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

A ROLE IN RUNNING UK SCIENCE?Author(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. S119-S130Published by: The Royal SocietyStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20753927 .

Accessed: 16/06/2014 00:16

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 91.229.229.13 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 00:16:42 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

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

http://www.jstor.org/stable/20753927?origin=JSTOR-pdf

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


Notes Ree. R. Soc. (2010) 64, S119-S130

doi:10.1098/rsnr.2010.0037 Published online 14 July 2010

-OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY

A ROLE IN RUNNING UK SCIENCE?

by

Peter Collins

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

The election of a new President of the Royal Society in 1945 was enlivened by a petition, signed by 20% of the Fellowship, promoting a vision of the Society as playing a strong role in managing UK science. One of the signatories was Howard Florey. During the final

year of Cyril Hinshelwood's presidency in 1960, and throughout Florey's subsequent

presidency, the Society fought hard for a share of the action as publicly funded science,

managed by Government-appointed bodies, grew at a sustained 15% per annum. The

implementation of the Trend report in 1965 closed out the main options: the Government

wanted control, and the Society, in the end, wanted its independence. It found other ways to make an impact on UK science.

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

Elections to the presidency of the Royal Society are generally orderly affairs. Soundings are

taken, names emerge, more soundings are taken, a single name comes to the fore, and the Fellows finally get to vote on that one name. But the election of a successor to Henry Dale in 1945 was an exception to this rule. This time a group of Fellows decided to get their retaliation in early. At the beginning of the year, Percy Andrade organized a petition among the Fellows that set out a vision of where the postwar Society should be headed and detailed the personal characteristics needed by the man who would lead it there.1 Science had become a crucial part of national life, and if the Royal Society was to be central to UK science it had to be led by someone willing to engage with national life. The presidency could not simply be the reward for a life well lived.

The Royal Society', argued the petitioners, 'should assume its just place as the voice of British science and exercise that guiding influence on the scientific aspect of our national

wellbeing which was contemplated by our founders.' They worried, with good reason, that the Society's overt influence in both national and international affairs had declined. So they wanted a President who knew how Government worked and could hold his own

*peter.collins@ royalsociety.org

A controversial presidential election

S119 This journal is ? 2010 The Royal Society



S120 P. Collins

with the leading figures in Westminster and Whitehall; who was accustomed to presenting the case for science to political ears; and who had considerable international experience. Exceptionally, 'at the present critical time', the petitioners would be willing to settle for academic attainment just short of Copley Medal status2 to secure a candidate with the

requisite high level of political skill. The petitioners had a specific candidate in mind: Henry Tizard, a man with serious

Whitehall experience and, as Foreign Secretary, a Royal Society insider (and not a Copley Medallist).3 His name was originally included in the petition, but the Physical Secretary, Alfred Egerton, discreetly persuaded Andrade to remove explicit reference to individuals, to avoid potential awkwardness.4

The petition provided a sharp focus for numerous private discussions among the Officers and Council members in the spring of 1945. The main issue was how much, if at all, to

compromise on the criterion of stellar academic achievement to find a candidate with the

right political skills. Three possible candidates featured prominently: Henry Tizard, who was the most politically experienced; the physicist Geoffrey Taylor, whose virtue in the eyes of one Council member was that he 'would want to do as little as possible'; and the organic chemist Robert Robinson, who 'would want to take part in all the business of the Society, whether he knew it or not'.5 A. V. Hill and Edgar Adrian were also in the running in the initial months.

Tizard pulled out at the beginning of June, fed up with all the controversy related to the petition, as A. V. Hill testily informed Andrade.6 Hill himself also pulled out. It was

up to the Society's Council to nominate one candidate for election by the Fellowship, and at the decisive Council meeting on 12 July 1945 the three names on the table were

Robinson, Taylor and?a last-minute addition?the physical chemist . V. Sidgwick. After two very close votes, Robinson emerged as Council's preferred candidate,7 and he duly became President on 30 November 1945. Scientific excellence, it seemed, had won the day.

The Society's postwar priorities

In 1850 the Government had started giving the Royal Society what became an annual grant of ?1000 to support scientific research.8 From that point the Society was, in effect, managing 100% of what would now be called the Science Budget. By the eve of World War II that

budget had grown to ?1.3 million, but, with the creation of new bodies such as the

Department of Scientific and Industrial Research (DSIR) and the Agricultural and Medical Research Councils (ARC and MRC), the Society's share was down to about 1%.9 Andrade's petition was a bid to recoup some of the limelight.

The Society had just contemplated such a bid. At the instigation of Ralph Fowler and Patrick Blackett it produced a detailed report on the needs of fundamental research after the war and circulated it privately among the Fellowship in January 1945.10 The report argued for a tripling of prewar budgets for the University Grants Committee and the

DSIR, a formal role for the Society in advising the Treasury on all directly funded

projects costing more than ?2000,11 and major increases in the Society's own

Parliamentary grant. Blackett, then a member of Council, had wanted the report to push for the Society to become the body that controlled and administered the whole 'Science

Budget', but his colleagues would not go that far.12 This Postwar needs report was



A role in running UK science? S121

applauded in Andrade's petition. But it did not lead to a significant improvement in the

Society's relative position in the funding of research. Nor did it lead to greater formal influence for the Society on the shaping of policy. The

DSIR, the ARC and the MRC officially provided all the scientific advice that was needed in

their respective fields and were hostile to any suggestion that Government might also seek

advice from the Royal Society. In so far as the generic role of Government Chief

Scientific Adviser existed, it was filled by the Secretary of the DSIR or the Chairman of

the Advisory Council for Scientific Policy (ACSP). The Society had to work in other

ways, its ties with Government 'informal, discrete, ubiquitous'.13 The election of Robert Robinson as President signalled a vision of the Society as a body

devoted to fundamental research and maintenance of the highest possible standards in

fundamental research, and as a body devoted equally to preserving its own independence. It was willing on occasion to give advice, but strictly on its own terms. Robinson was not

going to challenge the status quo by pursuing the activist agenda of the Postwar needs

report and the Andrade petition. Edgar Adrian, Robinson's successor as President, responded to the long-term erosion of

the Society's role in the management of British science by simply denying that it had any such ambitions:

As a society, we have never aspired to an organized control of scientific research_It

seems far better for the Royal Society to keep itself outside the State organization. The

larger this becomes the more important will it be for us to maintain our status as an

independent body of scientists whose chief aim is the advancement of knowledge.14

The scale and character of the celebrations marking the Society's tercentenary in 1960

emphasized its position at the heart of both the global scientific community and the British Establishment. It seemed to have the inside track to anyone who mattered. But it was being edged out of the inner circle of both the advisory and executive functions in

relation to science at a national level. As the government machinery for dealing with

science became more complex and more comprehensive, the Society's role seemed to

diminish to one of filling the remaining gaps, for example with the International

Geophysical Year and space science during the 1950s and early 1960s.15 The Society's Officers were increasingly unhappy about the way in which Government agencies were

encroaching on its activities. And despite all the denials, they did want a slice of the action.

The Scientific Research Grants Committee, 1959-61

The 1945 petition was signed by 84 Fellows?nearly 20% of the total Fellowship?a very

large number under wartime circumstances. Among the names were Harry Melville, who was to become Secretary of the DSIR in 1956 and subsequently the first Chairman of the

Science Research Council; Solly Zuckerman, soon to be deputy chairman of Alex Todd's

ACSP and subsequently Chief Scientific Adviser to the Government; and Howard Florey. When Florey succeeded Cyril Hinshelwood as President of the Royal Society in

December 1960, he had the opportunity to put in place the activist agenda for which he

had petitioned 15 years previously. He set about the task with vigour. Indeed, to him is

attributed the clich? that 'he hoped to get something done even if he had to carry the

Royal Society kicking and screaming into the twentieth century.'16



S122 P. Collins

Hinshelwood had started the fightback, initially by agreeing in December 1959 to carry out another survey of the needs of scientific research for the Science Minister, Lord Hailsham.17 Anticipating that Hailsham18 would seek the advice of the ACSP on any report submitted to him by the Royal Society, Hinshelwood confidentially sounded out its

deputy chairman Solly Zuckerman. As he put it with great frankness:

We are very much perturbed at the serious shift of the centre of gravity to the continuing detriment of the Royal Society's position. The Government Grant to the Society for research now amounts to a trivial fraction of the steadily mounting grant to the

DSIR_The actual positive argument which is put forward for the relative

weakening of the traditional function of the Royal Society is that of public accountability. This is a kind of fashionable catchword which sounds impressive but

means extremely little.19

Zuckerman was sympathetic to the Society's frustrations and invited the Officers to talk to his committee, which they did on 30 March I960.20

What troubled them was their conviction that the main funding agencies either were not committed to pure academic research or lacked the means to influence it. The DSIR, the ARC and the MRC were all seen in their various ways as being primarily concerned with their own institutes, giving lower priority to their responsibilities for university research.21

Universities were funded via a block grant allocated quinquennially through the

University Grants Committee (UGC). The grant was not earmarked, so there was no external mechanism for determining or safeguarding research spend. This mattered because of the rapidly escalating costs of research as more and more sophisticated equipment and materials, not least computers, came to dominate work in more and more fields of research. And the spiralling costs of high-energy physics were beginning to intrude into all discussions of the management of science.

These discussions prompted David Martin22 to write to the Physical Secretary, Bill

Hodge, on 4 April with a proposal.23 This was that the Government should establish a 'Scientific Research Grants Committee' (SRGC) both to make its own grants and to coordinate national spending on grants for scientific research. The research councils could continue their support for applied science as before, but 'in pure research the RS advice should be integrated into national spending more so than at present.' This would be achieved by having the President of the Royal Society chair the SRGC and including two other Officers and several independent Fellows in its membership, as well as the heads of the research councils, the UGC and the ACSP. The SRGC secretariat should be closely linked to the Royal Society so that the President 'could go in frequently and keep his eye on things'. The SRGC should have the same constitutional position as the UGC, namely report direct to the Chancellor of the Exchequer,24 and have 'a considerable measure of

independence of Whitehall accounting procedures'. An SRGC along these lines would allow the Society to exercise the 'guiding influence' that Andrade had sought.

Hodge, who in 1945 had been wary of the Society's becoming too activist, nevertheless

thought Martin's SRGC was a splendid idea, and it formed a major strand in the report that Hinshelwood sent to Hailsham in June 1960. This pressed the Society's case for an explicit role in the management of British science and defined just what that role might be. In addition to running the SRGC, the report, called The encouragement of scientific research in the UK,25 identified a series of shortcomings in existing arrangements that could be rectified by giving the Royal Society the necessary funding and responsibility.



A role in running UK science ? S123

For the support of key individuals, the Society should have extra resources to

complement its existing range of privately funded research professorships. For international exchanges: 'It sometimes happens that a major advance in a subject in which there is already a high level of activity in this country takes place abroad... the part of the Parliamentary Grant-in-Aid to the Royal Society relating to travelling expenses should be increased to at least ?50,000.' For large collaborative projects such as the International Geophysical Year, for which it was advantageous to avoid 'clumsy' departmental steering groups: 'The organisation

required for such projects can often best be achieved under a non-government body such as the Royal Society.' For research generally, the Society's annual Scientific Investigations Grant should be increased from its 1960/61 level of ?75 000, now 'grossly inadequate for its purpose', to ?250 000, and the associated Treasury strings should be loosened.

Finally, and additional to the sums already mentioned:

Since major scientific advances are essentially unpredictable, one of the needs of research

... is a substantial sum of money, of the order of ?1 million per annum, in the hands of

bodies with the broadest possible outlook and sympathy, and having the duty to detect and

encourage scientific originality wherever it may appear.

It was four months before Hailsham met with the Officers to discuss the Encouragement report. They persuaded themselves after the meeting that he was at least well disposed towards the Society, although he was still awaiting advice from the ACSP and so would not comment specifically on the report's proposals.26 His officials, however, helpfully explained to the Officers why serious change was impossible. And the research councils,

feeling threatened, lambasted the proposed SRGC as 'unnecessary, impractical and

politically unacceptable'.27 Hans Krebs privately briefed the incoming President, Howard Florey, on how things

stood. He had defended the Encouragement report at a meeting of the ARC Council on

15 November and got agreement that there were indeed real problems that had to be addressed. Conveniently, most of them were the fault of the UGC, which was seen as too

focused on expansion of student numbers rather than on promoting research. Krebs,

tipped off by Alan Hodgkin, had also tackled Harold Himsworth at the MRC, protesting at his negative reaction to the Encouragement report and informing him that the ARC had

agreed to take a more constructive approach; Himsworth subsequently toned down his criticisms of the report. As Krebs had pointed out, if Hailsham seemed to be offering to

help scientists secure more resources, it was not the time to be claiming that everything was already perfect.28

So when Florey took over the Royal Society presidency on 30 November 1960, the first item on his activist agenda was how to secure a larger role for the Society in allocating publicly funded grants for research, which for him meant essentially basic research carried out in universities. Both Zuckerman and Todd were open to the Society's criticisms about the lack of machinery for an overview of grant-giving, and broadly supportive of the thinking behind the SRGC proposal.29 With Hailsham's office and the research councils, they also backed the idea of increasing the scale of the Society's research appointments. So there were definite possibilities.



S124 P. Collins

David Martin spent much of early 1961 redrafting his original SRGC proposal into a

report, Grant-giving to universities for scientific research?0 Having secured the support of

people such as Harrie Massey,31 Florey convened a meeting of Officers together with Patrick Blackett, John Cockcroft, Peter Medawar, Alex Todd and Solly Zuckerman on 24

February 1961. They agreed that the Society should propose a new body to handle the DSIR's grant-giving and postgraduate training roles, the financing of national institutes32 set up to assist university research, and financial support for programmes such as space research that involved several different universities. However, learning from experience, they also agreed that 'at this stage no proposals should be forwarded suggesting the

precise role of the Royal Society in any new organisation'. They did, though, observe that the Society was 'particularly well equipped' to handle research appointments and the conduct of international scientific relations.33

Martin's Grant-giving report34 therefore proposed a single mechanism?a new grant giving body?to deal with all the shortcomings identified, including the need for more senior research posts in universities. It was careful to highlight the positive elements of how the UGC, DSIR, ARC and MRC operated. It made no mention at all of a possible role for the Society.35

But despite careful lobbying, the Society's proposals found little support at the ACSP. The Treasury representatives deemed it unacceptable, and the research councils still defended their corner vigorously.36 Todd, as Chairman of the ACSP, therefore subsumed the Society's concerns into a larger context?'the whole question of financing research by

Her Majesty's Government would need careful consideration and possibly some

reorganisation'?and suggested that in the mean time it was incumbent on all parties to make existing arrangements work as well as possible. So they agreed to a series of bilateral meetings to thrash out what exactly the current shortcomings were and how they could be minimized.37 These proved no better: at a particularly ill-tempered meeting with

Florey on 20 June 1961, Harold Himsworth accused the Society of sabotaging the research councils and siding with those who wanted an all-powerful Minister of Science.38

Hailsham never responded formally to the Encouragement or Grant-giving reports. When chided by Florey about this, however, he stated that it was from the ACSP's discussions of these reports and similar material that the decision to set up the Trend Committee had

emerged. And he circulated copies of the Grant-giving report to members of the Trend

Committee, telling Florey 'it is quite obvious that the Royal Society occupies a position which makes it essential that their views should be brought to the notice of the Committee.'39

The Trend Enquiry, 1962-64

Hailsham announced in Parliament on 7 March 1962 the appointment of what was to be known as the Trend Committee Enquiry into the administrative organization of civil science. In its written submission,40 the Royal Society focused on the absence of an

overarching policy-making body of sufficient strength, and the consequence that major policy decisions about civil science were in effect being made by the Treasury, despite its lack of scientific expertise. Without explicitly calling for the abolition of the ACSP, the

Society argued the case for a new Civil Science Board (CSB), with a wholly independent membership (that is, no research council representatives41) to advise both on general




policy issues and on the distribution of funds to the research councils. In the expectation that the allocation function would move from the Treasury, the CSB was charged with advising the Minister in charge of an overall budget for civil science. Because so much of the funding for research in universities came via the UGC, the Society argued that the UGC and the CSB should come under the same Minister, in effect creating what it called a Ministry for

Universities and Science. The Society also proposed a new Science Research Council (SRC) to take on the roles

identified at the meeting that Florey had convened on 24 February 1961. The SRC would

give special attention to engineering and to areas of biology outside agriculture and medicine.

On its own role in civil science, and again following the line agreed the previous year, the

Society was overcome with reticence. It did remind the Trend Committee that, as 'the senior

body of scientists both in this country and in the world', it had "exercised an important influence on the whole development of science'. But it refrained from bidding for a

specific piece of the action, preferring to wait until the new shape of civil science had become clearer. At this stage it was content simply to mention, in a carefully worded

sentence, its wish to continue its 'association with international scientific affairs and with other scientific activities such as giving grants for investigations and publications, electing research professors and fostering research generally'.

The Trend report was submitted to the Government in September and was published on 30 October 1963.42 Much of it was broadly in line with the Society's thinking, although not with Hailsham's. Blackett, for example, suggested that 11 out of the 15 main recommendations could be accepted by the Society without further ado.43 But the

Society's position in the new dispensation was modest. The President would need to be consulted when various senior scientific appointments?for example to the new research councils?were being made.44 The Research Professorships scheme would be expanded. There was recognition of the Society's continuing role in promoting non-governmental international scientific cooperation.45 And that was it. There would be a new advisory body, but no special role for the Society in it?the quid pro quo for keeping the research councils out. There would be a Science Research Council but, again, the Society would not have the starring role in its management that David Martin had envisaged in his

original blueprint for the SRGC.46 Moreover, special projects such as the proposed Anglo-Australian telescope at Siding Spring, on which the Society had invested a great deal of effort, were to be abruptly transferred to the SRC?to the dismay of those

involved.47 The Royal Greenwich Observatory, with which the Society had been very

closely involved since 1710, was similarly taken out of its hands.48 There was no mention of the Society's existing role in the National Physical Laboratory, despite its long historical connections with it. The Society, it seemed, was being further marginalized: there were no gaps left for it to fill.

And the suspicions did not go away. For example, Florey and Martin met with Maurice Dean (soon to be Permanent Secretary at the new Department of Education and Science

(DES)) and Frank Turnbull (Deputy Secretary at the DES, 1964-66) on 13 March 1964 to discuss the Society's views of the body to replace the ACSP, and a week later went over the same ground with Hailsham, Dean and Turnbull.49 They were arguing for a

powerful and independent Council for Scientific Policy that would, in effect, be able to

generate the UK's first-ever national science policy to sit alongside national foreign policy and national economic policy. Dean supported Florey's position but warned him



S126 P. Collins

that there were those who thought that in pushing this line the Society was making a covert

take-over bid. Florey assured him that the Society had no wish to become an agency of

government.50

The Royal Society in 1965

Since the end of the International Geophysical Year, the Society's share of the Science

Budget had been stuck at 0.5%, well below even its modest prewar level. With the

implementation of the Trend report, all the obvious executive functions had been allocated to new agencies more closely under government control. What was to be the

Society's role in the running of UK science? The weekend before the October 1964 General Election, the Society's Officers met in the seclusion of Florey's Oxford college to reflect on this question.

They affirmed the Society's defining attributes as commitment to the fostering of fundamental research, commitment to the highest standards of scientific excellence, and staunch defence of its own independence. They were also aware of the opportunities flowing from the Society's formidable social and scientific status. The Society's leadership was extraordinarily well networked: it knew, and had direct personal access to,

everyone involved in running the country's scientific affairs, and they in turn nursed their relations with the Society. Even the most reluctant Ministers and Permanent Secretaries

recognized that it was wise to invest effort in keeping the Society on board where possible. By October 1964, the Officers accepted that a significant executive role for the Society

was not going to happen. So they highlighted a series of other missions for the Society, and in the following month Florey devoted the whole of his Anniversary Address to

presenting them.51 The most prominent strand concerned relations with government, which would now focus

on giving independent policy advice. It was a matter of duty. 'While not becoming an arm of

government', Florey concluded, 'we can perform a useful national service by maintaining a close collaboration with those who control our destinies.'52

Second, the Society would continue to take the lead on non-governmental aspects of international scientific relations?as it had done since its earliest days. The Trend report had recognized the legitimacy of this function, and Maurice Dean's support for his new

DES providing funding for it was a good augury. Third was an expansion of the Society's role in selecting and funding a small number of

research professorships. This was to have major consequences for the Society's role in UK science two decades later.

The fourth strand in Florey's analysis concerned the Society's role in respect of applied science, technology and industry, where he saw scope for much increased activity.53

The final strand was the Society's relation to other scientific societies: it wanted to

increase the scale of financial support that it could direct towards learned societies from its Parliamentary grant.

Money was, of course, key to delivering all these aspirations. Fostering constructive relations with the new DES, which now had charge of the Science Budget, was therefore a top priority. The new Science Minister after the October 1964 General Election was

Lord Bowden. Much as Hailsham had done at the start of his ministerial term, Bowden asked Florey to suggest ways in which the Government could help the Society. Florey's




response, submitted to the DES as a supplementary budget bid, prioritized extra funding for research appointments and for increased research collaboration within the Commonwealth, with smaller sums being sought for policy study groups, initiatives requiring a rapid response (such as studying volcanic eruptions or earthquakes), and support for refugee scientists.54 This was not on the scale of the Society's earlier ambitions for the SRGC, nor quite what Andrade had envisaged, but it presaged several lines of development that would become important as the century progressed.

Acknowledgements

My warm thanks go to Jon Agar, Robert Bud, David Edgerton, Phil Gummett and Peter Morris for comments on an extended version of this paper.

For access to archival material and permission to quote from it, I am grateful to the Churchill College Archive Centre (A. V. Hill papers (AVHL) and Todd papers (TODD)) and the Royal Society (all other archival material cited in the notes, especially Council

papers (prefaced C), papers and minutes of Officers' Meetings (OM), Patrick Blackett

papers (PB), Alfred Egerton diary (AE), Henry Dale papers (HD), Howard Florey Papers (HF), and papers dealing with the Society's dealings with the Trend Committee (Trend)).

Notes

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]. 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); CM 12 October 1944, minute 6; and CM 14 December 1944, minute 13. The report became known as the 'pink paper',



S128 P. Collins

because of the colour of its cover rather than the politics of its authors. See also A. V. Hill, 'The

needs of special subjects in the balanced development of science in the United Kingdom', Notes Ree. R. Soc. 4, 133-139 (1946) 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.

11 About ?60 000 in 2010 values. 12 Bernard Lovell, 'Patrick Maynard Stuart Blackett, Baron Blackett of Chelsea', Biogr. Mems

Fell. R. Soc. 21, 1-115 (1975), at p. 102. See also A. V. Hill, op. cit. (note 10). 13 Philip Gummett, Scientists in Whitehall (Manchester University Press, 1980), at pp. 93-95;

Stuart S. Blume, Toward a political sociology of science (Collier Macmillan, London, 1974), at p. 191.

14 E. D. Adrian, 'Address at the Anniversary Meeting, 30 November 1954', Proc. R. Soc. A 227,

279-287 (1955), at p. 285. 15 Matthew Godwin, The Skylark rocket: British space science and the European Space Research

Organisation 1957-1972 (Beauchesne, Paris, 2007); Harrie Massey and M. O. Robins, History of British space science (Cambridge University Press, 1986); Ken Pounds, 'The Royal Society's formative role in UK space science', Notes Ree. R. Soc. 64 (2010) (this issue).

16 Alan Hodgkin, 'Edgar Douglas Adrian, Baron Adrian of Cambridge', Biogr. Mems Fell. R. Soc.

25, 1-73 (1979), at p. 53; Trevor I. Williams, op. cit. (note 3), at p. 138.

17 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.

18 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. 19 Hinshelwood to Zuckerman, 22 December 1959: OM/1(60). 20 OM 10 March 1960, minute 2(a). 21 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. Harry Melville,

The Department of Scientific and Industrial Research (George Allen & Unwin, London, 1962), at pp. 69-71 and 195. 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). 22 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: Harrie Massey and Harold Thompson, 'David Christie

Martin', Biogr. Mems Fell. R. Soc. 24, 391-407 (1978).

23 David Martin to Bill Hodge, 4 April 1960, and Hodge response, 25 April 1960: HF/1/17/2/24. 24 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. 25 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).

26 OM/86(60); see OM 3 November 1960, minute 2(b). Also OM/90(60), C/146(60). 27 Paper by Gordon Cox on behalf of the research councils collectively: HF/1/17/2/6.



A role in running UK science? S129

28 Krebs to Florey, 22 November 1960, and Krebs to Himsworth, 17 November 1960: HF/1/17/2/6. 29 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.

30 For successive drafts, see memo from Martin to Florey, 16 January 1961: HF/1/7/2/24; OM/ 12(61), 19 January 1961; 0M/36(61), 28 February 1961.

31 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: 0M/29(61), especially the copy at HF/1 /17/2/6.

32 Such as the National Institute for Research in Nuclear Science.

33 0M/37(61), 'personal and strictly confidential'. Also OM 16 February 1961, minute 2(b). 34 0M/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.

35 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.

36 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.

37 OM 18 May 1961, minute 2(d); also 0M/63(61), OM/71(51) and OM/72(61). 38 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). 39 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. 40 Royal Society, Evidence to the Committee of Enquiry into the organisation of civil science

(Trend Committee) (Royal Society, London, 1963). See also the Society's oral evidence:

ESC(63)10th meeting, 27 March 1963. 41 This is made very clear in the briefing for the Society's oral evidence: Trend/2(63), copy at HF/

1/17/19/5. 42 Committee of Enquiry into the organisation of civil science (Cmnd. 2171) (HMSO, London, 1963). 43 Trend/4(63), paper dated 29 November 1963. 44 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.

45 Cmnd. 2171, op. cit. (note 42), at paragraph 116?not mentioned in Martin's analysis. 46 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.



S130 P. Collins

47 Interview with Bernard L?vell, 21 April 2009. 48 Bernard L?vell, The Royal Society, the Royal Greenwich Observatory and the Astronomer

Royal', Notes Ree. R. Soc. 48, 283-297 (1994).

49 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).

50 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).

51 Howard Florey, 'Address at the Anniversary Meeting, 30 November 1964', Proc. R. Soc. 161,

439-452 (1965). 52 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. 53 Peter Collins, Royal Society for technology', Notes Ree. R. Soc. 64 (2010) (this issue). 54 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).



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

Documents