientific Adviser in the Cabinet Office. In these changes the Society took regrettably little part and its independence was in some measure affected by the political commitment of Lord Blackett to the Labour Government during his Presidency. Before my own election in 1975 several further changes occurred. The Council for Scientific Policy was dissolved and replaced by the more restricted but more more useful Advisory Board for the Research Councils, and following the resignation of Sir Alan Cottrell the office of Chief Scientific Adviser was abolished. Finally, changes - some of them not yet wholly absorbed - in the operations and interrelations of Research Councils and executive departments concerned with science, technology and medicine have occurred following the introduction of the so-called 'customer- contractor principle' adumbrated in the Rothschild Report of 1971.

  When I assumed office I was unhappy about the fragmented state of science-government relations and the position of the Royal Society in that connection. The fact that the retirement of Lord Rothschild and the abolition of the Chief Scientific Adviser's post had left the Central Policy Review Staff without any scientific expertise at its disposal within government was a source of concern to its Chairman as it was to me, and in due course a scientific member was appointed to the C.P.R.S., much to its benefit. This appointment, although useful and indeed necessary, did not in my view provide more than an amelioration of our problems, most of which remained. I can, of course, give only a personal view of these problems and on possible ways of resolving the vexed questions of relations between science and government although I believe that view is substantially shared by my fellow Officers. To begin with, I hold that government needs a high-level independent scientific adviser who should be Chairman of an advisory council similar to the original Advisory Council on Scientific Policy. He could be whole-time or part-time but he should be independent of any department and should report direct to the Cabinet. Whether he should report direct to the Prime Minister is doubtful - Prime Ministers are likely to be so tied down by the day to day exigencies of government that it would probably be wiser to make science, technology and scientific policy the responsibility of a senior and influential Minister without Portfolio as it was in the days of the A.C.S.P. In the absence of an advisory body such as this which could call on the resources not just of departments but of the Royal Society and the Fellowship of Engineering, government will continue to depend on inte
rnal advisers from executive departments whose views must necessarily be in some measure partisan. What I here propose would entail the removal of responsibility for science and the Research Councils from the Department of Education and Science; I believe such a change would be in the best interest of science which must inevitably play second fiddle to education under present arrangements. It would moreover make easier and more effective the revision of our dual support system for research in universities which is sorely in need of reform.

  These being my views it is only fair that I should indicate whether I and the Society have been able in any way to assist their promotion and, if so, to what extent. Following the appointment of a scientific officer to the Central Policy Review Staff I participated in a number of discussions and arising in part from these government set up a new body called the Advisory Council for Applied Research and Development (A.C.A.R.D.), a body consisting largely of independent scientists and technologists from industry and the universities with the Lord Privy Seal as titular chairman and a Fellow of the Society as operative deputy chairman. The formation of A.C.A.R.D. represents a considerable step forward; not only does its membership include several Fellows but the Society has collaborated with it and with A.B.R.C. to produce a most valuable report on Biotechnology, some of whose recommendations are now being put into effect as part of national policy. A.C.A.R.D. has also produced several other smaller reports and its actions to date would seem to augur well for its future. True I consider that A.C.A.R.D.'s remit should extend further than 'applied research and development' if it is to achieve all I would hope for, but until it is accepted by government that there should be a separation of the Research Councils (or, if you will - science) from education some limitations on its activities in regard to scientific policy will remain. In parallel too with the activities of A.C.A.R.D. the Society itself has undertaken, in some cases at the request of government, impartial reviews of evidence obtainable on, for example, the outlook for a 'coal economy'. In this and other ways it is maintaining and again increasing its informal contacts with government in the area of scientific policy.

  Progress in such matters is of necessity slow but I feel we are moving on the right lines and that in doing so we not only uphold but maintain for the future the position in our country's affairs that was sought, and in substantial measure achieved, by our predecessors of thirty-five years ago. The Society's objects are and must remain threefold:

  (1) To protect and encourage science in all its aspects pure or applied. As Robert Hooke once put it: 'To improve the knowledge of naturall things and all useful Arts, Manufactures, Mechanick practises, Engynes and Inventions by Experiment'.

  (2) To offer to government an independent source of advice and help in the creation and operation of instruments through which science and technology may be brought fully to bear upon the formulation of national policy.

  (3) To uphold and develop international scientific relations upholding the principle that scientists shall be free to interchange their findings and to collaborate in the search for knowledge without let or hindrance.

  To realise these objects the Society must continue to maintain its independence, avoid involvement in politics and at all costs maintain its high standards. The Royal Society is and must remain an elite body if it is to retain its prestige and even its credibility.

  FB2 document info

  Document ID: f07dabd6-eac7-495b-9e34-db63682cc3b3

  Document version: 1

  Document creation date: 16 September 2013

  Created using: FictionBook Editor Release 2.6.6 software

  Document authors :

  Chemist

  Document history:

  1.0 — file created

  About

  This file was generated by Lord KiRon's FB2EPUB converter version 1.1.5.0.

  (This book might contain copyrighted material, author of the converter bears no responsibility for it's usage)

  Этот файл создан при помощи конвертера FB2EPUB версии 1.1.5.0 написанного Lord KiRon.

  (Эта книга может содержать материал который защищен авторским правом, автор конвертера не несет ответственности за его использование)

  http://www.fb2epub.net

  https://code.google.com/p/fb2epub/