Anniversary Dinner 1948

Anniversary Dinner 1948Author(s): Herbert MorrisonSource: Notes and Records of the Royal Society of London, Vol. 6, No. 2 (May, 1949), pp. 82-103Published by: The Royal SocietyStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/531278 .

Accessed: 16/06/2014 18:14

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

The Royal Society is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Notes and Records ofthe Royal Society of London.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.106 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 18:14:09 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=rsl

http://www.jstor.org/stable/531278?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


82

ANNIVERSARY DINNER 1948

HE Anniversary Dinner for I948 was held at the Savoy Hotel on St Andrew's day. The Society's guests included Mr Herbert

Morrison, the Chinese Ambassador, the French Ambassador and the Lord Mayor of London. Grace was said by the Dean of Westminster.

Rising to propose the toast of' The Royal Society of London' Mr Herbert Morrison, Lord President of the Council, said:

'Mr President, Your Excellencies, my Lord Mayor, my Lords, Ladies and Gentlemen:

'I am especially glad to have the privilege of proposing to-night the toast of the Royal Society. The struggle in which we are engaged to,day for the whole future of western civilization is a struggle to defend a few simple fundamental values without which free men cannot live. The spirit of scientific inquiry, the scientific approach to problems of all sorts and the self-discipline and universality of the scientist are

among the most essential of these values, and the Royal Society of London has the proud position of having nursed these values from their earliest days and having throughout its history been their staunchest

upholder. Never has more depended on the capacity and tenacity of scientists

to maintain these traditions without flinching and without compromise. In other countries, very close to us in terms of modern communication, we hear of scientists being proscribed and persecuted on account of

alleged deviations from a political dogma. Those who accuse scientists of deviating from dogma accuse themselves of deviating from the ways of science, which are after all simply the ways of truth. Any British or other scientist who supports this sort of thing will soon cease to be a scientist-or at any rate a scientist on whom reliance can be placed. Therefore, for scientists all over the world this Royal Society is a citadel of' standards and values which must be vigilantly and vigorously defended day and night.



83

'Science is not an activity which we pursue exclusively for any material end, either economic or social or political. Science is some-

thing which bursts out of us as an expression of man groping towards the light, and the material benefits which it brings us are secondary and must never be allowed to prejudice or interfere with the full and unfettered development of scientific inquiry.

'But, Mr President, there is really no incompatibility between fundamental scientific inquiry and applied science. It is right and essential that scientists should be free to pursue scientific inquiry wherever it leads them, but it is also right that they should have

opportunities to pursue researches which are of direct value to the

community and that the community should provide large resources for this purpose. If I, as a Minister, often have to emphasize applied aspects, it is not because I underrate the importance of fundamental science, but because I take it for granted as the air which science breathes.

'Fortunately, the nation is coming to understand better and better how worth,while it is to encourage and support a larger scientific effort. British science has a tradition not only of great discoveries, but of making them on small resources, and I would like to utter a word of warning here. There may be a temptation towards the adoption of

unnecessary lavish standards as more money is given to science and as scientific staffs expand. I do not suggest that this is happening, but it has happened in other fields and I am anxious, as I am sure you are, that the tradition of economy and moderation in the carrying on of scientific work shall be maintained. Economy does matter, particularly where public money is directly or indirectly concerned.

' Science is always reaching out to new frontiers and there are many branches represented here to-night which would have been unimagin- able not so very long ago. I would like to refer to just one expansion, both because it is probably the newest and because, Mr President, it was your predecessor, Sir Henry Dale, who, as Chairman of the Cabinet Scientific Advisory Committee, originally put forward to me this recommendation in its first outline in July I946. I refer to the Biological Service, which started work at the beginning of this month under the wing of the Agricultural Research Council. I am sure we all wish



84

it good fortune and feel confident that it will maintain the high standards of government research already set by the Medical Research Council, the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research and the Agricul- tural Research Council. And in referring to the Agricultural Research Council I cannot refrain from mentioning the great loss which we have suffered so lately through the death of Sir John Fryer, Fellow of the

Royal Society and Secretary of that Council since 1943. His life-

long devotion to the scientific aspects of agriculture, and his great capacity to develop friendly and constructive teamwork, will be badly missed.

' Since your last dinner, which took place two years ago, a striking tribute to British men of science has been paid by the award of two Nobel Prizes in November 1947 and one this year to three of your Fellows. To you, Mr President, for your distinguished contribution to organic chemistry and to Sir Edward Appleton and Professor P. M. S. Blackett for their distinguished contributions to physics. It is a matter of great satisfaction to the Fellows and their guests here assembled that this high honour has come to your Society, your country and yourselves. May I be permitted to interpose my regrets at the departure from D.S.I.R. of Sir Edward Appleton who has rendered such distinguished service to the whole world of science, but we wish him the very best of luck and success in the important post at Edinburgh to which he has been appointed.

'Outside the field of the natural sciences nevu work is developing on human and social problems. I often wonder how much connexion there is between these new efforts in the social sciences and the older and more tested sciences. We need social scientists as experienced, as critical and as firmly based as the workers in the older natural sciences, and I am wondering whether there is scope here for closer collaboration in order to help the workers in these new and very difficult fields to have behind them the full wisdom and experience which has been won at so much cost in other branches of science.

' Problems of expansion are not confined to the field of science itself. There are also problems of the spread of science over this country and over the world. Not long ago I was in Edinburgh discussing what more could be done to stimulate Scottish science and to make scientific



85

resources more fully available in Scotland. The same problem also arises about Wales. I know, Mr President, that this is the Royal Society of London, but I hope I shall be in order in expressing the view that no one part of the country should be allowed to monopolize scientific opportunities and that we must continually use our ingenuity to overcome the geographical disadvantages which some parts of Britain feel in obtaining the fullest access to scientific advice and to the

refreshing flow of scientific thought. This consideration has helped to reconcile me to releasing Sir Edward Appleton to take up the Vice-

Chancellorship of Edinburgh University. In agreeing to let him go I consider I am making another contribution to Scottish science of about the same magnitude as in deciding to locate the great new Mechanical Engineering Research Station at East Kilbride. With these two props, one mechanical the other very human, we can, I am

sure, look confidently to a great revival in Scottish science. Looking over the Commonwealth also, we find more and more that the fellow,

ship of the scientists is becoming one of the most powerful among the invisible bonds which link the Commonwealth countries together. Whatever political and constitutional problems may arise the doors are wide open to British scientists throughout the free world, and

increasing responsibility is inevitably falling on the scientists as ambassadors between one country and another. On the whole this responsibility is being magnificently fulfilled.

'I have just spoken of ambassadors, and one thing which must strike anyone who is concerned with these matters to-day is the terrible

shortage of mature and experienced scientists who are also something more than scientists-scientific administrators, scientific statesmen and leaders in public affairs generally. The nation badly needs more men of this type, and looking back on the early days of the Royal Society we cannot help being impressed by the close interlocking and contact which took place between scientific leadership and leadership in Parliament and in all sorts of current affairs. The scientist of Charles II's day seems to have been almost equally at home in the laboratory, the Royal Court or in the House of Commons. No doubt this need which we now feel will evoke its own response, but for various reasons we are faced with a shortage of scientists in the prime of life who can



86

be spared for work which is not in itself scientific but which should

greatly benefit from the injection of a scientific outlook and attitude. 'I am hopeful that the already great part which science occupies in

our national life will become even greater during the next few years. I set great value, Mr President, on the work in which you and the two Secretaries of this Society are participating in planning the Festival of Britain, 195I, and in preparing to demonstrate through it to the nation and the whole world just what science means in the British

way of life. 'Mr President, you and I have during the year had occasion to

discuss many matters of mutual concern in scientific affairs. I would, however, like to refer in particular to the occasion in the summer when

you saw my colleagues, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Minister of Works and myself to discuss the extent, to which His Majesty's Government will help in the creation of a Science Centre. I know that this is a matter which is very dear to you and that when you assumed your present distinguished office your first public speech contained an expression of the hope that the national scientific societies of the United Kingdom should have a worthy home. The Government are very sympathetic to your request that there should be created in London in due time a worthy home for what we have come to regard as the British National Academy of Sciences, where you with your sister institutions can meet, where you can house your libraries and conduct your business. I can make no promises but I hope that before

very long His Majesty's Government may be able to acquire on your behalf a site on which a Science Centre can be built.

'I have pleasure in giving the toast of" The Royal Society of London"

coupled with the name of the President, Sir Robert Robinson.'

The President made the following reply:

'My Lord President, Your Excellencies, my Lord Mayor, my Lords, Ladies and Gentlemen:

' We are most grateful to the Lord President first for consenting to be our guest and then for actually dining with us on this cold and foggy November evening and proposing so happily the toast of the Royal Society of London.



87

'Although it is true that most of His Majesty's Ministers are in one

way or another concerned with scientific affairs and applications of science and technology, yet the Lord President occupies a position of

peculiar eminence in this respect. I hope that I may use an analogy without being misunderstood. Whilst your colleagues, Sir, are attacked by the disease in a somewhat attenuated form and usually display only secondary symptoms, you, my Lord President, encounter the full virulence of the fresh infection at a very superior level of

potency. ' So far as I have been able to ascertain the Lord President has taken

no steps whatever to immunize himself and as the inevitable result he has now become one of the most confirmed " Scientists " in the country. In fact, the problem of the Ministry of Science has been shelved, if not solved, and Mr Morrison, not only as Lord President of the Council but also because of the personal interest he has displayed, has become the Minister de facto if not de jure.

' It is accordingly a great privilege to have the opportunity of hearing him to-night and in my case to add a few words of acknowledgment of his most eloquent and wise speech.

'Much of what he has said we recognize as the expression of our innermost feelings and it is evident that we think alike on all the

really vital questions affecting science. It would not be appropriate to traverse again the ground so adequately covered by the Lord President and I will content myself by mentioning a point of trivial importance relatively and yet one that concerns us nearly. I cannot imagine that the Lord President of all men objects to our retention of the historic title " The Royal Society of London." We are, however, very proud and jealous of our actual position as the " National Academy of Science " with a splendid record of cooperation with scientists in all

parts of the world. No hint of parochialism has reached us but we will take heed of the Lord President's remark and consider whether an extension of activities in other centres is feasible.

'The Lord President has also commented on the lack of scientists available for administrative duties. Perhaps the case of the chemical

engineers throws some light on a possible way out of the difficulty. These hybrids do not breed true to type and we have great trouble



88

in propagating a sufficient number. So we take an engineer and make him a chemist-or vice versa, and vice versa is usually the better way.

'If our scientists fail to become administrators, cannot we find administrators who would acquire what scientists have got . I don't have to travel far to find an apt illustration !

'Identity of viewpoint is not a characteristic of the Fellows of the

Royal Society and even when we do look from the same place, we do not always see the same things. Therefore, I can speak only for myself, though not without the hope of finding a large measure of sympathetic support.

' As a nation we are notoriously loth to blow our own trumpets too

loudly and that is partly because our contributions to the orchestra have been very generously applauded abroad. There exists, however, a school of thought which suggests that pure science is relatively backward here, that it has suffered a mortal blow and shows no signs of recovery. I like to think that the exponents of this view are merely prodding us into greater activity; in fact in some cases, I am sure that is the explanation. Nevertheless, the facts point to the opposite conclusion to theirs, namely, that we are experiencing a veritable surge forward in scientific progress in this country. Now it must be conceded that there are peaks on the curve of development, such as those associated with the great British biologists and physicists of the last hundred years; we cannot be expected to maintain such maxima in all subjects at all times. There is, however, good reason to believe that the average level of output, both in quality and quantity, is higher now than at

any previous time. There is, above all, an enormous and significant increase in non,professorial initiative. Naturally, I join the mal, contents in hoping for further improvement and in demanding still better facilities. But let us be fair, fair to both parties, if we think of the matter in that way, as a kind of equilibrium between science and

government. So far as my experience goes, in the Royal Society, in the University, and in Industry the difficulties experienced have been to a large extent inherent in the post,war conditions and we have received as much encouragement as it was reasonable to expect under the circumstances. Of course it is reasonable to expect much more in



89

the future and I believe we shall get it. We intend to survive, and therefore we shall get it.

'It is to be hoped, however, that we may continue to receive a light kiss as a token of affection and that this will never become the stifling hug of a bear. I must not pursue some of the implications of the

metaphor lest I be accused of dragging the Royal Society into politics. Still it can hardly be blameworthy to try to ascertain facts in regard to the fate of a sister academy or to attempt to understand the nature of the forces that have constrained her.

' The public discussion here has been illuminating (it offers, I notice, a rival attraction to,night) and I will mention only one remark that has been made in its course. It has been stated that we should pursue either that which is true, or that which is useful. It cannot be denied that both these statements are correct, when taken by themselves. It is the implication of an alternative that is misleading in relation to the context.

' When we are groping for the truth, for the improvement of natural

knowledge-to use our own phrase-it cannot be right to substitute a different objective, even that of usefulness. In relation to the faith of our founders the statement I have quoted is only a halfvtruth and it is not useful at all. It is quite possible to do the right things for the wrong reasons. The practical man is entitled to employ empirical methods if he finds them successful and that success must promote investigation leading to an increase of knowledge. But he is not entitled to deny progress based on planned experiment and systematic discussion in other fields of work.

' Earl Russell has demonstrated the unity of falsity and it is an axiom that the truth is also one and indivisible and all real usefulness must derive from it.

'We enjoy a heritage of untrammelled scientific research which has been won for us in past generations and is as dear to us as the political liberties secured by Magna Carta-only as the first step, I hasten to add!

' A real danger lies in this exaltation of" utility" as a sufficient end in itself whether it takes the form reported from Soviet Russia or any other form detrimental to the pursuit of knowledge for its own sake.



90

We hold that" utility " is a good objective but that it is best approached by way of the improvement of knowledge. Moreover, the clear lesson of the past is that fundamental research pays a good dividend in national

prosperity and its neglect is a sure forerunner of stagnation and decline. The successes of empiricism are very short,lived in the modern world.

'It may be true that we have not yet applied all that we already know, but the trouble is that the applications of the future will not necessarily or even probably be based on what we already know. They will be based in great part on discoveries still to be made. We were very glad to hear the Lord President's analysis which was not at all inconsistent with this view.

'It is absolutely essential to maintain our position in the van of

progress and I am quite sure that this can only be done by intensifying our effort in fundamental research, not merely in the Universities, but also in Industry and Government Laboratories. Races are not won

by merely catching up; it is also necessary to take the lead and to

keep it. ' Judging by the record of attendance the Society's Ordinary Meetings

are arousing more interest and support from Fellows than in the

past, and that is certainly due chiefly to the devoted labours of our

distinguished Secretaries. In particular, to Sir Edward Salisbury's innovation, the addresses on research laboratories and institutions of various types. These have been very much appreciated and the series will be continued next year. Incidentally, we did enjoy our picnic at Kew. Any suggestions that Fellows can make for the further

improvement of our Ordinary Meetings will be most welcome-if

they are good ones. 'I do not favour the habit of assessing scientific output by counting

up papers or even by weighing reprints of them, in view of the errors introduced by the covers. Nor do I think that the superficial area or volume of the Minutes of Council is a sure guide to the value of the activities of that body. It perhaps affords a rough quantitative survey and on that basis we are certainly much busier than ever before.

'The chief event of the past year was the Scientific Information Conference and I will not add to what was said about that earlier

to,day, except to thank Dr Martin for the splendid work he did for



91

that Conference at all stages. How much its success depended on Dr Martin's devotion and untiring efforts was apparent to all participants and I am sure that he would wish me to associate the staff with him in this most sincere tribute.

'I referred this afternoon to Sir Alfred Egerton's manifold services to the Society as Physical Secretary for the full period of ten years. In once more expressing our gratitude to him, I would now like to add, on a more personal note, how delighted we all are by his obvious

recovery from the effects of an alpine accident-winter variety. Close contact with Sir Alfred's zealous work has been a really great privilege; he has been a splendid colleague.

'It is a great satisfaction to welcome my old friend and quondam co,worker, Professor Hirst, among the medallists. He started at St Andrews, the Old World, and went on to Birmingham, the New World of sugar chemistry, since when he has been busy in creating further Dominions and bringing still more territory under the sway of the fascination of the carbohydrates. An American corporation is

giving huge prizes for work on sugars, thus sweetening the cup under the mistaken impression that sugar chemists need to be encouraged. Our difficulty is to stop them !

'This seems a suitable opportunity to acknowledge the great help given to me by my wife, also my guest to,night, and whilst that has been immeasurable, I am well aware that it is so fully recognized that

normally no reference would be made to the subject. My excuse is that I want to tell you about our bridge parties. Formerly these were

quite normal, the two of us and two guests. Then I had the honour to be elected your President and for reasons which you will understand the system developed into three guests and an occasional rubber for me towards the end of the evening. But Lady Robinson is a scientist too and finds her present work of quite absorbing interest. The latest

suggestion for our bridge was hers and I think it worthy of record as an example of what the home life of scientists may become. It was that on the next occasion we should invite four guests.

'My Lord President, on behalf of the Fellows of the Royal Society I thank you warmly for the toast you have proposed in such heartening terms. We have your friendship but we'll do more-deserve it.'



92

The toast of 'The Guests' was proposed by Professor E. D. Adrian, O.M., who said:

'Mr President, my Lord President, Your Excellencies, my Lord

Mayor, my Lords, Ladies and Gentlemen: 'The duties of the Foreign Secretary of the Royal Society are set

out in the year book on p. 88 and if you will turn to that page you will see that they don't amount to much. In fact compared to that of the other Secretaries his life must seem an excellent blend of idleness and

dignity. But by recent custom and not by rule the Foreign Secretary has one function which is much the most important part of his year's work-for it has become his privilege to welcome our guests at the annual dinner of the Society on St Andrew's day, 30 November.

' This dinner has been held on that day every year since we had our charter in 1663, apart from interruptions due either to the necessities of war or the regulations of the Ministry of Food. It has always been a great occasion for us. At the first of these dinners our Royal Patron, King Charles II, sent us a present of venison and then, and for some

years after, the Fellows marked the day by wearing a St Andrew's cross in their hats. No one seems to know why they were so loyal to St Andrew, but Samuel Pepys says in his Diary that he had the cross " set in his hat as the rest had and cost me two shillings." The Fellows of that time would all have worn more decorative clothes than we do now and they certainly had more to eat. But if they sat

long at dinner the daylight would fade and there would only be candles and firelight to show them up. Nowadays science has changed all that. We miss the venison and the side of veal and the fat greene geese, but we have the assurance that 2,500 calories a day is enough for anyone, and instead of candles we have the latest fluorescent

lighting so that we can wear our customary black without looking too solemn. But on this occasion, for the first time in our history, we have something which goes a long way to restore our decorative effect,

namely the presence of the ladies in reasonable numbers. There have been women Fellows of the Society for several years-Cambridge University is not the only learned body that can boast of its enlightened attitude-but this is the first time that ladies have come as guests and



93

we shall drink their health feeling that if Samuel Pepys were with us now he would agree with us in finding it a mighty pleasant occasion and to our great content.

'Besides the ladies we have another category of guests who were not

present at the early dinners of the Society. From time to time various donors have given us funds for the annual award of medals. Even scientists need incentives to make them keep up their output and science in this country has few incentives to match the Copley Medal which has gone to Faraday, Darwin, Pasteur, Rutherford, all the great names in science. It has gone this year to our friend Professor A. V. Hill, who is eminent not merely for his own physiology but for the great help he has given to scientists all over the world. He must be one of the very few scientists who have entered the more breezy atmosphere of the House of Commons and have returned to their laboratories really very little the worse. Then there is the Rumford Medal which has

gone to every great physicist, the Davy Medal for Chemistry, the Darwin and Hughes Medals and the two Royal Medals given by the King for the most distinguished work recently published in his Majesty's dominions. Our medallists are our guests this evening. Their special achievements were celebrated this afternoon when the medals were

presented, so I need only say that we are very proud of them: as long as we can put up such a list we are in no danger of losing our high position in the world of science and we are delighted to welcome

to-night A. V. Hill, Ronald Fisher, Harold Jeffreys, James Gray, Edmund Hirst, Franz Simon and all.

'But the Royal Society needs its incentives too-its pat on the back to make it feel that it is doing its job-and one such incentive is the

presence of so many distinguished guests who have been willing to come abroad on such an evening to join us in celebrating our Society and its aims. Its aims are the promotion of natural knowledge and

though we are not all agreed as to the best way to do it-whether to

plan with Professor Bernal or to follow our noses with Professor

Polanyi-we are all agreed that the increase in natural knowledge must go on if we are to fulfil our place in the world as homo sapiens. And we believe that we should aim at the increased knowledge and not be too much concerned about the consequences, at all events about



94

the practical benefits that flow from it. Our founders were criticized for this. The cynics ridiculed Robert Boyle " who after a whole life

spent in the most laborious chymical researches has enriched the world with no more medicines than what may be purchased, and that too dear, for twelve pence." Nowadays we could not estimate the material comforts which we owe to Boyle, the father of chemistry. We might ask Lord Trent of Messrs Boots, Sir Geoffrey Heyworth of Lever Bros. or Sir Wallace Akers of I.C.I. But it is not mere scientific

snobbery that makes us lay more stress on Boyle's contribution to

knowledge. We say this kind of thing so often that you must be

getting tired of it, but the glamour of scientific applications is so great that we have to be constantly reminding ourselves as well as everyone else that the surest way to get the applications is first of all to get the science. And since we say this so loud and so often it is a great en,

couragement to have with us the men who know what science has done and can do in the world. We have leaders of industry and commerce. There is the President of that learned and historic institution, the Royal College of Physicians, older than the Royal Society, and the President of its vigorous younger brother, the Royal College of Surgeons. We have the Dean of Westminster and the Dean of Christ Church. There are the ambassadors of the two great countries where civilization has been most highly prized-France and China. We are particularly glad to have General Templar and Sir Ronald Weeks because they must have seen the failures as well as the successes. Sir Ronald was Director,General of army equipment in the critical years of the war and he will know that one must not expect too much.

'There is a danger-it is partly our own fault for boasting-but there is a real danger nowadays that scientists will be thought of as

having the keys to all our difficulties in their pockets if they would only condescend to use them. There is a danger that people will expect that the scientific study of industry and of human relationships will work miracles overnight, and that if you ask a question of a team of scientists you will get a straight answer before the year is out. The Lord Chancellor must have listened to too many of us giving expert witness to have any illusions about straight answers, and the fact is that even in our own laboratories, though we can count on getting a



95

great many answers, they are rarely answers to the particular problems we want to solve. When we set out to design a better ploughshare, we

may find that what we have done is to improve the quality of swords- or vice versa. You may remember the distinguished engineer in the first war who wanted to increase the rate of fire from the machine-guns in aeroplanes, by improvements in the hydraulic synchronizing gear. He found that it was impossible to make the guns fire any faster, but that he had invented the ideal device for making a noise like a very large cow at milking time. So when we work out of a laboratory and on problems which involve human skill and human likes and dislikes, it is no good pretending that we shall always do what is wanted of us. If scientists can go wrong in simple things like predicting the birth, rate or the Presidential election in the United States, or the demand for

spectacles under the National Health Act, you can see that we are not the sort of people to trust too far. So we are very grateful to you for showing that you do trust us to a reasonable extent.

'There is safety in numbers and we should do better if there were more of us. The Vice-Chancellor of London University and the Vice-Chancellor of Oxford will know all about the difficulty of

teaching more science students without rebuilding the university every few years, and the difficulty of teaching them to read and write as well as to do their arithmetic. The Master of Balliol is another friend of ours who has these things at heart. Balliol is sometimes accused by its rivals of being more interested in reading and writing than in

rowing, but it has certainly known how to produce the kind of men who are needed for administration and government. Unfortunately, these compliments to Balliol are wasted, for to our great regret Lord

Lindsay has been prevented at the last minute by illness from coming here to-night and replying to this toast. The Vice,Chancellor of London University has most kindly consented to take his place, and no one who has any dealings with Vice-Chancellors or London

University can have anything but admiration for so busy a person adding to her labours in this way. Professor Lillian Penson knows our problems for most of her time is spent preserving the balance between science and other branches of knowledge.

'It is part of our creed that men in authority ought to know when



96

they should turn to scientists for advice. We have very few complaints to make on this score nowadays, indeed, as I have said, there is a

danger that they will expect more definite advice than we can give: but with the best will in the world they may not realize some of the rather simple points on which we can advise and ought to advise unless they have had some contact with science themselves. Of course the men who know when to call in the expert and then how much to trust him are rather rare birds and even Balliol can scarcely expect to turn them out by mass production. But there is something to be said for the college method-for insisting that young scientists and historians and lawyers and philosophers shall dine together every day so that at least they have to observe one another at fairly close

quarters and listen to talk which is not their particular shop. At all. events, the Royal Society uses this method of educating itself at this dinner. It has done so now for nearly 300 years and speaking for the scientists I can say that we are certainly the better for it. Speaking to our guests I can say that we have enjoyed as well as profited by your company this evening and that we thank you for coming, and I ask the Fellows of the Royal Society to drink your very good health, coupled with the names of Professor Lillian Penson and Sir Ronald Weeks.'

Lieutenant.General Sir Ronald Weeks, K.C.B., replied to the toast of' The Guests' as follows:

'Mr President, my Lord President, Your Excellencies, my Lord

Mayor, my Lords, Ladies and Gentlemen: ' I have the honour to-night to reply to the toast of many distinguished

guests and if I may say so your approach to me, Mr President, to undertake this task was very scientific.

' Some many weeks ago I received an invitation to attend to-night, which I accepted with enthusiasm; some weeks later I received an invitation to respond for the guests, to which I also replied in the affirmative, but not with such enthusiasm. Last week I received a list of your distinguished guests and was told that I had to follow the Master of Balliol; I need say no more, except that having listened to many of your guests on other occasions I am certain that you would



97

have received a response which would have tickled the palate of this audience more succulently than I can. The word " succulently" and my attempt to reply reminds me of a short story, which has a moral.

'During the war an American Colonel had been billeted in a

village in Wiltshire and became very friendly with the local people, including the vicar. The vicar's church received some damage, not

very severe, and in raising funds the vicar remembered his American friend and wrote a charming letter asking for financial assistance to which the American Colonel replied in an equally charming way and sent Io,ooo dollars. The repairs were completed quickly (the vicar was obviously lucky as regards his permits) and the vicar decided to have a gramophone record made of the ceremony which took place to celebrate the restoration. This record duly arrived at the Colonel's home in America most fortunately just as he was having a party of his own; so naturally he asked his friends to gather round and listen.

'The record started off very well with a most grateful talk by the vicar who extolled the generosity of the donors, particularly the American Colonel. Then the bishop had his say and he started off, "My friends, my friends, let us all give thanks this day for a timely succour.

' Honour where honour is due. That story came from the House of Commons (from the Opposition benches). Although I may be the innocent and timely sucker, nevertheless as the chosen instrument

(a more dignified expression) for doing honour to this occasion, I can assure you how grateful we all are for the reception and the

hospitality you have extended to us on this, the 286th Anniversary Dinner.

'I am replying on behalf of distinguished guests from other countries; it is a happy occasion for me to be able to give thanks for my friend the French Ambassador, also for the Chinese Ambassador to whom we all extend our sympathy for the internal strifewhich must be so damaging to his country's welfare.

'It is certainly novel for me to give thanks for Ministers of His Majesty's present Government; but some form of self-discipline is good for all of us.

MAY 1949 G



98

'But whoever we may be-Ambassadors, Ministers of the Crown, representatives of the Services, Civil Service, Church, Medicine, Education, the Press, or last, but not necessarily least, Industry and Commerce-we are united in our tribute to-night to the President and Fellows of the Royal Society of London and to Science. We, your guests, are a very cosmopolitan-I might almost say a motley- collection. We are not the sort of material, Mr President, that even

you could hope to alter by any method of polymerization; some of us are very resistant to any form of chain reaction. We look very cheerful and simple to-night, but there are a few wolves about in sheep's clothing and we all have designs on you. Some Government might even want to nationalize you in order to find some antidote or some new corrosive mixture which can help to dissolve the ferrous medicine which they propose to administer to themselves. The Civil Servants

may want to control you or may want to offer you positions for in-

adequate remuneration. Medicine, of course, depends on you. The Church may fear you. The Law may use you for its sustenance, and I have no doubt that Industry, being long-sighted and progressive, will woo you and will present bright prospects of well-paid careers to your best postgraduates.

'The Services, and here I am on more familiar ground, have the

profoundest respect for you. No one knows better than the Chief of the Air Staff what his Service owes to you for the past, how much it expects in the future.

'From the Army point of view, no one had better opportunities than I had, both as observer and as participant, to appreciate the

impact of science and the scientist on the military machine. 'I am delighted to hear of the establishment of the Defence Research

Facilities Committee, which should help to enable men of science to make use of the facilities which the Armed Services might be able to

put at their disposal for furtherance of scientific research. 'Such cooperation would be a small quidpro quo for the distinguished

services rendered to the Forces by the scientists during the war and since. ' Both Industry and the Services are more directly concerned with the

application of scientific knowledge; much has been said on this subject, attention has been drawn to the possibility that industry is not applying



99

the knowledge that exists quickly enough. In this connexion I would express the view that more could be done to push out such parts of the developments in nuclear physics, as security may permit, into Industry or university institutions, as has already been done in America.

'Nevertheless the prosperity of this great country on a long-term basis must depend very largely on the work of its great scientific men, in their search for new knowledge, on fundamental research, and this is the real theme to-night.

' Those of us who are laymen may be fearful for you on two counts; one the rather natural one that in pursuing your proper vocation, you continue to find even more terrifying weapons of destruction. The second count is that science or the scientist may be too much dragooned or trammelled by unscientific authority.

' Control can have a devastating effect on integrity; I can think of no occupation which demands a higher degree of mental integrity than fundamental research, and this must be backed by the enthusiasm which flourishes on mental freedom.

'As Sir Stafford Cripps said in his Toast to you two years ago: '"However much we may be able to plan industry and industrial

research, it is no more possible in my view to plan pure research than to organize new lines of development in literature, music or the drama. Genius cannot be planned, and the work of the researcher with pure science is the work of genius, all that we can do is to create the free environment in which alone such work can flourish."

'In finishing off my response, I would like to thank you, Professor Adrian, for the way in which you have proposed the Toast of the Guests to,night; you, Sir, have already received many of the highest awards available to men of science; someone, unnamed, whom I consulted as to the details of your career, ended up with the statement, " he is very distinguished as a physiologist for his work on the nervous system." I felt, therefore, with you as proposer, I was personally in very good hands.

' And so, Mr President, in thanking you once again on behalf of all the guests, we extend the hope that this great Royal Society of London will go from strength to strength, and that, however much we lesser mortals may be subject to control, your members may continue



IOO

unfettered in the work which will eventually help to produce a better and more stable and a happier world.'

Professor Lillian Penson also spoke in reply to the toast of' The Guests' as follows:

'Mr President, my Lord President, Your Excellencies, my Lord Mayor, my Lords, Ladies and Gentlemen:

'It is a great honour to rise at the request of your President in response to the toast of" The Guests." I wondered myself why I had been chosen to take the place of Lord Lindsay, who is unfortunately unable to be present. The only explanation that I have been able to find is this. If Lord Lindsay has been active recently in negotiations for founding a new University at Stoke,on,Trent, I have spent a great deal of what leisure I have, in association with a number of other

people, in encouraging the founding of new universities and university colleges in the outlying parts of the Commonwealth. In East Africa, for example, in the hilly region round Kampala-a region so like those

parts of Scotland where the Lord President hopes that science will play an increasing part-and among the peoples of West Africa, and in those older colonies, the colonies which Charles II described as being among the brightest jewels in his crown, those of the West Indies. One of the great problems which we faced in the discussions which we had some years ago on the Commission for Higher Education in the Colonies, from which these plans developed, was that of sug- gesting fundamental principles upon which these new colleges should be based, and one of them was the importance of providing opportunity for scientific research, an opportunity which seemed to us to be absolutely essential to the growth of any university in the proper sense of the word. There were other things which we also regarded as essential, and I remember that, in partnership with Sir Richard Livingstone, who was then Vice,Chancellor of Oxford, I suggested the inclusion among the essential aims of a university education of the provision of opportunity for all students to get at least an inkling of what we mean by " a sense of the past." And both these things, I would venture to suggest, are represented by the Royal Society. It was our hope that the standards of the universities in those distant parts of



IOI

the world would be fundamentally the same as those which are main, tained in older foundations; and here I think we may say with truth that the desire to pursue scientific research for its own sake and a sense of all the things which the people in the past have secured for the fulfilment of the future, are both things which are essential character, istics of our own universities.

' I was very much interested in the reference which was made in one of the earlier speeches-in your speech, I think, Mr President-that we may be put in the position of a choice as to whether we should pursue on the one hand what is true or on the other hand what is useful. If this alternative is before us, I think we should all agree that it is what is true that is of the prior importance. Nor is this choice limited to those whose interests are in the scientific field. Very similar problems arise in connexion with my own subject, history. There are people who would have us study history because it is so useful in the understanding of the present. If we accept this view, we are liable indeed to falsify the past, and not only so, but to falsify the future. Any restriction of this kind in our approach to what has characterized past ages may falsify the future simply because of the very many characteristics of these past ages, which may not seem important at the present moment, but which will seem important to our successors. The choice, then, that lies before the student of my subject is in a sense very much the same as that which lies before the scientist.

'In this connexion I should like to express my own appreciation of the views which have been set forth to,day by the Lord President whom I met last on another occasion of somewhat similar character. We here can all admire him because of the emphasis which he lays upon freedom in the field of learning. He has spoken of the importance of freedom for the individual scientist, an important aspect indeed of the freedom to pursue individual lines of research which is so essential for

every man of learning. I think there is one aspect of this question which is bound to be at the present time in everybody's mind. Large sums are expended from public funds on universities and on scientific research and on the other aspects of the pursuit of learning in which some of us engage, but I am bound to say that I myself believe that, if we are to seek for justification for this expenditure, we can find it perhaps



I02

better than anywhere else in the fact that the greatest contribution that the universities can make in this respect is that they provide the oppor, tunity for the freedom for men of learning to follow in their research wherever the research itself leads. Moreover, it is by the maintenance of this principle that the universities can fulfil their other great task- the training of the young men and women who come to them as undergraduates. For it is one of our greatest responsibilities to provide the opportunity of bringing these young men and women into contact with the older scientists and other men of learning, to whom the pursuit of knowledge in this direction or that is of paramount importance. I must apologize here for bringing in this evening one of my pet themes, but it was, I think, Professor Adrian who said that I had been given "a blank cheque." The theme is this-the primary importance of the problem of maintaining individual initiative, whether it is in one field or another. It is sometimes very difficult to maintain individual initiative in any direction, whether it is in research or in other aspects of what may be called in general terms" public service," but it is a thing which cannot perhaps be too often emphasized, that the freedom in research which enables one to follow one's own line of thought is a matter upon which it is hardly an exaggeration to claim that the future of humanity to a very large extent depends.

' I should like, Mr President, to add that it has been a great pleasure and honour to come here to,night as one of your guests, and a great privilege to speak on their behalf and to give my thanks to the Royal Society, that Society which is from a historian's point of view important not only because of its present achievements, but by the unusual length of its historical tradition. As I look round to-night I have before me a memory, which I have not had time to verify, of the founder of this

Society, Charles II, sitting at meetings of his Privy Council, playing with the dogs which apparently used to accompany him on these serious occasions, sometimes inattentive to business, or even apparently asleep, but waking up to a genuine interest in the proceedings whenever it was a matter affecting the founding and early development of this Society. For some reason which it is perhaps difficult to understand- perhaps not even the psychologists can explain it-Charles II was extremely interested in the founding of the Society, as he was in that



I03

other subject which roused in him a sense of adventure, the establish, ment of colonies overseas. The interest which Charles II showed in the Society is perhaps in many respects incredible, but there is some, thing else which is also incredible. When we look back on the nearly 300 years that have passed since the date of the founding of the Society, what appears to be the most incredible thing of all is the wisdom which our predecessors have shown in preserving the traditions of the Society over so long a period, and delivering them undamaged and, indeed, with constantly growing distinction into the keeping of the Society of the present day.'



Anniversary Dinner 1948

Documents

Transcript of Anniversary Dinner 1948