Upload
t
View
213
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1210
invited to act as an expert and to pronounce an opinionupon which 1 proceedings might be based. He would often
find himself confronted by physical conditions sug-
gestive of underfeeding and by positive statements of an
opposite character ; and the diagnosis of underfeeding, asdistinguished from under nourishment dependent upon othercauses, would have to be established with a degree of pre-cision which, so far as we are aware, has not previously beenrequired. In the somewhat analogous difficulties which
may arise in connexion with the Factory Acts the opinionof the medical officer that the age of a child has been over-
stated by the parent is always open to correction by an
appeal to the register of births, but in a case of suspectedparental neglect the case would often be extremely difficultof proof. It would obviously be the duty of the school I
managers and of the guardians to give a child the benefitof the doubt and to supply him or her with food, but it mustbe assumed that the county court judge, before condemn-
ing the father to make good the cost of the supply,and especially before making an order upon the father’s
employer with reference to wages, would require strict legalproof of the neglect which was urged against the defendant.It is not difficult to foresee that this requirement could
only be fulfilled by medical evidence, nor can it be doubtedthat in many densely populated places defensive organisa-tions would come into existence, lawyers would be employed,and medical witnesses would be closely cross-examined with
regard to the grounds of their opinions. The Times has
already made the suggestion that underfeeding, in a certain
proportion of cases, may be due as much to ignorance asto neglect, and in these cases the difficulties might oftenbe very great. A father who brought home his wages andwhose personal expenditure was reasonable would receive
universal sympathy if he were brought before a court
of law on a quasi criminal charge for no other offence
than that of having married a wife who was a bad
manager, or who was tntirely ignorant, probably fromwant of instruction, of the requirements of growing children.Questions might arise, moveover, in the case of a familywhich had been supplied, perhaps even liberally, with Some-one’s condensed milk or with Somebody else’s patent food,both of them preparations extensively advertised in the
locality, both notoriously deficient in the qualities which
they were ssserted to possess, and concerning which
neithEr the board of guardians nor the EducationlBoardhad issued any warning to the unwary. We fully agreewith many of our contemporaries in their approval of
the principle of the new Order and of the care for
the welfare of children by which it has evidently been
dictated; tut we are unable to conceal our sense of the
dimculties Vthich are likely to be encountered in its appli-cation, or of the extent to which it may cast heavyresponsibilities upcn medical officers of health or upon themedical attendants of schools in poor districts. These
gentlemen can hardly be too prompt in arriving at some
general agreement concerning the diagnosis of underfeeding,or concerning the methods of distinguishing between aninsufficient and a merely improper supply. They will
almost certainly be required to justify with regard to boththese questions any opinions which they may be officiallycalled upon to express.
The Promotion of ScientificResearch.
WE imagine that only wilfully and woefully ignorantminds would be indifferent to the question as to whetheror not there should exist the strongest incentives to
scientific research, but how to create incentives which
shall not detract from the dignity of such labour it is not
easy to suggest. In a recent publication 1 the author boldlyproposes an organisation based upon such principles as wouldadmit of the systematic and extended application of publicfunds adequate in amount and so directed as to be produc-tive of such valuable results as would warrant their expendi-ture. It is true that there are incentives to invention but
there is none to the pursuit of natural truth except the joyof discovery and Mr. WALTER B. PRIEST maintains that somepractical stimulus should be given to the latter just as theinventor is encouraged to invent by the promise of obtaininga financial success for his invention in which he is matetiallyhelped by the patent laws of the country. In a word, theworld richly Eubsidises the inventor while the investigatorof natural truth (upon the results of whose labours the
inventor is dependent for the material upon which he foundshis new conceptions) has none of his valuable privileges.Mr. PRIEST remarks with absolute truth that there cannot
be applied science unless there is science to apply. Dis-
coveries are made which in themselves have no marketable
value and which, therefore, gain no protection from thePatent Office, though these discoveries may promote thehealth of the public and may have innumerable applicationswhich give birth to new industries and which increase the
comforts, the convenience, and the luxuries of life. It is
proposed that some compensation in the shape of grantsprovided out of the public purse should be awarded to
those who bring natural truth to light.The reward of money as an incentive to scientific research
on the face of it seems to be opposed to the best traditionsand ideals of such work. Money and fame may not be
synonymous terms but they are both rewards, and of thesethe latter is surely the 7itonuntentum aere perennius. It would
be absurd to deny the value of money as a stimulus to
original research ; indeed without it there could be no
research at all. In one respect at any rate this is unfortunateas obviously only those who possess means over and abovewhat is needful for the necessaries of life have a chance of
practically testing their capacity for research. There must
be many persons gifted with originality of design and ideawho owing to their penurious circumstances never have the
opportunity of cultivating the faculty or of applying it to
practical purposes. In such cases endowment must obviouslyprecede reward if the plan proposed by Mr. PRIEST is
adopted. He makes, however, the singular mistake, we
think, of deprecating the remuneration of persons for the
work of research on the ground that the expenditure of
money so supplied is likely to miscarry through abuse.
Surely the worker in a properly organised system of re-
search is chosen as well for his integrity of purpose as forhis capacity of investigation and he must necessarily presentfrom time to time an account of the work which he has
1 A Scheme for the Promotion of Scientific Research, by Walter B.Priest. London : Stev ens and Sons, Limited. 1905.
1211
done. It must not be forgotten, moreover, that very oftenthere is considerable value in negative results. " People donot understand," said in effect a celebrated chemist engagedupon a difficult investigation, " that a thousand pounds mayeasily go down the sink without a single positive result
being scored." Negative results are oftentimes of greatvalue as when they clear the ground and narrow the field
of future operation. We doubt very much whether there
is ever any serious or wanton waste of the moneys that
are devoted to research work, and it must be borne in
mind that whether positive results or negative results areobtained there is bound to be a gain to the sum of humanknowledge in either case; otherwise research work may as ’,well be given up. A serious difficulty in connexion with ’,Mr. PRIEST’S scheme would be, it seems to us, in the matter ’’,of ascertaining the person who was really entitled to the
award. A general principle of production or preparation, forexample, is discovered which may not have directly anyvaluable application, although a great number of new sub-stances may be prepared by its means by many independentworkers. At length one worker by some simple modifica-tion in detail, but still pursuing the original principle, pro-duces a valuable preparation. Who should fairly be the
recipient of the award in such case ? Then, again, if the
money were divided the portions might be infinitesimal andnot worth acceptance. At all events, it is possible thatthe actual discoverer of the new substances might proveto be a far less meritorious investigator than the discovererof the principle and some difficulty would be experienced in
finding amongst a numerous body of investigators the realoriginator of the method. Palmarn jni 1utruit ferat. But
the best reward to the discoverer of great natural truths
can surely never take the form of money. To award
money in general would not be calculated to add, we
fear, to the dignity of scientific labour and research.
HARVEY, JENNER, PASTEUR, and LISTER received no awardfrom the public funds in the sense that Mr. PRIEST proposesnor were they stimulated to the prosecution of scientific
work by the prospect of pecuniary remuneration. Theylaboured, as most men of science have done, not for them-selves but for others. The merest contemplation thus
shows how difficult it is to suggest a working scheme forthe creation of fresh incentives to scientific research.
Nevertheless, there cannot be too much earnest scientificresearch and we wish that the opportunities for research
were far greater than they are. It seems, however, to be a
pity to suggest that the spirit of research can only bevitalised by the promise of pecuniary reward. It is a totallydifferent thing when funds are supplied for the purposes ofmaintaining the practical work involved in scientific in-
quiry and providing the necessary material. Lastly, it is
a curious fact that in those countries in which a recognisedsystem of State-aided research exists the results have not beena particularly brilliant gain to science, whereas in countries,amongst which we are proud’ to include our own, where
research receives small encouragement from the State the
discoveries have been considerable and of first importance.This may not be, however, the fault of endowment but is
probably owing to the choice of men who are not as fullyequipped as they should be for the peculiar nature of thetask or who do not possess the true intuition of the
discoverer. What this country lacks most is not so muchthe spirit of inquiry as the faculty of applying the resultsof such inquiry to practical purposes.
The Prevalence of Plague in India.THE "Treatise on Plague" by Professor W. J. R. SiMPSON,
which is reviewed in another column, appears at an opportunemoment, and we are in hopes that it will effect the probablepurpose of the writer-viz., the awakening of the publicconscience. The real meaning of the appalling figureswhich we have been able to publish from time to time in thelast two years in respect of deaths from plague in India
seems to have escaped the attention of all but a few
persons, but our Special Correspondent’s words, which mayhave appeared exaggerated to some of our readers, are
clearly justified by the official figures given by ProfessorSIMPSON in regard to the ravages which plague has
.committed. In 1903 the number of deaths from plaguein India was 853,000; in 1904 it was over 1,000.000, being1,040,000. Of the 1,000,000 deaths more than 350,000
occurred in one province, and that province was the
Punjab, the one from which some of our best Indian soldiersare recruited. Consider the possible significance of a factlike this upon the efficiency of our Indian Army. The Punjabis not a large province, its actual population being about20,000,000, or only two-thirds that of England, and yet thedeaths in the Punjab during 1904 from plague amountedto over 250,000 in the course of 12 weeks only 1 We
believe that these figures, which have been published before,have never been contradicted, though they seem incredible.What would be thought, said, or done in England if in thecourse of 12 weeks over 250,000 persons were swept off
by one disease ? Surely there would be something like a
panic. And if this destruction threatened to be an annual
one would not any inactivity on the part of the authoritiesin whom prevention is vested be deeply resented ? We
think that the feelings that would be aroused among usif this dreadful tragedy were at our doors should to someextent be excited by our sympathy with the Indian people.Our compassion has been deeply moved by the lamentableloss of life caused by the great earthquake in NorthernIndia and help of a practical kind has been organisedon behalf of the sufferers. But the deaths at the most
from this catastrophe were not more than 10,000, or
1 per cent. of the deaths from plague last year. The
English public has, of course, not realised the positionand though we are not playing the alarmist with any specialrelish for the office we think that the policy of concealment-or the absence of policy that has necessitated conceal-
ment-has gone on long enough. The small number of
deaths from plague in Hong-Kong and the Mauritius is
regularly published every week in the daily papers and
presumably the information comes from official sources,
but the mortality which occurs in India from the same
disease, and which by its magnitude is a danger not only toIndia but to the world, is never published-it is not con-sidered wholesome reading. The public is not aware from
official information of the terrible tragedy going on in onepart of the empire-in that part which is always termedthe brightest jewel in the possession of the Crown, for whose