LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
The British Association
Snt,—Your correspondence on the British Association has an old familiar, ring. I can recall the phrase " wastepaper basket of the learned societies " being used in a similar " revolt " in 1932. I am sure that once or twice in every generation, in the 122 years of the British Association's existence, similar criticisms have been levelled and similar obituary notices written.-
I happen to believe that the British Association has still a great, and perhaps greater, function to perform, but I agree with the critics that now is the time for a serious stock-taking, for a discarding of much which was proper in its time and place but is now outmoded, and for a New Deal. The platform, for the advancement of science, is no longer confined to the lecture room. With facilities undreamt of by the Founder Fathers at York in 1831, it can reach the millions through the mass-circulation Press, the radio and television, and, if need be, the films.
What distinguishes this year's attack and recalls the " revolt " of 1932 is the quite spontaneous outburst by working journalists. This is not confined to your journal. 1 was as much surprised as Sir Edward Appleton, the President, must have been when he met the Press at the end of the meeting and received a barrage of protest from all quarters, from journalists whose papers provide columns of " duty " space to those who are looking for the individual story.
The complaint of lack of " copy " when 360 papers and 1+ million words had been delivered was a sombre comment on this year's proceedings. It was not a case of the journalists having been unlucky, or having been trapped in one or other of the fourteen sections by discussions which had looked promising and had failed to be interest- ing. This year, as in recent years, the Press room was most efficiently organised, and the papers, at least as to 75 per cent., were available for scrutiny, even if the journalists had not attended the actual delivery. The inescapable truth was that the vast majority of the papers were trite or unintelligible, even to those of us who claim to be scientific journalists.
And here I take up Mr. Brimble's comment on my -own address in which I said that most scientists are illiterate, inarticulate and irresponsible. Of course, it was a sweeping statement and unjust to some, but it was also a defence of those academic scientists who take a great deal 'of trouble and imaginative effort to make themselves understood, but who are accused of being " charlatans " because they do so.
As Sir Edward Appleton has said, the researches of the scientist are his own concern, but his results belong to the public. The British Association since its foundation has recognised that one of the greatest " obstacles which stand in the way of the advancement of science " is public ignorance. The removal of this obstacle is, I am convinced, the most important function of the British Association, and, in the mid-twentieth century, the major justification for its existence.
The growth of the learned societies, covering the specialisations, has rendered meaningless the consorting of scientists in their special sections at the B.A. The urgency of getting into print and establishing priorities in the highly competitive world of science which produces 40,000 original papers a year, means that there is no possibility nowadays as there was in the nineteenth century, of original pronouncements being made from the platform of the British Association. There is still justification for the social amenities and the field excursions which enable scientists to foregather as human beings, but there is no justifica- tion for the assumption that serious scientists will be attracted by specialised sectional subjects which have been exhausted in the learned Societies and in the innumerable international congresses and colloquia which the various branches of science now provide.
On the academic side the only role which the British Association can perform is to provide inter-sectional discussions to break down the barriers between the various branches of science, now trapped by their own jargon, and to produce a cross-fertilisation of ideas and knowledge between, e.g., the physicists and the biologists. There is a resistance which I believe is stultifying the British Association, to this kind of joint discussion. Such discussions would not exclude individual papers, although these, to take Mr. Pincher's point should be really up-to-the-minute accounts of developments.
It has been my contention, on the Council of the British AssociatiOn and off it, that there must be a theme for each annual meeting. This• should be set by the presidential address and taken up construc- tively in the sectional, and joint, discussions. This would give some point and direction to the discussions and to those taking part. It would at least provide the Press with some sort of compass with which to find a way through the welter of words, and it would serve to. cut down the too-numerous papers delivered. As a result of the "revolt" in the 'Thirties, the British Association established the Division of Social and International Relations. Behind the movement were men of eminence like Sir Richard Gregory, Mr. H. G. Wells, and Sir Gowland Hopkins. That Division was intended to hold meetings throughout the year and throughout the
• country on issues of active public interest, and performed that function before the war, and during the war the Division kept the British Association alive when the annual meetings were suspended. Among other things it was responsible, during the Blitz of 1941, for bringing the scientists of twenty-seven nations together in an historic and far- sighted discussion on Science in the Post-war World. Since the war its functions have been restricted to a session at the 'annual meeting. This year's session on " Science and the Unpredictable " was not the public success it should have been, and for that, as Chairman, I accept my full responsibility, but the real purpose of the Division should be recognised as one way of giving a continuing significance to the British Association.
Another post-war opportunity, which for financial reasons the British Association has neglected, was the proposal which emerged from" the Royal Society Empire Conference, immediately after the war, that the British Association should establish a Bureau of Scientific Information to serve the needs of the mass media, the Press, the radio, the television, and the cinema, as well as the growing needs of teachers and others. That is one way of recognising the broadening of the platform of the British Association.
As Mr. Cowen has pointed out, the American Association has been " re-thinking " its role. An independent investigation of its functions has been carried out, and a re-organisation to meet present day oppor- tunities is being undertaken. Curiously enough (I understand) there is a belief in the American -Association that the B.A. has already given a lead in this direction. In other words, that it has given effect to the hopeful and progressive initiative of the 1930's.
The British Association is very much alive, but the Council, and the Officers, must squarely recognise that this year's criticisms are not destructive. The mere fact that journalists, lay and scientific, care enough to be critical should be proof enough that the British Association means a great deal.
As one who has attended every meeting since 1928, and has remained loyal to the objects of the Association, -I would ask my friends on the Council to remember that while science is fun, as Sir Edward Appleton suggested, it is not a private joke, and that scientists should learn to string their pearls instead of casting them.—Yours faithfully,
Previous page
