Sir

Hermann Bondi rightly remarks that there must be an optimum balance or ratio (albeit subject-dependent) between the expenditure on scientists and that on their equipment, and points out that the current ratio is too high because of the widespread obsolescence of equipment (Nature 388, 709; 1997). His solution, however, is that “the claimant pool [of scientists] should be set firmly on a downward course”.

The alternative solution, of course, is to recognize, and to persuade governments, that we are strictly on the linear portion of the graph of economic output versus scientific expenditure; that such expenditure is therefore an investment and not a cost; and thus that if countries such as the United Kingdom wish to enhance their economic performance, they should aim to increase the amount of investment in equipment, not decrease the number of scientists.

Sir—It is hard for a mere member of the research riff-raff to criticize someone as eminent as Sir Hermann Bondi, especially because, as a former chief scientific adviser to the Ministry of Defence, he can be considered to be a field marshal of British science. It is important, however, that officers do not undermine the morale of the troops.

Some of us still have to earn our living and are still slogging away in the front line at the computer terminal or in the laboratory, and we scientific cannon fodder can really do without this kind of friendly fire.

Bondi is right to point out the inefficiency of the present research funding (or non-funding) system, but this is presumably something that evolved while he was a staff officer. Although I am sure that he is retired in name only, future cuts in research funding are unlikely to have any effect on his pension — something we other ranks will never get!