LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
The British Association
SIR,—The letter by Mr. John D. Hillaby entitled " The Old Age of the British Ass" in The Spectator of September 11th once again brings to the notice of both scientific and non-scientific readers the question of the need for the reorganisation of an institution which for more than a hundred and twenty years has been an outstanding facet of British science. I should therefore appreciate the hospitality of your columns in order to endorse in general the point of view expressed by Mr. Hillaby, especially since be has offered constructive criticism as opposed to the destructive criticism which some of us now all too frequently hear directed against the Association.
Among men of science who have recently commented on the present status and significance of the B.A. (as a result of this year's meeting in Liverpool), two stand out clearly in my mind. One has claimed that the presbge of the Association is higher than ever. The other has commented that he must admit that the British Association as now constituted is an anachronism yet "look at the lege crowds it has attracted at Liverpool."
Now, both these men are outstanding in scientific achievement and both are pillars of the B.A. I do not know on what grounds the former scientist bases his claims; probably also those of the " large crowds." Certainly the Assistant Secretary of the Association, in a preliminary article in the Liverpool Post, tried to confound the Association's critics by citing the large numbers at the annual meetings.
Space will obviously not allow me to go into details of criticism, but two points loom large: (1) that of numbers attending; (2) that of the, to my mind, outmoded organisation of the Association itself.
(1) The number attending the Liverpool meeting was over three thousand. (a) Assuming that all these were the kind of people who are most needed in order that the B.A. may carry out the objectives of its charter, is this a large number ? The sciences now play a great part in our everyday lives, and, apart from the medical sciences, the British Association for the Advancement of Science is supposed to admit them all. There are fourteen Sections, and within each Section, many aspects of science can claim inclusion. There are thousands of scientists in the world; and, within Britain alone there are hundreds of thousands of actual or potentially enquiring laymen. If, therefore, the British Association could really capture the imagination of the public, I see no reason why it should not be quite easy to attract ten thousand to an annual meeting. That number, of course, would be unwieldy and unmanageable. Therefore, a smaller, manageable number should be called from the best men and women of science (from the Association's point of view) and the best interpreters of
science. •
(b) Surely those scientists who look to " large numbers " as indicative of high prestige and fundamental success are themselves being unscientific. The mere quotation of several. figures conveys nothing but an impression of size. An analysis of those attending—who attends, why he attends, and so forth—would probably cast a very different light on the real situation, as suggested by Mr. Hillaby.
(2) I should like to see a complete reorganisation of the internal structure of the British Association. Mr. Hillaby's letter embodies some good ideas.
The Council does not meet often enough throughout the year considering the very small permanent staff that the Association engages. As at present constituted, the Council contains a high percentage of scientists, all of them excellent in their professed fields, but some of these have never revealed either orally or in writing any special aptitude for the interpretation of science and its impact on society to that society. Yet such interpretation should be one of the main functions of the Association today. As Mr. Hillaby indicates, this cannot be done with any lasting effect during one short week each year.
The British Association naturally has its critics, and I sometimes wonder whether the officials really appreciate what a large number there are. At any rate, outside the body of professional scientists, there are and have been such critics as Mr. Hillaby, Mr. Chapman Pincher, and certain other professional' science correspondents to the highly important newspaper and other non-scientific press who are doing an excellent job of work in presenting scientists and their activities and the results of those activities to an enormous reading Public. Such men cannot be ignored indefinitely with impunity, so their and others' criticisms should be met or confounded by the Association itself.
The annual meeting of the B.A. is well covered both by the Press and by the BBC. But it is important to realise that neither of these media of instruction and publicity depends a great deal on the B.A. The newspaper press has improved considerably in its science reporting, and we now have some excellent professional science correspondents who are reporting throughout the year. In my opinion also, science and scientists owe a great debt to the BBC for its continuous covering of science. Finally, though I see Mr. Ritchie Calder's point when, in his address at the Liverpool meeting of the B.A., he said that scientists are illiterate and do not care about the social implications of their work, I think his remarks (at any rate as reported) were too sweeping. I personally know many professional scientists who are gravely con- cerned about how their work is utilised by mankind, and quite a number who are capable of clearly interpreting their findings to lay audiences.
So it seems a pity that even if the British Association is tolerant of criticisth it does not appear to face it squarely. My own experience as such a critic has given me the impression that the Association looks upon those who are not for it as therefore against it; which is absurd. There are certainly a very large number of dissatisfied critics of the B.A., 'both within and without the wall of scientific endeavour; and these should be met by the Association itself. To use a fashionable phrase, I would suggest a round-table rather than an across-table conference. And if this is conceded, then I would propose as the main item of the agenda the reconstitution of the Council to include more scientists with proved ability to ,interpret, several representatives of the newspaper and other lay press, the broadcasting authorities, the cinema companies and so forth.
Despite " large numbers," the B.A. will gradually fail in its mission if it persists in ignoring, maybe even resenting criticism. There are many, including myself, who, though they do not view the B.A. with affection, look upon it objectively as a body which can do very useful work; but clearly this can be done only when the majority of the public, and especially interpreters of science and scientists themselves are satisfied with its methods.—Yours faithfully, L. J. F. BRIMBLE.
The Athenwum, S.W.I.
Previous page
