All this may seem a statement of the obvious but I believe it needs saying at the present time. The danger of interference on political grounds with the free flow of scientific information and even dictation of the type of research which may be undertaken is still with us and may indeed be increasing. Persecution of a scientist because his findings conflicted with current religious dogma did not stop with Galileo, and the furore over Darwin's theory of evolution has not wholly died down even today. Yet it is fair to say that even two hundred years ago science had achieved a status which ensured for its practitioners quite a remarkable degree of tolerance and immunity from interference, always provided they followed the rules laid down for the Royal Society by Robert Hooke in 1662 [Cf. Weld, History of the Royal Society (London, 1848), vol. 1. p. 146].
The business and design of the Royal Society is - To improve the knowledge of naturall things, and all useful Arts, Manufactures, Mechanick practises, Engynes and Inventions by Experiments - (not meddling with Divinity, Metaphysics, Moralls, Politicks, Grammar, Rhetorick, or Logick).
So it was that two hundred years ago when America and Britain were at war, Benjamin Franklin, a Fellow of our Society and Founder of the American Philosophical Society, was able to obtain right of passage and freedom from molestation by American warships for ships of the Royal Navy under the command of Captain Cook engaged on a scientific expedition organised by the Royal Society. During the Napoleonic wars we know that Count Rumford travelled extensively in France, holding discussions with scientific colleagues, and it is also on record that in 1796 a French sailor and scientist, Chevalier de Rossel, at the time a prisoner of war in England, dined at the Royal Society Club as a guest of Alexander Dalrymple, the hydrographer to the Navy. As a final indication of the attitude of governments in the past one may quote the following excerpt from the instructions issued to the captain of H.M.S. Rattlesnake in 1846 (in which, incidentally, Huxley sailed as 'a surgeon who knew something about science'):
You are to refrain from any act of aggression towards a vessel or settlement of any nation with which we may be at war, as expeditions employed on behalf of discovery and science have always been considered as acting under a general safeguard.
I doubt very much whether such sentiments are widely shared by nations today and it is pertinent to ask why this should be so. I am no historian but I think the reason for the deterioration which has occurred is fairly clear. It had become recognised by the end of the seventeenth century that, particularly in matters concerning navigation, safety and progress were bound up with scientific discovery and invention; moreover, science was a common interest of mankind and its discoveries were not associated or identifiable with any sectional interests in society. That it should have been granted a substantial measure of tolerance and immunity from interference by civilised communities is thus understandable. From about the middle of the nineteenth century, however, men began consciously to apply science, or more particularly the results of scientific research, to the solution of practical problems in agriculture, industry, medicine and defence. It was this - the new science-based technology - that enormously speeded up technological innovation and led to the fantastic and ever-increasing rate of advance in our material civilisation which has been the characteristic feature of the past hundred years. As a result science has come closer to its practical utilisation, and governments are increasingly interested in it. In its discoveries lie the seeds of power. The temptation to support and to control science in the interest of national political aims has therefore grown apace and the results are all too evident. Tolerance and freedom from persecution can no longer be taken for granted.
Flagrant examples of interference, like the promotion of the unsound ideas of Lysenko for political reasons with concomitant suppression of any work on genetics which might contradict them, may be rare, but persecution of scientists on political or racial grounds did not stop with Lavoisier. We have in recent times seen it happen in, for example, the McCarthy investigations in the United States, in the Soviet Union, in South America and before that in Nazi Germany. Closely associated is the danger that, even in the highly developed countries of the Western world, dictation of the nature of research permitted to individual scientists could develop not only from governments but also from militant, politically motivated minorities. Nor should we think that we in Britain are free from such intolerance. Not so long ago demonstrators in London prevented a well-known scientist from presenting and discussing his results simply because they believed that he might reach conclusions which would be at variance with their politically preconceived ideas.
Much of the creative work leading to fundamental advances in science is carried out in universities and research institutions. This work is for the most part uncommitted in the sense that it is not directed to any specific economic objective and, as it advances, its direction may and frequently does change as fresh areas of scientific ignorance are revealed. But today we are all too aware of the parrot-cry about the need for 'relevance' in academic research. Catch-phrases like 'cost-benefit analysis' and 'management of research' are bandied about and we are told of the need to orient research towards the fulfilment of national goals (these latter being, of course, determined by the particular political party which happens to be in power). This is ominously close to the direction of research on political grounds - a thing against which in an age of increasing political intolerance we must constantly be on our guard. The Royal Society, in accordance with the spirit of its Charter, has, throughout its history, sought to uphold the freedom of scientific enquiry and the exchange and discussion of experimental findings and theoretical ideas without regard to race, creed or national boundaries. But let us not forget that if scientists are to be accorded the privilege of tolerance and freedom from interference they must obey the rules. And these rules are most clearly expressed in my earlier quotation from Robert Hooke, in which he enjoins that there is no meddling 'with Divinity, Metaphysics, Moralls, Politicks, Grammar, Rhetorick or Logick'. To avoid meddling with some of these presents few problems but nowadays the scientist may find it less easy to keep clear of divinity, morals or politics. Yet if science is to lead to the advancement and not the destruction of mankind it must refuse to meddle with or be dominated by them. Science advances through the free interchange of experimental results and ideas and the main vehicles for advance are publication and open discussion. For the scientist therefore freedom to travel to attend scientific meetings and to confer or debate with colleagues at home and abroad is very important. Yet today arbitrary restrictions on such travel are not uncommon in some countries; moreover, they are often imposed at short notice and without any explanation being given. I would appeal to the governments concerned urgently to reconsider their attitude. For the welfare of their own countries will depend ultimately on the welfare of science; and there is no such thing as national science - no British science, no American science, no Soviet science - only science.