Abstract
A MEMORANDUM on the development and finance of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research was discussed in a leading article of NATURE of July 11 last. The view appears to prevail that this memorandum embodies the considered views of the Parliamentary Science Committee; but this is not so. The history of the memorandum is as follows. Some three years ago the British Science Guild and the Association of Scientific Workers appointed a joint committee to explore this question. Considerable material was gathered, and certain progress was made. Eventually the two bodies referred the subject to the Parliamentary Science Committee in 1935, together with the results of their labours. Obviously it was desirable that this material should be collated, brought up to date, and even amplified. This was done by a distinguished scientific worker at Cambridge. His preliminary draft was circulated to the executive of the Parliamentary Science Committee last March. Before proceeding to consider the memorandum in detail, the executive deemed it expedient to refer it to the councils of its constituent bodies and to the individual members of its own general and executive committees to secure their, considered views in writing. This has proved to be a leisurely process, as some councils meet at infrequent intervals â and not at all during high summer! A considerable volume of constructive and polemical criticism has been received; and an amended memorandum is now being prepared at Cambridge incorporating many of the suggestions received. It appears, therefore, that the Parliamentary Science Committee has not yet settled down to work, as a deliberative body, on this memorandum. In a sense, the committee may be said to have given it a ‘first reading’, and committed it to a select committee for consideration before proceeding to the ‘second reading’ and subsequent stages. The ‘Parliamentary draftsman’ has to finish his labours before the Parliamentary Science Committee can claim any credit for accepting the result of his public-spirited laboursâ or for rejecting the memorandum on ‘third reading’.
Article PDF
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Research and Finance. Nature 138, 714 (1936). https://doi.org/10.1038/138714a0
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/138714a0