Address of the President Lord Todd At the Anniversary Meeting, 30 November 1976

Address of the President Lord Todd At the Anniversary Meeting, 30 November 1976Source: Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences, Vol. 196, No.1122 (Feb. 11, 1977), pp. 1-12Published by: The Royal SocietyStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/77193 .

Accessed: 04/05/2014 03:10

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 Proceedings of theRoyal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 130.132.123.28 on Sun, 4 May 2014 03:10:56 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

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

http://www.jstor.org/stable/77193?origin=JSTOR-pdf

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


Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B. 196, 1-12 (1977)

Printed in Great Britain

Address of the President

Lord Todd

at the Anniversary Meeting, 30 November 1976

Award of Medals I976

The COPLEY MEDAL is awarded to PROFESSOR DOROTHY M. C. HODGKIN, O.M., F.R.S.

Professor Dorothy Hodgkin is distinguished for her research on the structure of

complex organic molecules by the method of X-ray crystallography. She was

among the first to appreciate the importance of heavy-atom phase-determining methods and these she used to effect the first complete determination of the

stereochemistry of a sterol derivative in her analysis of cholesteryl iodide. The same powerful method of analysis and in particular her extraordinary gift of

being able to interpret correctly the complex, partially resolved and often mis-

leading electron density patterns that are first obtained, have been responsible for her success in elucidating the structures of many other important natural products, especially penicillin and vitamin B12. This last is by far the most beautiful and

complex analysis which has yet been completed in this field and it is of fundamental importance to chemical science.

In recent years Professor Hodgkin's main interest has been devoted to the structure of insulin, on which she has been working on and off since 1935. Carried out with characteristic precision, this work has become a mine of stereochemical information relating to contacts between polypeptide chains and is of great significance for our interpretation of protein-protein interactions.

The RUMFORD MEDAL is awarded to PROFESSOR I. PRIGOGINE

Professor Prigogine is distinguished for his contributions to the theory of irreversible thermodynamics and its applications to physical, chemical and

biological processes. His early work on steady-state processes, under near-

equilibrium conditions, is well known, especially the theorem that the production of entropy is a minimum for such processes. Recently he has extended the theory to conditions far from equilibrium, where striking new effects appear such as the

spontaneous development of structures and chemical oscillations in previously homogeneous and stable systems. Prigogine has blended several theoretical ideas together, from thermodynamics, nonlinear mechanics, fluctuation theory, hydro- dynamics and kinetic theory, to produce, in this way, a major advance in the theory of macroscopic matter, which is of significance in physics, chemistry and

biology.

Vol. 196. B. (n February x977) [ 1 ] I



Anniversary Address by Lord Todd, P.R.S.

A ROYAL MEDAL is awarded to PROFESSOR J. W. CORNFORTH, C.B.E., F.R.S.

Professor Cornforth is distinguished for his contributions to the unravelling of the complexities of polyisoprenoid biosynthesis.

His quality was early shown by his major contribution to the intensive war-time research on penicillin and by the bringing to fruition of one of the first total steroid

syntheses. A later feat comprised the structural determination of the plant hor- mone abscisic acid and the achievement of its total synthesis.

His major achievement has been the superbly planned series of studies, together with Popjak, on the elucidation of the biosynthesis of squalene and cholesterol.

By the investigation of the involvement of acetate and mevalonate a meticulous

unravelling of the multi-step pathway to farnesyl pyrophosphate and squalene has been achieved. This classic work represents a massive contribution to our

knowledge of terpene and steroid biosynthesis and is a monument to Cornforth's combination of intellectual rigour, cogent planning, and superb experimental skill.

He continues to make fundamental contributions to enzyme chemistry at the molecular level, as exemplified by his recent series of studies based on his remarkable synthesis of chiral acetic acid. His work is characterized by a rare combination of high level expertise in both chemistry and biochemistry and by a logical and

analytical approach which dissects and clarifies complexities.

A ROYAL MEDAL is awarded to PROFESSOR J. L. GOWANS, C.B.E., F.R.S.

Professor Gowans, Henry Dale Research Professor of the Royal Society, is

distinguished for his original and fundamental contributions to knowledge of cellular immunology. In a series of elegant papers he solved the long-standing problem of the fate of the large number of lymphocytes which enter the blood- stream from the thoracic duct. He showed decisively that these lymphocytes are recirculated continuously through the lymph nodes and lymphatic vessels and back to the blood again. He then demonstrated that lymphocytes from the thoracic duct could give rise to plasma cells and initiate an immunological response. And

recently he has provided evidence that within the thoracic duct lymphocyte populations are cells which can carry immunological memory.

This work was characterized by unusual clarity and exceptional technical

elegance. It has been a basic advance in a subject of great medical importance.

A ROYAL MEDAL is awarded to Dr A. WALSH, F.R.S.

Trained at Manchester and now with the Division of Chemical Physics of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization at Melbourne, Dr Walsh is among the leading contributors to spectroscopic technique of our times. He has made distinguished contributions to emission and infrared spectroscopy, but his special claim rests upon his having originated the atomic absorption method of chemical analysis. Dr Walsh recognized the possibility of adapting the

2




method for everyday use in the laboratory, and devised simple, elegant and efficient apparatus for the purpose. The method has proved to be widely useful for quality control in industry, for geochemical prospecting for mineral resources where, for example, very large numbers of determinations of base metals and associated elements are needed, and in agriculture and medicine. It has had a considerable impact in developing countries, and is a fine piece of applied science.

The DAVY MEDAL is awarded to Dr R. E. RICHARDS, F.R.S.

Dr Richards is distinguished for his outstanding contributions to the application of nuclear magnetic resonance (n.m.r.) spectroscopy to a wide range of chemical

problems, and for the design and building of the advanced spectrometers which he used. Outstanding among the problems which he studied were the nature of the hydrogen bond, the analysis of substitution effects in benzene, and the study of clathrates. He was a pioneer in the application of n.m.r. spectroscopy to such nuclei as fluorine, phosphorus, thallium and cobalt, and was one of the first to

apply n.m.r. to the study of the dynamics of polymeric systems. His most advanced spectrometers and expertise have laid the basis of the success

of the Oxford enzyme group in its determination of the structures of large molecules in solution.

Magnetic resonance would not have become an everyday chemist's tool so

quickly but for Richards, and it will be at least in part through him that it will become the everyday tool of the biochemist in the near future.

The DARWIN MEDAL is awarded to PROFESSOR CHARLOTTE AUERBACH, F.R.S.

Professor Auerbach came to Britain from Germany in 1933; she took her Ph.D. at the Institute of Animal Genetics in Edinburgh, and has served on the staff of the Institute ever since. Using Drosophila and the sophisticated breeding tech-

niques developed by H. J. Muller, she was the discoverer of chemical mutagenesis, the first effective chemical mutagen to be discovered being mustard gas. Several characteristics distinguish mutations produced by chemicals from those produced by ionizing radiations and Auerbach was largely responsible for establishing these characteristics. Auerbach was also responsible for much of the evidence showing that low doses of chemical mutagens alter only one of the two nucleotide strands of a DNA double helix, thereby creating heteroduplexes which only after 'repair' generate mutations.

Throughout her long and distinguished career Professor Auerbach has remained a genuine biologist, rather than a molecular biologist, ever shy of accepting simplistic interpretations for phenomena occurring in complex systems with opportunities for manifold interactions. As a very successful student of mutation, with a world-wide reputation, Professor Auerbach is a most worthy and appropriate recipient of the Darwin Medal.

3




The SYLVESTER MEDAL is awarded to PROFESSOR D. G. KENDALL, F.R.S.

Professor Kendall is the father of British probability theory and a leading world authority in applications of the theory. Perhaps his deepest work lies in a series of papers on the theory of Markov chains. These combined a mastery of abstract mathematics with a grasp of the underlying stochastic structure which has characterized all his work.

However, Kendall's first reputation was in what we now call applied probability of which he was certainly one of the founders. He has a talent for the creation and

analysis of simple models which nevertheless encompass the significant factors in a real situation. He has contributed much to the understanding of the role of random processes in the study of dams, of epidemics and of comets.

More recently Kendall has become interested in the analysis of data for which rich structure compensates for great inaccuracy. He has shown that very similar

problems arise in such diverse areas as the seriation of archaeological sites, the reconstruction of mediaeval villages and the recovery of damaged optic nerves in

goldfish. His work shows a breadth of interest which in no way militates against profound insight and deep mathematics.

The HUGHES MEDAL is awarded to DR S. W. HAWKING, F.R.S.

Dr Hawking is distinguished for his contributions to general relativity and its

applications to astrophysics, including particularly the behaviour of highly con- densed matter in neutron stars and black holes.

The classical concept of a black hole provides no means for the mass of the hole to decreases. It can absorb but not emit radiation. Hawking showed, however, that when account is taken of the creation of particles in the gravitational field of a black hole, a quantum mechanical effect, emission of particles by the hole, must occur. The intensity emitted is exactly that radiated by a black body at a

temperature determined by the surface gravity of the hole. If the mass of the black hole is much less than that of the Sun the temperature is so high compared with the radiation temperature of interstellar space that the hole emits faster than it absorbs and hence will disappear after a short time. On the other hand, if the mass is much greater than the mass of the Sun, absorption is faster than emission and the hole builds up. The entropy of a hole was also identified by Hawking with the surface area of the hole, in suitable units. These remarkable results have been obtained by a penetrating appreciation and application both of general relativity and quantum theory.

4




The MULLARD MEDAL is awarded to DR G. H. HITCHINGS, FoR.MEM.R.S.

Dr Hitchings, recently retired Vice-President of research, Burroughs Wellcome Co., U.S.A., has made a number of distinguished contributions to therapeutics. His pioneering efforts in developing a biochemical approach to chemotherapy has

produced antimalarial, anti-leukaemic and antibacterial agents as well as important discoveries for use in organ transplantation and the control of gout.

When nucleic acid chemistry was only primitive in the early 1940s he started work on the relation between chemical structure and the ability of certain pyri- midine derivatives to act as nucleic acid precursors.

This research, and his view that science and its application are an indivisible whole, has resulted in an outstanding series of new compounds including 6-

mercaptopurine, pyrimethamine, diaveridine, allopurinol, azathioprine and tri-

methoprim, all of which have found wide application in medicine.

The Esso MEDAL is awarded to Mr T. B. JACKSON

Mr Jackson, National Sales Manager of the Commercial Division of Honeywell Limited, is awarded this medal for his contribution in the development of a building heating control system which has achieved notable fuel savings in applications to

industrial, commercial and similar large buildings. The development of this system started some ten years ago, after Mr Jackson

had evaluated a market and field study of control system practices and fuel

economy. He saw an improved means of ensuring the most efficient control of the

heating, ventilating and air conditioning of intermittently occupied buildings which would provide considerable savings in both costs and energy, and designed an electronic optimum start programming unit which could achieve this. The unit that Mr Jackson has developed calculates the heating time necessary to achieve the desired level of warmth in a building of known thermal characteristics; it also

computes optimum shut-down time to accommodate night-time and weekend

cooling. The system has been adopted by several major concerns and the savings achieved

have been particularly significant in recent years with the onset of increased fuel prices.

The Society is in the unusual position today of replacing three of its Officers. Sir Bernard Katz has occupied the office of Biological Secretary since 1968 and has handled the affairs of that office with an efficient urbanity which has earned him the affection of all who have been privileged to work with him. To succeed Sir Harold Thompson as Foreign Secretary was no easy task, but Sir Kingsley Dunham took it easily in his stride. During his term of office he has put a tremendous amount of work into improving and cementing our relations with many foreign

5




countries; he has been quite indefatigable and we owe him much. We were very fortunate when Sir James Menter took over the office of Treasurer following the

untimely death of Sir Frederick Bawden and he has steered us successfully through an extremely difficult period. We congratulate him on his recent appointment as

Principal of Queen Mary College and wish him well much as we regret his decision to resign office here because of pressure of other work.

To all three I would express the sincere thanks not only of the Society but of

myself, for during my first year of office, which I complete today, I have benefited

greatly from their wisdom and wise counsel. At the same time I would like to give a very warm welcome to our new Treasurer, Dr B. J. Mason, our new Biological Secretary, Professor D. C. Phillips, and our new Foreign Secretary, Dr M. G. P. Stoker and with them our new members of Council. I now understand why my predecessors have regularly drawn attention to the work of our permanent staff. Under Sir David Martin and his office staff the Society's affairs are run with a smooth efficiency at which I never cease to marvel and on which I have come more and more to depend, and for which I am extremely grateful.

All of you will have received the Report of Council which sets out in some detail the Society's work during a busy and none too easy year. On the assumption that

you will have read it I shall not occupy your time by going through it again in

detail, but will draw attention to only a few features. Reference is made in the

Report to the fact that during the year Her Majesty's Government agreed to make funds available to enable the creation of two additional Royal Society Research Professorships. I am happy to report that we have now appointed to them Professor John Heslop-Harrison, F.R.S., until recently Director of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, and Professor George Wallace Kenner, F.R.S., Heath Harrison Professor of Organic Chemistry in the University of Liverpool. These

appointments bring the total of the Society's Research Professors to eighteen. The learned societies in this country - both scientific and otherwise - have been

hard hit by inflation and the depressed state of the national economy and in some cases their publications are in danger as a result of rising costs. During the year the Society, in collaboration with the British Academy, investigated their problems and produced a survey report which has formed the basis of approaches now being made to appropriate Government Departments. Other problems of current

practical interest have also been receiving attention. Thus the Society has set up working groups on 'Pollution in the atmosphere' and on 'Long-term toxic effects' and has set up a further two groups which are considering respectively recently issued reports on 'Energy research and development in the United Kingdom' and

'Strategy for research and development in offshore technology'. For many years past there has been discussion about the need for some form of

representative body, of the academy type in engineering. True the Royal Society includes in its Fellowship representatives of engineering and other applied sciences and it will continue to do so and to interest itself- as indeed its Charter requires - in the promotion of 'useful Arts' as well as of 'Natural Knowledge'. Yet engineering

6




covers such a vast range of activities, some rather remote in practice from the normal interests of all but a minority of our Fellows, that many have doubted whether the Society as now constituted could really meet present-day needs. The

fragmentation of the engineering profession among a large number of specialist institutions has been in the past a hindrance to progress in the direction of any unified system and the formation some years ago of a central Council of Engineer- ing Institutions marked a considerable step forward. During the past year that

body, under the stimulus of its first President, H.R.H. Prince Philip, has set up a new Fellowship of Engineering which it is hoped may meet the need not as a

replacement for, but as a complement to, the Royal Society's role in engineering. We welcome this new development and not only wish it well, but gladly offer such

help as we can give by, for example, arranging joint meetings. Since most of our

engineering Fellows are in fact Foundation Fellows of the new body and are deeply involved in its organization I think we can look forward to a fruitful cooperation in solving a problem of long standing.

The year 1976 is the bicentenary of the American Declaration of Independence and this has been marked by a variety of functions in this country as well as in the United States. Among these was a symposium on 'Anglo-American intellectual relations' held in our rooms under the joint auspices of the Royal Society and the British Academy. With contributors both from the United States and the United

Kingdom covering scientific, literary and cultural relations, the event was very successful, and was further enhanced by a reception given in honour of the par- ticipants by Her Excellency the American Ambassador. Later in the year I was

privileged, together with other members of the Royal Society delegation to the General Assembly of the International Council of Scientific Unions, to attend and take part in the Bicentennial Symposium 'Science: a resource for humankind', held in October of this year under the auspices of the National Academy of Sciences, whose President, Professor Philip Handler, has done us the honour of accepting the invitation to our Anniversary Dinner and whom we are delighted to welcome. We hope that these events of the Bicentennial Year may lead to a further

strengthening of existing links between the Academy and the Society.

The Anniversary Meeting of the Society on St Andrew's Day is also the occasion for the annual address of the President. In preparing for this, my first such address, I naturally looked at recent examples for guidance but found little. My predecessors have varied widely in their offerings; some have dealt with general topics, others with specific pieces of scientific or historical research. During my first year of office I have been struck by the way in which the same problems, if sometimes in a new guise, come before Council at intervals over the years; one of these is freedom in science and it is on some aspects of this that I would like to say a few words this afternoon.

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

7




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

symbolized 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 dis-

appointed, 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 realizing 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 material- ize. 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 characterized 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,

8




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 1663.t

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 Philo- sophical 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 organized 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.

t Cf. Weld, History of the Royal Society (London, 1848), vol. I, p. 146.

9




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

recognized 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 civilized communities is thus understandable. From about the middle of the nineteenth century, however, men began con-

sciously 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 civilization which has been the characteristic feature of the past hundred years. As a result science has come closer to its practical utiliza-

tion, 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

10




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 is 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 be 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 there- for 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.

During the past few years there has been much concern over the ill-treatment and indeed persecution of individual scientists in a number of countries by governments differing in their political stance. Many of us have been approached from time to time with the request that we sign a declaration or letter of pro- test about individual cases; such approaches have emanated both from private

11




individuals and from organized bodies and the degree of documentation provided has varied. As President of the Royal Society I have myself- as no doubt has my predecessor in office - been approached with the request that the Society should associate itself publicly with such protests. But I have not acceded to these

requests; for this reason I feel I ought to make my position in such matters clear. Of the cases brought to my attention recently the commonest are those in which

it is alleged that a Soviet scientist has been subjected to various forms of persecution including in some cases incarceration in a prison or psychiatric hospital for no reason other than that he or some member of his family, has requested permission to emigrate. As presented, such cases represent the grossest violation of the Declaration of Human Rights embodied in the Charter of the United Nations to which all of its member countries have subscribed. The violation is, however, made neither better nor worse by the fact that the victim is a scientist rather than some other member of the community. Such infringement of human

rights should be a matter for public condemnation and action by the United Nations. Alas, that organization has not been very active in this respect; nor can one feel optimistic about it when one recalls the deplorable action taken by one of its organs, Unesco, over participation in international scientific meetings.

It is entirely right and proper that individuals should express their indignation about such cases by declarations or in any way they wish, but it is hard to see in what way the Royal Society can occupy a special position in the matter of human

rights in general. I have already mentioned in these remarks the Society's three- centuries old insistence on freedom of scientific enquiry and discussion from direction or restriction on political, religious or racial grounds. This has again been made abundantly clear as recently as four years ago by its adherence to the Declaration on this subject issued by the International Council of Scientific Unions and by its cooperation with that body in efforts to uphold it in all its member countries. Moreover, in appropriate cases the Society has drawn and will continue to draw the attention of the Soviet Academy of Sciences or the corre-

sponding body in any other country concerned, as well as our own Government, to the facts and to the need for action with, I believe, good effect. It is my firm belief that the Society as such can achieve much more in this way than it can by subscribing to or issuing public declarations. For it must be recognized that a

scientist, as such, is in the same position as any other citizen of his country, subject to the same laws and having the same obligations to the society in which he lives. His profession does not entitle him to special privileges which are denied to his fellow citizens; nor should it deny to him those privileges which are the

right of every man.

12



Date post:	02-Jan-2017
Category:	Documents
Upload:	duongquynh
View:	214 times
Download:	0 times

Address of the President Lord Todd At the Anniversary Meeting, 30 November 1976

Documents