Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
PRIOR t o the 1930s few scientists in Great Britain troubled to pay any
attention t o t h e question of freedom in scientific research. Like other
things which are taken for granted, it was not discussed. But during the
late 1930s and early 1940s the situation changed; it changed so drastically
in the eye.s of some scientists that they felt compelled to create an
organisation for the protection of freedom in science. This was the
Society for Freedom in Science. 1 The Society continued its activities into
the postwar period. The dangers which had been anticipated and the pre-
vention of which had provided its justification, were not realised. By the
end of the 1940s they were no longer expected to appear, because the
necessity for freedom in scientific research was by then, in part as a conse-
quence of the Society's efforts, universally acknowledged.
1 Previous studies which discuss aspects of the Society for Freedom in Science include:
Shils, Edward, " A Critique of Planning: The Society for Freedom in Science ", Bulletin
of the Atomic Scientists, III, 3 (March 1947), pp. 80--82; Wood, Neal, Communism and
British Intellectuals (New York: Columbia University Press, 1959); Werskey, P. G., " The
Visible College: A Study of Left-Wing Scientists in Britain, 1919-1939 ", unpublished
doctoral dissertation, Harvard University, 1973; Filner, R. E., " Science and Politics in
England, 1930-45: T h e Social Relations of Science Movement ", unpublished doctoral
dissertation, Cornell University, 1973.
2 Bernal had been a Marxist ever since his years at Cambridge University. See Snow,
C . P., " J. D. Bernal, A Personal Portrait ", in Goldsmith, Maurice and Mackey, Alan
(eds.), Society and Science (New :York: Simon and Schuster, 1964), p. 21.
On Freedom and Planning in Sc&nce 43
a Bernal, J. D., The Social Function o] Science (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul,
1939). References here are to the first paperback edition (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press,
1967), p. xv. 4 Ibid., p. xv.
5 Ibid., p. xv.
6 Ibid., p. xv.
7 Ibid., p. 242.
s Ibid., p. 242.
9 Foi- the Soviet papers prepared for the congress see Science at the Cross ROads, 2nd
ed., with introduction by P. G. Werskey (London: Frank Cass, 1971). Dr. Werskey's
introduction discusses the reception in Britain of the original edition.
10 Representative authors and books are: Crowther, J. G., Industry and Education in
Soviet Russia (London: W. Heinemann, 1932); also Soviet Science (London: Kegan Paul,
Trench, Trtibner, 1936) and The Social Relations o/ Science (London: Macmillan, 1941);
Huxley, Julian, A Scientist Among the Soviets (London: Chatto and Windus, 1932);
Hogben, Lancelot, Science for the Citizen (London: George Allen and Unwin, 1938);
Haldane, J. B. S., The Marxist Philosophy and the Sciences (London: George Allen and
Unwin, 1938); Levy, Hyman, Modern Science (London: Hamish Hamilton, 1939); Bernal,
J, D., op. cit.; Needham, Joseph and Davies, J. S., Science in Soviet Russia (London:
Watts, 1942).
For a discussion of the thought and activities of Bernal, Haldane, Hogben, Levy and
Needham, see Werskey, P. G., op. cit.; and of Bernal, Haldane, and Levy, see Filner, R. E.,
op. cir.
44 William McGucken
11 The Obiects o[ the Society ]or Freedom in Science, 2nd ed. (Oxford: Society for
Freedom in Science, June 1946), p. 1.
12 Speech given by A. G. Tansley at informal meeting of Oxford members of the
Society for Freedom in Science, New College, Oxford, 23 August, 1941, unpublished
(hereafter referred t o as: A. G. Tansley, 1941 Address), in J. R. Baker's personal papers
(hereafter .referred to as BPP).
i~ Bernal, J. D., op. cir., p. 242.
On Freedom and Planning in Science 45
the same value as the solution of crossword puzzles-.14 Dr. Baker was
appalled by the possibility that if the " B e r n a l i s t s " obtained power to
give effect to their plans for science, scientific discovery would cease. He
himself believed that if science were to continue to be free, then in-
calculable material and intellectual benefits for human life would continue
to accrue, as in the past. H e agreed that to serve human welfare was
certainly one of science's two functions, b u t he chose to stress the other
which he was to champion over the ensuing years:
To many who are contemplative llaere is nothing more worthwhile in life than
the increase of knowledge for its own sake. To pretend that this is " escapism"
and comparable to interest in crossword puzzles is nonsense . . . every dis-
covery in science separates falsehood from truth and makes an accretion to
that vast body of demonstrable knowledge whose possession is the most valid
criterion of dastinction between cultured and savage communities. There are
those who are unrewarded ,by the contemplation of nature, just as there are
those who find nothing in music or art. Nevertheless, kaaowledge and music
and art are among the ultimate things in life for many pex)ple who regard
just keeping alive and healthy as merely means to an end. 15
Dr. Baker regarded science primarily as a higher end which human
beings served rather than as an instrument existing to, serve haman beings.
In reply Bernal insisted that science must and could be organised " w i t h -
out damaging the freedom of thought and activity of the individual
worker on which ultimately everything depends-76
Michael Polanyi, then professor of physical chemistry at the University
of Manchester, had never met Baker, but in reading his review of
Bernal's book he recogmsed a kindred spirit. H e had himself, and
unknown to Dr. Baker, critically reviewed Bernal's book in a paper
which would soon be published? ~ Against Bernal's Marxist view, Polanyi,
like Baker, defended the " l i b e r a l " view o,f science which sees science
as munlficiently showering ~ts gifts on mankind when allowed freely to
pursue its own spiritual alms but collapsing into barren torpor if required
to serve the needs of society. Polanyi wrote to Baker, and thus began a
unique friendship? s A year later the Society for Freedom in Science was
founded.
In early November, 1940, Baker wrote to 49 distinguished British
scientists inviting each to join a new, informal, and non-political society
for the protection of freedom in scientific research. T o become a member
14 Baker, J. R., " Counterblast to Bernalism ", The N e w Statesman and Nation, XVIII,
440 (29 July, 1939), pp. 174-175.
15 Ibid., p. 174.
16 The N e w Statesman and Nation, x v I i I , 44i (5 August, 1939), p. 211.
~ Polanyi, Michael, "Rights and Duties of Science ", The Manchester School of
Economic and Social Studies, X, 2 (October 1939), pp. 18~1-2. For a lengthy discussion of
the conflicting views of Polanyi and Bernal see King, M. D., " Science and the
Professional Dilemma ", in Gould, Julius (ed.), Penguin Social Sciences Survey 1968
(Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1968), pp. 34-73.
~8 See list of documents relating to the Society for Freedom in Science made by J. R.
Baker, 23 October, 1974, in Michael Polanyi Papers, Department of Special Collections,
Joseph Regenstein Library, University of Chicago (hereafter referred to as: PP). Box 42.
46 William McGucken
Tentative Exploration
Just over a month later Baker had received replies from 33 recipients
of whom 27 had accepted his invitation to be founding members. Dr.
Baker in his reply said that the responses had been " extraordinarily"
interesting, the refusals no less than the acceptances. " O n e eminent
scientist refuses because he is unaware that any movement exists in
opposition to freedom and individualism in scientific research: another,
equally eminent and in full agreement with the four propositions, refuses
to join because he thinks that we are fighting for a lost cause! "20
In the belief that the truth lay between these two extremes Baker
proposed that the founding members should co-opt additional persons
who had distinguished themselves in scientific research. The membership
of the society should not exceed 100 so as to avoid undue secretarial
difficulties. In addition to more members, the society also required a
proper name. Dr. Baker asked the founding members to submit sugges-
tions or at least to let him know their preferences among six suggested
namesY 1 The name adopted was the Society for Freedom in Science.
On 1 March, 1941, an informal meeting of certain members of the
nascent society was held in Oxford. A provisional executive committee
was created consisting of: Arthur George Tansley, Sherardian professor
of botany at the University of Oxford until his retirement in 1937, as
acting chairman; Baker as acting secretary and treasurer; Polanyi;
Arthur Elijah Trueman, professor of geology at the University of
Glasgow; and Frank Fraser Darling, a biologist and director of the
West Highland Foundation and Survey. 22 Dr. Baker's idea that a small
society could be effective was discarded. To become truly effective the
committee thought it necessary to increase the membership " v e r y
considerably ". Towards that end it was decided to draw up a statement
of the objectives of the Society in a form suitable for handing to
prospective members, 23 Subsequently, a first draft by Dr. Baker and
Polanyi was considerably revised by Tansley and circulated under their
three names to the other members of the committee. 24 Several further
drafts were completed before the final document was printed and sent
out to prospective members in late May and June, 1941.25
The content of the four-page circular, Proposed Society ]or Freedom
in Science, was in several respects different from that of Dr. Baker's
letter of the previous NovemberY6 Most apparent is the fact that i t was
international in outlook, doubtless reflecting Polanyi's influence. It opened
by stating the belief that should totalitarian dictators be successful in
the current war they would eventually put an end to the freedom of
scientific research throughout the world. Defence of scientific freedom,
as of other freedoms, was therefore an integral part of Britain's war
effort. However, even after victory there would be in democratic coun-
tries a "less direct though perhaps as dangerous" t~reat to scientific
freedom from some of the adherents of the doctrine of central planning.
The circular recognised that this doctrine had a strong appeal for
many of the scientists who were seriously concerned about the condition
of society. It recognised too that to uphold the view that science has a
value which is independent of the practical benefits it yields to society,
was to appear to be morally indifferent. The circular argued, however,
that the vindication of scientific independence was a positive assertion
of rights and duties. One of the principal social duties of the scientist,
~i Ibid.
22 Baker, J. R., note entitled " Society for Freedom in Science", 18 March, 1941, BPP.
~a Ibid.
e4 Polanyi, M. and Baker, J. R., " Draft of statement to be handed to prospective
Members of the Society for Freedom in Science" (March 1941), PP, Box 4'2; Tansley,
Ai G . , " Proposed Society for Freedom in Science " (March 1941), BPP; Polanyi, M.,
Tansley, A. G. and Baker, J. R.~ " Proposed Society for Freedom in Science " (March
1941), PP, Box 42.
~ An incomplete seventh draft is in BPP, and an earlier one in PP, Box 21, SFS Folder.
26 " Proposed Society for Freedom in Science " (1941), PP, Box 21, SFS F6Idei<
48 William McGucken
Responses
The circular had a mixed reception among the scientists who received
it. Of the 30 who had eventually resp~nde~i favourably to Dr. Baker's initial
2v Ibid~ p. 2.
28 Ibid., p. 3.
On Freedom and Planning in Science 49
invitation, 20 did not sign nor did they return the membership form
which had been sent with the circular. However, 38 other scientists
joined the remaining 10 in signing, to give a membership of 48 by late
August 1941.29 By late November that number had increased significantly
to 89, and thereafter grew more slowly to reach 107 by October 1942, and
128 a year later. 3~ In the early spring of 1944 the Society published
the first edition of the pamphlet The Objects of the Society/or Freedom
in Science; this was a revised and expanded version of the circular of 1941,
and was used in a new drive for members. This proved to be most
successful and by March 1946, the membership had more than tripled to
reach 420.21 By June of that year it had climbed to 457, of whom 230
resided in Great Britain, 176 in the United States, 38 in the British
domimons and colonies including Canada and South Africa, and 13
elsewhere. They included 64 fellows and foreign members of the Royal
Society, all of whose fellows had been approached in November 1945.22
The great majority of the members of the Society for Freedom in Science
were research scientists at universities and other institutions where
research was carried on. z2
Throughout this period the Society continued to function in an
informal manner, as had been intended. It operated on a small budget
provided solely from voluntary contributions. A committee of seven,
later eight, elected members led the Society, whose affairs in practice
were conducted by an executive committee consisting of Dr. Baker as
secretary-treasurer, Tans~ey, Polanyi, and, later, J. A. Crowther, pro-
fessor of physics at Reading University. 24 The moving force was Dr.
Baker. Only one general meeting was held during the war years--in
London on 2 July, 1942. Its purpose was to bring the executive committee
into closer touch with the membership. However, only 15 persons
attended. None had any criticism of the organisation or operation of the
Society, and so it was agreed that its affairs would continue to be directed
by the executive committee which would remain in touch with the other
members of the general committee mostly by correspondence. 2~ As for
the general membership, the executive committee communicated with it
mainly through duplicated typewritten notices. Most of these carried the
heading: "Confidential: for members of the Society for Freedom in
Science only." From time to time each member received a membership
list so that he might know who his fellow members were. Unsuccessful
attempts were made to. establish local branches of the Society in Britain
at centres where interest appeared keenest? 6 Dr. Baker had hoped that
the branches, if formed, would consider such subjects as freedom in
universities and research institutions, and the financing of research in
general? r An effort to find an American member of the Society who
would attempt to organise a sister society in the United States failed? s
In writing to the 49 scientists in November 1940, Dr. Baker stated his
belief that after the war there would be a powerful attempt to put an
end to the freedom of research in pure science. That, therefore, would
be the time for the proposed society to make its influence felt? 9 Then
in replying to those who accepted his invitation, Baker spoke of " t h e
end of the war, when the politicians will be planning a new sort of life
for the people of our country and will be apt to be led astray in scientific
matters by the very vocal scientists who hold opposite views to ours-.40
On the previous day Baker had written to Tansley: " I view with horror
the prospect that after the war tmiversity research workers will be told
that a certain piece of research has been allocated to their department.
Against that I will fight with all the energy there is in me." ,1 Somewhat
later, in early 1943, the membership was informed of the two chief
functions of the Society. One of these was to "provide a solid body of
scientific opinion ready, ~n the period of reconstruction after the war, to
oppose any steps that may be suggested which would limit freedom in
science or magnify technology at the expense of pure science ,,.~2 This
concern for what might happen at the end of the war was again expressed
during the membership drive of 1944.4~
Although, as it turned out, the condition which was feared might occur
at the end of the war did not in fact occur, this does not mean that the
fear was groundless. The fledging Society was convinced that the threat
to freedom in science had to be taken seriously because of the enthusiasm
it saw evoked by the dcrctrine of ~ e cemtral planning of science in
the interests of the community. The Society considered that many of the
adherents of planning were unaware of the decisive restrictions on the
freedom and progress of science ~mplied by their aims. Others appeared
to minimise or disregard these dangers in their determination to bring
36 " SFS: Statement of the Executive of the Provisional Committee " (late 1941 or
early 1942), p. 3, PP, Box 21, SFS Folder.
a7 Baker, J. R., letter to A. G. Tansley, 27 November, 1941, BPP.
zs Baker, ~. R., " The Objects of the Society for Freedom in Science ", (1943) (being
the first draft of the Society's circular of 1944 of the same rifle), PP, Box 21, SFS Folder.
z9 Baker, J. R., circular letter to 49 scientists, November 1940, BPP.
40 Baker, ~. R., circular letter to 27 scientists, 6 December, 1940, BPP.
41 Baker, J. R., letter to A. G. Tansley, 5 December, 1940, BPP.
42 ', SFS: Notice to Members " (February 1943), PP, Box 21, SFS Folder. See also
SFS Executive Committee Minutes, December 1942, PP, Box 21, SFS Folder.
43 " SFS: Notice to Members " (11 November, 1943), BPP: Baker, J. R., " The Objects
of the Society f o r - F r e e d o m in Science" (being tJae first d r a f t of the Society's
1944 circular of the same title), PP, Box 21, SFS Folder; Nature, CLIV, 3897 (8 July, 1944),
p. 48.
On Freedom and Planning in Science 51
about general social planning whatever its consequences for science might
be. 44 Tansley believed that the " p r o p a g a n d a ", of which Bernal's The
Social Function of Science was a vigorous example, might be eagerly
assimilated by many younger scientists who felt a need for a positive and
forward-looking " g o s p e l ". He looked to the future and saw that:
From among these--ma,ny of them no doubt able scientists~we may expect
to find prominent leaders in the next 10, 15 or 20 years, and if the scientific
advice of the Central Government, especially a Socialist Government which
we are very likely t o have, fails into the hands of convinced adherents of
such a creed, anything filce genuine freedom of research wonld necessarily
disappear. It may be that the English have too much common sense ,to allow
any such happenings, but it is by no means certain and we caamot afford to
take chances. 4~
One response common among many of those who received the circular
of the Society in 1941 led to an important discussion among the leaders
of the Society regarding legitimate and illegitimate planning. They con-
cluded that research should be free except in the case of scientists in
institutes the charters of which committed them to the pursuit of certain
subjects, of direct or indirect utility. Such scientists were engaged and
paid on the tacit but quite obvious understanding that they were to work
on those subjects under the control' of a director, who was entitled to
choose problems for research on the basis of their expected practical
utility? 6
This was closely related to the issue of the freedom of workers in
technological research. The question was whether the Society should be
concerned about this. Baker thought that it should not, since planning
was probably necessary in technological researchW Polanyi was brought
into the discussion, the outcome of which was a confidential memorandum
to the membership drawn up by Tansley, modified in minor ways, and
issued in the name of the executive committee. 48 The document stated
that it was now clear that the freedom of scientists to choose and to
pursue their freely .chosen problems of research without ~interference
from any external authority could not be universal or unlimited. For in
industrial and go~vernmental l~boratories and other institutions founded
for the attainment of particular practical aims, the appointment and
activities of the staff were obviously subordinate to these aims. Thus the
Society concluded that it was primarily in the universities that there
should be liberty to pursue completely free and independent research,
and that it was there in the first place that it should be " j e a l o u s l y "
maintained. 49
44 " Proposed Society for Freedom in Science (1941), PP, Box 21, SFS Folder.
~-5 Tansley, A. G., 1941 Address, BPP. 46 Ibid.
47 Baker, J. R., letters to A. G. Tansley, 22 November and 15 December, 1941, BPP.
4s " SFS: Statement by the Executive of the Provisional Committee " (late 1941 or
early 1942), PP, Box 21, SFS Folder.
49 See also, " SFS: Report on First General Meeting " (August 1942), p. 2, PP, Box 21,
~FS Folder.
52 William McGucken
50 Tansley, A. G., letter to the editor, Electronic Engineering, XV, 177 (November 1942),
p. 260. See also Tansley's remarks as recorded in " SFS: Report on First General Meeting '"
(August 1942), p. I, PP, Box 21, SFS Folder.
51 ', Proposed Society for Freedom in Science " (1941), p. 4, PP, Box 21, SFS FoIder;.
Polanyi, M., letter to Arthur Koestler, 23 May, 1941, PP, Box 22.
s2 Polauyi, M., letter to Arthur Koestler, 15 May, 1941,PP, Box 22.
zz Koestler, A., postcard to M. Polanyl, 13 August, 1941, PP, Box 22.
On Freedom and Planning in Science 53
55 SFS Executive Committee Minutes, December 1942, PP, Box 21, SFS Folder.
55 Baker, J. R. and Tansley, A. G., " The Course of the Controversy on Freedom in
Science ", Nature, CLVIII, 4017 (26 October, 1946), p. 574.
5,6 Baker, J. R., Science and the Planned State (London: George Allen and Unwin,
1945). References here are to the American edition (New York: The Macmillan Company,
1945), p. 9.
57 Baker, ~. R., The Scientific Life (London: George Allen and Unwin, 1942); references
here are to the American edition (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1943), p. 134.
Polanyi, M., The Contempt of Freedom: The Russian Experiment and AJter (London:
Watts, 1940). This was a collectioaa of previously published essays including " The Rights
and Duties of Science " and " Collectivist Planning " (1940), a criticism o f central
planning.
5s Baker, J, R., op. cit., 1942, pp. 7-8.
59 Ibid., pp. 7, 133.
54 William McGucken
60 Ibid., p. 140.
61 Tansley, A. G., 1941 Address, BPP. ~ ,
65 " SFS: S t a t e m e n t by the E x e c u t i v e of the Provisional C o m m i t t e e " (late 1941 or
early 1942), p. 2, PP, Box 21, SFS Folder.
6z Ibid.
6~ Baker, J. R., " M e m o r a n d u m to C o m m i t t e e M e m b e r s " (April 1942); " SFS: R e p o r t
on First G e n e r a l Meeting " (August 1942), pp. 1, 3, PP, Box 21, SFS Folder.
On Freedom and Planning in Science 55
62 " SFS: Notice to Members " (October 1944), PP, Box 21, SFS Folder.
66 In 1942 Tansley delivered the Herbert Spencer lecture at Oxford University on The
Values o] Science to Humanity (London: George Allen and Unwin, 1942). Extracts from
it were printed in Nature, CL, 3795 (25 July, 1942), pp. 104-110. While neither the Society
for Freedom in Science nor any of its members was mentioned, the lecture nevertheless
presented the Society's case in discussing and criticising the planning movement.
67 SFS Bulletin, No. 6 (December 1949); No. 15 (December 1955); SFS Occasional
Pamphlet, No. 17 (November 1957), p. 2; Nature, CLVIII, 4017 (26 October, 1946), p. 574.
In connection with an issue yet to be mentioned below, Polanyi wrote, in the second
edition of Science, Faith and Society: " It was difficult to get a hearing for opposing
views. Those who knew about the persecution of biologists in Soviet Russia would not
divulge their information. My writings and those of J. R. Baker which, from 1943 on,
exposed this persecution were brushed aside as anti-Communist propaganda " (Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1964), p. 9 (first published, London: Oxford University Press,
1946).
~s " SFS: Notice to Members " (11 November, 1943), BPP.
69 Polanyi, M., " The A u t o n o m y of Science ", Memoirs and Proceedings of the
Manchester Literary and Philosophical Society, L X X X V (1943), pp. 19-38.
r0 In his presidential address to the council of the Association of Scientific Workers in
May 1943, Watson-Watt said that there was no alternative to planning but the dream
world of " planned sporadicism ": Nature, CLII, 3849 (7 August, 1943), pp. 141=142.
71 The British W a y Pamphlets, No. 7 (Glasgow: Craig and Wilson, 1943).
56 William McGucken
r6 Ibid., p. 34.
77 Ibid., p. 31.
7s Ibid., p. 37.
7~ S F S Bulletin, No. 6 ( D e c e m b e r 1949), p. 3.
58 William McGucken
86 Baker, J. R., personal interview with the author, Oxford, 12 August, 1975.
87 Polanyi, M., " Science and the Decline of Freedom ", The Listener, XXXI, 803
(1 June, 1944), p. 599.
as See also Polanyi, M., " Science--Its Reality and Freedom ", The Nineteenth Century
and A#er, CXXXV, 804 (February 1944), p. 83.
s9 Polanyi, M., " Science and the Decline o f Freedom ", loc. cit., p. 599.
90 Hayek, F. A., letter to M. Polanyi, 1 May, 1941, PP, Box 22.
60 William McGucken
the two were talking of a review article. Hayek now told Polanyi that
he " a t t a c h e d very great importance to these pseudo-scientific arguments
on social organization being effectively met ", and that he was becoming
" m o r e and more alarmed by the effects of the propaganda of the
Haldanes, I-Iogbens, Needhams, etc."? 1
Crowther, science correspondent for the Manchester Guardian and also
a member of this loosely-knit group of exponents of the Marxist view
of science, was convinced that a national policy for science had to be
promulgated. His book was offered as a contribution towards the creation
of such a policy. In its first part Crowther sketched a history of science.
This was intended to demonstrate " t h e nature of science as a social
product ". H e wrote that: " C o m p l e t e freedom of thought is not the
chief condition of the progress of science. There are other social con-
ditions which can assist science m o r e . " 95 The section on science and
freedom particularly incensed Polanyi. There it was stated that:
Freedom is b~nefi~al to science when it provides opportumty to a rising class.
Control is beneficial to science when it protects a rising class. Freedom is
inimical to science when it preserves the power of a declining class . . . . If the
scientist wishes to enjoy freedom, he must be able to choose the progressive
side. 93
Crowther went on to say that industrial research laboratories produce
much fundamental science and that planned research could achieve
wonders; 94 that more money for research should be made available by
the government; and that the "progress of science has owed much to
the desire to serve humanity, and it is probable that in the future, through
better organization of the expression of this motive, science will owe
more to it than to any other personal motive ".~ The distinction between
pure and applied science was either disregarded or denied.
In his review Polanyi criticised not only Crowther's book but the entire
movement whi'ch denied the justification of pure science. He treated
the attack on pure science led by Bernal and Hogben as a secondary
engagement in a war against all human ideals on behalf of totalitarianism.
In this review, he developed for the first time his idea of science as an
example of a " d y n a m i c o r d e r " within society, resulting from the
spontaneous mutual adjustment of the elements composing it. According
to this view new scientific assertions were made with due consideration
of all previously established ones; the results thus obtained continuously
modified those previously achieved. 9'6 Thus there was handed on from
or Ibid., p. 438.
9s I b i d . , p. 448.
99 Ibid., pp. 441-442k
100 ,, SFS: Message from the Executive Committee to all Members of the Committee
and to Professor P. W ; Bridgman and Dr. A. Pijper " (29 September, 1944), PP, Box 21,
SFS Folder.
lo2 ,, SFS : Notice to Members " (April 1945), PP, Box 21: SFS Folder.
62 William McGucken
Hesitation in Support
The Society was not always successful in winning the support of those
whom it addressed. Many were presumably attached to the other side,
others were probably indifferent to the issues raised. It was not even
always successful with those who shared its view of planning and freedom
in science. Max Born was one of these. He was invked by Polanyi to
join the Society in 194!. T M Born replied to Polanyi that the Society's
circular gave the impression that economic planning was to be fought
together with any restrictions on the freedom of science and thought.
He begged the Society t o reformulate the circular, omitting all allusions
to economic questions or, preferably, emphasising the principal import-
ance of keeping the question of freedom of thought completely separated
from the questions of expediency connected with politics and economic
policy. He said he would then be very glad to join the Society and assist
with all his heart. 1~ The circular was not reformula~ted. When some
months later Polanyi published his review of Crowther's book he sent
copies of it to Born and others, as was his habit. Born agreed with
Polanyi's defence of pure science and the freedom of thought, but as
before he regretted that Polanyi coupled this with a defence of economic
liberalism which Born would not accept. He held that scientists should
refrain from mixing ,their ideals with " t h e very un-ideal purposes of
business affairs ,,.10~ Still Polanyi persisted, and two years later during
the drive for membership of 1944 he sent Born a copy of The Objects
loz ,, SFS: To all Committee Members, from the Secretary " (25 March, 1945), PP,
Box 21, SFS Folder.
103 " SFS: Notice to Members " (March 1946), BPP.
104 See SFS Bulletin, No. 1 (August, 1946).
aoz Polanyi M., letter to M. Born, 29 July, 1941, PP, Box 20, " Memorabilia " Folder.
106 Born, M., letter to M. Polanyi, 31 July, 1941, PP, Box 20, " Memorabilia " Folder.
10z Born, M., letter to M. Polanyi, 30 January, 1942, PP, Box 20, " Memorabilia " Folder.
On Freedom and Planning in Sc&nce 63
,0s Biological secretary of the Royal Society, and, like Born, a Nobel laureate.
a09 Born, M., letter to M. Polanyi, 14 June, 1944, PP, Box 21, SFS Folder.
,10 Baker prepared and issued to the membership of the Society a confidential report
on the conference--" SFS Newsletter, October, 1941. Meeting of the British Association ",
PP, Box 21, SFS Folder.
64 William McGucken
w i t h t h e i m p l i c a t i o n s of t h e d i s c u s s i o n of " s c i e n c e a n d s o c i e t y " w h i c h
h a d g o n e o n t h r o u g h t h e 1930s; it was f r o m this discussion t h a t t h e
division f o r t h e social a n d i n t e r n a t i o n a l r e l a t i o n s of science h a d b e e n
p r e c i p i t a t e d . B a k e r , P o l a n y i , a n d T a n s l e y h a d h a d n o p a r t in it; while
Hill, a n d p a r t i c u l a r l y G r e g o r y , had. So also h a d B e r n a l a n d C r o w t h e r ;
b u t it was the m o d e r a t e s , i n c l u d i n g G r e g o r y a n d Hill, w h o e x e r c i s e d
control.
I n r e p l y i n g to P o l a n y i , G r e g o r y w r o t e t h a t :
A cause, whether totalitarian o r the liberty of thot~ght and expression which
most of us cherish as closely .as you do yourself, is greater than any man or
group of men. I think, therefore, that you give too much .attention to what
Hogben, Bernal, Crowther and a few others say about the .organization of
science on to.talitarian principles. This gives a personal outto,ok on the subj:ct
instead of a strictly rational one. Yon,r case for freedom in science is strong
and convincing enough to stand by itself, and if all such personal views were
omitted from it, I believe that the vast majority of natural philosophers would
find themselves in full agreement with you. 111
T h e r e w e r e m a n y o t h e r s besides G r e g o r y in British scientific circles,
i n c l u d i n g s o m e f o r e i g n e r s l i k e B o r n , who, b e c a u s e o f t h e i r f a i t h in t h e
stability o f British society a n d t h e c o m m o n sense of its p e o p l e , saw no
g r e a t t h r e a t in t h e views of B e r n a l , C r o w t h e r , a n d o t h e r w o u l d - b e
planners. W h i l e Solly Z u c k e r m a n f o u n d B e r n a l ' s b o o k a " f a s c i n a t i n g
c h a l l e n g e ", s o m e of his colleagues f e a r e d t h a t w h a t B e r n a l w a n t e d was
to d r a g o o n scientists i n t o w o r k w h i c h t h e y w o u l d n o t n e c e s s a r i l y wish to
u n d e r t a k e , in t h e p u r s u i t o f ends of w h i c h t h e y w o u l d n o t approve. " I
r e c a l l ", w r o t e Z u c k e r m a n ,
how one of them, a micro-anatomist who was an expert in the staining of
tissues, remonstrated with me, perhaps hoe in all seriousness, about Bernal's
presumed purpose. " W , h y , " he exclaimed, " I know what he is after, he is
going to tell me that I dare not ever again use gemtian violet as a stain for
my sections, and that from now on I shall .have to restrict myself to methylene
blue." N o words of mine could persuade him that I was as ready as he to
defend to the end our right to carry on with science as we knew it, and that
no one was going to coerce m,e to undertake researches that I ~had not decided
on myself; but that knowing Bernal I felt certain that he had no dictatorial
ambitions, .however extreme the effect his pri.r~ted words might appear to
some2 lz
A s G r e g o r y r e m a r k e d in a n a d d r e s s at the R o y a l I n s t i t u t e of I n t e r -
n a t i o n a l A f f a i r s - - ! ' L i b e r t y o,f t h o u g h t , w o r k a n d e x p r e s s i o n is highly
c h e r i s h e d in the c o m m o n w e a l t h of science, a n d in G r e a t B r i t a i n no
111 Gregory, Sir Richard, letter to M. Polanyi, 29 January, 1942, PP, Box 2i.
112 Scientists and War (London: Hamish Hamilton, 1966), pp. 141-142. It is not without
interest to note that while Zuckerman suggested that the Society for Freedom in Science
had to some extent been tilting at windmills (p. 142), he nevertheless found the distinction
between pure and applied science which the Society, and particularly Michael Polanyi--in,
for example, " Rights and Duties of Science "~had fought to preserve, useful and necessary
(pp. 144, 147).
On Freedom and Planning in Science 65
11~ Nature, CXLVIII, 3762 (6 December, 1941), 678-680; p. 679. After the war, however,
in the very different circumstances described below, Dale did join the Society for
Freedom in Science as vice-president: SFS Bulletin, No. 4 (February, 1948), p. 1.
116 SFS Bulletin, No. 15 (December, 1955), p. 1; The Society ]or Freedom in Science:
Its Origins, Obiects and Constitution, 3rd ed. (1953), p. 9.
117 Polanyi, M., "Rights and Duties of Science ", The Manchester School o[ Economic
and Social Studies, X 2 (October 1939), pp. 175-193.
n s A major and widdy accepted finding of Julian Huxley's Science and Social Needs
(New York and London: Harper and Brothers, 1935) had been that British scientific
research was unbalanced--displaying a great bulge on the side of industry and the physical
and chemical sciences which assisted industry; being distinctly undeveloped on the sides of
biological and health; and being quite rudimentary in the psychological and human sciences.
~19 Nature, CXLIV, 3658 (9 December, 1939), p. 973.
720 Ibid., CXLVII, 3734 (24 May, 1941), pp. 637-638.
On Freedom and Plwming #~ Science 67
selfish, though how often has one heard them claim that they are the
only champions of scientific freedom." 121 Nature continued to carp at
the Society. When the Biology War Committee was created in 1942,
Nature went out of its way to disparage the Society, stating that t h e
Committee might counteract " t h e attempts of some biologists to disturb
the relations of modern science to society under the pretext of preserving
the freedom of scientific research ,,.1~5
In the second half of 1942, Nature published ideas which were
anathema to the Society. It insisted that the distinction between pure
and applied science, which the planners wished to abolish and the Society
to maintain, must go, " a n d a good riddance -.155 It said that those who
opposed planning believed that it would put scientists in chains. This
Nature insisted "could never happen in the democracy for which we are
fighting; but even if it did, then surely nothing but good could come of
it provided such chains were guiding chains artd not prison chains, and
always provided that they were under the control o~ certain men o,f
science themselves--trustworthy men who fully appreciated their duties
to their fellowmen and who had the courage o~ their convictions ". T M
Nature said that science must be properly planned and organised so
that it could play its part efficiently in the solution of postwar problems.
It added that scientists should recognise their duties ~o society and
allow themselves to be properly organised so that they could give the
maximum service to community, state and world? 25
Similarly, at a crowded meeting of the Association of Scientific
Workers held in London in January 1943, it was generally agreed that
after the war all scientific research in Great Britain would have to be
integrated under the guidance of planning boards, on the model of those
established during the war. The opponents of the planning of science
were castigated as agitators on behalf of anarchy and ignorance? 26
Crowther too opposed the Society. In a review of Dr. Baker's The
Scientific Life, he intimated that the author would deny Britain victory
in the war, and also charged him with being a reactionary. Crowther
said that it had been found impossible to survive in the war without the
planning of science on a vast scale? 5r In The Scientific Worker, the
journal of the Association of Scientific Workers, Dr. Baker was likewise
denounced and his book castigated as revealing an obsolete conception
of the world? 2s Bernal for his part said that Dr. Baker and the Society
were " d o i n g their best to frighten other scientists by bogies which they
themselves have conjured u p " . 129 He protested that those who " a r e
raMng parrot cries for freedom of science and anti-planning are doing
little service to science or civilization ,,?~0
When the first circular was sent out in November 1940 to suggest to scientists
that such a Society as this should be formed, there was no organized opposition
to the powerful propaganda directed against freedocrt in science. Since then,
the situation has changed. It is not possible t.o say exactly to what extent this
Society has been responsible for the change, but its influence has probably
been considerable. The President [Sir Henry Dale] and the Biological Secretary
[A. V. Hill] of the Royal Society made no pronouncement in favour of free
scieftce ur~til after the Cha'wman of our Executive [Tansley] had corresponded
with them. The whole trend of the editorial policy of Nature was formerly
along the lines of the current propaganda. Now Nature holds the balance
more fairly between the two opinions . . . .
. . . . It is now unlikely that our case will go by default. An understanding
of the threat to freedom in science has spread beyond our membership. It is
now certain that a very large number of scientists--probably the great majority
of established research-workers--regard freedom as an indispensable condition
of scientific life, tbongh man,y do not join us because they are still not
convinced of the danger of the threat. The Society is in fact fulfilling its
objective o f becoming a focus for the discussion and clarification of the issues
involved.132
The change on the part of Nature became more apparent during 1943.
T h e journal observed that all serious advocates of the more effective
organis~tion of scientific resources made it clear :
that while the community may, and should, claim the right to determine
within broad limits the extent of the resources to be devoted to scientific and
technical research, and the broad allocation of those resources between
different fields and on major projects, that allocation must be subject to the
advice of men of science themselves, and the technique and the manner in
which the particular problems are attacked must be the affair of the scientific
worker alone, lzz
This view was also espoused by Sir Stafford Cripps, then Lord Privy Seal
and t h e government's spokesman on science; Polanyi welcomed his
statement. T M Nature too began to change. It doubted whether the Soviet
Union had :always understood the nature and limits of scientific methods.
It admonished scientists to remember that in addressing themselves to
their wider tasks and in accepting wholeheartedly their social responsi-
bilities, they must also remember that it was their prime responsibility to
guard and cherish that unfaltering quest for truth which is at the heart
of science; they were .urged to make sure that in all their organisation
and planning they consented to nothing that would impair their "freedom
of inquiry or utterance and the ultimate but fundamental loyalty to
truth-735 A lecture by Dr. Baker to the London and Home Counties
branch of the Institute of Physics was reported ~avourably and at length
in Nature under the heading "Freedom in Science ". The author of the
article concluded that it was clear that Dr. Baker had "opened up an
important subject for consideration ,,73~ During 1944, when the Society
launched its drive for new members, Nature described the function of
the Society and published its five principles. T M Two years later, Nature
wrote of the " m a i n (and only true) objective" of science, namely, the
search for and exposition of the truth. 13s
Other signs of greater sympathy came in. On 12 May, 1945, Polanyi
wrote to Baker that on the previous day he had addressed the University
of Manchester branch of the Association of Scientific Workers on the
subject of science and welfare. The leading members of the group had
attended and had expressed, surprisingly, unreserved support for the
views advanced by Polanyi concerning the independent standing of pure
science and its proper pursuit on academic grounds. They disavowed
Bernal and other contributors to a conference of the Association of
Scientific Workers on the planning of science as vociferous persons who
should not be taken seriously. They also claimed that the most recent
publications of the Association were quite in agreement with the Society's
viewpoint? 39
This was indeed the case. A report on science in the universities
prepared by the Association and submitted to the University Grants
Committee in March 1944 argued that advances in applied science
depended upon the progress of fundamental research. Furthermore, the
continued development of the country in the postwar period would
require the application of science to problems o f industry, agriculture,
education and health, at the high pitch of intensity reached during the
134 I b i d . , CLII, 3851 (21 August, 1943), p. 217. The three scientific advisers appointed to
the Ministry of Production in 194~2reported to Cripps.
1~5 Ibid., CLII, 3858 (9 October, 1943), p. 423.
la~ I b i d . , CLI, 38~28 (r3 March, 1943), p. 297.
~,z7 I b i d . , CLIV, 3897 (8 July, 1944), p. 48.
~a8 Ibid., CLVIII, 4017 (26 October, 1946), p. 566.
139 Polanyi, M., letter to J. R. Baker, 12 May, 1945, BPP.
70 William McGucken
15z The Advancement ol Science, III, 12 (1946), p. 298. NIorrison also showed his
appreciation of freedom in fundamental research in a speech in the House of Commons
on 29 November, 1945; Parliamentary Debates (House of C o m m o n s ) 416 (1945), Cols.
1836-63;'Col. 1859.
15z Endeavour, IV, 15 (July 1945), p. 82.