WHAT SCIENCE STANDS FOR of similar interest THE FRUSTRATION OF SCIENCE Sir Daniel Hall, J. G. Crowther Dr. J. D. Bernal, Professor V. H. Mottram Dr. Enid Charles, Dr. P. A. Gorer Professor P. M. S. Blackett Foreword by Professor F. Soddy second impression WHAT SCIENCE STANDS FOR BY SIR JOHN BOYD ORR F 4 R . S . PROFESSOR A. v. HILL SEC .. R. S. PROFESSOR J. C. PHILIP O. B. E., F. R. S. SIR RICHARD GREGORY BT., F. R. S. SIR A. DANIEL HALL K. C. B., F. R. S. PROFESSOR LANCELOT HOGBEN F. R. S. LONDON GEORGE ALLEN t UNWIN LTD PREFATORY NOTE THE Blackpool Meeting of the British Association was plainly notable for an awakening sense of social responsibility among English men of science. Certainly the papers on the general theme of the impact of science on the community attracted the most public attention. This book consists of the outstanding contributions to that memorable discussion, being addresses delivered to various sections of the British the Advancement of Science prepared for publi cation in BOOK iorm. It also contains a notable broadcast by Professor A. V. Hill, Secretary of the Royal Society, on The Humanity of Science CONTE NTS PAGE I NUTRITIONAL SCIENCE STATE PLANNING 1 1 Sir John Boyd Orr, F. R. S. 2 THE HUMANITY OF SCIENCE 30 Professor A. V. Hill, SEC. R. S. 3 THE CHEMIST IN THE SERVICE OF THE COMMUNITY 39 Professor J. C. Philip, O. B. E., F. R. S. 4 CULTURAL SOCIAL VALUES OF SCIENCE 72 Sir Richard Gregory, ST., F. R. S. S KNOWLEDGE AND POWER 100 Sir A. Daniel Hall, O. B. E., F. R. S. 6 NATURALISTIC STUDIES IN THE EDUCATION OF THE CITIZEN in Professor Lancelot Hogben, F. R. S. NUTRITIONAL SCIENCE AND STATE PLANNING By Sir John Boyd Orr, F. R. S. A FEW years ago a discussion onthe requirements of a diet for human beings would have seemed strangely out of place at a meeting of agricul tural scientists, because it was thought that there was not only sufficient agricultural products to meet requirements, but that there was a surplus which could not be consumed. Schemes for bring ing prosperity to agriculture were therefore based on controlling production, and limiting the amount allowed to come on the market, with the object of raising prices. The probable effect of a rise in prices on consumption received little attention because it was assumed that owing to the so-called glut of food, prices were so low that even if they were raised, people would con tinue to buy the same amount, and everybody would have sufficient for their needs. These easy assumptions would have been justified if the function of food were merely to satisfy hunger, because foodstuffs such as wheat and sugar, which can satisfy hunger, have for long been abundant and cheap. With the possible ii What Science Stands For exception of the very poorest, an ample supply of these has for many years been within the purchasing power of the whole population. But while the application of science to agriculture has enabled us to produce food in greater and greater abundance, and with less and less labour, the advance in the science of nutrition has forced us to accept a new standard of food requirements which is much higher than merely satisfying hunger. According to this new standard there is a shortage of many foodstuffs which are of importance for health, and the cost of the kind of diet now recognized to be needed for health is admitted to be, even in the wealthiest countries, beyond the purchasingpower of a large proportion of the population. The growing demand to get the new science of nutrition applied for the improvement of the health and physique of the nation calls for a reconsideration of the Government agricultural policy initiated by the Agricultural Marketing Acts of 1931 and 1933 a policy which gave farmers producing any foodstuff the right to combine and elect marketing boards with mono polistic powers to control, in the financial interests of the farmers concerned, the production and marketing of that foodstuff...