I believe this frustrated class is, to some extent, already with us and that, together with the continued segregation of science in our schools and universities, it is in part responsible for the so-called' drift from science' which is said to be visible in schools. This drift probably reflects also the 'anti-science and technology' attitude which in recent years has raised its head as a modern form of anti-intellectualism. This anti-science attitude originates, of course, in man's reluctance to accept radical change in his way of life; he is aware that technology is imposing such change, and if an individual has no understanding of science or technology he begins to regard science as some kind of monster over which he has no control whatever. People holding this view feel further justified by current concern over pollution and deterioration in the natural environment. There is no doubt that pollution of the environment by industry is a matter of grave concern to all of us. It is not, however, a necessary consequence of technological advance - it can be prevented. The fact is that pollution is not a new problem; only the scale is new. Hideous past examples of pollution and destruction of the environment abound - think of many of the industrial areas developed during the last century in north-east England, south Wales and in Scotland -but these tended to be ignored because they were local in their effect. Today the scale of industry accords not just with technological progress, but with the demands of an ever-increasing population, and so it is becoming evident that we must take serious steps to prevent or minimize pollution and undesirable change in our natural environment - steps which in the past we never bothered to consider. There are, of course, some difficulties about nature conservation; man always tries to alter the environment in his favour and it is inevitable that in doing so some of the changes he makes will be fatal to some other living species. This is something we must recognise, and we can only hope that in deciding whether interference with some part of nature is justified by the technological ends we seek, we will make our choices more wisely than we have sometimes made them in the past.
The making of correct choices, not only here but over the whole field of national and international affairs does, however, depend on the existence of an informed public opinion. In developing such an opinion, not only schools and universities, but also the British Association for the Advancement of Science, have their parts to play. It is interesting to see how the role of the Association has changed during its span of existence from the heyday of the First Industrial Revolution to the present day. In its beginnings, although the popularisation of science was borne in mind, its most important function was to provide a forum for the discussion of advances in science by those directly involved. With the passage of time this latter function has been largely taken over by the professional scientific societies; but as the Association's value in that sense has declined so its importance in spreading an awareness of science and technology among the public and particularly perhaps among its younger members has grown. That is why our BAYS activities seem to me to be so important. But since the young people of today are the adults of tomorrow we ought now to be giving serious thought to the pattern of the Association's other activities. Some changes we have made in recent years, but I doubt if they have gone far enough. It will not be a very easy task, for organisations, like individuals, tend to resist change or, at least, to insist that it be gradual. And there is the rub - technological advance and rapid change in our everyday life are synonymous. In the world of today and of tomorrow rapid change will continue, and if society is to survive it must so adapt itself that its members can not only live with change, but derive the maximum benefit from change. In talking around this subject I have emphasised the central position of education; but educational changes take time to show their effects and time is running short. Truly, for all of us, this is a time to think.
APPENDIX II. Extract from Anniversary Address 30 November 1976
Reprinted from Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B. 196, 7-22 (1977)
Many of us can remember those difficult but heady days at the end of the last war when it seemed as though science, the application of which had achieved so much in war - radar, penicillin and the atomic bomb to mention but three examples - would, in the brave new world of amity and justice between nations symbolised in the Charter of the United Nations, soon usher in the Millennium. Well, as we are all only too well aware, the Millennium hasn't arrived yet and, indeed, it seems in many ways rather further off now than it did in 1945. Social and economic problems abound and many people, especially the young, feel disappointed, frustrated and indeed let down by the society in which they live. Now when people are frustrated they always look around for a scapegoat and I fear that far too many cast science in that role today. This is not merely wrong; it is indeed dangerous if it leads, as it has led, to a swing away from science among young people entering higher education in many advanced countries. For our standards of living cannot be maintained, let alone improved, save through science or more precisely through the application of the scientific method and the results of scientific research to practical ends or, if you will, through technology and technological innovation; this is as true of environmental as of industrial problems. The real reason for most of our troubles lies not in science but in our social and political ineptitude when it comes to realising the potential of the advances which science has made and continues to make. And so today we live in a turbulent and unhappy world. The hoped-for spirit of amity among nations has failed to materialise. Deep divisions exist between them and this has inevitably led to increasing secrecy and mutual suspicion and all too frequently to violence and even open warfare.
Secrecy has always been the enemy of scientific progress. This I hold to be true, but it is manifestly absurd in the imperfect world in which we live to appeal for the total abolition of secrecy and for the free and untrammelled circulation of all new knowledge. For example, one could hardly envisage the abandonment of all secrecy in defence research or free publication of all results obtained in the search for new drugs in the pharmaceutical industry. The existence of patents, of course, underlines the general acceptance of at least temporary rights of a proprietary nature in the results of research. In discussing secrecy I think it necessary to try to distinguish between two kinds of activity both of which are usually lumped together under the heading of research. The first, which is sometimes described as 'pure' research, is typically concerned with advances in our understanding of the natural world. As a general rule it is not undertaken in pursuit of any specific economic objective and it is characterised by a high creative content. From it come the new laws and hypotheses on which the progress of science depends. Since these require for their full establishment a consensus of opinion derived from widespread discussion and experimentation by many scientists it is clear that secrecy should be avoided at all costs in this type of research. The case is rather different with the second type of research, which we may call applied research and which often includes development - it is in fact the activity commonly described as research and development or, shortly, R. and D. Here the research is undertaken to solve particular problems, usually of an economic or military nature, with a view to technological innovation, and its most characteristic feature is ingenuity rather than creativity - ingenuity in the manipulation of existing knowledge and understanding. Of course, there is no clear-cut boundary between these types but broadly speaking the distinction can be made. In the world as it is, a measure of secrecy is usually inevitable in this second type of research; such secrecy will not actually promote the research, but it need not be unduly damaging provided freedom of exchange and discussion is preserved in the first type. As far as the individual scientist is concerned the type of research he undertakes should be a matter for individual decision, but having taken the decision he must abide by the rules.