Address of the President Lord Todd, O.M. at the Anniversary Meeting, 30 November 1978

Address of the President Lord Todd, O.M. at the Anniversary Meeting, 30 November 1978Source: Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences, Vol. 204, No.1154 (Mar. 26, 1979), pp. 1-14Published by: The Royal SocietyStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/77484 .

Accessed: 03/05/2014 23:25

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 Sat, 3 May 2014 23:25:01 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

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

http://www.jstor.org/stable/77484?origin=JSTOR-pdf

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


Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B. 204, 1-14 (1979)

Printed in Great Britain

Address of the President

Lord Todd, O.M. at the Anniversary Meeting, 30 November 1978

Award of Medals 1978

The COPLEY MEDAL is awarded to PROFESSOR R. B. WOODWARD, FOR.MEM.R.S.

Professor Woodward is universally acknowledged to be the leading organic chemist of his generation. He has constantly been attracted by the chemistry of naturally occurring substances and his work has transformed the field.

He recognized at a very early stage that spectroscopy allowed a control of synthetic and degradative research that could not previously have been contem- plated. He made major contributions to the structure determination of complex molecules from widely different classes of compounds, including penicillin, strychnine, patulin, gelsemine, cevine, aureomycin, calycanthine and tetrodotoxin.

However, Woodward's brilliance can best be seen in his many beautiful syntheses, for which he was awarded the Nobel Prize for Chemistry in 1965. Some of his most important syntheses are of quinine, cholesterol, cortisone, reserpine, lysergic acid, strychnine, chlorophyll, and cephalosporin. Quite recently he has accomplished, in collaboration with Eschenmoser, the most demanding synthesis ever attempted, that of vitamin B12. Woodward brings to his synthetic attack a logic of remarkable precision, a profound understanding of reaction mechanism and stereochemistry, and an indomitable courage.

His enunciation of orbital symmetry rules for concerted reactions has brought order to a vast array of often puzzling chemical reactions and has generated an enormous amount of new research in fundamental organic chemistry.

The RUMFORD MEDAL is awarded to SIR GEORGE PORTER, F.R.S.

Sir George Porter is distinguished for his development and use of the technique of flash photolysis, in which ultra-fast chemical reactions may be studied by changes induced by very short flashes of light. Apart from the experimental skill which he has shown in developing the technique which makes possible the obser- vation of reactions on a nanosecond time scale, he has also been very effective in applying it to the solution of chemical problems. In particular it is very suitable for the study of the behaviour of short-lived species including free radicals and excited molecules. In this way he has, for example, provided much new information on the chemistry of the triplet state. Latterly he has been particularly concerned with the mechanism of photosynthesis and its possible significance for the utilization of solar energy.

I Vol. 204. B. (26 March I979)



2 Anniversary Address by Lord Todd, O.M., P.R.S.

A ROYAL MEDAL is awarded to PROFESSOR A. SALAM, F.R.S.

Professor Salam has been a very prolific researcher in theoretical elementary particle physics. He did important work on renormalization theory and was one of a number of theorists who independently suggested the two-component neutrino. This added greatly to our understanding of the weak interaction. He was also one of the first people to realize the importance of gauge field theories. However, his major recent contribution to particle physics is his unified theory of weak and electromagnetic interactions. It will be some time before all aspects of his theory can be checked experimentally and it may well be that it will need some minor modification. But the Salam-Weinberg theory (the same idea was independently suggested by the American theorist Steven Weinberg) predicted the existence of the neutral weak currents that were discovered about two years ago at C.E.R.N. and it remains the successful bench-mark with which all quantitative investigations of these currents are compared. The unification of the weak and electromagnetic interactions has been justly described as analogous to the nineteenth century unification of electricity and magnetism. It is an idea of the first importance.

Salam has also been active in promoting scientific research in developing countries. The Institute at Trieste, of which he is director, plays a leading role in encouraging theoretical work in these countries by providing visitors with facilities for individual study and research.

A ROYAL MEDAL is awarded to PROFESSOR R. A. GREGORY, C.B.E., F.R.S.

Endocrinology as we know it today began in 1902, with Bayliss and Starling's discovery of the duodenal hormone secretin and with their revolutionary notion of specific chemical messengers carried to target cells by the bloodstream. The credibility of a second hormone, gastrin, was destroyed when a non-specific contaminant, histamine, was found to excite the secretion of gastric juice. Tgnorance of the chemical nature of the hormones kept gastro-intestinal endocrinology half a century behind the general advance. It caught up when Gregory and Tracy discovered how to make a potent, histamine-free extract of the gastric hormone. Within two years they had extracted 50 000 hogs' stomachs and had isolated gastrin as a pair of almost identical peptides. Collaboration with the late G. W. Kenner and his colleagues, their neighbours at the University of Liverpool, led to the sequencing and total synthesis of gastrin, and to the association of its numerous physiological actions with particular features of its structure. Other precursor forms and fragments of gastrin were isolated from various species including man, illuminating the biosynthetic pathways of the hormone. The excitement of these researches can be sensed in Gregory's brilliant Harvey and Bayliss-Starling Lectures. They have led to radioimmunoassay of the various forms of the hormone in blood, to immunohistochemical visualization of the hormone-secreting cells, to studies of the actions of the hormone on its target cells at the molecular level, and to important insights into the causes of peptic ulcer. Gregory's most recent studies



Anniversary Address by Lord Todd, O.M., P.R.S. 3

have isolated gastrin-like peptides from the brain, chiefly from the cerebral cortex, where their role can only be guessed at as yet. His achievement, like Bayliss and Starling's, is not bounded by a single gastrointestinal hormone. It stands as a paradigm for polypeptide endocrinology in general.

A ROYAL MEDAL is awarded to PROFESSOR T. KILBTURN, C.B.E., F.R.S.

At the end of the war, three years after taking his degree, Tom Kilburn was invited to Manchester to work on the design of electrostatic stores for computers. This was at the very beginning of the computer age, when wartime developments had made it possible to think of building a stored program computer but no one had yet succeeded in doing so. The Williams-Kilburn electrostatic store was a vital component of the 1948 Manchester machine; and this in its turn was the prototype of the Ferranti mark I, the first computer commercially available any- where in the world.

Since then, Kilburn has been responsible for the development of five successive machines at Manchester, each of which has been the prototype of a successful commercially available computer. He has dominated work on computer hardware in this country, and has also made striking innovations in software. That we still have an independent computer industry in the United Kingdom is largely a result of his work.

The DAVY MEDAL is awarded to PROFESSOR A. ESCHENMOSER

Professor Eschenmoser's work has been distinguished throughout by a profound originality of approach, based on a penetrating insight concerning the reactivity of organic molecules, coupled with outstanding experimental ingenuity.

Eschenmoser's early work on the acid-catalysed cyclization of synthetic and naturally occurring polyenes enabled him to rectify a number of incorrect struc- tures assigned to cyclic terpenoids and provided the basis for subsequent studies on the steric course of cyclizations of unsaturated precursors to polyterpenoids and steroids. His ideas in this field were essential for the development of the 'biogenetic isoprene rule' by Ruzicka and his colleagues and for many subsequent achievements in steroid synthesis.

In recent years, Eschenmoser's mastery of the strategy and tactics of synthetic organic chemistry has been most clearly revealed in his competitive cooperation with R. B. Woodward, which culminated in their joint total synthesis of vitamin B12. This synthesis is aptly described as the most ambitious project ever undertaken in organic chemistry, and for its successful completion a whole arsenal of unconventional synthetic methods had to be invented and developed in order to surmount apparently insuperable obstacles imposed by the nature of the target. These synthetic methods, which include elegant application of photochemical and electrochemical techniques, have greatly enriched organic synthesis generally.

I-2



4 Anniver8ary Address by Lord Todd, O.M., P.R.S.

The DARWIN MEDAL is awarded to DR G. PONTECORVO, F.R.S.

Dr Pontecorvo is distinguished for his contributions to the spectacular advances in genetics through the utilization of lower organisms as experimental material. This has made possible the use of very much larger populations of individuals than can be dealt with in experiments on higher plants or animals, and has led to several important advances. His choice of the fungus Aspergillus as his experimental material was a major contribution which enabled him to undertake investigations of great precision and detail. This in turn led to the first detailed characterization of subunits within genes. He is especially renowned for his discovery of somatic recombination and parasexuality. These are genetic systems which bring about the reassortment of genetic factors without the occurrence of a reduction division. Most recently he has developed new methods for fusing cells and the elimination of chromosomes. These have been widely adopted for genetic studies on tissue cultures from mammalian cells.

The HUGHES MEDAL is awarded to PROFESSOR W. COCHRAN, F.R.S.

Professor Cochran has made original and outstanding advances in the fields of crystallography and lattice dynamics. He made pioneering contributions to the theory of' X-ray diffraction and to methods of crystal structure determination, particularly those using Fourier difference synthesis and using so-called direct methods. Having realized early the importance of determining accurately the electron density distribution in solids, he developed the necessary theoretical and experimental techniques, and performed the first successful experiments in this now large field. Moving into a different field, he was the first to recognize that neutron scattering techniques provided the information from which quantitative models of interatomic forces could be derived. He developed the shell model for lattice dynamics and applied it to alkali halides and to semiconductors, calculated forces in metals using pseudo-potential techniques, and was responsible for the first detailed application of lattice dynamical techniques to molecular crystals. Finally as a result of his work on ionic crystals, he developed the 'soft mode' theory of structural phase transitions and ferro-electricity, which has been the basis of our understanding of displacive transitions ever since, and which concept has now spread into many other fields of physics and chemistry.

The LEVERHULME MEDAL is awarded to SIR FREDERICK WARNER, F.R.S.

Sir Frederick is distinguished for his significant contributions in the field of chemical and environmental engineering. He has been particularly involved in the advances in nitrogen and phosphate technology for fertilizer production including the large increase in scale, both in the United Kingdom and abroad in Egypt and India. He has also been much concerned with environmental engineering and the control of pollution by noxious gases and liquids, heat and noise. He has



Anniversary Address by Lord Todd, O.M., P.B.S. 5

investigated a great variety of problems in this category for chemical and mining industries, including consideration of safety aspects and the preservation of marine and freshwater life.

Sir Frederick has also been active in the field of education as visiting professor at Imperial and University Colleges London and as Pro-Chancellor of the Open University. In addition he has been much involved in the work of the British Standards Institution.

The MULLARD MEDAL is awarded to DR J. W. BLACK, F.R.S.

Dr Black is distinguished for his major contributions to the discovery and development of two new and important classes of therapeutic agents. Early in his drug-hunting career he conceived the idea that specific blockade of the, then hypothetical, adrenergic ,3-receptors could have utility in the treatment of certain types of heart disease. The discovery of the ,3-adrenoceptor blocking drug, pro- pranolol, developed by him and his colleagues, strengthened the evidence for two types of receptor, and resulted in a drug that has had enormous impact on the treatment of many cardiovascular afflictions such as angina pectoris, cardiac arrhythmias, and hypertension. He then turned his attentions to the antagonism of histamine, another transmittor substance. Compounds able to block one type of histamine receptor had been known and available for many years. However, they did not block stimulation by histamine of the secretion of stomach acid. Dr Black conceived the idea that an entirely different type of chemical was required to block this system. As a result of research designed to prove this hypothesis, the drug cimetidine has been discovered and developed for clinical use, and has been shown to produce rapid relief from the symptoms of peptic ulceration and, in many cases, to promote healing.

The Esso MEDAL is awarded to MR A. G. FRAME, MR J. M. LAITHWAITE, MR A. D. EVANS, DR J. F. W. BISHOP and DR T. N. MARSHAM

This award is made for their contributions, variously through the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority and the Nuclear Power Company, to the development of the successful Prototype Fast Reactor at Dounreay. This reactor was commissioned in 1976, since when it has been functioning safely and effectively. It has achieved a very notable increase in the efficiency of use of nuclear fuel and a generating capacity of 250 MW of electricity.

Studies by the World Energy Conference show that, in order to meet demand, the global output of coal must increase threefold by the year 2020 and that, even so, 30 % of the world's energy supply must come from nuclear fuels. They find that this output of nuclear power can be achieved only if fast breeder reactors are used because supplies of virgin uranium are likely to be restricted before the end of the century. It is therefore fortunate that we are among the leaders in fast reactor development and can use plutonium produced in thermal reactors as fuel.




For this we have to thank not only the team who have been awarded this year's Esso prize but also the many scientists and engineers who have supported them. Already the prototype reactor which they built at Dounreay has saved a quarter of a million tons of coal and that reactor is only at the beginning of its life.

The Anniversary Meeting is always a happy, but also not infrequently a sad, occasion. Happy because it gives the President the opportunity to greet and to congratulate our medallists and sad when it marks as it does from time to time the departure of old and trusted friends from our midst. Today, for example, marks the retirement of Sir Harrie Massey from the office of Physical Secretary which he has filled with such distinction for the past nine years. Wise in his counsel, always ready to put his shoulder to the wheel, and apparently immune to jet-lag, he has given yeoman service to physical science nationally and internationally over a long period. I am especially grateful to him for agreeing to remain in office until today for I know that he had looked forward to laying down the not inconsiderable burden of the Secretaryship last November after serving for eight years - the normal maximum tenure. Fellows will recall, however, that at the end of 1976, we had lost our Executive Secretary, Sir David Martin, and had just appointed a Treasurer, a Biological Secretary and a Foreign Secretary. It seemed to me that with a new Executive Secretary, three quite raw Officers and a President

who, if not completely raw, might well have been described as only half-baked, we could not afford to lose Sir Harrie's wisdom and experience. Fortunately he

yielded to my blandishments and agreed to remain in office for a further year and

so tide us over a difficult period when the new Officers were settling in; I need hardly say that he did so magnificently. Sir Harrie has been a great Physical

Secretary and in thanking him for all he has done for the Society and for me

personally, I also wish him well in his retirement and hope that he may still be

ready to give us his counsel from time to time. His place is taken by Dr T. M.

Sugden who is already well known to Fellows for his many services to the Society. A man of vigour - and humour - with wide experience in universities, in industry and in international scientific affairs, he surely has all the qualities necessary to fill

with distinction the office of Physical Secretary. In welcoming him to the ranks of the Officers I can assure him that he will have the full and unstinted support of

the Society's staff. Under Dr Keay, who has without fuss or bother, but very efficiently, taken over the manifold functions of the Executive Secretary, our

staff has performed magnificently during the past year. To all its members I and

my fellow Officers are deeply grateful. The Annual Report of Council, which is already in the hands of Fellows,

provides an adequate summary of our activities during the past year and I need

not discuss it in detail. Three items in it, however, warrant a few further words

here - support for research groups, education, and overseas relations.



Anniversary Address by Lord Todd, O.M., P.B.S. 7

A year ago I made reference to our concern that, following their implementation of the Robbins Report, the universities were now suffering from severe financial restrictions which were having a damaging effect on the research opportunities and career prospects of some of our ablest young scientists. I announced then that the Society was prepared to make a contribution towards meeting this need by creating, in addition to its Research Professorships and Fellowships, a further small number of awards to enable particularly able young scientists to develop their researches over a period of years and to build around them new research groups in promising fields of endeavour. This initiative on our part was welcomed by the universities and we have pursued it with vigour. It has, however, become apparent - and perhaps not surprisingly - from the comments and suggestions made by Vice-Chancellors and Principals whom we have approached that the problem we wish to tackle is far from being simple. The nature of the problem and its origin varies from case to case as does the scale of expenditure necessary to make serious impact. Matters like accommodation, continuity, availability of students, etc. can present great difficulties. Yet it is clear from the number and quality of the applicants we have for Research Fellowships that we have many able people worthy of support. We are continuing our efforts to overcome these difficulties. So far we have, as indicated in the Report, made one appointment under the new scheme and hope that more will follow during the forthcoming year.

The Society has long been interested in the field of scientific education and our committees dealing with education have made many contributions to the teaching of mathematics, science and technology especially at school level. Their importance and the urgency of the problems they face has been greatly increased by the tightening grip of the state on secondary education which has been a controversial feature of recent years. Beginning with a laudable intention of ensuring that every child should have an equal opportunity, some of our political masters now seem bent on imposing uniformity and pushing egalitarianism to the point of ignoring differences in ability, and opposing any ideas of selection or segregation on merit grounds. In practice this means that education is to be organized and run in accord with one political ideology. Whether one agrees with that political ideology or not, it is surely wrong to make it the driving force behind an educational system. Our Education Committee has set up a working party on the needs of talented children and it is to be hoped that its views will be given close attention. The Committee will also have to consider the possible implications for higher education of the proposed dual N and F system of school examinations resting on undifferentiated comprehensive school courses. Insofar as science and technology are concerned these are matters of great importance, not merely to the Society, but to the country at large. Ideological considerations cannot be allowed to dictate the pattern of scientific education any more than they can the direction of research; what is needed is unbiased advice and this, I believe, the Society through its committees and its contacts can provide.

As you will see from the Report of Council, the Society is deeply involved in




the promotion of science internationally. In addition to participating fully in the affairs of I.C.S.U. and its pendent or associated organizations we have a much more direct involvement through our exchange programmes with many countries. Our largest scheme is the European Exchange Programme which continues to flourish to the benefit of all Western European countries. With other countries we operate through individual agreements which provide for exchange of research workers and lecturers at junior and senior level and for the encouragement of joint research projects. During the past year new agreements providing for greater flexibility in operation have been concluded with the Soviet Union, Hungary, Czechoslovakia and Rumania in Eastern Europe and negotiations are well advanced with East Germany. Elsewhere an agreement has been made with Iran and a new draft agreement has been discussed with the Chinese Academy and has recently been signed. These exchange agreements, which extend world-wide, are of the greatest importance and provide an effective method for the free exchange of information and ideas which is the life-blood of science. And I believe they have an even wider importance, for scientific contacts, especially between younger people, help promote a mutual understanding the effects of which can extend far beyond the bounds of science. These effects should not be underestimated by Government, the more so as I have been repeatedly struck by the high esteem in which the Society and British science are held in the countries I have visited. In a rapidly changing world where divisive forces abound and international tensions are all too apparent it may well be that maintenance and development of overseas activities is one of our most important functions.

Nowadays one often hears statements to the effect that civilization is at a turning point and these statements are not infrequently coupled with a very gloomy out- look on the future of society or even with a denial that it has a future at all. Certainly it is true that there is much to discourage us in the present scene. The subject was touched upon by the President of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States in his Presidential Report for 1977; he summarized the situation in the following words:

Consider the current scene: the largest, deadliest arms race in history, in a world that almost nourishes international tensions and conflict; self-defeating population growth in those nations least able to afford it; hunger and malnutrition on a vast scale; the countdown as domestic and foreign supplies of liquid and gaseous fossil fuels decline; uncertainty concerning the future of nuclear energy; pressure from the industrially less developed nations for a 'new economic order,' generating ever harsher political strains; dependence of the industrial economy of the nation upon access to diverse mineral resources outside our boundaries, resources upon which we can no longer count simply because they are there; the economic consequences to this nation of the increasing industrial productivity of others; the new social problems attendant upon an aging population; the changing economic circumstances of various regions of our



Anntversary Address by Lord Todd, O.JM., P.R.S. 9

country; over-capacity of the nation's educational plant imposing constraints upon the career aspirations of young scholars; unsatisfied aspirations for opportunity, equity, and justice of various segments of our society; growing egalitarianism coupled, too frequently, with a lowering of educational standards; the twin spectres of unemployment and inflation; continuing decay of most of our cities; an inadequate but ever more expensive health care system; escalating costs of all services. Withal, we are sufficiently affluent to demand protection of the environment, both for aesthetic reasons and for protection of the public health, and to place ever greater emphasis on the safety of the materials, products and processes with which we traffic, introducing economic costs of considerable but uncertain magnitude.

These words were, of course, addressed to an American audience; but they could be addressed equally to a British one or to one from most other industrialized nations. And they certainly give food for thought. Change is inherent in progress (however one defines that term!) and so at all times people feel that there is something special about the particular period in which they live. Yet this is not necessarily so since our perspective of the present is distorting and the future is continuously being determined by us and by what we make of the present. Major transitions are rare although they do occur from time to time; one such was associated with the industrial revolution which began about two centuries ago and which has largely shaped the world we know today. That transition was, I believe, mainly due to one of the inventions that triggered the industrial revolution - that of the steam engine - which gave us access to plentiful and flexible mechanical power. All our tremendous scientific and technological achievements since then rest essentially on the stimulus given to society by that one invention. The social systems built up during previous centuries were unable to cope with the new circumstances of the industrial revolution and so there were many upheavals -

some of them violent - from the French Revolution onwards during the period of flux before society, in the late nineteenth century, came to some kind of terms with the new world. But that accommodation could not last in the face of ever- accelerating technological advance and we are again in sore straits.

There are, it seems to me, so many similarities between the situation today and that of the early phases of the industrial revolution that, while acknowledging the difficulty of reaching an objective assessment of present events, I feel that we may indeed be living at another major period of transition. Again we have new inventions, all based, this time, on science, whose effects seem certain to be revolutionary and to impose severe strains - already becoming visible - on our society. Among the most vital of these new things are the harnessing of nuclear energy, the invention of the computer, the explosive development of micro- electronics, and the remarkable advances in molecular biology. All these have been proceeding so rapidly that during the past twenty years we have been brought face to face with a new world and are forced to look anew at ourselves and to




adapt if we are to play any significant role in it. This is especially true of Britain which, although it was one of the first and most successful countries in seizing the opportunities presented by the earlier industrial revolution and in adapting its society to it, has not been outstandingly successful in this new one. There is probably no single or simple explanation for our economic decline relative to some other countries but I believe its origins are to be found in the latter part of the nineteenth century and lie in the twin effects of our early industrial success and the great development of the British Empire. I suspect that the vast inflow of wealth from the empire had a feather-bedding effect on our economy so that we were able to turn a blind eye to our growing industrial obsolescence and our declining productivity during the burgeoning era of science-based technology. And despite all changing circumstances we have gone on diminishing in our wealth- producing capacity and matters have been made worse by our failure to adjust our social and political systems to a rapidly changing world. It could well be argued, too, that a similar featherbedding occurred in some other countries as a consequence of colonialism and the exploitation of the agricultural and mineral resources of the underdeveloped countries. Now that these underdeveloped countries - partly through population pressure - want a bigger share of the cake the shortcomings of more than one western economy are being revealed. The oil crisis of 1973 came as a rude shock to the industrialized countries and seemed at first likely to make them face their problems realistically. In Britain the discovery and exploitation of massive oil resources in the North Sea and adjacent waters gave us a great opportunity - a kind of breathing space in which we could change our ways and build for a new future. I still hope we will seize this opportunity, although I sometimes fear that we may repeat our past disastrous behaviour and squander the proceeds of North Sea oil in propping up rather than reforming our antiquated economy so that before the end of this century we will be back in the mire again. There are disturbing signs that this may happen - deliberate over- manning and protection of jobs by subsidizing lame duck industries rather than by the development of new industries and new jobs, low investment coupled with low profitability, and growth in public expenditure which seems to take little or no account of financial realities. In varying degree, of course, these or similar signs are visible in most industrialized nations and they have caused some people at least to argue that our civilization is grinding to a halt and others to predict impending doom through exhaustion of the world's resources and inability to meet our energy needs. Personally, I cannot accept either of these gloomy pre- dictions based as they are on what their proponents consider to be current trends. I have little faith in fiiturology, and forecasts of the future carried out by computer or crystal ball are about equally reliable. Of course the doomwatchers will be right if we do nothing and everything remains as it is now - but that is not, nor ever has been, the way the world goes.

The phenomenal rate of change which has characterized our material civilization during this century has been wholly due to the application of scientific discoveries



Anntversary Address by Lord Todd, O.M., P.R.S. 11

to practical problems - in a word, to science-based technology. Yet I wonder whether more than a very small fraction of the population ever pauses to think of the degree to which many of the accepted everyday features of our lives - auto- mobiles, television, antibiotics and all the rest - have depended on science. Although none of us would want to be without these marvels - for that is what they are- some of us, it would seem, are so disheartened by all the social and economic problems we now face as to suggest that science is a hindrance rather than a help and that in the interest of mankind it should be controlled and regulated before it destroys us all. This is the view of the anti-science lobby which adduces the Limits to Growth thesis of the doomwatchers in its support and which vocifer- ously supports extreme environmentalist views. The number of people dedicated to the promotion of such views is small but they obtain the support of a much wider section of the general public, including some of our politicians, who know little of science and who depend for their information about it on press, radio or television. In all these media the aim is to present information with maximum brevity and impact; inevitably this leads to the selection of sensational aspects of new discoveries which can be, and often are, dangerously misleading. Of course, no one would claim that science has been a wholly unmixed blessing or deny that it has been on occasion misapplied. But on closer inspection its misuse usually turns out to be the fault of man and not of science - and often results from application by those too ignorant of science to realize the implications of its discoveries. At the same time one must admit that, sometimes, environmental problems like pollution have stemmed from shortsighted indifference to adverse effects on others which has all too often been manifest in the behaviour of governments as well as entrepreneurs.

I do not propose to argue here the rights and wrongs of (for example) pesticide usage or of the regulations surrounding the introduction and use of new products in medicine; much could be said about them but these are subjects for another occasion. What I wish to argue here is that just as we owe our present civilization and standard of living largely to science it is only through the further promotion of science and technology that we will find solutions to many of the seemingly intractable problems set out in length by the Limits to Growth people. Thus I, for one, believe that the technical problems besetting the harnessing of thermo- nuclear fusion will be solved and mankind thereby given an inexhaustible supply of power. I believe too that the problems presented by diminishing natural resources could well be solved by the development of substitutes as yet unknown. This may sound a little like Micawberism, but it is not; of course we should take heed of the facts set out in Limits to Growth and be less wasteful of our resources - that is only commonsense. But if we continue to improve our natural knowledge all experience suggests that we will see changes which will radically alter the whole pattern of our lives - or if not of our lives then of those of our children and grand- children; and we shall survive.

Since our future will be profoundly influenced by, if not wholly dependent upon,




the degree to which we understand the world in which we live threats to the free development of science deserve close attention. I made some brief allusion in my first Address to the Society in 1976 to freedom of scientific research and the danger of political interference. Since then the situation has not improved and I make no apology for returning to the subject today. Ominously, voices have been raised claiming that limits should be set to scientific enquiry - that there are questions which should not be asked and research which should not be undertaken. These are matters which ought to be taken seriously the more so as they have not only been raised by members of the lay public but have even found support among some scientists. Currently the main focus of this attack upon the freedom of choice of the research scientist is to be found in biology. It is particularly marked in the area of molecular biology especially in relation to recombinant DNA, genetic engineering, the ageing process and the genetic component of differences in human beings.

It seems to me that the motives behind this questioning are of two types. The first is simple fear of disaster stemming from dangers inherent in the nature of the research or in the methods employed to carry it out. The second is more complex but is essentially ideological and includes quasi-religious objections; it sees in the new knowledge which is sought a threat to the established order of society or to the creation of a system- predetermined in the light of some political dogma. In many cases both motives are mixed up with one another and it can be difficult at times to separate and identify them. A typical - and topical - example is to be found in the much publicized debates about recombinant DNA research. Since it involves the incorporation of genes or gene fragments from all kinds of organisms into a bacterium there to be transmitted indefinitely there is obviously a theoretical possibility of danger in such research. Those who call for its prohibition, claim that one might, in doing such work, accidentally create a new pathogenic organism resistant to all known antibiotics and might, again by accident, allow it to escape from the laboratory and cause a world-wide epidemic of some new and untreatable disease. (It is only fair to point out that as far back as 1974 scientists themselves pointed out the need to pursue recombinant DNA research under conditions of safety like those commonly employed in any research dealing with pathogenic organisms.) This is, like all such cases, one in which we have to balance risk with benefit, for no venture into unknown territory can possibly be without risk. Fortunately there is reason to believe that the commonsense view of taking safety precautions will prevail and draconian measures based on fears more appropriate to science-fiction will not be invoked. But it has been a stormy business largely because of confusion in the minds of many members of the public between recombinant DNA and genetic engineering. This confusion was very evident in the much publicized activities of the mayor of Cambridge, Massachusetts and his committee who sought to decide whether recombinant DNA research should be forbidden in their area and raised the spectre of the production of Frankenstein-like monsters through such work. Now, if indeed such monsters were ever to be produced, it would be done by genetic engineering which is not the same as recombinant DNA,



Anniversary Address by Lord Todd, O.M., P.R.S. 13

although it is true that recombinant DNA research is an essential prelimiinary and will bring nearer the day when genetic engineering will be possible and could then be applied to deal with certain diseases. But why is it always the more horrific science-fiction aspects of as yet unmade discoveries that are publicized?

In questioning genetic engineering we are concerned not with safety but with ideology; applied to human beings it could alter the shape of things in a way which might not fit with preconceived ideas of the future. Objections to research on the ageing process are again ideological; if it were successful in greatly extending the life-span it could, the objectors argue, gravely upset the age-structure of the population and with it the whole nature of society. And studies on the importance of genetic differences in human beings are frowned upon because they might yield results which would conflict with political dogma. It is attempts such as these to control science on ideological grounds that are most dangerous and they must be resisted at all costs. Ideological control is a complete negation of all that science stands for since it rests on the assumption that we know what the future will or should be or that we wish the future to be the same as the present; whether this is for socio-political or quasi-religious reasons is irrelevant. The fact is - as I have already stated - that we cannot predict the fuiture of society on our present knowledge with or without computers, and no society can remain static and stable simultaneously. Science asks questions and on the answers to them our future depends. To forbid questioning is therefore unacceptable. There are also practical reasons why the control of science by regulating what it may and what it may not study is not even reasonable. Attempts to do so are almost certain to fail since the discoveries which lead to new advances in technology (which is what affects us directly) are made almost at random and frequently in areas of science which have no obvious relation to practical issues. I recognize that the scale on which scientific research may be pursued must be determined by economic considerations but I am wholly opposed to any attempts to regulate or control the direction of scientific enquiry and I believe that in saying so I also speak for the Royal Society. I also believe it to be important that the public should understand our point of view, and that we as scientists have been too reluctant to present our views publicly. Perhaps we should do more to correct false impressions and allay fears about scientific matters which derive from the methods of presentation currently employed in the public media of communication.

What I have just said refers to science; the situation is different when we consider technology. Technology is simply the application of discovery or invention to the solution of practical problems and it is technology and not science which has a direct effect on our daily lives. Today, of course, it is largely science-based but there is no reason why it should not be directed according to national interests. Moreover, some technological developments which could be undertaken on the basis of scientific discovery could well be undesirable and ought to be restrained. Not infrequently new and apparently desirable technology can pose questions which we are unable to answer because we lack scientific knowledge. What we do




not know could well be more dangerous than what we know; that is particularly so in matters relating to our natural environment. Many of our pollution problems have their origin in past technological developments which were undertaken without knowledge of their potentially harmful consequences. Today, concern is expressed about possible effects of supersonic transport or the extended use of certain aerosols upon the upper atmosphere on a global scale - for we have advanced technologically to a point where our actions could have a global rather than a mere local effect. In this particular instance what we lack is scientific knowledge of the upper atmosphere and especially of its chemistry. Such knowledge should be sought and although, as I have argued, one cannot control the direction of scientific enquiry by decree it should be both possible and acceptable to en- courage research on a topic of this type perhaps by increased funding. It is unfortunate, however, that much of the scientific work needed in the environmental field is not very exciting, requires an elaborate interdisciplinary approach and does not offer much scientific kudos to the individual investigator. How to get round these problems and attract into the environmental field a larger share of our best scientific talent is a major problem at the present time.

One of the most difficult problems governments frequently have to face is the choice between several alternative technological options; in some cases such as nuclear energy the choice could have widespread and important economic consequences. Choice is ultimately a matter of political and not scientific decision; but if the choice is to be wise it cannot be taken without scientific and technological advice. Here we approach the problems of science policy and the social responsibility of scientists. As to the latter the scientist has the same social responsibility as any other citizen; in discharging it, it is his duty to provide both government and the public with the facts of a scientific discovery or technological advance together with an objective appraisal of possible implications as far as he can foresee them. His task in a democracy is not to take political decisions, but to provide the evidence upon which rational decisions can be taken. That is why I believe that the recent activity of the Royal Society in promoting and publishing the findings of study groups and interdisciplinary discussions on current scientific problems and the issuing of reports and appraisals of Government reports on technological questions are so valuable; these activities should and I hope will be intensified in the national interest. But they ought to receive wider publicity and in this connection it may be that Fellows should be more ready than they, perhaps, have been, to make their views more widely known so as to combat misinformation of the public. For misinformation or slanted information is an everyday occurrence in matters scientific and it stems in large measure from the methods used for the dissemination of news. Abbreviation is the keynote and it reaches its peak in television where a snapshot-like visual and auditory effect is the objective; in striving for this, distortion in favour of the sensational or arresting is almost inevitable. I believe it to be very much in the public interest that an answer to this should be found.



Date post:	08-Jan-2017
Category:	Documents
Upload:	duongdang
View:	214 times
Download:	0 times

Address of the President Lord Todd, O.M. at the Anniversary Meeting, 30 November 1978

Documents