SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH.

HL Deb 20 July 1943 vol 128 cc626-76

Debate resumed (according to Order) on the Motion moved by Viscount Samuel on Thursday last—namely, That there be laid before the House Papers relating to the further expansion of scientific research, particularly in relation to the utilization of coal.

VISCOUNT DAWSON OF PENN

My Lords, I rise to continue the debate that was initiated in your Lordships' House last Thursday by the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, whose absence to-day we all deplore. When we stop for a moment to take a retrospective view of the last sixty years we must recognize the progressive momentum of discovery and invention, and, surely, it gives rise to dazzling reflections. I think it can be said that in no like period of history have such vast changes taken place. There readily come to mind two examples, in this connexion, which have changed the course of the world—the invention of the internal combustion engine in 1885, and the various developments of wireless which took place during the course of the last war. They alone altered the course, almost, of civilization.

In his comparative inquiry the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, considered first the state of affairs preceding this war, next affairs during this war, and then what he hoped would be a greatly enlarged conspectus after the war. If I may I will allude for a moment to the pre-war period. Here we must recall that in the latter part of the last war, the importance of science in its application to warfare received very serious attention. In the result, I think it can be said that the assistance given to our victorious effort was considerable. But alas! lessons then learnt were, after the last war, forgotten, and research and discovery, in the public mind, dropped into oblivion. People, in this regard, fell into a sleep so deep that not even the German five-year plan aroused them from slumber. On the other hand, from the moment this war began science has had full and ample recognition and support in every Department of Government. It was utilized, and its direction was gathered together under the War Cabinet, by a man who is himself a distinguished scientist, my noble friend Lord Cherwell. What a harvest has been the result! It has been not only a harvest rich in its contribution to the war effort, but a harvest having a heartening effect on our minds in that it has brought home to us the knowledge that this country is rich in ability and genius of the scientific order.

In the torrent of succeeding events, we are apt to forget some of the things which have happened even in this war. Let us recall for a moment the magnetic mine, and the disturbing effect which that had on the public mind, the fear that it would endanger our shipping. Let us remember how soon it was that countervailing efforts were brought into play. Or take the delayed-action bomb, invented by the Germans; how quickly were its dire effects to a large extent defeated, largely due to the work of a member of your Lordships' House and his associates. Again, take the greater accuracy which has been achieved in the detection of aircraft and of minefields and the greater accuracy of aim provided by more perfect instruments and illustrated by the greater accuracy of our bombing. Again, think of the progress of armour—the tank and the anti-tank gun. We now hold, I take it, the leading position in that regard. More than anything else, perhaps, we may think of the changes which have taken place in the aeroplane—the complete change in the material of which it is manufactured, and the wonderful new engine, in which horsepower bears so handsome a relation to weight. We may say that it is the fruits of scientific research and discovery applied to its construction which, together with the skill and courage of our pilots, have given the Spitfire a reputation which is the wonder of the world. If I may pass to the biological sciences for a moment, I would ask you to think of what nutrition has done for the war effort and how, under the guidance of the noble Lord, the Minister of Food, a new era of knowledge and health has come into existence for our people.

Perhaps I should refer in passing to the close co-operation which has existed between the British Empire and the United States of America in matters of discovery and research. Long before the United States declared war there was close co-operation, both in medicine and in science, between our two countries. The results have been pooled, and an unselfish and generous anonymity has for the most part been observed. What will happen with the onset of peace, when swords have to be turned into ploughshares? If I may venture to prophesy, assuredly there will be a great surge forward of new methods and of new ways. It is not difficult to foresee that in ten years from now there will be a transformation in our social life which it is difficult accurately to forecast to-day. This country must meet the new needs and the new ways if it is to retain its economic and intellectual leadership, and the export trade which is its life-blood. An organization will be needed to render available the great store of talent which the war has disclosed, and to provide endowments on a correspondingly vast scale.

That brings me to consider briefly the ways and means of the organization of research. We have first to consider the universities and their scientific faculties and the larger technical colleges, because it falls to them, in the first instance, to make contact with the young minds, and to train students in the scientific approach to problems. They will have opportunities of selecting those who have a leaning towards and an aptitude for research, as apart from those who, excellent though they may be, will pursue some career of scientific technology. Then come the various private endowments which, added together, are a great means of promoting research. They have been established by far-seeing benefactors. When, however, we consider what is done in the United States by private benefaction for research, then, even allowing for differences in population, our contributions arc, I am afraid, puny and even paltry. I was very glad to hear my noble friend Lord McGowan plead the other day that our great industries should make their contribution to fundamental research in the universities. We know, of course, that some of the larger industrial concerns make substantial contributions to their own research departments, and their contributions to new knowledge are none the less valuable because they have a utilitarian direction.

In addition to the foregoing, I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that this country is the happy possessor of three foundations which began as a political experiment nearly thirty years ago. I refer to the Agricultural Research Council, the Medical Research Council, and the Department of Scientific and In- dustrial Research. These bodies consist of a Chairman nominated by the Lord President, and of directors, most of whom have expert knowledge, thus fulfilling the essential, in these walks of life, of vocational representation. The directorate has wide powers in the direction of research, and considerable powers in the allocation of the money granted by the Government for the purpose. The members serve for a limited period, and new blood comes into the directorate year by year. These bodies arc under the Lord President, so that they are amenable to Parliament, and yet they have that freedom which is essential for their successful functioning. Most important of all, there is no administrative machinery between each research body and the Minister, such as there would be if that body were enmeshed in the Civil Service and formed part of an administrative Department.

It is difficult to emphasize the importance where science is concerned—and this applies equally to medicine—of preventing the enmeshment of any research body in the close entanglement of a Government Department. Such enmeshment means that the head of the research body cannot, in some cases, even write a letter without it going to the Chief Secretary. So many difficulties are created as to retard the good work which such a body would otherwise do. One of the chief reasons, in my submission, why these Councils to which I have referred should receive further support is that they do succeed in combining good order in the work of men of ability with freedom for scientific investigation. A research worker has the advantage that he is under someone who understands his language. He is cared for by his own kind, and here State control is compatible with freedom to the investigator. May I express the hope that in any future arrangement these Councils, which have proved their worth, each in its own sphere, will be given a prominent part in any scheme of research which the Government think fit to sponsor? If I may make a special application, it is that the Ministry of Fuel and Power, when it starts upon research, or extends research on which it is already engaged, will act in close co-operation with that experienced body the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research.

I think it must be said that in the collective mind of the Civil Service there is an imperfect appreciation and understanding of what science stands for. And is not that due to the fact that those who enter the portals of that great Civil Service under the ægis of science have not the same prospects of rising to the higher posts in the Civil Service as those who enter by other portals? How can the Government service expect to get the best brains in science if they treat research and science in that undignified and unfair way? I put it to His Majesty's Government whether the time has not arrived when that blot should be removed and the higher posts in the Civil Service thrown open to those who are trained in scientific research, for in that way they will attract the best minds which at present hesitate to enter into their service.

I will next, if I may, make particular reference to the Medical Research Council, at present under the distinguished chairmanship of my noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh. I can speak of that more intimately as I have served on its directorate and on many of its committees. Its parish is a wide one. It far outstrips what I may call the narrower boundaries of medicine. It embraces the whole of the basic sciences on which medicine is founded, and in the course of this war it has had a range of activity which I think would surprise many members of your Lordships' House. It has whole-time workers on its staff, and it has under its control the great National Institute for Medical Research, where large-scale work, requiring investigation by teams, is carried on. This Institute has a world-wide reputation. It is recognized as the home of scientific standards the world over, and it is a court of reference in that respect. It has played a leading part in advancing knowledge, notably in the fields of vitamins and hormones.

Further, the Council through its grantees, supports research in medical schools in the universities and in colleges, in fact wherever research is firmly rooted and well provided for. Its idea is to help the individual researcher who has proved his ability. It further co-operates, through its committees, with industry, notably with the Industrial Health Research Board, and a little while ago it founded a research professorship in industrial diseases at the London Hospital. But outside these particulars the Medical Research Council is an admirable intelligence department. It knows where all the workers on the different subjects are, and it has the power to gather them together and rally them for a common purpose. Above all, its influence and its encouragement are far-flung over the whole field of medical progress. I submit that these Councils have proved themselves to be valuable appanages of Government, both on account of the results they achieve and the influence they exert, and I suggest that it would be in the national interest that they should be much more substantially supported in the future than they have been in the past.

I pass next to consider the contribution to research of the industrial organizations. The big firms here contribute largely. I think it is a fact that something not much less than a million a year is contributed by some firms to the promotion of new knowledge. They have as explorers to face many failures, finding themselves after months of effort along a blind alley. When therefore they strike a seam they are entitled to some sort of recompense. This brings me to the difficult question of patents. It is important that the individual research worker not attached to any industry who does not seek financial gain from his discovery should be able to secure protection for the work which he has achieved. While it is true the research worker possesses an innate urge towards discovery, none the less he has his profit motive, which takes the form in his case of reputation and fame, and in that respect he is deserving of protection. I understand that there is some likelihood of that protection being given legal shape, which would be much welcomed.

On the other hand, the industrialist equally needs to satisfy his profit motive—his incentive for the conduct of industrial research, involving a considerable outlay of thought and capital, and this is provided for him by patent protection. I suggest that such patent protection is surely both wise and just, provided his profits are assessed with due regard to the public interest. His patent further enables him to maintain his export trade against his foreign competitors. This serves, after all, a national purpose. When you come to medicinal discoveries, these are specially protected. The actual discovery cannot be patented, but only the method of its manufacture. After the industrialist has satisfied his expecta- tion of return on his outlay, the new discovery is released for the free evaluation and testing by the medical profession, who are at liberty to make any comments of any kind, favourable or hostile, without hindrance.

If I may, I should like to make reference to two interesting speeches at the previous sitting—one by the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, and the other by the noble Lord, Lord Geddes. How true it is what they put forward so well—what a rich representation there is in the British world of these great men of science, those who possess the sacred fire, so to speak, who are created, not made. Lord Geddes having said that, went on to say that the tendency in recent days was for these first-class researchers, by the very intensity of their work, to become narrow specialists. I suggest that such a tendency as that will surely be held in check by the guiding genius of the scientific world in the shape of the Royal Society. Surely this is one of the purposes for which the Royal Society exists—to bring these leading and varied minds into contact with one another. It is not correct, in my opinion, to say that the Royal Society, in choosing its Fellows, has not regard to men who have the gift of integrating discoveries into large generalizations. Would anyone, for instance, assert that Crookes, J. J. Thomson, and later, Rutherford, were narrow specialists? If I may take another example from my own profession, Wilfred Trotter had far more claim to be made a Fellow of the Royal Society as a man of thought than for the greatness of his researches. We all know that great thinkers who can gather up knowledge into generalizations are there.

I do not think it is correct to say that the Royal Society is bereft of men of this particular genius. It is to be noted that Lord Geddes, in his search for criticism of the Royal Society, had to resort to the limbo of the past, some fifty years ago, for an alleged example of the suppression of genius by authority. In doing so he had, perhaps without remembrance, to pillory as narrow specialists men like Rayleigh, Kelvin, Francis Galton, and Michael Foster. After all, is my noble friend sure that to-day informed opinion on the particular case he mentioned would not agree with these distinguished men? It is only right to say here that, as far as I know. the Royal Society seldom or never takes part in direct investigations. It is periodically asked to nominate the best committee possible to elucidate a particular problem. At that particular time it did select the names I have just mentioned to your Lordships, and surely that list is a guarantee of impartiality, distinction, and broad-mindedness.

Surely this discussion has made clear that there is no investment which offers better results to the nation than that of discovery and research. If I may give a few illustrations from my own territory, we may reckon that disease costs this country about £250,000,000 a year. The progress of discovery diminishes the ravages and therefore the cost of disease. Some, like rickets and diseased teeth, are passing out of existence. Others, like diabetes, pernicious anæmia, and deficiency diseases, are now under control. Puerperal fever, which not long ago was a constant peril of childbirth, has steadily declined since the discovery of sulphanilamide. From that jumping off point, and after two years of further research, came the discovery of sulphapyridine. By its means pneumonia, a disease which, alas! is apt to invade the healthy and strong as well as the weak, has lost a large part of its peril and anxiety. Again, certain forms of meningitis, previously incurable, are not infrequently cured. Take another example. Take the disabling disease of gonorrhea, which attacks people in the active period of life and produces disablement lasting for weeks. Now, owing to the drug in use, its cure can almost be guaranteed within three days. What is more important, the long-term complications of that disease, which sometimes linger for years and perhaps always, can be almost entirely avoided.

It would be hardly proper to end these examples without mentioning penicillin, that wonderful discovery front a mould, the discovery and development of which are entirely to the credit of British minds and British research workers. It is fair to say now that a great vista of hope opens in front of penicillin. What that vista is at present we cannot be sure because by a wise provision, instead of the drug in its now developed stage, or partly-developed stage, being distributed far and wide for trial, it has been Kept under strict control so that all the results of its testing are guaranteed as accurate. In that way greater progress will be made than if it were broadcast over the land too soon. This path of chemotherapy is opening up more widely every month. It is opening up help in the direction of tropical diseases and has served a great part in the improved treatment of wounds in the present war. It is a field rich in its prospects. It is a good example of and supports the theme that research is a good national investment, for by its results we not only save precious lives but improve health and enrich the quality of life.

VISCOUNT MAUGHAM

My Lords, you have had the pleasure of listening in this debate to a number, if I may say so without presumption, of excellent and most interesting speeches from noble Lords who thoroughly understand the particular topic on which they were addressing the House. For my part I cannot pretend to be a practised scientist, but I should not like anyone to think I was wasting time by insisting on speaking to your Lordships because, when I came to the Bar a great many years ago, I met at an early stage the late Lord Moulton, who was one of the ablest men this country ever produced. He had a very great share in the creation of explosives in the last war. For a time I had the great honour of deviling for Lord Moulton. I learnt a good deal from him and have ever since been learning things from the legal side of invention and discovery. If Lord McGowan should wish to know anything about my knowledge of, we will say, the subject of dyestuffs, in which the I.C.I. are greatly interested, he will find a great deal of knowledge—at least I hope so—in the pages of the Patent Reports. But after all the real fact is that we are all interested, I think I may say vitally interested, in the topic before the House. It is not only a question of whether scientific men want large sums of money expended and many efforts made in connexion with the training of research experts; it is a matter with which everyone of us is, I am quite sure, most intimately connected. For that reason alone I may venture to address your Lordships.

I will only say one thing before coming to the observations I particularly want to make and it is this. There are some people who are willing to misunderstand anything that is capable of being misunderstood, and therefore I should like to say that we must not suppose, nor do any scientific people suppose, that science will do everything for us in the future. I can well imagine that there may come a state of things in civilized lands where all the secrets of science will have been discovered and all our actions from the cradle to the grave will be directed and safeguarded by a vast body of scientific bureaucrats, and where life will not be worth living. But that is something that no scientific man claims. He keeps to his own sphere. I will say here, in order to have no misconception about what I mean by "science," that I am not including loosely in science such things as the social or moral sciences so-called, I am referring to the fundamental investigations of pure science and to the specialized efforts of research workers in the various applications of science of a technical kind devoted to every kind of discovery which leads to the improvement of health or the making and creating of commercial articles.

Using the word "science" in this restricted sense, I wish to say at once that I would have been convinced by the debates I have heard if I had not been convinced before, as in fact I have, that a great sum and an enormous effort are needed by this country, or rather will be needed after the war, if Great Britain is to keep her position in the van of the industrial army of the world. There is practically no limit to the vast advances in science of the kind I have mentioned which are possible, and if the State cannot supply them we are bound to fall behind some of our competitors in the battle. My noble friend Lord Samuel was perfectly right in saying that the sums spent in the United States of America, in Russia and in Germany before the war, were incomparably greater than anything that this country found itself able to spend in connexion with research. That state of things must not continue after the war if it can possibly be avoided. In saying that I do not think Lord Samuel intended, though I think my noble friend Lord Brabazon so understood him, to throw any doubt upon the greatness of the achievements of science in the past. There is no person even with the smallest knowledge of our history, who is not aware of the meaning of great names such as Harvey, Newton, Faraday, Clark-Maxwell, Rutherford and I suppose I must add J. J. Thomson; who does not know that these great men form a galaxy of stars which every other nation in the world is disposed to envy.

Our greatness in the past, our greatness up to the present, our greatness in the war, to which my noble friend Lord Dawson has just referred, are known to everybody, but we are all thinking of the future. What are we to do after the war? This I think is absolutely indisputable: the age of large-scale research has come. The time when you could go out and discover great things in the sea in a rowing boat are over. You have now got to embark in a big ship armed with all the advantages of locomotion and so forth, and in such a ship as that you may expect to find marvellous things which have never yet been present to the minds of men. What is wanted very largely, if I may pursue the metaphor, is the supply of navigators for the ships, and in that regard, if I may say something for the consideration of the noble Lord who will reply, it is this.

Many of us have been reading—I have had the opportunity of glancing over it—a most interesting White Paper produced yesterday by the President of the Board of Education on educational reconstruction. It is proposed to increase the period of instruction of our lads from the age of fourteen up to fifteen certainly, shortly afterwards to sixteen, and then for part-time instruction to eighteen. So far as I have seen—I hope I am mistaken—the word "science" is not mentioned in this otherwise most admirable White Paper. I suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Cherwell, something which perhaps has already occurred to him, that he might ask that very able President of the Board of Education, who is responsible for this document, if it would not be possible at the age of fourteen to take some lads who are competent to receive such instruction as we are considering here and form all over the country classes for their instruction in the preliminary part of science which is the foundation of all useful scientific research. I should mention that the White Paper does refer to technical commercial and art education, but I think technical education in that connexion is not really the sort of education that we would wish for, and I have no doubt the Government would wish for, if they take up the matter of research.

Now if your Lordships will allow me, and I will not be long about it, I would like to give some very short examples of what science has been doing quite recently and is actually engaged on at the present time. I think your Lordships may be interested. I say no more about health, which my noble friend Viscount Dawson has just dealt with, than to call attention to the fact mentioned in Sir John Orr's Report, published to-day, that some children leave school three inches taller than they would have been only a few years ago as the result of improvement in nutrition. I would add that before this war children leaving school were two or three inches taller than their parents were, and it is prophesied that the average height of children who obtain primary education will probably be in a few years six inches more than it was in the time of our parents. That is an extraordinary thing which one can see for oneself to a great extent every day.

I will say only one sentence about agriculture, which will be dealt with by the noble Lord who follows me. I doubt if he has it on his notes. It is that there have been enormous advances in Russia since the Revolution, and had there not been such advances that country would have been at the feet of Germany at the present time. It is worth remembering that their belief in science led the Russians to this, that they provided before the beginning of the war 6,647 State machine stations where tractors could be obtained and over 400,000 tractors have been provided for the use of the agriculturists.

The matter of coal has been dealt with by the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, and all I would wish to be allowed to say on that is that your Lordships may not all have seen the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee's Report on Coal Utilization Research in Great Britain. It is a short eleven page document which you can get for nothing, and it is to my mind more interesting than any short story I have ever read. It gives an extraordinarily interesting picture as regards the position of coal utilization in this country and tells you all that you would wish to know as to the necessity for Government assistance in connexion with coal utilization research. I will add, if I may be allowed to do so, one very interesting and perhaps imaginative future possibility which is now being investigated. We all thought a few years ago that we had heard the last of the subject of fuel for the propulsion of flying machines with the magnifi- cent engines that are now in use. We are told, however, that investigations are going on in connexion with jet propulsion which may entirely revolutionize that matter in a few years. In any case: we need research in connexion with design and equipment for using oils of various kinds. Here may I commend to any of your Lordships who want to be up to date with regard to modern improvements and ideas, the post-war planning programme for the United States of America recently issued by the National Resources Planning Board? If you turn to page 23 of this most interesting document you will learn what it is proposed to do in the United States of America and you will see that there at any rate they have no doubt as to the necessity for these vast expenses which I suggest are needful if all the things that may be done in the future are to be done.

With regard to textiles I would remind your Lordships of the latest improvement put before us, that is the use of glass for making fabrics. Most amazing things can be done with the fibres of glass. I say nothing about plastics. Now I will turn for a moment to the extraordinary efforts of the Tennessee Valley Authority. They are working on an area of twenty-six million acres, which is equal to a large part of England. The country had been ruined by foolish management on the part of settlers with no scientific knowledge of the effect of cutting down forests. In 1933, after a great deal of litigation in the Supreme Court, they began to work on the process of reclaiming that vast area of land. They have planned the greatest and most striking evolution in the management of land in all social history. Work is still going on, and it will take another eight years before they finish their plans, but it is a most striking example of what may be done by modern science if money is made available for the purpose.

I would say one word on a subject until recently new to me, and perhaps to your Lordships, that is, the harvest of the sea. I do not mean fish and I do not mean salt which we have all known could be extracted from the sea. Quite recently, after some early experiments in the Dead Sea in Palestine, which of course is a very special problem, the Americans went to the seas which wash the United States. In particular, they sought for the chemical called bromine which is largely used in the production of ethyl fluid for motor cars. They built first a huge ship for the purpose, then they erected a large factory on land. It is true that they need, in order to get one pound of bromine, 4,000 gallons of sea water. The bromine is extracted, and, by a triumph of modern chemical engineering they do this at a large profit. They extract a huge quantity of bromine, and the quantity is always increasing. They also recover potash which is, of course, needed for agriculture, and they recover magnesium metal from the sea water. They recover it first in the form of salts. Now this metal happens to be the lightest of metals, and, therefore, it is of great use in connexion with aluminium for the construction of aeroplanes. Nor does the magnesium metal so extracted prove to be very dear. For some little time before the war magnesium cost one pound sterling per lb. It now costs one shilling per lb. That is to say there has been a reduction to one-twentieth of its former price. It is true that in the United States enormous quantities of electricity are needed for some of these purposes, and we, in following their example, might be competing on rather unfavourable terms with them in that respect. But this is a matter to be watched, for the probable extraction of these things from the sea will be on quite an enormous scale in the future.

I have said nothing on such matters as organization or administration. Some of your Lordships have dealt with those things who know a great deal more about them than I do. We stand on the threshold, as I think all scientific men believe, of enormous advances in the applications of science, and these advances will very largely affect the health and happiness of mankind. Research in many directions is called for if we are to obtain the great advantages which I have mentioned in a practical form, and very large sums of money, I am afraid, will be required if Great Britain is to take her share in promoting these advances and to retain her great position in the industrial world economy. It is, in my opinion, on the evidence of other such advances, clear that the money expended, if expended with any wisdom, will be repaid a hundredfold, and, therefore, it is a matter with which the whole country is deeply concerned. I am well aware, and I think we are all well aware, that we are preaching here, so far as the noble Lord who will reply to this debate is concerned, to the converted. He could make a very much better speech, so to speak, on this side of the House, if he left someone else to reply in one of those admirable, noncommittal speeches which we sometimes hear on behalf of the Government. But we are doing the best we can, and we hope that he will realize that he requires a great deal of help in this matter from public opinion. You have got to persuade the man in the street that vast sums are needed for a future, and in some respects a not very immediate, reward. I hope that the noble Lord will appreciate that any assistance which can be obtained from this House will readily be given to him.

VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE

My Lords, I do not propose to follow the reasoning of the noble and learned Viscount who has just sat down. But I do particularly want to endorse the obiter dictum which fell from his lips with regard to the curious omission from the White Paper, which has recently been issued as adumbrating the Government's policy on education—the omission of the word "science." There is a good deal in the White Paper about technology, but scientific education is not specifically referred to at all. I venture to suggest that technique or technology which is not founded upon science is not well founded, and that, indeed, for the highest technique to be of real practical use it must have a scientific basis. The noble Viscount, Lord Samuel—and I am sure we must all regret his absence through ill-health to-day—opened this debate with a brilliant conspectus of the whole field of scientific research as affected by Government action or inaction. I think that your Lordships will agree that the debate which has followed has not only been particularly interesting and informative, but has demonstrated the peculiar power of this legislative Chamber to deal effectually and convincingly with this subject, perhaps to a greater extent than any other legislative Chamber in the English-speaking world.

My noble friend Lord Samuel made particular reference to the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee, of which he is President, and which has come into existence during the last two years. That Committee is gathering strength both in quantity and quality with every month that passes. It includes quite a consider- able number of able Parliamentarians, and some of the most eminent scientists in the country, who are working in intimate collaboration with those who are best able to give expression in Parliament to the needs of science and the effect of science upon public welfare. I venture to suggest to my noble friend who will reply to this debate that the very existence and the strength of this new body should provide a warning to the Government that neglect or dilatory action on their part will not pass uncriticized by those who are best qualified to speak.

My noble friend Lord Dawson of Penn said, in the course of his interesting speech, that this country is rich in men of ability and of genius. I want particularly to emphasize the truth of that statement with regard to agricultural research. Incidentally, it may be worthy of mention that to-morrow there is being celebrated at Harpenden the centenary of our oldest and greatest agricultural research station, the station at Rothamsted. Up to a hundred years ago we were learning our lessons in agricultural science from foreign scientists, such as Wallarius in Sweden, De Saussure in Switzerland, and particularly Liebig in Germany, and Boussingault in France; but during the last hundred years, since Rothamsted was founded, we in the British Empire have pointed the way in the matter of new agricultural knowledge and discovery to the whole of the rest of the world.

I should like to mention a few outstanding names which will be known to all your Lordships. The founders of Rothamsted, Sir John Bennet Lawes and Sir Joseph Henry Gilbert, led the way in soil science and the use of artificial fertilizers. In Canada, William and Charles Saunders did much work in the production of thin-skinned, strong, glutinous, fast-maturing wheats, including, very particularly, the Marquis wheat, which has been the main foundation of our own loaf in this country for at least forty years. Sir Rowland Biffen, of Cambridge, led the way in producing uniformity of types in cereals, and particularly in wheat. Your Lordships may not be aware of the fact that twenty years ago there would be at least twenty varieties of wheat in every field which purported to be sown with wheat sold under a single trade name. To-day we know that all our wheat purchased under a particular name is of uniform character and quality. In South Africa we have had the most brilliant veterinarian which the Empire has produced, Sir Arnold Theiler. He, as your Lordships probably know, was mainly responsible for finding, by research and experiment, cures for rinderpest, horse-sickness and various other diseases that afflicted the agricultural areas of the sub-tropical regions of Africa. I may add the name of Dr. Beaven, of War-minster, who revolutionized malting barleys. The varieties which he produced are being used all over the world for the purpose of producing malt to-day. Last, but not least, we have Sir George Staple-don, who has done so much work for the improvement of pastures and in the evolution and development of ley farming.

So far as agricultural research is concerned, our country and Empire have not been backward. I have not mentioned improvements in live stock, but a considerable number of notable live-stock improvers in this country have effected, by trial, experiment and research, such improvements as admittedly have placed our pedigree live stock among the foremost in the whole world. All this work was carried out until a few years ago with little or no definite encouragement from the Government of this country. For the last twenty years, it is true, there have been State-supported research stations—there are no fewer than twenty-one of them now—dealing respectively with all the more important branches of agricultural science; but, as the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, mentioned in regard to research generally, the grants made by the Government for all these branches of agricultural research have been niggardly in the extreme compared with those provided by the United States and other Governments, notably by the Netherlands Government, the Belgian Government, the New Zealand Government and in more recent years—and I am glad that my noble and learned friend Lord Maugham mentioned this—the Russian Government.

What has happened is that our research workers have made discoveries, but the results of those discoveries, although often of high economic value, have not been carried readily or to any large extent on to the farms of this country. Not only that, but in various other countries, as I have good reason to know, the results of our own British agricultural research are far better known and far more utilized than they are in this country. What I want to submit as the main burden of my criticism is that where our Government have failed, and failed lamentably, at any rate until quite recently, is in bringing the results of all this valuable research work on to our farms and into the practice of our husbandry. I should like to illustrate what I have just said by referring to certain figures which have only recently been published, and which show the yields of milk of our dairy cattle in Great Britain and of dairy cattle in two other countries, Denmark and Holland. The average milk-yield of our dairy cattle to-day is no more than 490 gallons a year, during the lactation period, and that compares with 720 gallons in Denmark and 745 gallons in the Netherlands, a difference of almost exactly 50 per cent. In other words, the average cow in Denmark and in Holland is producing half as much milk again as the average cow in Great Britain. Your Lordships may say that in those countries the cattle are of different kinds, and the milk is blue in colour and has not the same proportion of butter-fat. It is interesting to note that not only is the yield greater in those countries but the butter-fat content is, on the average, 50 per cent. higher in Denmark and 40 per cent. higher in Holland.

Some of your Lordships may say: "Those are countries which are outstanding in dairying, but how about the produce of the soil, and particularly the cereal output?" It is significant and interesting to note that simultaneously with this increase in the yield of milk there has been a very marked increase in the yield of wheat per acre in both those countries as compared with ours. When I was an agricultural student more than fifty years ago I was told by my instructors with great pride that Britain led the way in the whole world, that her wheat output averaged 32 bushels to the acre. Well, fifty years have passed and we have done magnificent research work in regard to wheat, but our average output to-day is lot more than 34½ to 35 bushels per acre. And whereas countries like Belgium, Denmark and Holland even twenty-five years ago had a very much lower yield per acre than Great Britain, to-day their output per acre of wheat is at least three bushels higher than our own. What I am endeavouring to point out is that we carry out the research with an extremely able team of scientists, but we do not carry effectively that science where it is most wanted—namely, on the farms of this country with a view to a larger output of our most essential foods.

I have no doubt that my noble friend in front of me (Lord Cherwell) will tell me, and tell me with truth, that at any rate during the war years there has been a very remarkable improvement in carrying science on to the farms, particularly in regard to the utilization of machinery and to some extent the proper use of fertilizers; that during the past two years, with the help of the amazing drive of the present Minister of Agriculture, there have been demonstrations held in various parts of the country which farmers are invited to attend, and where up-to-date methods can be explained to them. And there has been set up, at any rate for the period of the war, what is called an Agricultural Improvement Council, also an Agricultural Machinery Development Board and—what I think is the most valuable of all—a Technical Development Committee, acting through the medium of the county war agricultural executive committees, which is avowedly for the enlightenment of the farming community in up-to-date technique. Of course that is all to the good, and all I can hope is that this new attitude on the part of His Majesty's Government in utilizing to a much larger extent our own scientific discoveries for the benefit of the practitioners will be perpetuated beyond the period of the war.

Several noble Lords have mentioned the fact that we offer insufficient financial inducements to our best scientists and research workers to enter Government employment and that the universities on the one hand—and personally I do not grudge them in the least—and industrial organizations on the other obtain the cream of the trained scientists in this country. A very able speech was made last Thursday by the noble Lord, Lord McGowan, who presides over the greatest chemical industrial organization in the British Empire. But as regards Imperial Chemical Industries I watched with some interest and no small anxiety—and I have been myself the Chairman of two agricultural research stations in this country, including Rothamsted—the pick of scientists being drawn away into industrial employment, very largely by Imperial Chemical Industries. The salaries and outlook of those men are immensely improved by changing their employment. And it has had this remarkable and very useful effect, at any rate during the war, that some of the finest research work in relation to agricultural production is being done not only under Government auspices but by Imperial Chemical Industries, for example, on new methods of making silage, the best means of improving pasture, and the utilization by treatment with caustic soda of wheat straw as a cattle food. All these discoveries of practical value came from I.C.I. having employed to a large extent scientists drawn from agricultural research stations—useful work, but it is very significant that in this country that sort of process is going on. Similar people in the United States, Canada, Belgium, Denmark, Holland and elsewhere are employed by the Government or by some institution financed by the Government.

I very much sympathized with my noble friend Lord Geddes when he asked whether it would not be possible, instead of scientific men living in their own particular specialized groove and working in that groove, largely detached from others—whether it would not be possible to get men of what he called the synthesizing view, who would be able largely to coordinate the results of research carried out in different scientific channels for the benefit of industry, and particularly of the agricultural industry. It is significant to note that we at any rate in the British Empire have got what we call Imperial agricultural bureaux of different kinds, which were set up as the result of the Imperial Agricultural Research Conference, over which I had the honour to preside in 1927, and which are largely financed by different countries in the Empire, and are always comparing notes in regard to their particular lines of research. It is interesting to note that you have at Rothamsted chemists, biologists, physicists, plant pathologists and the like. Every two months they hold what are called colloquia, and on these occasions they all compare notes one with another and co-ordinate a common policy which may prove of benefit to the agricultural community.

Nothing is a greater deterrent to really good, painstaking, valuable work on the part of research workers than the consciousness that they are unable to provide properly for their families. I may mention that some very sad cases have come to my notice of men who, being prominent in the world of science, had a position to keep up, but their remuneration was such that they were perpetually in anxiety as to how they would not only keep their own homes going but provide properly for their families. I cannot imagine any class of the community for whom it is more important to have what I may call mental concentration and quietude of mind and freedom from domestic anxieties than the scientific research workers of this country. I hope that one result of this debate will be not only that Government-employed research workers will be more handsomely remunerated compared with those entering other spheres of scientific research, but also that such remuneration will be safeguarded to those in our various research stations so as to enable them to carry out with concentrated quiet minds the important public work entrusted to them.

LORD PENTLAND

My Lords, Lord Samuel has received ample support for his Motion, and I only venture to draw attention in a few remarks to the size of the problem which he has brought before your Lordships' House. Several noble Lords have referred to the immense advances which have taken place during the period of this war in almost every branch of science and technology. The noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, who has just sat down, has referred to the advances in agricultural science. We have to remind ourselves—what of course is perfectly obvious—that there is a censorship. If it were not for this censorship, I would ask your Lordships to consider what sort of an exhibition and demonstration could not be arranged in this building of some of the really miraculous devices, instruments, and processes now in daily use in this country, in the field, on the sea, and in the air. Your Lordships are probably more familiar than I am with these devices. Some noble Lords may have handled, for instance, some of the latest devices which are in use on the sea or may have seen the latest processes in use for the packing of food.

To those of us who have seen some of these things two things are abundantly clear. One is that our scientists and "back room boys" have not been idle, and though tremendous exertions were necessary to catch up from the position we were in before the war, their achievements since the war are unparalleled in any other country or in any comparable period of time. The other thing that would be clear is that when this war is over we shall be living in a very different world from the world we were living in before the war. The time is past when scientists produced their victories over what Lord McGowan called "the unknown" one by one, or at long intervals. Science is now advancing rapidly along a broad front behind the censor's smoke screen, and it would be true to say that science has ceased to be a field of endeavour. It has become more of a technique or method. Within certain limitations which were referred to by Lord Dawson of Penn, you can now take a certain number of teams of scientists and apply them to almost any problem you like for a certain time and confidently expect to get a solution. In these circumstances the need for the planning of our limited scientific resources in men and material is urgently necessary.

As no other speaker has referred to it, I should like to make reference to the public announcement made by the Minister responsible on the subject of the relation between science and Government. Sir John Anderson, speaking to the Committee of which my noble friend Lord Samuel is Chairman, laid down four main principles which should govern the future relations between science and the State. I hope that something has been done since then to build on the foundations which were laid down by Sir John Anderson. Before I sit down I should like to refer to one other thing. Lord Cherwell, when replying to the debate on air transport last week, referred to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Comparisons in this field, as in so many other fields, between different countries, are extremely misleading, but an eminent scientist was describing the M.I.T. to me the other day and was telling me about this vast technical institute, a complete university in itself, situated at the other end of the town from Harvard in Cambridge, Massachusetts, with corridors half a mile long and row upon row of the most lavishly-equipped laboratories. It may be that such an institute would be somewhat out of place in Cambridge, England, but with this picture in mind I feel sure that my noble friend Lord Cherwell will do all he can to encourage research, not only in the large and spectacular institutes, but also in the smaller and less well equipped laboratories which occur all over the country in every town and works.

VISCOUNT BENNETT

My Lords, I wish to deal with two small points in connexion with the debate before your Lordships' House. There is unanimity with regard to the necessity and value of research. It is unnecessary for me to say more than that I agree with what was said by my noble friend Lord Bledisloe about the lack of the use of the results of the research that is carried on. Particular reference was made to coal. There is probably more coal in Canada than in any other country in the world. It is undeveloped and research work has been carried on. It is realized that with a sparse population the demand for the results of this research will come later. But take coal, to which particular reference has been directed. Its derivatives number two thousand or more—all the way from the gas, coke, and ammonia which you get in the first instance, to disinfectants, fertilizers, explosives, and nylon, which has taken the place of silk with respect to stockings.

The question is, what are we doing with regard to the use of these derivatives? Coal is a wasting asset in this country, and it has been calculated that if the value of coal at the pit mouth is, say, £1 a ton, the average value of the derivatives obtained from the use of that coal would be £3 7s.—in other words, by processing, we have added £2 7s. to the value of a tan of coal. Are we doing very much with respect to that? Where are the nylon factories in this country? With respect to explosives the answer is a simple one and to some extent that is true also with respect to disinfectants and fertilizers. But in a broad and general way what are we doing to convert the waste asset which, once it is burnt up in the grate or in the locomotive, has ceased to have value? We are putting nothing in place of its value that is lost. Is it not desirable that we should utilize the derivatives so as to create an asset that will give employment and take the place of the asset that is wasted and lost? That, it seems to me, is a very important matter to be taken into account with respect to coal. It is one that I should think would give considerable anxiety where the cost of coal is steadily increasing as it is in this country. The distances it has to be moved become greater and the export trade in the year before the war had fallen to rather low figures. The necessity, therefore, for substituting for this wasting asset something that can be derived from it and thereby establishing a permanent industrial capital value for what has been lost, does seem to me now to be very urgent looking at it in a purely cursory way.

But the point I wish really to direct attention to is one that I mentioned loosely some months ago. I notice that the noble Viscount, Lord Dawson of Penn, did refer to it, as did one or two other speakers. It is a point with regard to the question of inventions. The research carried on by public bodies and industrial concerns is one matter, the research carried on by the individual who has a bent of mind in a particular direction is an altogether different thing and results, as has been pointed out, in patents being awarded for the invention. What is the result? It is not always that it is the learned machinist, the mechanic that has been at universities who is able to invent something of great value. For instance, it will be remembered that in this country the man who made the greatest contribution to the textile industry was a barber, and it will be recalled that the sleeveless valve used in motor cars was not invented by a skilled mechanic.

In the little village in which I live in this country, there is a gentleman considerably given to invention and many of his inventions are being used, some of them in great ships and in other ways. When he secured his patent, as he did, he was told on the face of it certain very definite things to which I shall refer; but when he came to sell his patent he was told that if he sold it for a given sum then he had no Income Tax to pay, that it was capital and as capital it was not liable to Income Tax, whereas if he sold it by instalments and received royalties, then the whole was taxed and no allowance made for depreciation or the ultimate destruction of his capital. The result is that, as he is in fair circumstances, the tax taken by the Crown from his inventions amounted in the aggregate to over 90 per cent. Now there can certainly be no encouragement to research and to the inventor in circumstances such as those.

I observe that the patent itself is rather an amazing thing in its wording. It is not an ordinary document. It is a grant by the Crown in the name of the Sovereign of certain rights. It is headed by the Royal Arms and the words: George VI by the Grace of God of Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the seas King, Defender of the Faith, Emperor of India: To all to whom these presents shall come greeting: Then the recital indicates that the gentleman has invented certain things, that they are not known to others, and that he shall receive a patent for them. Then the recital goes on: And Whereas We, being willing to encourage all inventions which may be for the public good, are graciously pleased to condescend to his request: Know ye, therefore, that We, of our especial grace, certain knowledge, and mere motion, do by these presents … give and grant unto the said patentee our special license, full power, sole privilege, and authority, that the said patentee by himself, his agents, or licensees, and no others, may at all times hereafter during the term of years herein mentioned, make, use, exercise, and vend the said invention within our United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the Isle of Man, in such manner as to him or them may seem meet, and that the said patentee shall have and enjoy the whole profit and advantage from time to time accruing by reason of the said invention during a term beginning on the date hereunder written of these presents and ending at the expiration of sixteen years from the date the twenty-sixth day of September, One thousand nine hundred and thirty-nine. Then there are indications as to how the patent may be used and how it may be forfeited. The recital proceeds to say that no one shall use it without the consent, license or agreement, of the patentee in writing under his hand and seal on pain of incurring such penalties as may be justly inflicted on such offenders for their contempt of this our Royal Command and of being answerable to the said patentee according to law for his damages thereby occasioned. Then there follow provisions as to how the patent may become null and void. Lastly the recital says: We do by these presents for Us, our heirs and successors, grant unto the said patentee that these our letters patent shall be construed in the most beneficial sense for the advantage of the said patentee. The document that was issued is equivalent to a Crown grant as we understand it in the Dominions.

Under that grant, if the patentee sells his patent and receives for it a given sum of money that is not taxable because it is capital, but if, instead of that, he can find anyone willing to pay what he conceives it to be worth while by instalments—that is, receives a certain definite sum which we call royalties—he then has to pay Income Tax on the whole of that sum, although at the end of sixteen years, by the terms of the grant, it is quite obvious and clear that the value of his monopoly or patent has gone and thereafter anyone may use it. Is it an encouragement for research, is it an encouragement to anyone to enter into the field of invention if, as the result of his efforts, he finds the compensation he receives for it is to be treated as income and taxed? Surely part of it must be capital. Yet he is told that, as a result of decisions and of the attitude taken by the Commissioners of Income Tax supported by the Courts, it must be treated as income, with the result that in the aggregate up to 90 per cent. is paid in tax on the many patents that may be held by this particular gentleman.

I submit that if we are going to deal with research we cannot overlook the inventive man. As Lord Dawson has pointed out, it is desirable, if we are going to encourage research by the individual, that it should be made clear he is not to be treated as one whose capital is to be taxed at a very high rate when obviously a part of the compensation that he receives annually by reason of his patent is certainly capital because the value of his patent is exhausted at the end of sixteen years, which is the term for which the monopoly is granted. I bring this to the attention of your Lordships at this particular time because I have observed that the research efforts carried on by the individual that result in inventions have had a very important bearing upon the development of our country. It is true that in this country the inventor has made a great contribution to the industrial life of Great Britain, and if he is now to be taxed on everything he receives annually from the result of his labours, the stimulus to ambition, the incentive to direct his energies along that line will disappear, as, indeed, in one or two cases which have been mentioned to me, has been the case.

Certainly in some of the Dominions agricultural research work has been to a very great extent influenced by what has been happening in this country. I saw in Australia soil analysis going forward by which there was careful mapping of the soil of a whole State in order to determine just what would be the best results of particular crops being grown upon it and what kind of crops it would best sustain. In South Africa they are engaged in endeavouring to discover an animal for export with very light bones. They are carrying forward their experiment with great confidence that in the end they will achieve success. Research work along those lines and in the industrial fields are well known but research by the individual is no less important. I should mention that in the United States they recently had occasion to set up a Committee in the Senate to deal with these matters and they summarized their findings under two headings: (1) "The nation which discovers how to release to mankind the great storehouse of creative energy shall inherit the earth;" and (2) "The imprisonment of invention and production spells doom." I would emphasize to your Lordships the very strong language of the last conclusion that the imprisonment of invention, which is the result of what is now taking place, spells doom.

House adjourned during pleasure; and resumed by the Lord DENMAN.

THE PAYMASTER-GENERAL (LORD CHERWELL)

My Lords, having devoted a considerable fraction of my adult life to trying to persuade Governments, industry, and indeed anyone who had any money to spend, of the importance of scientific research, it is quite a new experience (and I may say a very refreshing one) to have to answer my own arguments. If I say that this has been a valuable and interesting discussion I can assure your Lordships that I mean it literally, and that I am not merely indulging in the conventional disarming phrases with which the Government spokesman is apparently expected to open his remarks. So far as I can see, all speakers have advocated scientific research—a very welcome attitude to which I may say I am by no means accustomed. There is just one point I may mention. As the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Maugham, said, professional scientists, who make rather a fetish of meaning the same thing when they make the same noise, are rather taken aback at times by the way the word "scientific" is used. So far as I can see its meaning has been extended to-day and last Thursday to comprise any or all of the adjectives "exact," "logical," "sensible" or even merely "reasonable." Of course this is very flattering to the scientist, but it seems to stretch the word rather beyond its original meaning. I hope I may be forgiven if I use the: word myself in a rather narrow, perhaps more scientific, sense.

Undoubtedly there has been a great wave of popular interest in science. A welcome symptom of it is the formation of the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee under the distinguished leadership of the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, who is unfortunately not able to come here today. Not the least valuable of their contributions has been the pamphlet recently circulated on coal. There are of course many contributory reasons for England's leadership in the world in the nineteenth century. Our immunity from serious warfare, the emergence of a number of great men, above all the spirit of enterprise engendered by cur free institutions—these all played their part. But some noble Lords will I think welcome my adherence to the view that England's pre-eminence in that century was due largely to her being first in the field in applying the scientific knowledge of the day and more especially in exploiting the latent chemical energies of her coal fields for industrial purposes. But to live upon coal in to live upon capital. That is what we in this Island are doing—and for that matter that is what the whole world is doing. Water power, of course, is income but the energy we derive from it is barely one or two per cent. of what we get from coal; and depending as it does so largely upon the fortuitous configuration of the ground, there is little or no prospect of ever magnifying it to replace even one quarter of the coal and oil at the rate we are consuming them.

Whether we like it or not we have frankly embarked on the rake's progress of using up our inherited capital of coal and oil. Industry, which could not exist without power, is banking—I trust this is the right word rather than gambling—on the scientists to find a substitute. Unless and until we can do this, whether by turning sunshine economically into electricity—which, of course, would make the Sahara one of the richest regions in the world—or perhaps by evolving some way of utilizing the nuclear energy of the atom, ultimate exhaustion of our fuel resources and a return to the mediæval conditions—when the heat we could get was measured by the wood we could grow—stares us in the face. As I have said we are banking on the scientist to find alternative sources of power before our coal runs out. It is clearly important to know how long this will be.

The recent transfer of our coal resources to public ownership is of the first importance. It is the business of the Coal Commission to take careful stock of their property and the process of valuation has had the incidental result of disclosing much useful information to supplement the work of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research and of the Geological Survey. Not only is the amount of coal being surveyed, but the type of coal is also being assessed. We shall soon therefore know much more than we have ever known in the past about our coal resources both in quantity and quality. As a result we shall find out how long it will be before scientists have to find a new source of energy. I think that this meets one of the very valuable points made in the report of the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee. If we must live on capital, there is clearly every reason and argument for trying, at any rate, to make that capital last as long as possible. For this reason the insistence of the noble Viscount that we should spare no pains to discover ways of using our coal economically must be welcomed by us all.

Coal is valuable for two distinct reasons. In the first place, as I have said, on account of its calorific content; in the second, because of its latent chemical energy; it is the only material, apart from oil, found in quantity on this planet whose affinity for oxygen has not been satiated in the course of geological time. When we burn coal carefully we get back a good part of the solar heat used up when the plants were growing in their palaeozoic swamps. This is all right (provided we are reasonably economical) as long as we only want to boil our water or cook our food or warm our rooms. It is when we come to the conversion of the heat stored in the coal into other forms of power, usually by driving steam engines, that it is impossible to prevent a great deal going to waste. Naturally industry has every incentive to economize; more and more elaborate devices are invented to save even I per cent. here and there. But the broad fact remains that something less than one-fifth of the stored energy of the coal is converted into useful forms of power.

I did not quite understand some of the efficiencies mentioned by Viscount Samuel. I am speaking of total energy and, as your Lordships know, there is an absolute limit set by the law of dynamics to the possible conversion factor depending on the temperature at which oxidization occurs. For generations it has been the dream of the physical chemist to oxidize coal at low temperatures when a vastly greater fraction could be obtained. Dr. Ludwig Mond, the grandfather of the noble Lord, Lord Melchett—who has lately, as I know, been much more concerned with ultra-rapid oxidations at extremely high temperatures, when punch against armour rather than mere economic efficiency is required—was one of the first to try this, but without success. I am not sure that the problem should not be tackled anew in the light of modern knowledge. If successful, efficiencies, even beyond those mentioned by the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, might become the rule. English industry, of course, has grown up on cheap coal, and it is no use denying that it has taken longer than in some other countries for us to modify our machinery in order to save it. Nor is this altogether surprising when we think of the capital cost involved. It is so often easy to point out economies which, though superficially real, are fundamentally false. It is not always mere conservatism which prevents change. There is a form of survival of the fittest even in machinery. I think that many obvious improvements in efficiency could be pointed out whose capital cost would outweigh the gain that could be made by adopting them.

I am not sure whether your Lordships realize quite how much research on fuel is going on. We have the Government's Fuel Research Station at Greenwich, the British Coal Utilization Research Association and the Gas Research Board. In addition the Electrical and Allied Industries Research Association is working on the efficient use of fuel for the generation of electricity, and the Iron and Steel Industrial Research Council is studying the metallurgical use of coke and other fuels. The first three bodies I have mentioned alone are spending £360,000 a year and more than half of this is found by the Government. There is, therefore, every reason to suppose that after the war, when more suitably qualified men become available, there will be a considerable expansion of this work. At least I can say this on behalf of the Government, that if industry puts forward proposals for any sound scheme of expansion of industrial research it will find a sympathetic and generous response from the Government.

As I have said, coal is valuable not only as a fuel to give us heat and power; it is also far and away our most important chemical reducing agent: without it, it is difficult to see how iron and steel could be got in industrial quantities. Further, it is one of our most important sources of organic compounds. As one noble Lord mentioned, living organisms have the faculty of building up atoms and molecules into elaborate structures, many of which we have not yet been able to imitate in the laboratory. The more complicated of these, of course, have been destroyed in the millions of centuries since the decaying vegetable matter was laid down which now forms our coal seams. But many of the hydrogen compounds and some of the nitrogen compounds remain, and a large proportion of the many-hued products produced by the dyestuffs industry have as their starting point chemicals found in coal tar. Many plastics and innumerable other valuable chemical substances have a similar source. We must beware of wasting the heat stored in our coal; but it is far worse to destroy these valuable molecules which have been built up in the course of scores of millions of years. No one can doubt that the most painstaking investigation is worth while in order to find out the best way of using these compounds which nature has provided for us so plenteously. Research into these matters is going forward all the time in the laboratories of the great Dyestuff Corporations which have such an immediate interest in these substances. I welcome, too, the recent announcement that the coal industry is to set aside £400,000 for research into the production of these valuable chemical compounds from coal.

This brings me to the question of Government intervention into research—a very difficult question in some of its aspects. As was pointed out by the noble Viscount, Lord Dawson of Penn, the Lord President, who is also President of the Scientific Advisory Committee of the War Cabinet, is responsible for scientific research in its civilian manifestations. This research is administered through the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research and the Agricultural and Medical Research Councils. So far as the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research is concerned, the Lord President is advised by his Advisory Council, the Chairman of which is Lord Riverdale. This Council is composed of some twelve academic scientists and industrialists who retire by rota at the end of every five years. Industrial research is fostered by the Government by encouraging the formation of research associations in which industrialists interested in the same topics join together to maintain suitable scientific facilities to investigate and develop such matters as they may think are useful. The Government support these associations by Treasury grants and by allowing revenue expenditure—capital expenditure will be considered by an Inland Revenue inquiry—to be set off against profits in assessment for taxation. These research associations are autonomous. They can, and often do, call for advice and assistance from the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research. Bodies such as the Standing Consultative Conference on Fuel Research ensure that the field is covered, and the public interest served.

Government research of the type arising out of this Motion is carried on at research laboratories under the Advisory Council of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research. It is not easy to draw an exact hard-and-fast line defining the subjects they study. The best line of demarcation, if we must have one, would probably be to say that this research deals primarily with matters on which Government Departments may require scientific advice and assistance; that is to say, topics concerning the whole community such as building, food or fuel. Assistance to pure, fundamental research has been given in the past in the form of grants to universities and colleges in various forms. There have been direct grants to assist or even to initiate definite scientific research programmes; there have been grants to students in training to enable young men who have shown ability in the universities to spend two or three years on research; there have been a limited number of senior research awards to men of proved capacity and there have been grants to leaders of scientific thought to enable them to maintain research assistants. In the last decade I must admit that the emphasis has tended rather away from fundamental research to the industrial side, but the whole distribution of effort is now being reviewed and I personally hope that it may be agreed to extend considerably Government support to purely scientific research.

I have confined myself to the special case of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research as this is the body concerned with the questions arising on the noble Viscount's Motion; medical and agricultural research are I understand run on somewhat similar lines. The noble Viscount, Lord Dawson of Penn, has given us an excellent review of the Medical Research Council's activities, and the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, has told us something of the work of the Agricultural Research Council. It is quite true, as he said, that there is always a lag in getting the results of research adopted by the user, a lag which may or may not be greater when we are dealing with the farming community as compared with some others. I think there is every argument, as he said, for trying to accelerate this process, but it is scarcely the function of scientists to undertake this.

In considering these questions, it is essential to distinguish, as I am glad that my noble friend Lord McGowan did, between the different types of activity which are so often lumped together loosely under the term "research." As he said, we have first of all the simple, straightforward, clear-cut need to improve and cheapen processes of manufacture—sometimes called development or works research. Clearly this is necessary, and indeed essential, if we are to hold our own. But it seems unlikely that the Government can, or should, do it. Only those actually engaged in the operation are likely to know what directions are likely to be worth pursuing. On a somewhat higher level, I should reckon research directed towards the production of new industrial products. Here again the Government do not usually intervene directly. With regard to products which would be of use to the whole community, such for instance as alloy steels or drugs, the policy has been to try to fill up gaps rather than to compete with industry. Finally, we have what I should call scientific research proper; that is to say, fundamental scientific research. It is extremely difficult, as I know to my cost, to make people realize the importance of this and its value to the community, yet without it science cannot exist.

Perhaps I may give two examples apposite to the main topic. Natural science is not, as some people think, a fixed collection of rules which can be learned and applied. It is a constantly growing and developing system in which we are continually discovering—or trying to discover—new generalizations or laws and new links and connexions between previously unrelated domains. The physical chemists, who spent many millions of pounds on the hydrogenation process of coal, could never have dared to take such a risk if they had not been guided and fortified by what is known as the third law of thermodynamics, enunciated some thirty years ago. This law is linked up with, and forms part of, the quantum theory, with its metaphysical roots. It was established and confirmed by observations of the most diverse phenomena—to name only a few, by measurements of the heat capacity of substances at temperatures very near the absolute zero; by relating these results to the distribution of colours in the spectrum of a hot body at various temperatures, and by relating both of them to the voltage required to prevent electricity from being emitted by metals when illuminated by light of various wave lengths.

As has been said, it is no use imagining that we can solve practical problems if we do not know the laws of nature which govern them. But who would have imagined that these apparently unrelated investigations would facilitate the production of oil from coal? Nobody who was told to find out how to make petrol from coal and water would have started in this roundabout way. But because of the enunciation of the third law of thermodynamics by Professor Nernst, and because the scientific foundations were there, it was possible and safe to launch out into the vastly complicated, difficult and expensive industrial development which has enabled us to make artificial liquid fuels.

Let me give one other instance. As your Lordships know, it was discovered some forty odd years ago that atoms of electricity—electrons—are emitted from hot bodies. These electrons are accelerated in an electric field in much the same way as a stone which falls to the ground—or perhaps an apple is a more usual illustration—is accelerated by the earth's gravitational field. They are deflected in a rather more complicated way by magnetic fields. The study of all these matters—exactly how they were affected by the various fields, and how these depended on their state of motion—did not appear to have any industrial interest forty years ago. It seemed to be the purest of pure science. Yet upon the knowledge thus secured rests the whole of the radio industry, broadcasting, the "talkies," radiolocation and a host of other applications.

The noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, mentioned one of the latest applications, the electron microscope. This, too, is of industrial value. Not only does it enable us to see detail previously unsuspected of the forms of microbes, but it also enables us to see and study catalysts—those mysterious, supremely important agents which, without being changed themselves, by their mere presence help chemical reactions to take place. I think that my noble friend Lord McGowan will support the assertion that, without catalysts, synthetic fertilizers, the hydrogenation of coal and a host of other important industrial processes could not be carried on. Anything which helps us to elucidate their true nature and mode of operation must be of the utmost value to industry.

These examples, of course, could be multiplied indefinitely. Who would have thought that Faraday was laying the foundation of the whole electrical industry when he found that a compass needle near a loop of copper wire was deflected when a magnet was moved near to the far end of the loop; or that when Dewar started his research on liquid oxygen this would, as a by-product, lead us to the thermos flask, which is sold in millions all over the world; or that research on thunderstorms and the Heaviside layer—largely financed, incidentally, by the Government—would lead to radiolocation? It is impossible to peer into the future and discern the effects of increasing knowledge. No Government and no industrial magnate, however enlightened, could possibly have subsidized Faraday's work on account of its industrial value. If that had been the objective, he would have been told to try and improve the steam engine—and no doubt he would have done it very well.

In my view, therefore, we cannot overrate the importance, from the mere economic point of view, of fostering pure fundamental research. As is evidenced by its name, the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research—and I emphasize that "Scientific" comes first—recognizes this. And the Government recognize that pure research must be in a large measure the responsibility of the Government and be done at the universities; but naturally, as the noble Viscount, Lord Dawson of Penn, said, we also wish to encourage industry to spend money on pure research. It is perfectly true that abroad the importance of this has been more widely recognized than it is in this country. Many great firms abroad maintain magnificent research laboratories, in which men of the greatest distinction are proud to work. Every facility is given them, and the same freedom as at a university to investigate any topic they please. Moreover, the great firms supply and support the university with their scientific facilities, and maintain men to work on the purest forms of science.

In this country we have not yet quite reached this level of enlightenment. Indeed, the company over which Lord McGowan presides enjoys a singular preeminence in its approach to this subject. I think he will agree that the encouragement given to pure research by his firm, and the resulting contacts with the universities, have contributed in no small measure to the vision and keenness of his colleagues and staff, which have enabled them not only to expand production on standard lines but also to develop and make quickly entirely new forms of munitions. On the other hand, we must beware of the comparisons—quantitative comparisons—which are so frequently made between what is done in the United Kingdom and what happens in the United States of America, Russia and Germany. As the noble Viscount who initiated this debate said, it is almost impossible to draw the line between pare research and development, and development is apt to cost enormously more than fundamental research. A slight error in delimitation, a small bias in assessing what is pure research and what is development, is apt to lead to totally wrong conclusions.

I entirely agree of course that this country could and should do more fundamental research, but when we remember that we have only a third of the population of the United States or of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, and not much more than half that of Germany, and when we remember that research expenditure is, quite intelligibly, considered in those countries as an advertising point, it is clear that any endeavour to make a quantitative comparison is dangerous. After all, though the endeavour to discover the fundamental laws of nature should be regarded as an end in itself, to spend money on research is by no means an end in itself. It can only be justified if it is fertile, and to make sure that this is so is easier said than done. When a man has proved himself a competent leader he should be given every support. Nor need we fear overlapping in pure science. But it is no use merely multiplying numbers if mental capacity is lacking. As I have said, it is the policy and intention of His Majesty's Government to increase their assistance to pure research. I need scarcely add that I will welcome any developments in industry in a similar direction.

It is a remarkable fact which has been mentioned, and I think should carry conviction to noble Lords opposite, that in the U.S.S.R. the importance of pure research is recognized most fully. As an instance of their readiness to foster knowledge for its own sake I would mention that four of the £10,000 prizes given in 1942 were for such academic subjects as topology, the superfluidity of Helium II, the constitution of comets, and the mechanism of muscular contraction. I hope, now that the stress of war has once again focused public attention on science, we may see another step forward in the place given to scientific subjects in our schools. They are already much better than they were; the rudiments are taught even in the elementary schools, and facilities exist to enable bright boys, and for that matter girls, who show special aptitude to advance as far as the universities. I hope that not to have heard of the Law of Conservation of Energy will soon be as shameful as not to have heard of the Norman Conquest. But undoubtedly more must be done.

I have great sympathy with the plaint of the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, concerning the shortage of trained engineers in this country. As the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Maugham, said, science has not been stressed very much in the recent White Paper. But the Board of Education are conscious that much remains to be done in this field, and to develop it as part of their policy for postwar reconstruction. It is, of course, difficult to overcome in the older foundations the prejudice against science in favour of the "humanities." But I think we are on the way. I may say I was rather surprised by the complaint of Lord Geddes against the Royal Society. I will not go into it in detail, as it has been dealt with by the noble Viscount, Lord Dawson of Penn. I will only add that I cannot see how it assists the cause of science, which I am sure he has at heart, or for that matter the reputation of the individual he is championing, to attack the Royal Society because a committee set up at the request of the Board of Trade consisting of the most eminent scientists of the day reported fifty years ago in a sense not approved by the gentleman in question.

I was much impressed by Lord Brabazon's plea about specialization. Specialization is, of course, inevitable, but I do not think anyone would deny the importance of the wider synthesis. The treatment of scientists in the Civil Service has been mentioned, and I must frankly admit that the Civil Service has not hitherto shown due regard for the contribution which scientists are making to the nation's welfare. I am glad to be able to say,, in answer to Lord McGowan's question, that this matter has now been reviewed, and that an investigation has been in progress to make sure that the conditions of service, pay and prospects of Government scientific employees compare favourably with those on the administrative side of Government work, so that, among other things, interchange may in suitable cases be made easier. I hope that a definite announcement that these reforms are to be put into effect may be made before long. After all, we must preserve a sense of proportion. There are probably not more than a few dozen physicists in this country capable of evolving and developing new applications of, say, the various radio devices on which success in this war very largely depends. Everyone, I am sure, will agree that it is an anomaly to pay them on lower scales than men of equal educational status who, because they have distinguished themselves in what are usually called humane subjects, are often given war jobs of much higher status and pay than the scientist.

Strange as it may seem, scientists are fundamentally only human. Reacting against their condition, many of them have injured their case by overstating it. Many of your Lordships no doubt think I have done so myself to-day. But of one thing I can assure the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Maugham: I am as much opposed as he is to the idea of a world ruled by scientific bureaucrats. Again we must recognize that scientists are not always the easiest people in the world to handle. A man who is content to spend most of his working life pondering about the mathematical formula which expresses the relationship between the structure of the atoms and the light they emit, about how a protein molecule is built up, or a nervous impulse is propagated, may well not be sought after as a boon companion at the bar. There is much ignorance about the very nature of science, as the noble Viscount, Lord Dawson of Penn, pointed out, and not only in the Civil Service, but in the world at large. One noble Lord, I believe, once in private conversation dismissed it contemptuously as "mere organized curiosity." Well, it is quite true that that is one of its characteristics, but it is only a very superficial one. To describe it in that way is as absurd as it would be to describe religion as "organized genuflections." Anyone who did this would be deservedly castigated; for he would expose his abysmal ignorance in the very act of decrying it.

Only those who have worked among scientists realize the large fund of knowledge and accurate observation, the exact logic and vivid imagination which are required in the synthesis which reveals to the world new laws of nature. The noble Viscount who initiated this discussion, with his deep interest in metaphysical questions, I am sure realizes this. But, as all speakers have emphasized, it is putting the results of research into practice that presents one of the most difficult aspects of this question. I think this debate will have served a useful purpose if it brings the importance of research home to wider circles. I hope I have answered most of the questions put by the noble Viscount who initiated the debate, and 1 trust that his friends will not find it necessary to press his Motion for Papers.

LORD WINSTER

My Lords, at this stage of the debate I have no intention of offering observations at any length. I rise only to stress a point that has been already mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Cherwell, in his reply. When I listened to the debate last week, I was very much struck by what the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, said on the subject of Dr. EdridgeGreen, and I noticed that some sections of the Press next morning gave far more publicity to that incident in the debate than they did to anything contained in the other speeches. I therefore re-read his speech with great care and made certain inquiries. I have no intention of going into the question of whether Dr. Edridge-Green was right or wrong, or whether he was badly treated or not, but from what I have been told it seems to me that the noble Lord, Lord Geddes—quite unintentionally I am sure—has done rather less than justice to the Royal Society.

In his speech he referred at various times to a Royal Society Committee. I am informed that there is no such thing as a Royal Society Committee. Such a thing does not exist. It is true that the Royal Society in 1890 set up a Committee at the request of the Board of Trade—it could not do otherwise—but having done that, its responsibility in the matter entirely ceased. The responsibility for the views put forward belonged to the members of that Committee as individuals and was not a responsibility of the Royal Society. From that day to this the Royal Society has never expressed any views or taken any action whatever in the matter. In his speech the noble Lord said that he found, when he was President of the Board of Trade, that the Royal Society was still blocking the Edridge-Green views and that it had never ceased officially to resist them. That cannot be the case. As a matter of fact the Royal Society, as such, does not express views in a matter of that sort. That is borne out by the fact that in each volume of its Transactions the Royal Society publicly advertises as follows: It is an established rule of the Society, to which they will always adhere, never to give their opinion as a body upon any subject either of nature or art that comes before them. If that is the rule and practice of the Royal Society, it can hardly have been the case that when the noble Lord was at the Board of Trade the Royal Society was still blocking the EdridgeGreen views and was still officially resisting them. That would be inconsistent with what are the declarations of the Royal Society.

Again, the noble Lord spoke about the Royal Society having imposed a ban which, he said, has never been removed from Dr. EdridgeGreen. The Royal Society has never pronounced any ban whatsoever on Dr. EdridgeGreen. Again, the noble Lord spoke of the Board of Trade having been prevented from taking steps to prevent life being lost at sea and on the railways by a Royal Society Committee. It is a very grave charge to bring against the Royal Society that, in some way or other, it prevented the Board of Trade doing something to prevent loss of life at sea. How could the Royal Society, in defiance of its own constitution, have prevented the Board of Trade from doing what it wanted to do in the matter of saving the lives of men at sea? It is for these reasons that I felt I should like to emphasize this matter at some little length, because I am sure the noble Lord had no wish whatever to place the Royal Society in an unfavourable light when the facts appear to show that no such charge could be sustained.

Upon the other matters raised in the debate I only wish to make two short observations. It has been a great pleasure to me, as a member of the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee, to hear the very warm tributes which have been paid to the memorandum of that Committee upon the utilization of coal. Indeed I feel that that pamphlet really points a way out of our troubles in the mining industry. It is a very grave reflection on the way in which that industry has been conducted in the past—the incessant quarrels between masters and men, in the pursuit of which quarrels the interests of the consumers and of the nation have alike been overlooked and trampled upon by these two sides in their opposition to each other.

THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY

Controversial.

LORD WINSTER

No one has more knowledge of the position than the noble Marquess, but that is substantially a fair picture to give. This mishandling of the coal industry comes home to roost to-day when we are fighting for our very existence. We are in trouble about several raw materials at the present moment, but almost our most serious trouble in regard to raw material occurs in respect of one which lies underneath our own soil and in connexion with which there are no shipping problems to be overcome at all. I feel that the pamphlet issued by the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee does' point the way out and does show that dawn will break over the coalfields, a better state of affairs will come about, when science and research are practised in regard to the utilization of coal. That, I believe, to be the way out of the troubles which have for too long overhung that industry. It is time that the scientist was allowed to play a part in the development of this national asset.

The only other thing I wish to say is this. In the course of the debate last week, the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, took the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, rather severely to task for something he never happened to say. Lord Samuel had pointed out, and amply proved his case, that before the war we had sunk back into third or fourth place in regard to scientific research. The noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, who seemed to wake up in a rather bad temper that afternoon, repudiated any such suggestion as being unpatriotic and likely to do our prestige abroad a great deal of harm. I do not think this is a matter which should be treated as a matter of noisy patriotism, by pointing out that everything British is best, that we are bound to win and to be best in everything we do. Nor does it help to produce a string of names of British scientists and say, "There you are, the finest scientists in the world." It is the fact that for every name of a British scientist we can quote, other countries can quote another, because science is international. I do not think we gain anything by speaking rather in terms of a Test match or something of that kind in this matter.

The figures establish quite clearly that before the war we were lagging behind both America and Russia in the matter of science and research. Indeed, so great was the disparity between what we were doing and what those countries were doing, that, if the war had not come about, in 1950 we should have run into a regular gale because by that time the fruits of what had been done in America and Russia would have been coming to harvest. About that time we should have found ourselves industrially most severely handicapped indeed by the fact that America and Russia had regarded it as worth their while to make these very heavy investments in science and in research. It is a curious reflection upon that pre-war state of affairs that there were actually firms in this country who were really relying upon the research which was being done abroad, and the fact that we were using foreign inventions and paying royalties upon them meant that we were actually subsidizing research abroad. It is for reasons of that sort that I do not think the patriotic thing to do is to refuse to look these facts squarely in the face and say "Britain leads" and "Britain is best." I think it is far more patriotic to face those facts as Lord Samuel faced them, to recognize what we have done amiss in these matters, and to make up our minds to set our house in order in every respect.

In regard to that may I say I think the answer of the noble Lord, Lord Cherwell, on behalf of the Government to-night, was very reassuring and gave great hope in these matters? When the history of Mr. Churchill's Administration comes to be written that history will be mostly occupied, of course, with the war, but I hope there will be a chapter in that history to say what the Prime Minister has done in regard to the encouragement of science in our Government Departments. That is a matter that is perhaps not often noticed but it is a matter that reflects the greatest credit on the Prime Minister. I am sure that in that matter he has derived most helpful counsel and advice from the noble Lord, Lord Cherwell, and that we have derived great benefits from it in this war. During the war we must improvise. We have not the scientific man-power to make the great advances or developments that we want. The man-power is not there for it. But I think we can take great encouragement from what Lord Cherwell has told us that this matter of science and research will be regarded as one of the most pressing problems which confront the Government in the period of post-war reconstruction.

VISCOUNT FALMOUTH

My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Viscount who introduced this most interesting discussion has not been able to be present this evening. It has been to me a matter of very great interest to hear the various points that have been raised and I am glad that I have had the great advantage of hearing the noble Lord, Lord Cherwell, reply to the various matters brought forward. I approach this subject from the point of view of what has been rather unkindly called "the scavenger of science." That is to say I am interested in the development of scientific discoveries. To people who approach science from this point of view, the establishment of a Department of Scientific and Industrial Research during the last war was a very great step forward. We know from what the noble Lord has said of the activities of that Department, that it has gone from strength to strength. Not only is it responsible for the National Physical Laboratory, of world-wide reputation, but it is also responsible for a number of other laboratories—the Fuel Research Station, the Forest Products Laboratory and the Chemical Research Laboratory, to name only a few of the important departments which it now controls.

I was very interested to hear the noble Lord, Lord Cherwell, mention the work of the research associations because that is part of the duties of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research the importance of which is not, I think, fully appreciated. In 1920 £75,000 was spent by industry on research in these associations and that attracted a grant of £50,000. In 1937, the latest date for which I could obtain figures, the industry subscribed £265,000 and that attracted a grant of £150,000 from the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research. 1 have the honour to be President of one of the largest of these research associations, the Electrical Research Association. There we have a subscription income of about £60,000, for which we obtain a grant of £20,000 from the Department. This money is devoted to a large laboratory where work on what might be called common denominator problems of interest to the whole industry is carried out. The figure of £80,000 has been mentioned in the Press as being the amount that the electrical industry spends on research. This is wholly wrong. On very good authority it has been estimated that the industry in its private laboratories spends upwards of a million pounds a year on this particular activity. I agree that even that may not be sufficient, but it is all that the industry is able to afford, and it is a very large sum. when one considers the difficulties with which industry is faced at the present time.

A number of other industries have these research associations, each according to its size. Research associations do work on the common denominator problems and individuals in the different establishments carry out the specific problems relating to their own undertakings. This system, which works extremely well, is I think unique to this country. But we have got to consider the question whether what we are doing now is really enough. When one goes abroad one is struck by the immense size of the research establishments that one meets there connected with the different large industrial undertakings. Thus in the United States of America, as befits the size of that great country, the number may be described as enormous, but even in a small country like Switzerland, one is much impressed with the research that is carried out in the different industries. Everywhere, in fact, one finds that the research laboratory has become a piece of standard equipment of any modern industrial undertaking.

Industrialists in this country are very appreciative of the importance of research but they labour under very great difficulties. The enormous burden of taxation which they have to meet at the present time limits the amount of their resources which they are able to devote to scientific research, and although I appreciate the fact that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as the noble Lord, Lord Cherwell, mentioned, does relieve firms from Income Tax as regards money expended on research, yet the demands upon them are so great in other directions, especially for the maintenance of plant, machinery and so on, that firms, although realizing the value of this concession, have not the wherewithal to put money by for this important development.

It makes one ask whether we are not in danger of lagging behind. As has been said in the debate, something like £70,000,000 is spent each year in the United States on research and with this large sum something like 3,500 laboratories are maintained. It is very difficult indeed to find out even an approximate figure of the amount spent on research in this country, but, working on the assumption of experience in the electrical industry, I believe that twelve times the amount is spent in the laboratories of industry as compared with what is spent in the research associations. On this computation the total amount spent in this country on research is something like £7,000,000. Although this is a large sum, when one appreciates what is going on abroad one realizes that there is a very serious danger of our falling behind what is being done elsewhere. I would ask the Government whether they could not consider a scheme somewhat similar to that already in operation in connexion with research associations, by which they would give a contribution to any private laboratory which they are satisfied is carrying on long-term research of a purely scientific character. That would be a great encouragement. It would not cost very much to the country and it could be very suitably administered by the advisory committee of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research.

The noble Viscount in his opening speech drew attention to the use of research in the coal industry. I think it would be admitted that in that great industry up to quite recently the position of research was not as satisfactory as in many other industries. As the noble Lord, Lord Cherwell, said, the recent establishment of the Coal Utilization Research Association and the grant given to the research association established by the gas industry have altered things very considerably, so that the position is much more satisfactory than it was. A good deal of uncertainty appears to have been raised in the course of the debate as to the question of the thermal efficiency of certain coal utilization schemes. A big generating station has a thermal efficiency of 30 per cent. It is stated in the report of the Scientific and Parliamentary Committee that they consider 30 per cent. a low figure. Anybody who has experience of machinery of this kind realizes that in order to obtain efficiency of this character you have to have steel in certain parts of the turbine and certain parts of the super-heater at great heat. It is very doubtful whether it will be possible to raise the efficiency of this class of machinery to more than 35 per cent. in the immediate future. Metals unfortunately resent the rough treatment that they are given at these temperatures and develop a tendency to what is known as "creep."

An enormous amount of research has been done on this problem throughout the world in the last twenty years and the results have not been too satisfactory. I think it may be possible within the next few years to attain an efficiency of 35 per cent., but that seems to be the maximum to which the law of thermodynamics will allow you to go. We have heard about the efficiency of the gas industry. That is, I think, 80 per cent., and the parallel industry—the coke oven industry—has a somewhat similar efficiency. Each of these industries has a very important function to perform and each of them is carrying out these functions very efficiently as regards the particular duties they have undertaken; but I feel that we want to face this matter in its broadest aspect and to view the treatment of coal problem as a whole. The Oil from Coal Committee of which I was Chairman, reported in 1938. The Committee were very much interested in some of these problems, and we considered the processing of coal for the purpose of developing the very important by-products about which we have heard in this debate.

I think perhaps the question of coal as a fuel has been overstressed. What is just as important is the utilization of coal to produce hydro-carbon—liquid or gaseous—which would form the basis of a chemical industry which it is most important we should establish after the war. That Committee made certain recommendations, one of which was that with the view of encouraging the development of these coal products a Fischer Tropsch plant should be established. It was very disappointing to members of the Committee to find no steps taken in that direction. It may be that the war came too soon after the findings of the Committee had been published for active action to be taken. We badly need a Fischer Tropsch plant in this country, we badly need a Lurgi gas generating plant in this country, and also a full-scale plant for the carbonization of coal in hydrogen under pressure.

I will not weary your Lordships by going into details of the question, but I would like to draw attention to one or two points raised in the report of the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee. In their report they say they consider that the serious position in which this country finds itself, with the lack of development of some of these processes, is due to the lack of scientific method. I do not think that is really a correct diagnosis of the problem. At present, of course, it is quite impossible to obtain scientists for development work of this character. Laboratories working on this problem before the war are now largely occupied with other matters, but I believe that some of the staff are still available although most of their time is taken up by the war problems. In spite of this there is a. definite amount of work being carried on when time allows on the question of coal and its treatment.

One has to ask oneself how it would be possible to encourage the establishment of these plants, especially after the somewhat disappointing reception of our suggestion of the establishment of a Fischer Tropsch plant in the country. These plants are very expensive, they are novel in their character and they entail quite definitely certain risks. As is well known certain chemical reactions on the semi-scale plant give certain results which are not necessarily always repeated on the full-scale plant. Hence users are not particularly anxious to run risks, although from the national point of view it is absolutely essential that the work should be undertaken. Users of this apparatus are very largely municipalities, public boards and public companies. Municipalities and public boards are not bodies which are prepared to take a risk. They have their ratepayers and electors to consider and they will not undertake voluntarily something of which they have not had previous experience. They invariably play for safety first. Public companies are somewhat more enterprising in this respect, but I am afraid that now, owing to financial stringencies, they are not able to undertake new developments as they used to in the past. One of the most striking features of the American approach to this problem is that you get users willing to undertake the trying out of apparatus which is submitted to them by manufacturers. One find developments go forward under those conditions much more quickly than when there is definite resistance, largely from economic reasons, to the establishment of new equipment.

I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Cherwell, whether it is not possible to consider a plan of this kind. Could not a sum of, say, a million pounds be given to the Department of Industrial Research to last for a period of ten years; and to be used as an insurance premium by which the risk of any of these new schemes would be carried by the State? I feel that if only you could get this aspect of risk carried by someone else it would not take very long before we should have the Fischer Tropsch plant and the Lurgi gas generating plant established. Once somebody else is prepared to carry the risk I am quite certain we should find schemes would go forward. The people to take that risk must, I think, be the advisory council. This fund should not be limited to the coal industry, because there are a number of other projects very much dependent on a fund of this character for their development. I quote a single example—the long-distance transmission of electricity by direct current at very high voltage—say, half a million volts. In this country, for physical reasons, there is no likelihood of that type of development taking place. The distances are too short to make it worth while. The present methods are quite suitable to conditions here.

But it is not the same when you consider the position overseas. There are many large schemes overseas in respect of which this type of development is urgently required. I feel that it would be of very great advantage to the manufacturers of this country, in the difficult period which is going to arise after the war, if they were able to have experience which this big, new development would give them. The only user of high tension transmission lines to any great extent is the grid, the Central Electricity Board, and I can quite imagine that if this Board were approached with requests for permission to set up a line of this character they would say it was not their business because they are only responsible for giving a cheap and abundant supply of electricity to consumers in this country. But suppose a group of manufacturers went to the Board and asked whether they would be prepared to put up such a transmission system, and the Board were able to say: ''Let us go to the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research and see whether they will be prepared to carry the risk of this experiment." Then I am certain that you would very soon find that some of these big ideas would be carried through, and that would give the chance we want of trying out these various developments. British scientists and engineers are just as enterprising as scientists and engineers in other parts of the world, and certainly their equals in other ways. But it is the opportunity of trying out new developments which is so essential if they are to establish their position in the post-war period.

LORD SEMPILL

My Lords, the hour is late and I will be exceedingly brief, but I should like to say a few words in support of what my noble friend Lord Winster has said with regard to the very useful reply which your Lordships' House has received from the noble Lord, Lord Cherwell. That reply has given us a lot to think about, and, obviously, it will lead to another debate on this very important subject. On the occasion of that debate those who have not been able to participate to-day will then have their opportunity. I would like now particularly to underline what my noble friend Lord Winster said in regard to the increasing and effective use that the Prime Minister is making of science and technology. I fully support the noble Lord's remarks in regard to that. As this debate arose on a Motion of my noble friend Lord Samuel, who, unhappily, is prevented by illness from being here to-day, I think it is appropriate to say again that it is extremely interesting to note that the coal industry, following the lead given by the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee, over which Viscount Samuel presides, has immediately acted and has allotted some £500,000 for research purposes in connexion with matters which have been mentioned in this debate. I think that is a very splendid effort. The industry has followed the lead given by the Committee and has done something without delay.

There is one further matter which I would like to mention and that relates to the Royal Society. My noble friend Lord Geddes made some remarks in the debate last week on this matter, and I fully endorse all that has now been said upon it by my noble friend Lord Winster. I feel sure that Lord Geddes, a fellow Scot, would not wish, in any sense, to cast doubt on the tremendous power and usefulness of the Royal Society, which since the days of Charles II has done such remarkable service to this country and to the world. I was very glad that Lord Cherwell said something about this. Naturally he, replying for His Majesty's Government, cannot say very much upon it. Also, as a Fellow of the Royal Society himself, he cannot say very much. But those of us who may aspire—perhaps without any hope of getting there—to be Fellows, feel very keenly indeed that the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, were not really warranted. When we look into the records of the Committee referred to by Lord Geddes, which was set up on the advice of the Royal Society at the instigation and suggestion of the Board of Trade some fifty years ago, and see that among the members were the late Lord Rayleigh, Lord Kelvin, Sir Francis Galton, Sir George Stokes and Sir William Abney, it is surely unwise, I think, to have suggested that Mr. Brudenell Carter, a prominent ophthalmologist of those days, or Sir Michael Foster, then the leading figure in British physiology, and the chief founder of a school in that subject which was to become one of the glories of British science, were "ignorant of physiology."

LORD GEDDES

My Lords, I crave the indulgence of the House—

THE LORD SPEAKER (LORD DEN-MAN)

May I point out to the noble Lord that he is really quite out of order? The hour is late, and it is not very usual to make two speeches in one debate.

LORD GEDDES

That was why I ventured to say that I craved the indulgence of the House. If the House does not wish to hear me, then I have nothing to say.

LORD REA

My Lords, in the unavoidable absence of my noble friend Viscount Samuel, I have been asked to thank the noble Lord who replied for the Government for his most interesting and comforting speech, which I have no doubt will go a very long way towards satisfying my noble friend. I feel, of course, that no reply which could be given on behalf of the Government would give any of us complete satisfaction, but, nevertheless, we are most grateful to the noble Lord for his most interesting speech. On behalf of my noble friend I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion for Papers.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.