+ All Categories
Home > Documents > Address of the President Sir Andrew Huxley, O.M. at the Anniversary Meeting, 30 November 1984

Address of the President Sir Andrew Huxley, O.M. at the Anniversary Meeting, 30 November 1984

Date post: 05-Jan-2017
Category:
Upload: truongtu
View: 212 times
Download: 0 times
Share this document with a friend
15
Address of the President Sir Andrew Huxley, O.M. at the Anniversary Meeting, 30 November 1984 Source: Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences, Vol. 223, No. 1233 (Feb. 22, 1985), pp. 403-416 Published by: The Royal Society Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/35886 . Accessed: 08/05/2014 05:29 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 of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of 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 the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences. http://www.jstor.org This content downloaded from 169.229.32.137 on Thu, 8 May 2014 05:29:49 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Transcript

Address of the President Sir Andrew Huxley, O.M. at the Anniversary Meeting, 30 November1984Source: Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences, Vol. 223, No.1233 (Feb. 22, 1985), pp. 403-416Published by: The Royal SocietyStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/35886 .

Accessed: 08/05/2014 05:29

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 169.229.32.137 on Thu, 8 May 2014 05:29:49 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 223, 403-416 (1985) Printed in Great Britain

Address of the President Sir Andrew Huxley, O.M.

at the Anniversary Meeting, 30 November 1984

Award of Medals 1984

The COPLEY MEDAL is awarded to PROFESSOR SUBRAHMANYAN CHANDRASEKHAR, F.R.S., in recognition of his distinguished work in theoretical physics, including stellar structure, theory of radiation, hydrodynamic stability and relativity.

Professor Chandrasekhar has been a major figure in astrophysical sciences since the 1930s. His earliest work, on dwarf stars, led to the concept of the Chandrasekhar limit of stability, which later proved to be a central concept in the origin of the natural elements. He subsequently worked on stellar dynamics and the processes of energy transfer through gaseous bodies. The latter work was followed by a detailed and intensive study of convection in buoyant, rotating and conducting systems which has been fundamental to subsequent work in the field. He also studied the stability of rotating fluid masses. His latest work concerns general relativity theory and solutions of the Einstein field equations, in particular singularities and black holes, where he has shown the importance of these solutions and elucidated their mathematical properties.

The RUMFORD MEDAL is awarded to PROFESSOR H. H. HOPKINS, F.R.S., in recognition of his many contributions to the theory and design of optical instruments, especially of a wide variety of important new medical instruments which have made a major contribution to clinical diagnosis and surgery.

Developments over 30 years by Professor Hopkins of fibre optics for flexible medical endoscopes and of 'rod-lens systems' for rigid instruments have produced instruments vastly superior to their predecessors and have been highly influential in clinical medicine. In gastroenterology, neurosurgery, gynaecology and ortho- paedics, Hopkins's work has resulted in new procedures that in many cases make open surgery unnecessary and for others make minor surgery sufficient. Professor Hopkins has continued to invent and develop new medical instruments, in particular a new colposcope, an automatic focusing system for endoscopic cameras, a high aperture stereomicroscope for microsurgery, and a remote-access zoom lens for televising open surgery without impeding the surgeon.

A ROYAL MEDAL is awarded to PROFESSOR A. R. BATTERSBY, F.R.S., in recog- nition of his distinguished contributions to the elucidation of pathways for the biosynthesis of complex natural products.

Professor Battersby and his group have been involved for nearly 30 years in studies on the structure, synthesis and biosynthesis of a wide range of natural products, such as morphine, colchicine, quinine and emetine. He is particularly renowned for his recent work on the biosynthesis of haem and vitamin B12.

Professor Battersby, using novel and elegant methods, elucidated the intriguing

I5 [ 403 ] Vol. 223. B (22 February I985)

This content downloaded from 169.229.32.137 on Thu, 8 May 2014 05:29:49 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

404 Anniversary Address by Sir Andrew Huxley, O.M.

processes that occur during the biosynthesis of all classes of the physiologically important tetrapyrroles. His studies on vitamin B12 are equally important, and his group has identified a series of intermediate processes and products culminating in the construction of the corrin nucleus of the vitamin. Professor Battersby's approach is characterized by his attention to detail, methodically identifying and labelling complex intermediates, persevering with biological techniques for incorporation work, and developing new analytical techniques. He has brought a new standard of rigour to biosynthetic studies.

A ROYAL MEDAL is awarded to DR MARY F. LYON, F.R.S., in recognition of her discovery of X-chromosome inactivation as a mechanism of gene dosage com- pensation.

Dr Lyon proposed in the early 1960s that the peculiarities observed in the expression of X-chromosome-linked genes in female eutherian mammals could be explained by inactivation of the X-chromosome. She considered the reasons for the phenomenon and its implications in ontogeny and in the evolution of mechanisms of sex determination in vertebrates. Dr Lyon's subsequent work on the testicular feminization mutation in the mouse led directly to a better understanding ofthe aetiology of similar syndromes that affect sexual differentiation in humans. Dr Lyon has made important contributions to many other areas of mammalian genetics, in particular genetic analysis of the complex T locus on chromosome 17 in the mouse, and to radiobiological research in general.

A ROYAL MEDAL is awarded to PROFESSOR A. L. CULLEN, O.B.E., F.R.S., in recognition of his many distinguished contributions to microwave engineering, both theoretical and experimental.

Professor Cullen has been at the forefront of research on microwaves since his wartime work on antennae and microwave measurements. After the War, he developed an absolute microwave power meter, subsequently developed as a commercial instrument, and contributed to the theory of space-charge waves in microwave tubes. Later areas of research were in plasma diagnostics, on distributed parametric amplification, and on open resonators for high precision measurements on dielectrics. He also studied phase-locking of semiconductor microwave sources, of major importance in modern phased-array radar systems and a precursor to the promising technique of optical-locking of microwave oscillators. Most recently he has concentrated on the use of multiport couplers linked to microprocessors for high speed, high accuracy microwave measurements. This latest research is leading to a range of commercial instruments.

The DAVY MEDAL is awarded to SIR SAM EDWARDS, F.R.S., for his distinguished contributions to the theoretical basis of thermodynamic aspects of polymer chemistry.

Sir Sam's work has radically altered the theoretical basis of polymer science and established it firmly at a more profound level, especially for entropy-driven systems. He introduced the concept of screening of molecular forces along single polymer chains, permitting calculations in the presence of intermolecular inter-

This content downloaded from 169.229.32.137 on Thu, 8 May 2014 05:29:49 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Anniversary Address by Sir Andrew Huxley, O.M. 405

actions. Working from the dynamical equations for cross-linked polymers he introduced the concept that entanglements effectively confine a chain to a 'tube', a theory which clarified the plateau modulus effect and other phenomena in rubbers and melts. His work has shown that it is possible to produce precise and accurate predictions of thermodynamic and transport properties of polymer molecules, and he has led the renaissance of experimental and theoretical work on amorphous polymer systems.

The DARWIN MEDAL is awarded to PROFESSOR E. MAYR, in recognition of his distinguished contributions to evolutionary biology.

Professor Mayr has contributed more to our understanding of the concept of species and of the mechanism of speciation than any other living biologist. He has been a major proponent of thinking in terms of populations, rather than individuals of a species, which has had widespread implications in biology and in the philosophy of science. His work in systematics and in the evolution of species forms one of the cornerstones of the synthetic theory of evolution developed in the 1930s. His contributions to evolutionary theory through these concepts are manifold and broad, and have been fundamental to the development of the theory.

The HUGHES MEDAL is awarded to PROFESSOR R. P. KERR in recognition of his distinguished work on relativity, especially for his discovery of the so-called Kerr black hole.

In the early 1960s Professor Kerr discovered a specific solution to Einstein's field equations which describes a structure now termed a Kerr black hole. Not only was the solution especially complex, lacking the symmetry of previous solutions, but it became apparent that any stationary black hole can be described by Kerr's solution. His work is therefore of particular importance to general relativistic astrophysics, and all subsequent detailed work on black holes has depended fundamentally on it. Professor Kerr has made other significant contributions to general relativity theory, but the discovery of the Kerr black hole was so remarkable as to compare with the discovery in physics of a new elementary particle.

The LEVERHULME MEDAL is awarded to PROFESSOR J. F. DAVIDSON, F.R.S., in recognition of his distinguished contributions to chemical engineering, in particular the use of fluidized beds.

Professor Davidson is one of the leading chemical engineers in Britain. His major area of research has been in the dynamic properties of gases, liquids and particles in continuous flow reactors and, in particular, the behaviour of fluidized beds. In a fluidized bed a stream of gas through particulates causes the particulate bed to take on properties akin to a fluid, and this provides improved chemical reaction or combustion. In a long and fertile series of papers over nearly 30 years Professor Davidson has made important contributions to almost every aspect of the theory and practice of fluidized beds. Recently he has also recognized the importance of chemical engineering aspects of biotechnology and has initiated important research in fermentation process technology.

I5-2

This content downloaded from 169.229.32.137 on Thu, 8 May 2014 05:29:49 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

406 Anniversary Address by Sir Andrew Huxley, O.M.

The MULLARD MEDAL is awarded to SIR CLIVE SINCLAIR, in recognition of his entrepreneurial and innovative inventions of pocket calculators, personal computers and small television tubes of flat design.

After his first venture, in radio and hi-fi kits in the 1960s, Sir Clive produced in the early 1970s the first pocket electronic calculator designed with low current consumption in mind, followed by a high performance calculator and a digital watch. Another Sinclair innovation, the world's first 5 cm pocket television, has led to the development of a small flat cathode ray tube incorporating novel features and new methods of vacuum-forming glassware. Sir Clive has achieved his greatest success, however, in producing personal and home computers, with more than 2.5 million units sold.

In all these ventures Sir Clive has shown his brilliance as an entrepreneurial and innovative inventor. He has shown great insight into the technological possibilities that were appearing and has seized the business opportunities they offered.

Sinclair Research, under Sir Clive's directorship, has made a significant contri- bution to national prosperity. In 1983 the value of computers exported by the company exceeded ?19M.

The ROYAL SOCIETY Esso AWARD was made to DR R. BOND, Technical Manager and Divisional Director, George Angus & Company Limited, Wallsend, for his contribution to achieving both high skid resistance and low rolling resistance properties in motor tyres, with consequent fuel savings and an increase in safety. Dr Bond gave a most interesting account of this work at a special lecture in the Society on 14 November 1984.

The ROYAL SOCIETY WELLCOME FOUNDATION PRIZE was awarded jointly to PROFESSOR E. R. ANDREW, F.R.S., Professor of Physics in the University of Florida, Gainesville, U.S.A., and formerly of the University of Nottingham; DR J. M. S. HUTCHISON, lecturer in biomedical physics in the University of Aberdeen; PROFESSOR J. R. MALLARD, Professor of Biomedical Physics in the University of Aberdeen; and PROFESSOR P. MANSFIELD, Professor of Physics in the University of Nottingham, in recognition of their development of nuclear magnetic resonance imaging as a diagnostic tool in medicine. Professor Andrew and Professor Mallard gave very interesting accounts of the work that they and their colleagues had done, at a special occasion in the Society on 6 November 1984.

Anniversary Address 1984 Three years ago, in my first Anniversary Address to the Royal Society in 1981, I devoted a part of my time to the question of the financial support of research in our universities. For some ten years before that, university funding through the University Grants Committee (U.G.C.) had been getting less generous, and as a result university research workers had become progressively more dependent on obtaining grants from outside the university system if they wished to undertake experimental work on anything but a very small scale. In March of that year, however, the Government announced plans for a very substantial reduction of funds for universities, and these cuts have created difficulties for our universities

This content downloaded from 169.229.32.137 on Thu, 8 May 2014 05:29:49 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Anniversary Address by Sir Andrew Huxley, O.M. 407

which are so severe that it is easy to look back on the 1970s as if they were a period of generous funding and to forget that the cuts of 1981 came on top of a long period of deepening austerity.

It was very soon realized that the aspect of these cuts that posed the greatest threat to the long-term health of British science was that they would cause a drastic reduction in the numbers of people who could be recruited into regular teaching posts, and that a generation of young scientists would lose the opportunity of entering a university career.

This prospect was impressed on Sir Keith Joseph and his Department (Education and Science) by the Royal Society and by many other bodies, and we were all very much relieved when he announced the 'new blood' scheme which is providing about 250 new academic positions in each of the years 1983-84, 1984-85 and 1985-86. A little earlier the Royal Society had introduced a much smaller scheme, our 1983 University Research Fellowships, financed partly by phasing out the grants made by our Government Grant Boards and partly by an increase in our Parliamentary Grant-in-Aid. This scheme differs from the 'new blood' scheme in two main respects: first, the awards are made on the basis of individual merit, without regard to the particular field of work proposed, and second that they are research posts with limited tenure, though we hope that those appointed will eventually obtain regular university appointments because the tenure of their fellowships can be extended to a time when many vacancies due to normal retirements are again to be expected.

It is generally agreed that these schemes - particularly, on account of its scale, the 'new blood' scheme - have greatly reduced the damage that might have been done to the long-term prospects of the universities, despite complaints that the 'new blood' scheme infringes the autonomy of universities in appointing their own staff and that some of the posts it has offered have been too narrowly defined.

Meanwhile, a different aspect of the money shortage has come to the forefront, namely the shortage of funds in the research councils for making research grants to staff in universities. This has shown up particularly in the shape of 'unfunded alphas': grant applications which have been graded alpha, implying a high priority for support, but which are not funded on account of shortage of money. The scale of the problem is shown by the fact that in 1982-83 about a quarter of the grant applications handled by the Science Board of the Science and Engineering Research Council (S.E.R.C.) that were given an alpha rating were not funded. However, it is not obvious at first sight how serious a problem this is, since many unsuccessful applicants reapply or seek funds from a different source, and it takes careful investigation to gauge the effect of these mitigating factors. Three months ago, S.E.R.C. published the results of just such an investigation, carried out by a powerful team under the chairmanship of Sir Jack Lewis. This leaves no doubt that the effects are serious, though less catastrophic than they would have been if the mitigating factors had not operated. Thus, most of the Engineering Board's shortfall was made up by funds from industry, and the proportion of unfunded alpha applications in the field of the Science Board drops by 30-400o when allowance is made for resubmissions.

An excellent feature of the report is that six 'consultants' - top-level academics -

This content downloaded from 169.229.32.137 on Thu, 8 May 2014 05:29:49 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

408 Anniversary Address by Sir Andrew Huxley, O.M.

followed up the initial statistical study by visiting many of the disappointed applicants in their own universities. They found the least effect on morale in departments of engineering, where, as I have already indicated, industrial funds made good a large part of the shortfall. On the whole, I regard this as a healthy development. Universities had allowed themselves to become too heavily dependent on Government funds, and this is one of the directions in which a reversal of the process is to be encouraged. There are of course drawbacks in such a switch of funding. Departments and their staff will have to accept both the lack of long-term financial security, and also the restriction of the research worker's freedom of choice in pursuing interesting developments from the line supported by his industrial sponsor, that may be entailed. The real danger that has to be guarded against, however, is restriction on free communication of the results of research. I would not go so far as to say that there is no situation in which someone working in a university department should accept such a restriction in respect of work better described as 'development' than as 'research', and perhaps even in some 'applied research'. But any such restrictions must be regarded as exceptional and it must never be accepted in respect of work properly described as 'basic' or even 'strategic'.

Quite apart from the financial benefit to a university and to its scientific and technical departments, a greater involvement of industry in university research, and of university staffs in work with relevance to industry, will contribute towards breaking down the barrier of mutual distrust and, one has to admit, mutual contempt, that has long existed between the academic and the industrial sectors of our society. It has become a platitude, but one which I make no apology for repeating, that for well over a century, industry in this country has not had its fair share of the best brains of each generation, and that the public has given greater esteem to ' pure' as opposed to ' applied' science and to ' science' as opposed to 'technology' or 'engineering'. These attitudes are deeply embedded in our society, and they are largely formed before the age at which a student enters university. The chief hope of changing them lies in the schemes which many schools are introducing for familiarizing their pupils with industry by bringing them and their teachers into factories and by getting personnel from industry to take part in teaching. But even if formed early, these attitudes are not always irreversible and university teachers will contribute to changing them at the crucial stage where someone is deciding on his career, in so far as they are themselves involved in cooperation with the other side of the divide.

An example of a different way in which a university can develop contacts with industry is the research institute being established by the pharmaceutical company Sandoz at University College London. The intention is that its staff will cooperate with members of the departments of pharmacology, biochemistry, chemistry, etc., of the College, with benefit to both parties, and a step which will do much to start this cooperation on good terms is the appointment of Humphrey Rang, formerly head of the Department of Pharmacology of the College, as the first Director of the Institute. This form of cooperation between industry and a university has at least two advantages over industrial funding of projects within a university: first, a substantial scale of operation is possible without upsetting the balance of

This content downloaded from 169.229.32.137 on Thu, 8 May 2014 05:29:49 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Anniversary Address by Sir Andrew Huxley, O.M. 409

research within the university department, and second, that if confidential work is undertaken it will be less upsetting to personal relations among university staff than if it were being carried out actually within the department.

The College had a financial motive in promoting this scheme, as well as hoping to develop its cooperation with industry, because the proceeds from the sale of the lease to Sandoz have contributed in a major way to the completion of the College's new chemistry building. It has to be admitted that this motive would not have existed if funds without strings for the new building had been forthcoming from the U.G.C., so this is another example of ways in which universities can actually get some compensating benefit from the financial pressure they are under.

For many years, the Royal Society has been making its own contributions towards bringing together pure science and academics on the one hand and engineering and industry on the other. Jointly with the Science and Engineering Research Council, we provide Industrial Fellowships which give opportunities for academic scientists and engineers to work in an industrial environment and undertake a project at any stage in the chain from fundamental science to industrial innovation, and conversely for industrial scientists and engineers to undertake research, or course development work, in a university or polytechnic. This scheme is fairly successful, but we could wish that a larger number of people from both sides would be willing to take the plunge and accept the interruption to their normal careers that acceptance of one of these fellowships necessarily entails. Another of our initiatives towards bringing the two sides together is our series of Evening Technology Lectures, each of which is followed by a dinner and, most important, an after-dinner discussion to which we invite thirty or so persons from industry, from academic research and from Government departments. The problems of the borderland between science and industry are discussed by our Engineering, Technology and Industries Committee and by a Joint Committee of representatives from the Royal Society and the Fellowship of Engineering, with which I am glad to say that we have a very cordial relationship.

Whenever a field of human activity has to be divided up between parallel organizations - whether scientific Unions, Government departments, research councils, or in the case I have been speaking of, academic science as against industry - human frailty, combined with the difficulty of keeping up with the speed of change, prevents us from adjusting the boundaries perfectly. Either there is overlap, with wasted effort and territorial dispute between the contiguous parties, or there is a no-man's land - an area which is not provided for, and a gap which makes it difficult to cross from one well-provided area to the next. Overlaps are anathema to the tidy mind, and no doubt they cost something in duplication of effort, but they are not actively harmful in the way that a gap can be. There is now such a gap between academic science and industrial application. The influences I have been speaking of are already narrowing the gap, or rather building bridges across it, and I hope that in the long run those influences will broaden the personal interests of the people on each side so that the gap is replaced by overlap, with university scientists keen to have their ideas developed and understanding enough of industry's problems, and of its ways of working, to recognize which ideas have a chance of success and to know how to persuade industry to take them up,

This content downloaded from 169.229.32.137 on Thu, 8 May 2014 05:29:49 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

410 Anniversary Address by Sir Andrew Huxley, O.M.

and with the industrialists searching out the promising ideas whose practical potentialities have not been appreciated in the university world. There are signs, in the shape of higher-quality entrants both to university engineering courses and to industry from universities, that this process is under way, but it will be many years before it has gone far enough: attitudes are changed mostly by the replacement of each generation by another which has absorbed a different set of prejudices durinig its youth.

What can be done by organizational changes on a shorter timescale? In practical terms, a common complaint is of difficulty in getting funds for the earliest stages of development after a successful piece of applied research. This stage is not attractive to industry because often it is not yet clear whether the idea will still look promising when it has got beyond the laboratory stage; it is not attractive to a research council, which feels that its share of the work has already been completed; and the Department of Trade and Industry (D.T.I.) provides only very limited funds to universities, which are the places where this early development work will have to be done if it has not been taken over by industry. It is no doubt logical, and administratively convenient, that the boundary between the responsibilities of S.E.R.C. and D.T.I. should coincide with the boundary between universities and industry, but having these two boundaries coincident makes them more difficult to cross than if they came at different points in the continuum leading from a laboratory idea to industrial production. The British Technology Group has a great opportunity here, as have Celltech and the Agricultural Genetics Company for the realization of industrial possibilities from scientific work under respectively the Medical Research Council and the Agricultural and Food Research Council.

I was led into this discussion of the relations between industry and academic science by the success with which industry has come to the rescue of projects in the engineering field which the Science and Engineering Research Council has been unable to fund. It is not reasonable, however, to expect industry to take over any appreciable share of the financing of basic science that aims for an improved understanding of nature, rather than something that is directly useful for mankind. Many of you will have heard George Keyworth, President Reagan's science adviser, express just this view in his address to the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee nearly three years ago, when he squarely recognized the responsibility of Government, as opposed to industry, for the support of basic science. In the field covered by the Medical Research Council there is often an alternative source of funds in one or other of the many medical charities. But Sir Jack Lewis's report makes it clear that there is no effective second line of defence that might provide funding for the applications to the committees of the Science Board of the S.E.R.C. that were rated alpha but not funded. The report also shows clearly that the situation is not due to a lowering of the standard required for being graded alpha. An increasing proportion of the members of university staffs engaged in basic science are being frustrated because they cannot get the means to perform one of the duties - research - for which they have been appointed.

Several factors have conspired to bring about this situation. Universities have been forced by cuts to reduce their contribution to the recurrent costs of research,

This content downloaded from 169.229.32.137 on Thu, 8 May 2014 05:29:49 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Anniversary Address by Sir Andrew Huxley, O.M. 411

in the shape of consumables, research assistants and technical staff; this is a failure to maintain their side of the 'dual support' of research, and the Research Councils are being forced to supply the deficiency as far as they can. Although the Science Vote has been given what is called 'level funding' (and all scientists are grateful for this), the allowance each year for inflation is less than the rise of salaries and prices so that the real value of the total available to the research councils falls. The increasing sums going to the Engineering Board represent an equal decrease in the funds available for basic science: in effect, the Science Vote is being milked to support applied science which, under the Rothschild principle, should have been funded from the 'customer' department - the Department of Trade and Industry. Yet another factor is the increasing complexity and cost of the equip- ment that is needed if one is to keep up with the leaders in one's field.

The factor which receives perhaps the greatest amount of attention at the present time is the cost of our subscriptions to international undertakings, notably CERN. This item in the S.E.R.C. budget has risen during the last two or three years on account of the weakening of sterling against the dollar and the Swiss franc. I think it is not generally realized, however, that we have been to a large extent protected by the fact that the subscriptions are calculated as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product, so that our relatively poor industrial performance has resulted in our needing to provide only a falling share of the costs of the projects. Also, we benefited greatly from the changes in exchange rates during the period from 1978 to 1981. The net effect is that international subscriptions expressed as a percentage of the rising S.E.R.C. budget fell from 30 0 around 1978 to a minimum of 18.5 0 in 1982, and the recent rise has only brought it up to about 21 %o - far below the level to which we were accustomed up to 1978. This makes it difficult for me to understand why the suggestion has been made that we should now withdraw from CERN to release some funds to make good the deficiencies in the support of home science that I have been speaking about. But, as you all know, the suggestion has been made and the Advisory Board for the Research Councils has appointed a High Energy Particle Physics Review Group under the chairman- ship of Sir John Kendrew to look into the proposition. This body put a number of questions to the Royal Society, among them what the international effects of U.K. withdrawal from CERN would be. The substance of our reply was that Britain would lose its credibility as a partner in international projects, and that we would undermine the whole system of European collaboration because our withdrawal 'would set a dangerous precedent for other countries by implying that international science should receive lower priority than national science at times of economic pressure'.

It is only through cooperation with other nations that Britain has any chance of taking part in what is called 'big science'; we have had a full share in the spectacular successes of CERN in the last few years, and to throw in our hand at this point would not merely exclude us from a share of its future successes - CERN is well set to retain its world leadership for at least the next ten years - but would be a signal that Britain does not take European cooperation seriously. Only a few weeks ago, at a meeting of the science representatives of the countries of the Council of Europe, Mr Peter Brooke, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at

This content downloaded from 169.229.32.137 on Thu, 8 May 2014 05:29:49 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

412 Anniversary Address by Sir Andrew Huxley, O.M.

the Department of Education and Science, proposed the formation of a European Science Academy, to be named after Leonardo da Vinci, with the objective of promoting scientific cooperation within Western Europe. There may perhaps be a place for such an organization, though its role would need to be clearly defined in relation to those of existing national bodies such as the Royal Society, and of European bodies such as the European Science Foundation and the European Academy of Arts, Sciences and Humanities. But any help that a new Leonardo Academy could bring to the cause of European cooperation would be trifling in comparison with the injury that would be inflicted by a body-blow such as Britain's withdrawal from CERN.

One sometimes hears the argument that because international scientific projects are undertaken partly with the purpose of strengthening the bonds between nations, their funding ought not to be in competition with the support of other scientific activities but should come either direct from the Treasury or from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. In spite of its attractiveness in shielding science from some of the effects of changes in exchange rates (itself a two-edged sword), I am not in favour of such a change. Participation in a project like CERN is an important sector of the scientific activity of our country, and it is right for decisions about it to be taken chiefly on scientific grounds and by representatives of our scientific community. I would regard it as a dereliction of duty if we were to shuffle off this responsibility to a Government Department whose prime interest in the work was not scientific but political.

Returning once again to the inadequacy of support for basic research in the universities, I do not think that irrevocable damage has yet been done, but I do regard the situation as alarming in the sense that the contribution made by Britain to world science will be severely reduced if the factors now operating are allowed to continue for a number of years. In my speech at the annual luncheon of the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee last February, I drew attention to the insidious nature of the problem, arising from two of its features. First, the outcome of the award of a research grant is not seen until perhaps five years later: commonly three years' research, a year preparing the work for publication, and another year before it is actually published - I continue to be mystified as well as infuriated by the fact that the advances in the technology of printing since half a century ago have been accompanied by a major increase in the time that it takes for a scientific paper to appear in print. So the effect of a change in the level of support for science is not seen until after a period which is at least as long as the life of a Government. Britain still does well in the number of international prizes won by our scientists, but this criterion of the health of science has an even greater time lag from the decision to fund a piece of work until its recognition by the award of a prize. The other feature that makes the danger insidious is that there are several factors at work, each of which is cumulative from year to year: the inadequate allowance for inflation, the diversion of funds from basic to applied science, the effect of the declining value of the pound, the 'sophistication factor'. Each of these in a single year may be so small that it seems acceptable and yet the combined effect over a few years will be disastrous: four factors, each causing, say, a 2 0 decline per annum will bring about a 33 0 fall in scientific activity in five years.

This content downloaded from 169.229.32.137 on Thu, 8 May 2014 05:29:49 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Anniversary Address by Sir Andrew Huxley, O.M. 413

For both these reasons, then, it is essential to take a far-sighted view, and to take account of the long-term effects of economies which may appear trifling when considered individually. Scientists would not be dissatisfied if they were truly given the 'level funding' in real terms for basic science which they believed they were promised in the passage that I quoted three years ago from the paper (Cmnd. 8175) of March 1981 (section 2.10, para. 19): 'The Government wish to give protection to the support of basic science, an activity which underpins further development and is a particular strength of the United Kingdom. Within the declining level of the total programme for education and science, the plans allow for provision for science to be held broadly at the current level throughout the period.'

I have concentrated on the problems of the Science and Engineering Research Council largely because Sir Jack Lewis's report has sharpened our view of some of its problems. The Medical Research Council, the Agricultural and Food Research Council and the Natural Environment Research Council are equally hard hit, though in each case the specific problems are different and so are the ways in which their financial difficulties have come about. Time does not allow me to say anything in detail about them.

As regards the coming financial year, we were all heartened by hearing the announcement two weeks ago of appreciable increases, above the expected level, of funding for the Research Councils, so that their total funds in 1985-6 will, in real terms, be about the same as in the current year. The addition will be used partly for restructuring and partly to fund some of the grant applications that would otherwise have been turned down. In addition, the University Grants Committee has been given LIOM for equipment for selected University depart- ments. As President of the Royal Society I naturally welcome these increases, though they will need to be repeated and extended in future years if we are to avoid the decline that I have been forecasting. On the other hand, as Master of a Cambridge college, I have to say that I deeply regret the fact that these funds have been secured at the expense of grants to students in higher education, by increasing the 'parental contribution' that better-off parents are expected to pay. I shall not be directly affected myself as our youngest will complete her under- graduate work just before the increase takes effect, and I am not upset by the prospect that conscientious parents will find themselves paying somewhat more. I am, however, thinking chiefly of that minority among students whose parents do not pay in full the calculated contribution. It must be galling for them to feel that they are less well supported, and are less independent, than they would have been if their parents' income had been smaller.

A different point made in the report of Sir Jack Lewis's working party is the need for records to be available in the form needed as a basis for policy decisions. The members of his team - distinguished scientists - had to spend a quite un- reasonable amount of their time in ferreting out for themselves much of their data from the individual records of grants that had been awarded or turned down; I had a similar experience myself a few years ago when I was on a joint S.R.C.-M.R.C. working party. This lack of adequately digested information, and the need for actually making an investigation as a basis for policy or advice, as opposed to collating opinions or data that have already been published, is something that the

This content downloaded from 169.229.32.137 on Thu, 8 May 2014 05:29:49 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

414 Anniversary Address by Sir Andrew Huxley, O.M.

Officers have been feeling more and more strongly over the past few years. For centuries the Royal Society has been setting up working groups to give advice to Government Departments, Royal Commissions and other official bodies; these groups have in the main collected opinions from Fellows and other well-informed persons, coordinated them and passed them on. But we have recently set up two enquiries, of rather different kinds, in which we have accepted funds to pay for investigations to be carried out. One is the Surface Waters Acidification Programme, investigating the acidification particularly of lakes in Scandinavia. The view propagated in the Press that this is solely a matter of sulphur dioxide emissions from power stations in Western Europe is certainly over-simplified: there are very complicated sequences of chemical reactions, both in the atmosphere and on the ground, intervening between the burning of coal or oil and the decline of fish stocks in fresh-water lakes, and it is far from clear what national or international remedial action ought to be taken. The Royal Society, jointly with the academies of Sweden and Norway, has set up this Programme to investigate in particular the processes that take place after 'acid rain' has reached the ground. It is funded by the Central Electricity Generating Board and the National Coal Board; its Director is our Treasurer Sir John Mason, who became available at the right moment by reaching the retiring age in his post as Director-General of the Meteorological Office; and the chairman of its Management Group is Sir Richard Southwood. It has already set up an extensive research programme and has held two international seminars, one on the techniques and the reliability of the relevant chemical measurements and the other on the chemistry of aluminium in relation to its possible toxicity to fish.

The other enquiry that I referred to is concerned with the 'Health of Basic Science', referred to in Royal Society News, October 1984. The Royal Society has undertaken this at the request of the Advisory Board for the Research Councils. It is directed towards getting firm information on the problems to which I have devoted most of this address - specifically, the question whether, or how far, Britain's contribution to the advance of basic science has fallen off in recent years. Two sample areas of science have been chosen for investigation, the chemistry and physics of the solid state, and genetics. The former study is led by Professor M. Hart and the latter by Professor D. A. Hopwood, with Professor T. W. Good- win as coordinator. Up to this point, the set-up is no different from many enquiries the Royal Society has undertaken in the past, but the feature to which I am drawing attention is that we have appointed two temporary research assistants to work for Professor Hart and Professor Hopwood on this enquiry, which will also involve close liaison with other groups possessing relevant expertise. The necessary funds are being provided by the Advisory Board for the Research Councils and the Economic and Social Research Council.

The second of these enquiries - on the Health of Basic Science - is more typical than the first - the Surface Waters Acidification Programme - of the kind of problem for which the Officers have, as I mentioned, been feeling the need of actual investigation, as opposed to expression of opinion. It is all too easy to give anecdotal evidence of, say, a 'decline in basic science' but this will - quite rightly - cut no ice if it is presented by a group of scientists who will be seen as

This content downloaded from 169.229.32.137 on Thu, 8 May 2014 05:29:49 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Anniversary Address by Sir Andrew Huxley, O.M. 415

having an interest in the outcome. Advice will only be listened to if it is based on hard factual evidence, and this is not to be had without serious and time-consuming investigation. The people who constitute our working groups already hold full-time appointments and are not able to devote to these enquiries the time and effort that are required. Clearly, they need help from well-qualified assistants. Three years ago, the capacity of the Society's staff to do this kind of work was strengthened. One outcome of this strengthening was our report on Demographic trends as they are likely to affect the demand for university places in coming years, especially as the size of the eighteen-year-old age group falls; we believe that this report was influential in persuading the Department of Education and Science to raise its estimate of the number of places needed. But the addition made to our staff is not enough for the tasks that present themselves, so the Council has decided to establish as soon as possible a Policy Studies Unit within the Royal Society's staff by appointing say six new members, three professional and three support staff, who will work at Carlton House Terrace. Lest there be any thought that this unit will be committed to the support of Government policies, it is our intention that it will be financed from non-governmental sources. We foresee that this unit will give us both greater confidence and greater authority when we express views on any controversial topics that arise in the pursuit and in the application of science, and in scientific education.

It is perhaps surprising that the Royal Society did not set up a unit of this kind some time ago, particularly when Lord Blackett was President. The need is closely parallel to the need for 'operational research' that became evident early in World War II, and Blackett was the most notable figure in the efforts to supply that need. He built up operational research groups successively in Anti-Aircraft Command, Coastal Command, and the Naval Staff, and I had the privilege of working under him in the first and third of those organizations.

As always, I wish to record the indebtedness of myself to the other Officers, and of all the Officers to the staff of the R,oyal Society. Each of the Officers has another job to do as well as his work for the Royal Society, and we are able to function effectively only because of the excellent back-up we are given.

We have suffered two notable losses during the year. One, which was predictable, was the departure of Maurice Malcolm on reaching the retiring age. He had been with the Society for thirty-one years, and was Clerk to the Council for the whole of that period. My own first contact with the work of the Society was through him in his capacity as secretary of the Paul Instrument Fund Committee, first when I acted as Assessor for one or two applications to the Fund, and later as a member of the Committee. In both these positions, as well as in many other ways, he had long been one of the mainstays of our staff.

The other loss, tragic and unforeseen, was the death of Morris Sugden, our Physical Secretary, in January of this year. It had been a great pleasure to work with him. He brought to his work for the Society a quite exceptional familiarity with some of the most important questions we face, through his involvement both nationally and internationally with problems of the environment and through his long experience of industry with eight years as Director of the Thornton Research

This content downloaded from 169.229.32.137 on Thu, 8 May 2014 05:29:49 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

416 Anniversary Address by Sir Andrew Huxley, O.M.

Centre of Shell Research Ltd, before he became Master of Trinity Hall, Cambridge. His place has been most ably filled by Roger Elliott, the Wykeham Professor of Physics in the University of Oxford, so that we again have a pair of Secretaries who carry their heavy load with the skill and devotion to which we have become accustomed.

This content downloaded from 169.229.32.137 on Thu, 8 May 2014 05:29:49 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions


Recommended