Abstract
THE advent of peace has led to much discussion on the proper place of science in the post-war world. Different currents of opinion range from the extreme view of the need to suppress science on account of the dangers of its application, to war, to that which considers that scientific activities need to be greatly increased and co-ordinated in the interests of providing better conditions of life in Great Britain and throughout the world. Not only is there no agreement as to the amount of science needed, but also considerable divergence of opinion on how science should be organized. Some think of science as "a proper occupation for the leisure of an English gentleman", and consider that it is more important that it should be completely free and unorganized than that it should be adequately endowed; while others feel that the full value of science can only be reached if it is organized in relation to practical human activities of production, agriculture and health, and can draw on a far larger share of the national income than it has done hitherto. Those who hold the older views have never realized that the relation of science to society is not fixed but continually changes with the growth of science and the increase of complexity of society: what did well in ancient Greece or Victorian England is not appropriate to the needs of to-day.
Article PDF
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Social Relations of Science*. Nature 155, 703 (1945). https://doi.org/10.1038/155703a0
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/155703a0