supplement 1: the royal society and science in 20th century, 22-23 april 2010 || a royal society for...

A ROYAL SOCIETY FOR TECHNOLOGYAuthor(s): Peter CollinsSource: Notes and Records of the Royal Society of London, Vol. 64, Supplement 1: The RoyalSociety and Science in 20th Century, 22-23 April 2010 (20 September 2010), pp. S43-S54Published by: The Royal SocietyStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20753921 .

Accessed: 15/06/2014 11:33

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

The Royal Society is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Notes and Records ofthe Royal Society of London.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.111 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 11:33:34 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=rsl

http://www.jstor.org/stable/20753921?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


NOTES & RECORDS Notes Ree. R. Soc. (2010) 64, S43-S54

doi:10.1098/rsnr.2010.0033 Published online 14 July 2010

-OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY

A ROYAL SOCIETY FOR TECHNOLOGY

by

Peter Collins

Centre for History of Science, The Royal Society, 6-9 Carlton House Terrace, London SW1Y 5AG, UK

In the early 1960s the Royal Society came under increasing pressure to be seen to be

fostering the applied sciences and technology. This was perceived to be a key element in

improving Britain's industrial performance and international competitiveness. The Society was regarded as the body best able to raise the status of technology, just as it had raised the status of 'pure' science. The default position would be to create a separate, parallel body for technology, and a vigorous public debate from late 1963 raised this as a real

possibility. This paper traces the Society's efforts through the rest of the decade to

support technology with sufficient visibility and commitment to avert the creation of what

might have been a rival academy. It succeeded?for a while.

Keywords: Council of Engineering Institutions; Fellowship of Engineering; Gordon Sutherland; Meredith Thring; Duke of Edinburgh; Alex Fleck

Gordon Sutherland was much concerned with issues of scientific manpower. As Director of

the National Physical Laboratory he was a major employer of scientists and technologists. As Chairman of the Royal Society's famous 'brain drain' report published in February 1963 he had highlighted the outflow of talent from the UK. So he was used to worrying about why more of the most talented people did not study science and, particularly, why they did not seek careers in technology and applied science.

He was also a member of the Royal Society's Council and a Vice-President of the Society. Both these terms of office came to an end on Saturday, 30 November 1963, a day that saw the

major annual gathering of the Fellowship, with the President's Anniversary Address in

Burlington House and the Annual Dinner round the corner at the Dorchester Hotel. It was

the day when a letter in the national press would have the maximum impact on the

Fellowship. Having just demitted office, Sutherland was in a position to write it. He planned it carefully, discussing a draft with the science correspondent of The

Guardian, John Maddox, which he sent discreetly to his home address. Maddox, in

*[email protected]

A letter The Guardian

S43 This journal is ? 2010 The Royal Society



S44 P. Collins

exchange, sent Sutherland the draft of the editorial he was preparing to accompany the

letter.1

Sutherland's letter was published under the heading Royal Society for technology'. It

started with the need for more first-class intellects to take up careers in technology. Young

people were 'imbued with the idea that "pure" science and "pure" research leading to

Fellowships in the Royal Society' were the ideals towards which they should strive. The

Royal Society had had a profound influence in keeping Britain in the forefront of pure science, so, with the aim of repeating the trick, a completely new society should be

formed for the elite among engineers and technologists. The job in Sutherland's view was

decidedly not already being done by the Royal Society. Engineers and technologists constituted only 10% of its Fellowship 'and this proportion is extremely unlikely to

increase. ... It is clear that the Royal Society can never give adequate representation to

engineering and technology.' Sweden had separate academies for science and engineering that worked perfectly well, so it could be done. Sutherland proposed that his new body should be called 'the Edinburgh Society' in recognition of what the Duke of Edinburgh had done to promote applied science.2

Maddox's editorial was headed 'No longer poor relations'.

The Royal Society remains pre-eminent. ...

By its nature, however, the Royal Society is

chiefly concerned with academic science. ... What really matters is that there should be

some means by which technologists could band together as a community confident of its

place in society and thus, incidentally, free from the sense of being poor relations.

The letter and editorial gave the Fellowship plenty to talk about in the corridors of

Burlington House and the dining rooms of the Dorchester that day, and ensured a very extensive personal postbag for Sutherland and many letters to the national and technical

press in the days and weeks that followed. Among his correspondents, Arnold Hall FRS

(Director of Hawker Siddeley Group Ltd), Douglas Holder FRS (Professor of Engineering Science at Oxford) and Solly Zuckerman FRS, while welcoming his initiative, all argued that it would be far more effective if the Royal Society itself dealt with the elite

technologists. They opposed any action that might pre-empt the Society's commitment to

such action. A wholly new body should be a matter of last resort.3

Christopher Hinton FRS (Chairman of the Central Electricity Generating Board) also

endorsed Sutherland's concern about the state of the engineering profession, but crisply

challenged a key element of his thesis: do not believe that school-leavers take up a

scientific career because the Royal Society exists.' He also challenged Sutherland's

proposed solution, on pragmatic rather than ideological grounds: unlike academic

scientists, the most distinguished practical engineers would be too busy earning a living to

attend to the needs of a new academy for technology.4 One of those who had already been actively thinking about a new body was Meredith

Thring, then Professor of Fuel Technology at Sheffield and not a Fellow of the Royal

Society. He immediately sent Sutherland details of his blueprint for what he called the

National Society of Applied Science (NSAS).5 His proposal was grounded in the

contribution of technology to economic competitiveness:

If Britain is to retain her export market in a rapidly advancing technological civilisation,

then she must have well over half her most brilliant scientists directing their minds

primarily to the application of science in industry. ... The only way to destroy this



A Royal Society for technology S45

terrible anti-economic load we carry on our backs is to have a national body organised to

speak with full weight against it.

He wanted the NSAS to be launched, and its members chosen, essentially by the engineering institutions.

The debate sparked by the letter in The Guardian continued into 1964. Accepting his

colleagues' advice about not pre-empting possible initiatives by the Royal Society, Sutherland found himself having to rein his supporters in. For example, he briefed the Association of Consulting Scientists on 20 February 1964 that 'No steps have been taken at present because the Royal Society is reconsidering its position in this matter and I think it will be desirable to wait until one hears whether they are proposing to give more

recognition to technologists.'6 A week later he was urging Thring to give the Royal Society more time to determine its response, while adding that this did not imply 'any weakness of resolve to act independently if the RS does not do a proper job!'7

When the 1964 intake of 25 new Fellows was announced, Thring promptly commented to Sutherland that it contained only 'the usual 2.5 Engineers and Technologists. ... Does this mean that we should now go ahead with the proposed meeting to set up the Society for

Distinguished Technologists?' Sutherland had to set him straight on the length of time needed to bring about change in the Society's election process, and stressed the need to make 'every endeavour' to ensure that any new elite body in the UK had the 'backing and friendly cooperation of the Royal Society'. Until the Society had decided how it wished to react, Sutherland told Thring, 'it would be very unwise to take any action.'8 The Royal Society had first refusal.

To add to the pressures on the Society, there were at that time moves to establish a National Academy of Engineering in Washington. Sutherland commented pointedly to Thring that these moves were being made with the 'full cooperation and blessing' of the National Academy of Sciences. The message was not lost on the protagonists in the UK.9

Context

Sutherland's letter in The Guardian was not exactly a bolt from the blue. The increasing economic significance of technology in the postwar period had led to continual concern about whether the country was producing enough scientists and engineers. A string of

working groups from the Advisory Council on Scientific Policy and elsewhere, involving numerous individual Fellows, was reinforcing the 'elite consensus' about the need for

rapid development of applied science and technology.10 Cyril Hinshelwood had tried during his 1955-60 Presidency to nudge the Society as an

institution into greater support for technology. One of Howard Florey's first actions on

succeeding him in December 1960 was to appoint a small committee under Bill Penney FRS to explore options.11 By summer 1961 Penney was convinced that the number elected to the Society each year had to be increased from 25 to 30 if the Society was to retain its relevance and pre-eminence.12 Pressure for such an increase came also from other directions, with arguments based on the increase in active researchers13 and on the need to elect younger Fellows.14 All paths seemed to lead to the same conclusion: the fourth increase in 30 years was due.15



S46 P. Collins

Florey recognized that such matters needed the consent of the Fellowship at large, and decided to test the waters. He convened an informal meeting of Fellows in Oxford on 7 and 8 October 1961, which warmly embraced the proposed increase.16 The Society's Council then debated the matter at length and decided to call a Special General Meeting to take the mood of the Fellowship more formally. But at the SGM on 15 March 1962, with more than 90 Fellows present, the majority in favour was so small that Council felt itself unable to proceed with any increase in the number of annual elections.17 It settled instead for making a few modest procedural changes.18

Two developments then served to fan the flames: the February 1963 report of the Royal Society working group, chaired by Gordon Sutherland, on the emigration of scientists from the UK,19 and the publication a little later of a report by Oxford University called

Technology and the sixth form boy. This documented survey evidence that engineering and other branches of technology were poorly esteemed by sixth-formers and

consequently attracted less than their fair share of the most talented school-leavers. In the

years before the sixth form there was a bias towards pure science rather than technology and, beyond that, a strong bias toward arts rather than science.20

The minister for science, Hailsham, responded to the growing pressure by setting up an

Interdepartmental Committee on 'Improvement in the status of technology' in May 1963 'to consider what might be done to create a climate of opinion more favourable to

technology generally, and so to improve the quality of people coming forward for

technological education.'21 With Bill Penney emphasizing that there was 'no quicker way for the Society to lose its influence than to be regarded as representing only basic science and academic research',22 the Royal Society, also in May 1963, asked its Treasurer, Alex

Fleck, to chair a committee 'To consider what action the Royal Society might take... to

heighten the esteem of the technologist as a scientific contributor to the national

welfare.'23 This provided a focus for sustained discussion within the Society over the next two years about whether and how to deal with technology.

The debate in the early 1960s about the UK's competitive technological performance was thus to a considerable extent focused on questions of social status, prestige, and how much the different professions felt valued. 'Pure science' was distinguished from 'applied science' and its practitioners were accorded far greater esteem. This put the Royal Society at centre

stage: it was, par excellence, the purveyor of professional esteem in science. There was no

analogous body for engineering or technology. So the Society's attitude to engineering and

technology was seen as crucial. That is why Hailsham took to berating the Society's leadership privately for its apparent lack of interest in these matters.24

The Royal Society's response

It was obvious that the Royal Society corporately had to do something in response to the

escalating demand to improve the status of technology, and specifically in response to the Sutherland letter. It might have first refusal, but unless it moved quickly it would be deemed to have surrendered its options. In the first instance it was up to the Fleck

Committee, which had already been working for six months when the Sutherland letter was published, to suggest what that something might be.

But what could the Society actually do to improve Britain's economic competitiveness? The answer lay not so much in what the Society did as in what it was. It was the embodiment




of a set of values. It defined high achievement in science. It conferred unrivalled prestige on

its Fellows. In so doing it shaped perceptions well beyond the scientific world. It was

influential because people paid attention to the choices it made. If there was a sense of

crisis about the nation's technological capacity and capability, then the Society's showing that it really cared about technology and technologists would be a major step forward.

Elect more technologists

The Fleck Committee was convinced that the Royal Society itself should be the elite body for technology and applied science. This implied in the first instance ensuring that enough elite technologists were elected to the Fellowship. But were there many technologists of

sufficient calibre to merit election? On 19 December 1963 Fleck wrote to 24 Fellows,

acknowledging the impact of Sutherland's letter to The Guardian and asking about

technologists who might be elected in the event of the Society seeking to increase its

intake.25 Within a month he had well over 200 names in response. That disposed of any

argument that there was no real pool of electable and unelected technologists. However compelling the case, the Fellowship was not going to elect additional

technologists if that meant electing fewer 'pure' scientists. Instead, there would have to be

an increase in the total number of new Fellows elected each year. The events of 1961-62

showed that such a proposal would be controversial. So Florey convened another informal

meeting of Fellows in Oxford on 18 January 1964, which, a touch grudgingly, supported an increase in annual elections from 25 to 30 to provide more scope for technologists. At

an informal dinner for Council members on 11 March 1964, Fleck then proposed that the

increase should be to 32, to cover both extra technologists and the growth of science over

the previous two decades. Those present at the dinner supported this increase and agreed also to a new advisory committee on the selection of candidates in technology.26 After

unanimous endorsement of this approach at the next full Council meeting,27 a Special General Meeting on 12 June 1964 approved the change to 32. In an elegant closing of the

circle, Cyril Hinshelwood was asked to chair the new Applied Science Candidates

Committee.28

Given the extent to which all this was driven by public perception of the Society's attitude

to technology, it is striking that little was done to publicize the developments. The first public announcement seems to have been in Florey's Anniversary Address on 30 November 1964.

In explaining the change, Florey stressed:

The Society by its present action is deliberately proclaiming its special interest in the

marvellous developments of modern technology and in those who are responsible for

them. ... We also hope that our interest in these matters will go some way to convince

our technological colleagues that we are interested in them and all they mean to the

nation.

As for the mooted Royal Society of Technologists, 'The last thing I believe we want to see in

this country is two possibly antagonistic Academies representing what might come to be

thought of as incompatible interests.'29 Meredith Thring's erstwhile local paper, the Sheffield Telegraph, was not impressed. In an

editorial headed 'Elevating the status of the engineer', it complained:

Though the Royal Society has at long last decided to admit more applied scientists, it has

done so with more condescension than enthusiasm, to prevent the creation of a rival



S48 P. Collins

society which would certainly have greater influence than itself. ... not so much that the

Society has woken up to the importance of technology, but that it has recognised its own

declining influence. ... There still remains what Prof Meredith Thring has called 'a

peculiar snobbishness' against engineering and the applied sciences.30

Establish a 'C side?

The Society's founding Charter provided for the existence of two Secretaries. From 1827 it became the practice that one of the Secretaries should be from the physical sciences and the other from the life sciences, giving rise to an 'A' side and

' side in the Society's affairs.

When Philosophical Transactions reached unwieldy proportions, in 1887, it was analogously divided into A and series; the same development occurred with Proceedings in 1904.

Although engineering was generally included in the A side it was not specially prominent within it. Moreover, as Howard Florey so frequently emphasized, technology and applied science encompassed much more than engineering. So it was natural that those seeking greater visibility for technology within the Society should think in terms of establishing a

'C side, equal in rank and status to the A and sides.

Cyril Hinshelwood was one of those for whom the creation of a C side was the most obvious response to Gordon Sutherland's letter to The Guardian.31 The idea gained currency among the Fellows present at the 1963 Anniversary Day dinner, and they recognized that it implied also a marked increase in the number of technologists elected. Sutherland himself supported the C-side approach, and admitted to Florey, Tf a section C of about 40 new members were created at once with about 5-10 elections [per annum]

subsequently, I agree the need for a new Society would largely disappear.'32 However, the idea did not prosper. The informal meeting of Fellows at Queen's College

Oxford on 18 January 1964, with its unenthusiastic acceptance of the need for a greater technology dimension to the Society's life, showed no support for a C side.33 Neither did the Fleck Committee at its subsequent meeting, where it was seen as a potential 'society within the Society'.34 By the time of the informal Council dinner on 11 March the C side had dropped off the agenda.35

Technology medals

If a fully fledged C side was beyond the art of the possible, a dedicated medal might be within range. Since 1825, two gold medals had been awarded annually by the Sovereign, on the recommendation of the Royal Society's Council, for the most important contributions in the 'two great divisions of natural knowledge'?i.e. the A and sides. In

February 1965, prompted by Maurice Dean (Permanent Secretary at the Department of Education and Science) and Patrick Blackett, Florey secured the Queen's permission to

add a third medal to the repertoire, for the applied sciences.36 He then characteristically got Council to agree that the Royal C Medal could equally well be awarded for applied work in the biological as in the physical sciences.37 Florey used his Anniversary Address that year to advertise, 'We are particularly delighted to have been enabled by the Medal further to proclaim that the Society wishes to continue to foster the applied sciences.'38

Another medal followed in the next year, when Mullard Ltd agreed to sponsor an annual

prize to 'encourage a transfer of attention from pure scientific pursuits toward manufacturing industry', including 'agriculture and other biological production'.39 Blackett was delighted




to be able to announce the creation of the Mullard award in his first Anniversary Address as

President.40

Technology lectures

As Sutherland had recognized, a key figure in the background to all these discussions was the Duke of Edinburgh, because of his active interest in the applications of science and because of his likely role as patron of any new body seeking parity with the Royal Society. He was

following developments closely, and his confidant Harold Hartley in particular was anxious that the talk of the Society's apparent lack of concern about technology, and the possibility of a new body to fill the gap, should not create a rift between the Duke and the Society. So in

March 1964 he proposed that Florey involve the Duke in expressing the Society's support for

engineering and technology by inviting him to give a lecture to the Society. This quickly grew into a proposal for a series of prestige evening lectures 'to advance the esteem of

technology'.41 In the event, the first Evening Technology Lecture was not given until June 1966, and

only 44 Fellows attended, even with the inducement of a buffet supper afterwards. By the end of 1972 only five Evening Technology Lectures had been given, and seven by the end of 1975?none of them by the Duke of Edinburgh. In 1967, Nicholas Kurti FRS

suggested to Blackett that they could be absorbed into the general flow of Society activities, since 'it is now generally accepted that technology in the widest sense of the word is very much within the Society's sphere of interest' and it was therefore no longer necessary to provide special treatment; but the label remained.42

Education

One reason that the Duke of Edinburgh declined to give the inaugural Evening Technology Lecture was that he had already been invited to deliver the opening talk at an event organized jointly by the Royal Society and the Engineering Institutions Joint Council (EIJC), and gave

priority to that instead. The event was a major conference on 'The challenge of modern

engineering', held in Cambridge in March 1965 with 250 participants drawn mainly from the headmasters and headmistresses of large schools with sixth forms. This was a

response to the 1963 Oxford University report Technology and the sixth form boy, mentioned above, and grew out of a meeting between Lord Fleck's Technology Committee and the EIJC in December 1963. After the conference, the Royal Society sent a message to the Government to stress how 'deeply interested' it was in the whole issue and seeking to be involved in future discussions about the state of science and mathematics teaching in schools.43

Had the Society done enough?

Had the Society done enough to persuade its critics that it could be entrusted with imbuing technology and applied science with the prestige they needed? For example, were the election reforms sufficient to create a home for elite technologists within the Society? Did the subsequent initiatives constitute sufficient practical progress in the cause of

technology? Many people were watching to see what effect they would have.



S50 P. Collins

Meredith Thring

The 1965 round of elections, the first with 32 places at stake and with Florey's promise of benefits for applied scientists, was expected to show some shift in direction. It didn't.44 A

year later, things were better, at least in Sutherland's view, but it was evident to him that it was going to take a very long time for the Society to accumulate 'a really representative body of applied scientists and technologists'.45 The 'wait and see' line was

getting more difficult to hold. He thought it was time for further action. So did Meredith

Thring. They were both present at a lunch with the Duke of Edinburgh on 27 April 1966. Thring

took the opportunity to make his mark with the Duke, and immediately followed up the

opening with a promise to update his December 1963 blueprint for a National Society of

Applied Science and send it to the Duke within a month, heeding his advice to explain how the new organization would relate to the Royal Society and the Council of

Engineering Institutions (CEI) and taking care to avoid overt criticism of either 46 He first

sent copies of the draft to key individuals for comment. Patrick Blackett, commenting as

President of the Royal Society but before the memorandum had been discussed in detail within the Society, wrote rather stiffly and dismissively to Thring:

The Royal Society considered a somewhat related scheme some time ago and came to the

conclusion that it would not be in the best interests of technology in the United Kingdom. Although your scheme has certain differences, I am not convinced that the Society would wish to change its opinion.47

When Thring sent a progress report to the Duke of Edinburgh in June, he claimed creatively that Blackett's response 'does not indicate irrevocable opposition' and that the negative responses he had received from others had not included any logical arguments as to why the proposal was against the national interest. The Duke responded with encouragement: believe that eventually some such body as you propose is necessary and will emerge.'48

Meanwhile, the Officers of the Royal Society endorsed Blackett's response to Thring and confirmed that 'the Society's efforts in relation to technology?elections, lectures, awards etc?should be continued and that the Duke of Edinburgh and other Fellows of the

Society should be kept informed of these efforts.'49 A successful launch of a new academy for technology would need the active support of

one out of the CEI and the Royal Society, and at least the acquiescence of the other. In contrast to the National Academy of Sciences in Washington, the Royal Society was

clearly not going to provide active support. Thring recognized that he would have to work

through the CEI, even though Sutherland had earlier warned him against having one body dealing with both elite and professional matters.50 So he secured a personal introduction to Robert Wynne-Edwards, then Chairman of the CEI.51 When Sutherland returned in

mid June 1966 from a month's overseas trip, Thring briefed him that he had arranged to meet Wynne-Edwards on 5 July. He confided to Sutherland, 'It seems clear the whole matter stands or falls by his reaction.'52 It also stood or fell by relations between the CEI and the Royal Society, as the gatekeepers to their respective communities.

The RS and the CEI sort it out

The outcome of Thring's meeting with Wynne-Edwards on 5 July 1966 was that the CEI established a group chaired by Oliver Humphreys to consider 'possible alternatives to the




proposal by Professor Thring for a Royal Society of Technologists'. This became known as

the 'accolade committee' of the CEI. Coincidentally, Blackett also met with Wynne Edwards on 5 July and the latter invited the Royal Society to be represented on the

accolade committee. Thring put a positive gloss on his meeting with Wynne-Edwards, but

both Sutherland and Hartley cautioned him that the CEI would have to give priority to

establishing itself within the engineering profession, securing chartered status and

promulgating unified qualifications for professional engineers and for technicians, before

it could engage fully with his proposal.53 The Officers of the Royal Society and the CEI held one of their periodic lunches on 27

October 1966. At the preparatory briefing, the Royal Society team confirmed that 'creation

of a Royal Society of Technologists would be unsatisfactory for the technologists and

could be damaging to the Royal Society.' To pre-empt this, it was important to elect more people from industry into the Fellowship, so they were pleased to note that there was now a 'strong list of candidates from industry'. It was also important to get the

CEI and others 'to understand that the Royal Society is bringing technologists into the

Fellowship and is recognising technology in lectures, medals etc, and to wait 2-3 years to see the effect of these actions.'54

James Lighthill and Ashley Miles, then respectively Physical and Biological Secretaries

of the Royal Society, attended the accolade committee on 11 November 1966, briefed to

mention, without any commitment, that after the 1967 election round the Society might be

willing to consider having a special 'bonus' of, say, 10 applied science candidates in

1968.55 The meeting heard that the new Minister of Technology, Tony Benn, in contrast

to his predecessor Frank Cousins, was keen to see the creation of a National Academy of Engineering. However, the accolade committee eventually rejected the proposal because any new body would 'usurp' the functions of the fledgling CEI and because it

thought that the accolade issue could safely be left to the Royal Society. What got a more sympathetic hearing was a subsequent proposal by the Duke of Edinburgh for the creation of a CEI 'Senate'?an advisory body of 'elder statesmen' to help the CEI

Board become an effective voice for engineering at national level?which was then a

higher priority for the CEI.56 The Royal Society regarded this approach as 'much more

satisfactory'.57 The Society and the CEI kept in close touch over the following years, with regular

updating meetings at Officer level and joint initiatives on specific issues. In a 1968 CEI

strategy paper, Hinton commented warmly, 'close relationships have been established with the Royal Society.'58 At a meeting on 8 April 1970 the then CEI Chairman Eric

Mensforth 'paid tribute to the attitude of the Royal Society in the past few years which was proving to be very helpful in the development of the CEI.' He was, Blackett recalled a week later, 'highly appreciative of what the Society had done in recent years in

engineering and technology.'59 And at a special meeting of Royal Society Officers on 19

May 1970, Blackett elaborated: 'Sir Eric had been most appreciative of what the Society had done for the engineering professions. He thought it had put an end to the desire for a

national engineering academy, although a few individuals still talked of it.' James

Lighthill, then chairman of the Society's new Technology Activities Committee, was

keeping in close touch with the CEI and advised that 'only a very small minority of

engineers wanted an academy.'60 Between the Royal Society and the CEI, there was in 1970 neither space nor need for a special organization for elite engineers or elite

technologists. It was in neither body's interest. The separatists had been seen off.



S52 P. Collins

Envoi

Meredith Thring had the last laugh. In February 1976, the CEI formally launched a special organization for elite engineers. But that is another story.

Acknowledgements

I am grateful for comments from Jon Agar, Geoffrey Allen, Keith Davis, Sally Horrocks, Chris Snowden and participants in the conference. For access to archival material and

permission to quote from it, I am grateful to the Syndics of Cambridge University Library (Sutherland papers, Add 8353), the Churchill College Archive Centre (Todd papers), the Institution of Mechanical Engineers (Hinton papers), the Royal Academy of Engineering (J. F. Coales's unpublished manuscript The foundation of the Fellowship of

Engineering') and the Royal Society (all other archival material cited below, especially Council papers (prefaced C), papers and minutes of Officers' Meetings (OM) and

Technology Committee meetings (TC), and Howard Florey Papers (HF)).

Notes

1 Sutherland to Maddox, 20 November 1963: Cambridge University Library, papers of Gordon Sutherland MS Add 8353: E17.

2 At Maddox's suggestion, Sutherland also called for more recognition for social scientists. But

my focus here is on technology and applied science.

3 Hall to Sutherland, 9 December 1963: Sutherland E24. Holder to Sutherland, 16 December 1963: Sutherland E26. Zuckerman to Sutherland, 21 December 1963: Sutherland E31.

4 Hinton to Sutherland, 11 December 1963: Hinton papers H21 and Sutherland E26. 5 Thring to Sutherland, 2 December 1963: Sutherland E27. Includes a copy of a proposal dated 14

November.

6 Sutherland to the Association of Consulting Scientists, 20 February 1964: Sutherland E32. 7 Sutherland to Thring, 27 February 1964: Sutherland E29. 8 Thring to Sutherland, 1 April 1964: Sutherland E29. Sutherland to Thring, 2 April 1964:

Sutherland E29.

9 Cf. Hartley to Sutherland, 4 January 1964: Sutherland E25. see Thring has circulated his proposal also. Yours has the great advantage of not being a direct challenge to the R.S. and

its acceptance by Hague [Chairman of the Engineering Institutions Joint Council] is an

important point.' 10 Sally M. Horrocks, 'The Royal Society, its Fellows and industrial R&D in the mid twentieth

century', Notes Ree. R. Soc. 64 (this issue). 11 The members included Harold Hartley and Alan Wilson. CM 15 December 1960, minute 27.

Penney, Deputy Chairman of the UK Atomic Energy Authority, had stepped down as Treasurer of the Royal Society on 30 November 1960, to be succeeded by Alex Fleck, former Chairman of ICI. The Society's finances, at least, were in the hands of industrial leaders.

12 Copies of Penney's document are attached to a letter from Penney to Florey, 29 June 1961 (HF/ 1/17/1/12) and, slightly modified, from Penney to Florey, 16 August 1961 (HF/1/17/2/23). See also paper C/126(61).

13 Sutherland E20, paper dated 7 December 1960. 14 See draft copy of Hill's paper at HF/1/17/2/23, and A. V. Hill, 'Age of election to the Royal

Society', Notes Ree. R. Soc. 16, 151-153 (1961).




15 The number of Fellows elected each year was set at 15 in 1848 and increased to 17 in 1931, 20 in 1938 and 25 in 1946.

16 OM/120(61). 17 In the short term, anyway. As Florey presciently commented to Harold Hartley on 30 January

1963, think within a year or two the whole matter of the numbers of Fellows to be admitted every year can be raised again.' HF/1/17/1/17.

18 CM 12 April 1962, minute 9. Abdus Salam was one of those opposed to any increase?doubtful of any backlog of top quality candidates in his own field, at least, and 'categorically against' general candidates at all, their existence in his view a source of 'deep resentment' among unsuccessful mainstream candidates. Abdus Salam to Martin, 12 March 1962: HF/1/17/1/17.

19 Brian Balmer, Matthew Godwin and Jane Gregory, 'The Royal Society and the "brain drain": natural scientists meet social science', Notes Ree. R. Soc. 63, 339-353 (2009).

20 G. van Praagh, 'Technology and the sixth-form boy', Nature 199, 958 (1963); P. V. Danckwerts, 'Science versus technology: the battle for brains', Nature 200, 219-220 (1963).

21 Annual Report of the Advisory Council on Scientific Policy 1963-64, Cmnd. 2538 (HMSO, London, 1964). Also SP(64)9, 'Status of engineering', dated 26 February 1964: copy at TODD Acc 811, box 2.

22 Penney to Hartley, 20 March 1963: HF/1/17/1/17. 23 OM 4 April 1963, minute 2(d)(iii); OM 9 May 1963, minute 2(d)(i); CM 9 May 1963, minute 29. 24 In Florey's view, quite unfairly. See, for example, his note of the meeting with Hailsham on 30

March 1962: OM/37(62). 25 The letter was later circulated as paper TC/2(64). 26 This outcome was sufficiently positive to impress Harold Hartley. Ahead of the dinner he had

been arguing that a new elite body for engineers would not be incompatible with the Royal Society's doing more for engineers itself, but afterwards he had second thoughts: 'it is

premature at this moment to discuss the existence of such a prestige body of engineers as I

suggested.' Once the Society had sorted out its position on engineering and the EIJC had secured its charter, it would be time to look again at what else needed to be done. Hartley to

Florey, 8 March 1964, and Hartley to Florey, 19 March 1964: HF/1/17/2/56. 27 CM 16 April 1964, minute 16. Also CM 14 May 1964, minute 14 and Appendix B. 28 Martin to Hinshelwood, 21 July 1964: HF/1/17/6/1. 29 Howard Florey, 'Address at the Anniversary Meeting, 30 November 1964', Proc. R. Soc. 161,

439-452 (1965), at pp. 447-449. 30 Sheffield Telegraph, 14 December 1964. Thring had just moved from Sheffield to Queen Mary

College, London.

31 Hartley to Sutherland, 4 January 1964: Sutherland E25. See also Fleck to Hinton, 12 December 1963: Hinton papers H21; and Fleck to Sutherland, 31 December 1963: Sutherland E23.

32 Sutherland to Florey, 5 January 1964: HF/1/17/6/1. 33 David Martin to Florey, 20 January 1964: HF/1/17/2/56. 34 TC/4(64), C/56(64). 35 It was proposed again, still unsuccessfully, by . M. Barlow in 1974 and by Hugh Ford in 1976,

and still resurfaces occasionally. 36 CM 4 March 1965, minute 26. 37 CM 17 June 1965, minute 14. 38 Howard Florey, 'Address at the Anniversary Meeting, 30 November 1965', Proc. R. Soc. 163,

425-434 (1966), at p. 432. 39 CM 10 November 1966, minute 19; CM 13 July 1967, minute 24. 40 P. M. S. Blackett, 'Address of the President at the Anniversary Meeting, 30 November 1966',

Proc. R. Soc. A 296, v-xiv (1967). 41 Hartley to Florey, 8 March 1964: HF/1/17/2/56.



S54 P. Collins

42 Kurti to Blackett, 14 August 1967: OM/65(67). Also OM 31 October 1967, minute 2(e). K?rti was then Chairman of the Hooke Committee, which was responsible for selecting the

programme of regular discussion meetings and lectures.

43 CM 15 July 1965, minute 9; CM 21 October 1965, minute 12. 44 Hartley commented grumpily to Sutherland, 'The list shows that the academics have hogged the

additional places.' Sutherland to Hartley, 25 January 1965; Hartley to Sutherland, 10 March 1965: Sutherland E25. Also Hartley to Hinton, 10 March 1965: Hinton papers, H23.

45 Sutherland to Hartley, 25 April 1966: Sutherland E25. 46 Thring to Sutherland, 13 May 1966: Sutherland E30. 47 Blackett to Thring, 24 May 1966: Sutherland E30. 48 Thring to Duke of Edinburgh, 7 June 1966; Duke of Edinburgh to Thring, copied to Wynne

Edwards and Hartley, 20 June 1966: Sutherland E30. 49 OM 16 June 1966, minute 3(d); also CM 13 October 1966, minute 28. 50 Sutherland to Thring, 11 December 1963: Sutherland E29. 51 Pitchford to Robert Wynne-Edwards, 3 June 1966: Sutherland E30. 52 Thring to Sutherland, 28 June 1966: Sutherland E30. 53 Note by Harold Hartley, 13 July 1966: Sutherland E25; Sutherland to Thring, 27 July 1966:

Sutherland E30. 54 OM/108(66). 55 OM 10 November 1966, minute 2(f). The bonus did not materialize. 56 See a draft 1991 paper by J. F. Coales (paper F-91.12) in The history of the Fellowship of

Engineering (Royal Academy of Engineering, London). It was 1971 before the CEI got round to trying to establish the Senate, and in the end it never met. Hinton later noted, 'Nothing came of the proposal which was one of Prince Philip's bright ideas.' Michael Leonard

(Secretary of the CEI) to Hinton, 29 October 1971; Hinton to Leonard, 9 November 1971: Hinton papers C12.

57 OM 30 November 1966, minute 2(b). Meanwhile the Duke of Edinburgh continued to stir things by hosting a joint dinner of the Royal Society Dining Club and the Smeatonian Society of Civil

Engineers at Buckingham Palace on 3 November 1966, to discuss the needs of the applied sciences for recruitment from schools and universities. T. E. Allibone, The Royal Society and

its dining clubs (The Royal Society, London, 1976), pp. 406-407; Allibone to Dining Club members, 21 October 1966: HF/1/17/1/47. Harold Hartley again acted as intermediary.

58 Draft paper on future activities of CEI: Hinton papers Cll.

59 OM/27(70); OM 16 April 1970, minute 2(a). 60 OM/52(70).



supplement 1: the royal society and science in 20th century, 22-23 april 2010 || a royal society for...

Documents