§ 26. Mr. Boydenasked the Parliamentary Secretary for Science if, following the evidence given by the Royal Society, as set out in Command Paper No. 1920, regarding the accuracy of the estimates made in the 1959 Report of the Committee on Scientific Manpower regarding the numbers of biologists being trained, he will take steps to reassess the need for biologists.
§ Mr. Denzil FreethFor many years the Committee on Scientific Manpower and the Advisory Council have drawn attention to shortages of biologists of adequate quality, and of those with a sufficient basic training in physics or chemistry, or with special qualifications, existing at the same time as other biologists, with no more than a general training, were finding difficulty in obtaining suitable employment. This assessment—which the Council confirms in paragraph 31 of its latest Report, Cmnd. 1920—and in which my noble Friend concurs, is not inconsistent with the Royal Society's evidence annexed to that Report.
§ Mr. BoydenIs it not an extraordinary fact that both the Willink Committee made a mistake as to the shortage of doctors and that, for all the Parliamentary Secretary's words, the Royal Society thinks that the Advisory Council on Scientific Research made a mistake as to the number of biologists? Is the Parliamentary Secretary satisfied that these committees are adequately staffed with statisticians and research workers so that the material they require to consider is adequately presented to them?
§ Mr. FreethI think, quite honestly, that this belief that the Committee on Scientific Manpower has been totally wrong is based on error. Throughout the last 12 years both committees have constantly mentioned the fact that general biologists are finding difficulty in getting employment, and therefore it can be said that we have enough general biologists. However, at the same time there is a definite lack of biologists of adequate quality with a sufficient basic training in physics and chemistry.