A role in running UK science?

Notes and Records of the Royal Society

Volumn 64, Issue SUPPL. 1, 2010, Pages

  Collins, Peter ^a  

^a Royal Society   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

David Martin; Howard Florey; Percy Andrade; Robert Robinson; Scientific Research Grants Committee; Trend report

Indexed keywords

EID: 77955650035     PISSN: 00359149     EISSN: 17430178     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1098/rsnr.2010.0037     Document Type: Article

References (66)

1. There is an undated copy of the petition in the Howard Florey papers at the Royal Society: HF/ 1/17/1/30. Unless otherwise indicated, all archival material referenced here is held at the Royal Society.
2. Of Henry Dale's 10 immediate predecessors as President, eight had been awarded the Copley Medal before taking office, and the remaining two were awarded it after their terms had finished. Dale's successors showed a similar pattern.
3. Robinson's biographer includes Tizard among those he speculates might have been in the running for the presidency in 1945, and suggests 'he had strayed too far from the groves of academe to be acceptable to the Society, which collectively had little sympathy with applied science.' Trevor I. Williams, Robert Robinson, chemist extraordinary (Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1990), at p. 134.
4. A. C. G. Egerton diary (AE/2), 16 February and 1 March 1945.
5. W. V. D. Hodge to P. M. S. Blackett, 26 March 1945: PB/9/1/101. Hodge was also very wary of A. V. Hill's politics, and argued that the primary function of the President was to 'symbolise the Society's devotion to fundamental science before every other consideration'.
6. Churchill College archives: Hill to Andrade, 10 June 1945: AVHL II 4/3. Also A. V. Hill to Henry Dale, 7 June 1945: HD/6/8/6/5/197.
7. A. C. G. Egerton diary (AE/2), 12 July 1945.
8. Roy M. MacLeod, 'The Royal Society and the government grant: notes on the administration of scientific research, 1849-1914', Historical J. 14, 323-358 (1971).
9. Data from Royal Society accounts and the annual reports of the ACSP. In this period I am defining the Science Budget as the combined budgets of the DSIR, ARC, MRC and Nature Conservancy. Detailed definitions vary from year to year.
10. Royal Society, The needs of research in fundamental science after the war (printed for private circulation, January 1945). Also CM 13 July 1944, minute 11(b)
11. CM 12 October 1944, minute 6; and CM 14 December 1944, minute 13. The report became known as the 'pink paper', because of the colour of its cover rather than the politics of its authors.
12. See also A. V. Hill, 'The needs of special subjects in the balanced development of science in the United Kingdom', Notes Rec. R. Soc. 4, 133-139 (1946)
13. for the report of a meeting of Fellows convened to discuss this Postwar needs report. A. V. Hill suggested that the Society was the most appropriate body for 'guiding and stimulating the healthy and balanced development of scientific enquiry taken as a whole'; the meeting agreed but thought that healthy and balanced development would be achieved naturally if each university always chose the most distinguished leaders for its posts.
14. About £60 000 in 2010 values.
15. Bernard Lovell, 'Patrick Maynard Stuart Blackett, Baron Blackett of Chelsea', Biogr. Mems Fell. R. Soc. 21, 1-115 (1975), at p. 102.
16. See also A. V. Hill, op. cit. (note 10).
17. Philip Gummett, Scientists in Whitehall (Manchester University Press, 1980), at pp. 93-95.
18. Stuart S. Blume, Toward a political sociology of science (Collier Macmillan, London, 1974), at p. 191.
19. E. D. Adrian, 'Address at the Anniversary Meeting, 30 November 1954', Proc. R. Soc. A 227, 279-287 (1955), at p. 285.
20. Matthew Godwin, The Skylark rocket: British space science and the European Space Research Organisation 1957-1972 (Beauchesne, Paris, 2007)
21. Harrie Massey and M. O. Robins, History of British space science (Cambridge University Press, 1986)
22. Ken Pounds, 'The Royal Society's formative role in UK space science', Notes Rec. R. Soc. 64 (2010) (this issue).
23. Alan Hodgkin, 'Edgar Douglas Adrian, Baron Adrian of Cambridge', Biogr. Mems Fell. R. Soc. 25, 1-73 (1979), at p. 53
24. Trevor I. Williams, op. cit. (note 3), at p. 138.
25. OM 17 December 1959, minute 2(d); CM 21 January 1960, minute 20. At the same time Hailsham asked the ACSP to review whether the national R&D effort was adequate in scale and to identify gaps.
26. Styled 'Viscount Hailsham' after the death of his father in 1950, he disclaimed his title and reverted to plain 'Quintin Hogg' after Macmillan's resignation in 1963, to return to the House of Commons with an eye to the leadership contest. For simplicity I have referred to him as 'Hailsham' throughout.
27. Hinshelwood to Zuckerman, 22 December 1959: OM/1(60).
28. OM 10 March 1960, minute 2(a).
29. For example, in 1960 the DSIR was responsible for 15 research organizations covering a range of areas from buildings to water pollution and including the National Physical Laboratory. The great bulk of its £12 million budget went on these; less than £2 million went on 'grants for special researches' and 'grants to students etc'; that is, spend in universities.
30. Herry Melville, The Department of Scientific and Industrial Research (George Allen & Unwin, London,)
31. At the same time the ARC ran 29 research institutes and the MRC supported a major institute and 83 research units and groups. Annual Report of the ACSP 1959/60 (Cmnd. 1167), 32 (HMSO, London, 1960).
32. Assistant Secretary (that is, the head of the staff) from 1947, post retitled 'Executive Secretary' (very nearly 'Comptroller') in 1962, died in office in 1976. Uniquely for a non-Fellow, Martin was given a biographical memoir.
33. Harrie Massey and Harold Thompson, 'David Christie Martin', Biogr. Mems Fell. R. Soc. 24, 391-407 (1978).
34. David Martin to Bill Hodge, 4 April 1960, and Hodge response, 25 April 1960: HF/1/17/2/24.
35. Despite the existence of a Minister for Science, most scientific agencies, including the Royal Society and all the research councils, then dealt directly with the Treasury when negotiating their budgets.
36. It was eventually published, almost as an afterthought, a year later: The encouragement of scientific research in the UK (Royal Society, London, 1961). CM 16 June 1960, minute 22, and OM 7 July 1960, minute 2(b).
37. OM/86(60); see OM 3 November 1960, minute 2(b). Also OM/90(60), C/146(60).
38. Paper by Gordon Cox on behalf of the research councils collectively: HF/1/17/2/6.
39. Krebs to Florey, 22 November 1960, and Krebs to Himsworth, 17 November 1960: HF/1/17/2/6.
40. Note by Florey of a meeting in the Athenaeum with Solly Zuckerman on 7 December 1960, after a meeting of the ACSP. They were later joined by Todd. HF/1/17/2/24. See also paper by Todd for Hailsham dated 31 January 1961, later circulated to the Trend Committee as ESO (62)11.
41. For successive drafts, see memo from Martin to Florey, 16 January 1961: HF/1/7/2/24; OM/ 12(61), 19 January 1961; OM/36(61), 28 February 1961.
42. Note by Howard Florey of a discussion with Harrie Massey, 14 February 1961: HF/1 /17/2/24; also memo by Florey dated 15 February 1961: OM/29(61), especially the copy at HF/1/17/2/6.
43. Such as the National Institute for Research in Nuclear Science.
44. OM/37(61), 'personal and strictly confidential'. Also OM 16 February 1961, minute 2(b).
45. OM/36(61), 28 February 1961; OM 2 March 1961, minute 2(d); CM 23 March 1961, minute 3. Grant-giving to universities for scientific research: a statement communicated to the Minister for Science by the Council of the Royal Society is annexed to the 23 March Council minutes.
46. Interestingly, though, on the next day the DSIR Research Grants Committee was having an inconclusive discussion about handing over its senior research appointments scheme to the Royal Society, and worrying about the Society's ability to handle particular areas of technology. DSIR Research Grants Committee meeting 24 March 1961: extract from minutes at HF/1/17/2/24.
47. Florey had earlier said of the Research Council Secretaries, 'They would be wise to pay more attention to what is being said by knowledgeable people.' Letter to David Martin, 25 April 1961: HF/1 /17/1 /10.
48. OM 18 May 1961, minute 2(d); also OM/63(61), OM/71(51) and OM/72(61).
49. Note by Florey on meeting with Himsworth, 20 June 1961: HF/1 /17/2/24. Douglas Black described Himsworth as a strong personality who dominated the MRC Council and was very reluctant to delegate. Douglas Black, 'Sir Harold Percival Himsworth', Biogr. Mems Fell. R. Soc. 41, 201-218 (1995).
50. Hailsham to Florey, 3 April 1962: OM/40(62); original at HF/1 /17/13/3. Hailsham was diplomatically overstating the Society's influence in the establishment of the Trend Enquiry. Godwin, op. cit. (note 15; chapter 7) attributes the Enquiry mainly to a confidential annex in the Zuckerman-Gibb report intended to promote the Treasury agenda. In his autobiography, Todd attributes the Enquiry to the widespread feeling that Britain was not keeping pace with technological innovation in industry.
51. Royal Society, Evidence to the Committee of Enquiry into the organisation of civil science (Trend Committee) (Royal Society, London, 1963).
52. See also the Society's oral evidence: ESC(63)10th meeting, 27 March 1963.
53. This is made very clear in the briefing for the Society's oral evidence: Trend/2(63), copy at HF/1/17/19/5.
54. Committee of Enquiry into the organisation of civil science (Cmnd. 2171) (HMSO, London, 1963).
55. Trend/4(63), paper dated 29 November 1963.
56. At least in some instances, Todd as Chairman of ACSP was ahead of Florey as PRS in the pecking order of consultation. See Frank Turnbull to Todd, 31 January 1964, about the chairmanships of three agencies proposed by Trend: the SRC, the Natural Resources Research Council and the Industrial Research and Development Authority: Churchill College archives, Todd Box 5/21.
57. Cmnd. 2171, op. cit. (note 42), at paragraph 116 - not mentioned in Martin's analysis.
58. At its very first meeting on 9 May 1962, the Treasury-dominated Trend Committee had taken the position that 'although the Royal Society should provide scientific advice, it should not, as an institution, be asked to carry any of the onus of the decision in regard to the allocation of scientific resources'. Many Trend Committee papers and minutes may be found with the Todd papers at Churchill College: Todd Accession 811 Boxes 2/22, 2/23 and 4.
59. Interview with Bernard Lovell, 21 April 2009.
60. Bernard Lovell, 'The Royal Society, the Royal Greenwich Observatory and the Astronomer Royal', Notes Rec. R. Soc. 48, 283-297 (1994).
61. OM/29(64) and OM/27(64). Briefing notes are at PB/6/2/4/5. The Officers discussed the outcomes of these meetings on 9 April 1964: OM/35(64).
62. Notes on a meeting on 21 May 1964: STRUUK/1(64). Also OM 14 May 1964, minute2(b), for a meeting on 24 April with research council heads at which the latter reiterated their opposition to a full-time chairman of the ACSP, and OM 18 June 1964, minute 2(f).
63. Howard Florey, 'Address at the Anniversary Meeting, 30 November 1964', Proc. R. Soc. B 161, 439-452 (1965).
64. Blackett applauded Florey's skill in dealing with Whitehall and told A. V. Hill, 'The Royal Society owes a lot to him.' Blackett to Hill, 26 December 1965: AVHL II 4/10.
65. Peter Collins, 'A Royal Society for technology', Notes Rec. R. Soc. 64 (2010) (this issue).
66. David Martin to Florey, 30 October 1964: HF/1/17/2/40; note of an additional Officers' meeting on 13 November 1964: OM/83(64).