McGucken, W. - 1978 - On Freedom and Planning in Science

On Freedom and Planning in Science:
The Society for Freedom in Science,

1940-46
WILLIAM McGUCKEN
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.
The Social Function of Science

Partly as a result of the great depression which began in 1929 and of
the weapons of modern warfare, it was very widely accepted during the
ensuing decade that science was a powerful transforming force within
society. Among British scientists there was much concern that powers
m~de possible by science should be used to benefit and not ~to harm society.
Some radical scientists influenced by Marxism urged that the state should
plan the further development of the sciences in order that their benefits
might be maximised. Since in their view science received its impetus
through recognising and responding to "social needs ", the planning of
science would merely acknowledge the existing position of science and
help to fulfil its potentialities. Foremost among the advocates of planned
science was John Desmond Bernal, the professor of physics at Birkbeck
College, who in 1939 at the age o~ 38 published his book, The Social
Function of Scrence. 2
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Visible College: A Study of Left-Wing Scientists in Britain, 1919-1939 ", unpublished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
Bernal, with many of his contemporaries, resented " t h e inefficiency,

the frustration and the diversion of scientific effort to base ends-.3 This
thwarting of science was to him a cause of "disease, enforced stupidity,
misery, thankless toil, and premature death for the great majority, and
an anxious, grasping, and futile life for the remainder-.4 However, this
state of affairs could be avoided, provided that science would work with
"those social forces which understand [science's] functions and which
march to the same ends -.5 To Bernal " t h e traditional piety of a pure
unworldly science [seemed] at best a phantastic escape, at worst a
shameful hypocrisy -.6
The first part of the book described what science was doing and the
second what it could do. The latter called for a comprehensive reorgan-
isation of science brought about by scientists, the government, and
economic organisations working together in an agreed direction. By this
means science would be greatly enriched and made more productive,
while at the same time high scientific standards would be maintained and
the freedom and originality of research would be preserved. 7 The
reorganisation would be beneficial to science, for "science is a gift that
demands to be used to the full for the material and cultural benefit of
humanity, a n d . . , if science is not so used it will itself be the first to
suffer ,,.s
These views were not unique to Bernal. From the late 1920s, there had
been a growing interest among British scientists in how science was being
organised and used in the Soviet Union. Then, at the second international
congress on the history of science and technology in London in 1931, a
delegation of Soviet historians and scientists made a great impression
on a few British scientists and laymen2 Subsequently there appeared
numerous articles and books on Soviet scientific practice and on history
of science and technology from a Marxist perspective. 1~ This movement
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
naturally generated proposals for vast improvements in the cultivation

and application of science in Britain, but never before had they been
presented so forcefully and at such length as in Bernal's book.
This became the principal document of the movement which would be
characterised by its opponents as attacking the conception of science as
a search.for truth and as denying the right to free research directed to
that end. To these opponents, three propositions underlay the movement.
First, science originated in attempts to satisfy the material needs of
ordinary human life. Next, the legitimate purpose of science is to meet
these needs on an expanding scale. Finally, scientists should not be left
free to choose their own subjects of research, but must submit to central
planning s o that their work might be beneficially organised for the
satisfaction of material needs? 1
In Bernars view such planning would be compatible with freedom of
scientific research. This is where the issue was joined. His opponents
thought that Bernal passed over the necessity of freedom in research
as a condition of the growth of knowledge. They insisted that there was
an irreconcilable contradiction between this and the main argument of
his book. TM
To unsympathetic but as yet silent observers of the earlier movement
for the planning of science, the appearance of Bernal's book had made
the situation more alarming. It also provided a focus of attack. Indeed
the work invited attack through its use of provocative and polemical
assertions. For instance, it stated that it was not surprising that " m a n y
scfientists, particularly of the older school, . . . prefer science to remain
inefficient and obscure so long as it is preserved as a free playground for
the fortunate few to whom accidents of birth and temperament have
made it accessible?' is
Reaction to Bernal: The Formation of the Society

One who resented such views was Dr. John R. Baker, then 39 years
old, and a lecturer in zoology at Oxford University; Dr. Baker reviewed
Bernal's book under the title "Counterblast to Bernalism ". In charac-
teristic fashion Baker attacked what he polemically called "Bernalism ",
namely, " t h e doctrine of those who profess that the only proper objects
of scientific research are to feed people and protect them from the
elements, that research workers should be organized in gangs and told
what ,to discover, and that the pursuit of knowledge for its own sake has
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
o n e had to agree in general with four propositions based upon Dr.

Baker's assessment of current and future threats to pure science in
Britain. There was at present, he said, an influential group of scientists
who regarded pure science with contempt and thought only of its
material benefits. Furthermore, he feared that after the war the modern
insistence on quick economic results might be accentuated and that there
would be a powerful attempt to put an end to the freedom of research
in pure science. Baker sensed a danger that creative research workers
might be swamped under a deluge of mass-produced scientists who would
clamour for work in organised groups on dictated problems directly
related to practical matters.
As for those of his fellow-scientists who thought primarily or exclus-
ively of the material benefits of science, Baker considered them short-
sighted, for the reason expressed in the first of his four propositions,
namely, " Great material benefits to mankind result from research in
pure science along lines whose application to human affairs is not at the
time ~bvious ". Coupled with the insistence on science being made solely
utilitarian, was the idea that scientists should work in organised groups
towards externally imposed ends. Dr. Baker's third proposition asserted
that " s o far as possible, research workers should be free to decide the
slxbjects o,f their own research; " the fourth prol0osi,fion said that "those
scientists who find that they do their best work by themselves should not
be forced to carry out research in organised group.s". The second
proposition stated the traditional view which was being ignored by Bernal
and his circle, namely, "T~he advancement of knowledge by scientific
research has a value as an end in itself-.I9
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-
9 .~ Baker, $. R., circular letter to 49 scientists, November 1940, BPP.

s0 Baker; J. R., circular letter to 27 scientists, 6 December, 1940, BPP.
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
it explained, was the defence of scientific freedom--as that freedom is

essential to scientific discovery, and for the origin of those practical
benefits which are the natural by-products of the scientist's work. Further-
more, almost every professional scientist had duties such as teaching,
consultation, or administration, in addition to pure research. " I n fulfilling
these duties the scientist should be guided by a realization of their wider
social implications ,and should steadily help to make society more humane,
juster, and more efficient." 27 Those, therefore, who were prepared to
contend for freedom in science, claimed to be as eager as anyone to
make contributions to social progress.
In order to maintain scientific freedom in countries where it still existed
and to assist in its re-establishment in those where it was suppressed, the
circular stressed the necessity of organising those scientists who supported
the ideal of freedom in science. It mentioned the nucleus of members
already in the Society and the desire to increase its numbers, primarily
among active research workers. All were asked t o subscribe to five
propositions which differed considerably from Dr. Baker's original four
and which continued to be the fundamental beliefs of the Society. They
were:
The increase of knowledge by scientific research of all kinds and the main-
tenance and spread of scientific culture have an independent and primary
human value.
Science can only flourish and therefore can only confer the maximum
cultura~ and practical benefits on society when researcli is conducted in an
atmosphere of freedom.
Scientific life should be autonomous and not subject to outside control in
the appoirr.tment of personnel or in the allocation of the funds assigned by
society to science.
The conditions of appoinCment o,f research workers at universities should
give them freedovn to choose their own problems within their subjects and to
work separately or in collaboration as they may prefer. Comrolled team-work,
essential for soan,e problems, is out of place in others. Some people work best
singly, others in teams, and provision should be made for both types.
Scientists in countries not trader dictatorial rule should cooperate to maintain
the freedom necessary for effective work ,a~td to help fellow-scientists in all
parts of the world to maintain or secure this freedom. 2s
The first of these was a broader formulation of Dr. Baker's second
proposition, while t h e second was a considerably modified form of his
first proposition. The fourth covered the concerns of Dr. Baker's third
and fourth propositions. The fifth, was novel; as was, largely, the third.
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.
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
2s Tansley, A. G., 1941 Address, BPP.

2o " S F S : Notice to M e m b e r s " (October 1942), PP, Box 21, SFS Folder; and (11
November, 1943), BPP.
zl Ibid. (January 1945), PP, Box 21, SFS Folder; and (March 1946), BPP.
~2 Ibid. (March 1946)~ BPP
z2 The Objects of the Society for Freedom in Science, 2rid ed. (June 1946), p. 5.
z~ Baker, J. R., " N o t e to SFS m e m b e r s " (April 1942); SFS Executive Committee
Minutes, December 1 9 4 2 ; " SFS: Notice to Members " (February 1943), PP, Box 21,
SFS Folder; and (11 November, 1943), BPP.
z2 ', SFS: Report on First General Meeting " (August 1942), PP, Box 21, SFS Folder.
50 William McGucken
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.
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
While it thus recognised the necessity of some measure of direction

of applied science in such fields as agriculture, medicine and nutrition,
the Society neverflaeless was determined to fight the "dictation and
regimentation ", or " c e n t r a l planmng ", of scientific research by a
governmental bureaucracy. It held that such organisation and planning
as was necessary should b e carried out by responsible scientists within
the area concerned and not by some external governmental authority. It
correctly saw that in the future most m o n e y for fundamental research
would come f r o m the government, and it advocated that a considerable
share of such funds should be awarded to properly qualified investigators
freely working at their own problems without any regard to practical
use. At the same time the Society recognised that large public funds
would also quite properly be allocated .to collective research planned for
the promotion of the general welfare, s~
The Choice o] Tactics

I n regard to a p r o g r a m m e of action for the Society, it was early
proposed by Dr. Baker that its first effort should be the production of a
book of essays by members of the Society. This was to be ready for
publication within a m o n t h of the end of the war. The idea was subse-
quently endorsed by the provisional committee, and Baker was assigned
to edit the projected book21
In May 1941, Polanyi asked Arthur Koestler, who had recently come to
England and whose Darkness at Noon Polanyi had read and found deeply
moving, if he would collaborate in
a book which a few scientists are planning to write as a statement of ,the case
for Freedom in Scier~ce. We need a chapter on totalitarian oppressio,n o*f
science and scientists. It i,s fairly easy to get th'e ir~foa'mation about Germany,
but very difficult for the U.S.S.R. The fundamer~tal facts of the position of
scientists under that regime can be properly stated only by a former Party
member li!ce yourself. You cannot fail to see the tremendous human interest
in the lessons of that experiment of State directed scien,ce. ~
Koestler, however, was " u n a b l e to collaborate ,,.5~ The executive com-
mittee later decided not to proceed w i t h the book. The feeling was that the
" f r e e d o m in science m o v e m e n t " had not reached a sufficiently developed
stage for it to be profitable to lay down what could be regarded as a
formal doctrine. Nevertheless, it was considered essential to stimulate
as effectively as possible further work on problems relating to freedom
in science and to keep the Society's views before the public by encour-
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.
aging individual members to publish articles. An attempt, apparently

unsuccessful, was made to reach an understanding with an editor whereby
most of the publications would appear in the one journal24 In fact, the
Society was for some years "unable to get its case made public through
most of the recognized channels of publicity in Britain-.55
Dr. Baker was disappointed by the decision to abandon the projected
volume. At any rate he soon produced a book of his own, The Scientific
Li]e, which appeared in 1942. After the first edition quickly sold out a
second was published in 1944. The principal purpose of the small book
was " t o describe the human nature of the good research worker, and
to show that it would be futile to confine him witbAn the rigid boundaries
of a central plan for the advancement of science ,,.5, It presented Dr.
Baker's views on the free scientific life and on the development of a
wider and deeper scientific culture. At the same time it attacked the
teachings of the planners. In this connection various views expressed
by Bernal in The Social Function of Science and by J. G. Crowther in
The Social Relations of Science are mentioned. These works were clearly
regarded as the principal volumes of the "planners' library ", to which
in Dr. Baker's view there had hitherto been only one little book published
in opposition, namely, Polanyi's The Contempt o[ Freedom27 In preparing
his book Baker had received "valuable advice" from Polanyi, and many
suggestions from A. G. Tansley2 ~ Thus while no explicit connection
with the Society was indicated in the book, the book expressed all that
the Society espoused. The continuing concern about the period of recon-
struction after the war, when " t h e future of science will be decided,"
was again expressed? 9 A choice would then have to be made between
the desirable scientific culture depicted in the book and a vastly different
prospect, various aspects of which had been attacked throughout the
book but which in the conclusion Dr. Baker depicted with blunt
conciseness:
An ugly new god called the state demands worship. Nourishment, shelter,
health and leisure are falsely regarded as ends in .themselves. Culture is looked
down on with co~tempt. Science is equated with technology and decay.
Individualism and free inquiry both are ridiculed. Everything is planned from
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
"above." A drea~y uniformity descends. Each person is a cog in a vast

machine, grinding towards ends lacking all higher human values2 ~
Meanwhile, by mid-1941 several members had suggested that the
Society Was in a weak strategical position because its attitude was
"negative "--in the sense that it was opposing a positive "gospel" and
plan of action without advancing positive counter-proposals. The defence
of freedom, the finest of causes, s~id Tansley, could be made to appear
as mere reactionary conservatism. Laissez-faire was no battle-cry which
could compete with a progressive gospel. Therefore it was suggested that
the Society should formulate a positive scheme for the re-organisation
of features of scientific activities which seemed to require reform and
extension. These included the allocation a n d administration of public
funds allocated to scientific work and education in science, and the
definition of those activities which would allow for organisation and plan-
ning and which would benefit from them. At the same time the freedom of
able and qualified investigators to pursue their own work incomplete
independence would be defended by the Society. 6~
The provisional committee subsequently decided to develop a general
scheme of national scientific organisation to be outlined in a pamphlet
to be issued by early 1943. It would aim at a rational co-ordination of
the numerous agencies which financed and directed research, while
paying attention both to the efficiency of the agencies in pursuit of their
immediate objectives and to the maintenance of independent and free
research2 ~ This was an approximation tO planning, and in an area for
which Bernal had offered a plan of his own; but strong emphasis was
laid upon free research. The executive officers were quite aware of the
direction being taken. " T h e Society recognizes the necessity 0.f planning
in many of the complex and increasingly important relations of Science
to the life of the community, and here is its proper field. Such planning
should justly delimit the appropriate spheres of freedom and of control." ,8
It was in connection with this proposed pamphlet that the formation
of local branches hadbeen suggested. Their primary objectives would be
the discussion and clarification o.f ideas and the submission of constructive
suggestions t o the committee for use in the pamphlet. However the
branches did not materialise, and it is perhaps for that reason that the
pamphlet, although it continued to be discussed throughout 1942, never
appeared either24
Thus; neither of t h e major projects contemplated by the Society
reached fruition. However, individual members singly made numerous
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.
contributions which propagated the philosophy of the Society. This was

encouraged by the committee, which suggested to members in October
1944, how they could promote the Society's cause by individual action2 ~
They could, for example, encourage suitable persons to join the Society,
speak on the subject o,f freedom in science when it was relevant in
conversation and in discussions at various public and private meetings,
contribute letters on the subject to Nature and Science, and other suitable
journals and newspapers; they could also write articles or books on the
subject. When these suggestions were made it was not with the intention
of starting something new, but of extending a practice already in progress
from the formation of the Society, and in which the members of the
executive committee, especially B a k e r and Polanyi, were prominent26
But it was not always easy to have papers published; difficulty was
experienced in finding editors who wo~ld publish articles opposing what
had become the accepted view. 6~ However, there were successes; and
Baker kept the membership informed of these and other activities by
means of duplicated, typewritten notices.
One such notice of November 1943, explained that the subject of
freedom in soience had been clarified and kept before the public in
various ways2 s Polanyi had published in the Manchester Guardian on
7 November, 1942, a long letter describing and attacking the planning
movement, which had led to further correspondence in that newspaper.
His paper on the autonomy of science had been published29 He had also
taken the opportunity to dispute publicly with Sir Robert Watson-Watt,
the inventor of radar and a proponent of planning, during the latter's
recent visit to ManchesterY 9 Professor A. E. Trueman, a member of the
committee, had published a pamphlet entitled Science and the FutureY 1
A. D. Ritchie, professor of philosophy at the University of Manchester
and a member of the Society, had delivered the Herbert Spencer Lecture,
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
part of which was relevant to the cause of freedom in science, at Oxford.

Dr. Baker himself had addressed the Institute of Physics at the Royal
Institution, TM and the International Student Service at Oxford. TM He had
also contributed an article, on invitation, to Electronic Engineering, and
subsequently had d~sputed with Bernal in its columns. 74 In addition,
Baker had analysed in the Manchester Guardian a document produced
by the Association of Scientific Workers, which strongly supported the
planning movement; the ostensible intention of their document was that
all research workers should be forced t o communicate the subjects of
their research to a central body. F~nally, members were informed that
at least three books dealing with various aspects of freedom in science
were in preparation by members of the Society.
This was by no means a full description of activities. Michael Polanyi's
paper, " T h e Autonomy of Science ", which had been first presented
as a lecture in Manchester in February 1943, exposed the degradation
of Soviet genetics perpetrated by T. D. Lysenko. Polanyi used this experi-
ence as an illustration of the outcome of a genuine effort to organise science
directlY for the public good.
The State of Soviet Genetics as a Consequence o] the Planning oJ Science

Before the government had intervened, beginning about 1930, he
explained, genetics in the Soviet Union had existed as a free science
guided by the standards recogl~sed in other countries where science was
practised. However, in 1932 the All-Union Conference on the Planning
of Genetics and Selection decided that genetics and plant-breeding should
henceforth be conducted with a view to obtaining immediate practical
results and in keeping with the official doctrine of dialectical materialism.
Research was henceforth to be directed by the government. No sooner
had these blows against the authority of science been delivered, continued
Polanyi, than the inevitable consequences set in. Anyone claiming a
discovery in genetics or plant-breeding could henceforth appeal directly
over the heads of scientists to gullible agricultural practitioners or to
politically minded officials. "Specious observations and fallacious theories
advanced by dilettantes, cranks and imposters could now gain currency,
unchecked by scientific criticism." 72 This was illustrated by the case of
I. V: Michurin. He had claimed the discovery of new strains of plants
r2 Material from this lecture was subsequently published as parts of Chapter IV

(" Science under Totalitarianism ") and Chapter V (" The Duties of Scientists to Society ")
of Baker, J. R., op. cit,, 1945.
78 A n expanded version of this address became Chapter II (" The Values of Science "),
ibid.
7a Baker, J. R. " The Scientist and the Community ", Electronic Engineering, XV, 175
(September 1942), pp. 147-148; Bernal, J. D., " The True Meaning of Planned Science ",
ibid., 177 (November 1942), pp. 242-243; Baker, J. R., letter to the editor, ibid., 179
(January 1942), p. 348.
r5 Polanyi, M., " The Autonomy of Science ", loc. cir., p. 31.
produced by grafting, and thereby the achievement of revolutionary

improvements in agriculture and a striking confirmation of dialectical
materialism. The opinion of responsible scientists, however, was that
Michurin's observations were mere illusions, that they referred to a
spurious phenomenon, "vegetative hybridisation ", which had frequently
been described before. Nevertheless, his work fulfilled both of the
criteria which had replaced the standards of science--it appealed to the
practitioner and it conformed to the philosophy imposed by the govern-
ment. Hence it was given official recognition.
As Polanyi assessed the situation, the breach thus made in the
autonomy of science laid the fields of genetics and plant-breeding open
to further invasion by spurious claims. The leader of this invasion was
Lysenko, whose rise to power was briefly described. Against his influence
such scientists as N. I. Vavilov, the most eminent geneticist in the Soviet
Union and recently elected a foreign member of the Royal Society,
became ineffective in upholding true science. In a passage which is most
important for the understanding of Polanyi's efforts in the cause of
freedom in science, Polanyi used Vavilov's case to illustrate that even
eminent scientists can err. At the All-Union Planning Conference,
Vavilov, yielding at the time perhaps .to pressure, or believing it wise to meet
popular tendencies half way, little expecting in any case the far reaching
consequences to follow from his relinquishment of principles . . . had then
allowed himself to say: "The divorce of genetics from practical selection,
which characterizes the research work of the U.S.A., England and other
countries, must be resolutely remeved from genetics-selection research in the
U.S.S.R." r6
The lesson which Polanyi drew from that error, and which he would have
all scientists draw, was that the scientist must always protect the ideal of
scientific truth pursued and upheld for its own sake.
Soviet genetics illustrated the corruption of a science, and yet the
Soviet government had striven to advance science. The large subsidies to
Soviet science had been beneficial, argued Polanyi, only so long as they
had flowed into channels controlled by independent scientific opinion.
However, as soon as their allocation was accompanied by attempts at
establishing governmental direction, they exercised a violently destructive
influence, rr To Polanyi only one thing was necessary to remedy the
situation and was truly indispensable, namely, the restoration of the
independence of scientific opinion. ~8
Soviet genetics was also discussed in the same month by Baker in his
lecture at the Royal Institution,r~ and again in August 1944 in an address,
"Science, Culture, and Freedom ", given at a conference called by the
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
London Centre of the Internatio~ml Association o,f Poets, Playwri.gt~.ts,

Editors, Essayists, and Novelists--the PEN Club--to commemorate the
tercentenary of the publication of Milton's Areopagitica.S~ Baker's strong
anti-communist and anti-Soviet comments were criticised in the prolonged
discussion which ensued. The chief criticism was heard from J. B. S.
Haldane, pro,fess0r of biometrics at University College, Lo.ndon, and a
Marxist. 81 Parts of each o~ these lectures were incorpc~rated in Baker's
next book, Science and the Planned State, in 1945, in which the case of
Soviet genetics was again treated, this time in some detail.
The book was devoted to the totalitarian view of science. The Society
was in no way a political organisation; all shades of political opinion from
conservative tO socialist were to be found among ,its members. It was,
however, opposed to totalitarianism in the sphere of science whatever the
poli~tieal complexion ,of the government imposing it. s~ As in The Scientific
Life, Dr. Baker again stressed the role o,f chance in scientific discovery.
He observed that most of the four kinds of freedom which he considered
necessary to the scientist~freedom to become a scientist, freedom of
association, freedom of inquiry, and freedom of speech and publication--
had been lost in totalitarian co,untries; and he feared that the "ever-
growing" movement towards central planning in Great Britain threatened
them there. 8~ He was critical of Soviet scientific work in generai--it had
displayed " a n unduly high proportion of bad and suspect science " -
and he used the example of Soviet genetics to show what can befall
science when .the freedoms necessary for it to flourish are denied. Dr.
Baker's, as Polanyi's, chief source ,of information on the subject was the
report of the Soviet conference on genetics held under the auspices of
the journal Pod Znamenem Marxisma in 1939. This report had indeed
been reviewed in Nature as early as 1941.8~ But Dr. Baker and Polanyi
had now read it very critically. They alerted British readers to what was
to become noto~riously known as the Lysenko affair. Their careful use of
this report probably had much to do with the growth of the Society
during 1944M5. it provided w h a t scientist and l a y m a n alike found
compelling, namely, the convincing " experimental" confirmation of
"theoretical speculation -.85
80 See OUN, Herman (ed,), Freedom of Expression: A Symposium (London: Hutchinson

International Authors, 91944), pp, 118-122.
81 ,, SFS: Message from the Executive Committee to all Members of the Committee and
to Professor P. W. Bridgman and Dr. A. P i j p e r " (29 September, 1944), PP, Box 21, SFS
Folder;
82 ,, SFS: Notice to M e m b e r s " (January 1945); " SFS: Statement by the Executive
of th0 Provisional 9Committee " (late 1941 or early 1942), p. 2, PP, Box 21, SFS Folder;
Crowther, J. A., Tansley, A. G. and Baker, J, R., letter to the editor, Science, CI, 2620
(16 March, 1945), p. 273.
sa Baker, J. R., op. eit., 1945, p. 20.
8~ Nature, CXLVIII, 3764 (20 December, 1941), pp. 739-742.
8~ For example, in 1946 when Bernal was still claiming that the Soviet Union had
assisted and upheld freedom of investigation, Nature replied that when it thought of the
Soviet genetics " controversy " it felt rather doubtful: Nature, CLVIII, 4017 (26 October,
1946), p. 566.
Towards a General Theory oJ the Freedom o] Science

Within the m o v e m e n t such theoretical speculation was frequently the
work of Polanyi, w h o m Dr. Baker admired as the philos~>pher of the
Society, and who came to be regarded also by those outside the Society
as its chief spokesman. 8~ Polanyi's generation on the continent of Europe
had set out with immense hopes for the future. It had been determined
to m a k e " a clean sweep of all ancient stupidities, of all silly obstructions
to human happiness, and to reaxrange life in a thoroughly rational and
scientific fashion ". It subscribed to the scientific view of man: " T h a t
m a n was fundamentally an animal; that m a n ' s ideals were m e r e passing
shadows while his appetites were firm, tangible and eternal forces." s7
Polanyi, however, had become convinced that this scientifically minded
generation, which would suffer no obstruction in advancing what appeared
to it to be the necessary progress of mankind, had struck the first blow
against freedom and tolerance in society. 88 It was Polanyi's view that
science did not imply a materialist view of m a n and society; and indeed
that, in contradiction to the view of m a n y of his contemporaries, it
taught faith in ideals:
Every discovery of science has its starting-point in a guess which is yet much
more than a guess, and represents an act of faith. In fact the scientific method
as a whole must be taken on faith by the scientist before he can even make
a start in science. To become a scientist he must unquestionably accept the
main ,body of scientific tradition and fully adhere to .the ideals transmitted by
that tradition. In this light the triumphs of science confirm rather than impair
the roots o~ our Christian ,civilization. They testify to the power o,f traditional
ideals on which our civilizntion rests. The new scientific outlook which I see
approaching will clearly recognize that science is only one form of truth which
is of the same substance as all the other fol-ms of truth. It will recognize that
we cannot believe in science without becoming involved in the whole range
of human ideals of which tlae ideal of science is only the youngest sister. In
this light science may help in reconquering our faith in traditional ideMs, s9
Polanyi's views were developed in numerous articles some of which
had begun as critical revie~rs o~ boo,ks: but wl/ich l~ad ,become original
essays. His review of Bernal's book was one o,f these .essays, as was his
review of J. G. Crowther's The Social Relations o[ Science. Polanyi was
asked in M a y , 1941, to review the book for Economica, a publication of
the L o n d o n School of Economics: Professor F. A. Hayek, who was at
t h a t time the editor, wrote to Potanyi: " I t clearly needs rather careful
analysis. A glance at his chapter on F r e e d o m and Science will imme,
diately show you how big the problems are which he raises." 90 By July
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
91 Hayek, F. A., letter to M. Polanyi, 1 July, 1941, PP, Box 22.

92 Crowther, J. G., The Social Relations oJ Science (London: Macmillan, 1941).
References here are to the second revised edition (Chester Springs, Penn.: Dufour, 1967),
p. 170.
9s Ibid., pp. 247-248.
94 Ibid., pp. 387-388.
95 Ibid., p. 382.
ea Polanyi, M., " The Growth of Thought in Society ", Economica, VIII, 32 (November
1941), p. 437.
generation .to generation a public intellectual heritage accessible to all

and open .to innovation; each new contributor made contact, of a more
or less consultative or competitive character, with the elements which
others had established in the same field before. When the new con-
tributors proposed their own additions or reforms, they returned to the
public and claimed publicly that these be accepted by society--to become
in their turn a part of the common heritage. 97 The maintenance and
growth of an autonomous dynamic order in society entailed, he argued,
a freedom which was not for the sake of the individual but for the benefit
of the community. To Polanyi it was impossible to transfer the task of
ordering achieved by a dynamic system to any planning authority.
Nothing but chaos would result from such an attempt. 9s
Each dynamic order within society was governed by a fundamental
idea which often could not be expressed precisely, but which came into
play every time the standards of the day were challenged. Scientific truth
was .the ideal underlying the practice of science. Its guardianship, Polanyi
maintained, was the most important function of scientists. The proponents
of totalitarianism attacked scientists' standards and ideals when they
charged .that *hose who pursued the ideal off scientific truth were neglecting
their duty to society for the sake of insubstantial values of purely formal
significance.~
It was mainly through such individual efforts--in books, articles,
speeches, and letters to the press--rather than .through the collective
efforts of the Society, that ,its views were disseminated. The Society grew
both in numbers and income as ~the war neared its end. It now had the
means to publish its views. The series of Occasional Pamphlets, distributed
to and through the members, was the first step. Several hundred copies
of each pamphlet were printed. The initial pamphlet was written on the
invitation of the executive committee by the historian of science, F.
Sherwood Taylor, curator of the Museum of the History of Science at
Oxford. He was asked to examine a recent publication of the Association
of Scientific Workers in which it was argued that science was a by-product
of industrial production and hence was susceptible to planning, z~176 The
pamphlet, Is the Progress of Science Controlled by the Material Wants
of Man?, which rejected this position, was ,issued in April 1945, together
with one of the increasingly frequent notices to members. Members were
asked to give the pamphlet wide publicity. " I t w o a d ,be desirable to put
a copy in every laboratory and scientific library to which our members
have access." 101 Two further pamphlets were issued during 1945, one
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
a reprir~t o f Polanyi's article written in 1939, Rights and Duties o/

Science, which Baker described as " t h e first comprehensive answer to
our opponents' propaganda, a n d . . , one of the foundation stones of our
movement";1~ the other, Free Science, ,by Warren Weaver, director
of the division of natural sciences at the Rockefeller Foundation, which
the Society considered to be one of the best short statements of the case
for freedom in science. Another pamphlet by Polanyi issued early in
1946, The Planning of Science, was put forward by the executive com-
mittee as the best statement of the Society's view. l~ By early 1946, the
Society had issued a half-dozen official publications in its own name,
including the circulars of 1941 and 1944 on the objectives Of the Society.
In August 1946, it began to issue a bulletin, usually of one or few pages,
in place of the earlier notices. The Society had now grown to such a size
that it was found to be cheaper to have circulars printed rather than
stencilled. T M
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
O] the Society for Freedom in Science, a g a i n inviting h i m to j o i n the

Society. B o r n r e p l i e d :
You are quite right to assume that I agree with many of your aims, in
particular the importance of " p u r e s c i e n c e " o r how I should prefer to say,
of the philosophical foundations of science and their consequence for the
development of human thought in general. However, I a~n still reluctant to
join your society. I cannot see an urgent neoessity for its existence. You quote
my name, in cortjunction with that of A. V. Hill, *~ in ~our Circular as being
the only opponents [at the conference ha 1941 in London on Science mad
World Order sponsored by the British Association for the Advancement of
Science, division for the social and international relations of science] to the
prevailing trend of considering science from its practical side alo~ae. I cannot
agree with that statement. The Meeting in London was convened for the
purpose of discussing the social fun.ctions of science; I said only, that this
aspect and that of " p u r e science " are ,hardly in opposition, but compl.ernentary,
somewhat in the m a n n e r of the particle and wave aspects in quantum
mechanics. U n d e r the present social and political conditions I am in fact
convinced that the utilitarian aspect of science ,has to be stressed, and I am
also convinced that this involves political measures of a decisive character.
But I a m not in the least afraid .that a reasonable n~tion like the British will
strangle freedoua of research if they co~sider it necessary to restrict freedom
of industrial exploitation. These are two very distinct freedoms, and to mix
them up seems t o me to endanger that freedom which we love, the freedom
of thought and research . . . . I also cannot quite agree with the 5 points of
your circular; points 1 and 5 are a l r i g h t ~ b u t take e.g. point 3: Why should
those whose funds are allocated not .have some right to some kind of control
or, at least, advice? It would be our task to convince them that what we are
doing is worthwhile. I think I can do more good by keeping outside of your
society and ,use m y little influence amongst your " enemies " just as well as
with your friends. *~
P o l a n y i a l s o sent a c o p y of his r e v i e w ,of C r o w t h e r ' s b o o k to Sir R i c h a r d
G r e g o r y , a f o r m e r e d i t o r of Nature a n d at t h a t t i m e p r e s i d e n t of t h e
British A s s o c i a t i o n f o r t h e A d v a n c e m e n t of Science a n d c h a i r m a n of
its division f o r t h e social a n d internati~onal r e l a t i o n s o f science. G r e g o r y
h a d also b e e n i n v i t e d t o j o i n the S o c i e t y in 1941, b u t h e h a d declined.
T h e division of .the British A s s o c i a t i o n w h i c h G r e g o r y led h a d been
f o r m e d in 1938, a n d t h r o u g h o u t t h e w a r t h e c o n f e r e n c e s w h i c h it
s p o n s o r e d w e r e t h e c h i e f activities o f t h e A s s o c i a t i o n . I t was r e g a r d e d
b y t h e S o c i e t y as a m a j o r p l a t f o r m o f the " p l a n n e r s ". B a k e r was
p a r t i c u l a r l y c r i t i c a l of its c o n f e r e n c e on science a n d w o r l d order. H e
h a d a t t e n d e d t h e c o n f e r e n c e t h r o u g h o u t its .three days a n d h a d h e a r d
o n l y A. V. H i l l a n d B o r n a d v a n c e i d e a s w h i c h w o u l d h a v e b e e n u p h e l d
b y t h e Society, n o m e m b e r o f w h i c h h a d b e e n i n v i t e d to p a r t i c i p a t e in
t h e c o n f e r e n c e . 1.~ T h e l e a d e r s of t h e S o c i e t y h a d s h o w n no s y m p a t h y
,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).
conditions which would limit it would be tolerated." 113 Consequently, he

and others did not share the fears of the Society about what might befall
British science after the war. The planners a n d t h e leadership of the
Society occupied opposite ends of a spectrum. Between them lay the
majority of British scientists, many of whom were initially, i n the late
1930s and early 1940s, moved away from traditional views by the argu-
ments of the "planners "; but who within a few years were fully
conscious, as was Born, of the importance of freedom in science regard-
less of the arrangements which prevailed in the economic sphere.
In August 1941, Tansley enumerated the most common negative
reactions to the Society's circular sent out earlier that year. There was
doubt or disbelief that there was any real danger in Great Britain of
restrictions on scientific freedom. Consequently, the Society was regarded
as being unnecessary. There was also a suspicion, according to Tansley,
that there was an underlying dislike of all and any planning of scientific
activity on the part of the founders of the Society, while it was clear to
many of those invited to join the Society that extensive planning of such
activity in the ~,tttre would be both good and inevi~ble. Finally, there
was a desire on .the part of some eminent men of science, "including
officials of the Royal Society ", to cooperate as far as possible with those
who avowedly believed in central planning as a general method of
organisation of society, including some who were avowed communists.
One or another, or a combination of, these three types of reaction had
led the majority of the more eminent scientists approached, including
the president and two secretaries of the Royal Society--Sir Henry Dale,
and A. V. Hill and A. C. G. Egerton, respectively--as well as Sir Richard
Gregory to refuse adherence to the Society.T M
In his presidential address to the Royal Society later that same year,
Dale touched on the questions of planning and freedom. He had attended
the conference on science and world order held under the auspices of the
British Association and had noted much support for the planning of
science in the postwar world " f o r its proper purposes of enriching life
and enlarging the opportunities of happiness for all men alike ". However,
he h a d n o t e d that Hill had sounded a warning of dangers which might
be entailed by such fullness of association between science and govern-
ment as was being advocated with conviction and enthusiasm. Dale had
found himself in agreement with .the view that freedom and opportunity
rather than organisation provide the conditions for the highest types of
research, and thus, in the end, for the greatest services which science
can give to mankind. That was also the view o,f the Society. At the same
time, he also referred to the remarkable development within Britain
since 1914 of governmentally supported research administered b y the
113 Nature, CXLIX, 3775 (7 March, 1942), p. 261.

11~ Tansley, A. G., 1941 Address, ]3PP.
66 William McGucken
Department of Scientific and Industrial Research and the Agricultural

and Medical Research Councils; this had occurred without any obvious
infringement of the freedom of science. He pointed too to the large
amount of free research supported by the state through grants to univer-
sities, administered without any trace of detailed governmental control.
Dale concluded that there was no reason to fear a threat to the freedom
of science from the existir~g m~laanisms for the support o~ science by
the state, or from any likely development on these lines. ~x5
Critics of the Society

Nature too was unimpressed by the arguments of the Society. In 1941
a "careful, saber declaration" of the views of the Society submitted to
it for publication was "flatly rejected". ~" Nature had previously
criticised some of the ideas which Polanyi had expressed in "Rights and
Duties of Science "; air it said that his plea for the re-establishment of
man's right to pursue truth regardless of practical value, would have been
more acceptable had he recognised the lop-sidedness of contemporary
scientific development, n8 The reorientation of scientific effort for which
so many scientists were calling, argued Nature, involved no threat to
fundamental research, which it was desired to promote {n hitherto
neglected fields. ~9 Later, in commenting an an address on " T h e Social
Message of Science ", given by Polanyi at the University of Leeds in
January 1941, it described Polanyi as "obsessed with the independence
of science ". His rejection of all ideas of the central planning of science
and other human activities, it continued, could not offer any constructive
alternative to " t h e anarchy into which the failure to plan or co-ordinate
scientific advance has led u s " ~0
Nevertheless, Nature did not unqualifiedly support the planning of
science. In discussing " t h e vexed question of pure as opposed to applied
science" it attacked those who would have discontinued those branches
o.f science which were not directly and immediately fnfifful. But at the same
time it also criticised the Society without mentioning it by name: "there
are those who deliberately hold themselves aloof from any effect their
science may have on human society; they are, to say the least of it,
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
121 Ibid., CXLVIII, 3756 (25 October, 1941), p. 497.

125 Ibid., CXLIX, 3774 (28 February, 1942), p. 228.
153 Ibid., CL, 3802 (12 September, 1942), p. 302. Poianyi repeatedly defended the
distinction; see for example, his " Rights and Duties of Science ", loe eit., October 1939;
" Science--Its Reality and Freedom ", loc. eit., February 1944; and " The Planning of
Science ", The Political Quarterly, XVI, 4 (1945), pp. 316-328.
154 Nature, CL, 3802 (12 September, 1942), p. 302.
155 Ibid., p. 305.
12n Polanyi, M., " Ought Science to be Planned? The Case for Individualism " t y p e s c r i p t
of article published in The Listener, XL, 1025 (16 September, 1948), pp. 412-413, PP, Box 1,
Folder " 1948 ".
127 The N e w Statesman and Nation, XXIV, 599 (15 August, 1942), p. 114.
68 William McGucken
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
The Turning of the Tide

In a retrospect written in 1949, Dr. Baker said that during its early
years the Society had suffered "misrepresentation, ridicule, and active
hostility ,,.~3z He was right. However, already by late 1942 Dr. Baker
had discerned encouraging signs of a change in attitude towards freedom
in science. In a notice to members he confidently explained that:
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
128 As quoted in Electronic Engineering, XV, 175 (September 1942), p. 139.

lz9 Bernal, J. D., " The True Meaning of Planned Science ", ibid., 177 (November 1942),
242-3; p. 242.
~3o Ibid., p. 243.
i z l SFS Bulletin, No. 6 (December 1949), p. 2; No. 15 (December 1965), p. 1.
132 " SFS: Notice to Members " (October 1942), PP, Box 21, SFS Folder.
13~ Nature, CLII, 3849 (7 August, 1943), p. 143.
On Freedom and Plannh~g hi Science 69
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
war; such a requirement for the application of science could only be

met continuously if applied science was backed by a corresponding
expansion of fundamental research "since the disinterested research of
to-day becomes the practical application of to-morrow. Therefore, the
fullest provision must be made for the natural development of
fundamental science-.140
Another exponent of the wrong view, in the eyes of the Society, was
the division for the social and international relations of science in the
British Association. Its first conference after the war, held in December
1945, focused on the subjects of the planning of research and the
relationships between pure science and the needs of society. On this
occasion the three leading figures of the Society, Dr. Baker, Polanyi and
Tansley, were invited to speak and they readily accepted. Their views
were generally enthusiastically received. In Polanyi's o,wn words: " M y
address renewed my criticism of planning and upheld the traditional
independence of scientific inquiry. I had expected a hostile reaction, but
to my surprise, speakers and audience showed themselves in favour of
science pursued freely for its own sake." 141 In an address entitled " T h e
Social Message of Pure Science ", Polanyi observed that it was no longer
generally accepted, as it had been until the 1930s, that science should be
cultivated for its own sake, regardless of the advantages to the welfare of
society. He argued that the most vital tasks of scientists were to
rehabilitate their discredited scientific ideals, to reaffirm that the root
of science is the love of knowledge, and to declare that the utility of
knowledge is not their primary concern. Scientists, he said, " a r e pledged
to a higher obligation, to values more precious than material welfare;
to a service far more urgent than that of material welfare ,,.1~2
Dr. Baker had anticipated the conference with curiosity and impatience.
Half expecting a repetition of the divMonal conference of 1941, he
found instead that " nothing less than a revolution in thought" had
occurred. 14a Herbert Morrison, Lord President of the Council and as
such the minister in the Labour government responsible for scientific
research, referred with pride to the British achievement in pure science,
and he promised that the government would encourage scientists " t o
pursue knowledge for its own sake ". Scientists, he said, must have an
independent life of their own. T M
In its account of the conference, Nature noted that one of its most
striking features was the rapprochement between the more vigorous
protagonists of planning and the defenders of the freedom of science.
Polanyi's " f i n e " address at the opening session had "struck a note which
1-:~0 Association of Scientific Workers, Science in the Universities (London: Association

of Scientific Workers, March 1944), p. 16.
141 Polanyi, M., op. cit., 1964, p. 7.
143 The Advancement of Science, III, 12 (1946), 288-290; p. 289.
14s Time and Tide, XXVI, 50 (15 December, 1945), Ja. 1052.
144 The Advancement of Science, III, 12 (1946), pp. 296-299.
was generally welcomed, and the fundamental importance of freedom

of investigation and of communication was emphasized from all
quarters . . .-.145 Nature also said there was no dissent from the view
that any ordering of the relative importance of various problems in
fundamental research should be done by scientists themselves. The con-
ference had stressed that the proper policy in regard to fundamental
research was to see that it was adequately supported and that it should
be allowed to develop along the lines which the search for new knowledge
alone directs, leaving the investigator the widest possible freed.om in
selecting his subject. T M Nature itself accepted these views. The wintcr
of 1945-46 was a season of triumph for the Society.
During 1946, Dr. Baker and Tansley published in Nature, on its
invitation, an article on the history and purpose of ,the Society. 14~ In
justifying the invitation, the journal stated that "While not necessarily
agreeing entirely with all the points of view put forward on behalf of
the Society, it seems desirable that its aims should be set forth before
the world of science, for there is undoubtedly sound raison d'etre for the
Society at the present time, and its main objectives are worth striving
for-748 In even stronger language it added that the principles of the
Society as stated in its five propositions were of "cardinal importance
and worthy of full support-749 It admitted that it had not always seen
eye to eye with the Society in the pas~, but it declared that now the aims
and objectives of both were " s o similar ,,?~0
A remarkable change in attitude had occurred within the British
scientific community. The strong emphasis of the preceding years on the
central planning of science in the interests of the community was now
modified to a desire to use science, and a desire, no less strong, to protect
the freedom of science. The Society's numerous efforts must have aided
the process; but other causes of the change were to be found in Britain's
experience in the war? 51 There was a general realisation of the in-
debtedness of the country's victory to its science and scientists. A science,
freely developed before the war, had been successfully exploited by
scientists, and not by bureaucrats, during the war. This had led to victory
over a scientific power of the first rank which had, however, forced many
of its best scientists into exile before the war, and had regimented those
remaining during the war. Within the British government Herbert
Morrison noted that this regimentation had proved "suicidal" in
a45 Nature, CLVII, 3975 (5 January, 1946), pp. 1-3.

146 Ibid.
14~ Baker, J. R. and Tansley, A. G., " The Course of the Controversy on Freedom in
Science ", Nature, CLVIII, 4017 (26 October, 1946), pp. 574-6.
148 Ibid., CLVIII, 4017 (26 October, 1946), p. 565.
149 Ibid., p. 566.
15o Ibid.
1~1 Neal Wood, however, regards the Society for Freedom in Science as the principal
cause. See C o m m u n i s m and British Intellectuals, p. 134.
72 William McGucken
Germany? 5~ This circumstance had ,been realised before t h e war in

Europe was over, and ,before the atomic bomb was exploded. To flourish,
science required freedom; and scientists rather than bureaucrats knew
best how to make the fullest use of science. The catastrophic develop-
ments in the Soviet Union in the fields of genetics and plant breeding--
publicised, it is true, by the Society for Freedom in Science--taught the
same lessons. Also, as Endeavour observed, the word " p l a n n i n g " had
acquired a suspiciously dictatorial ring in the ears of free men. ~53
While the Society did not alone create the new attitude, it had
adumbrated it most effectively.
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.

McGucken, W. - 1978 - On Freedom and Planning in Science

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

McGucken, W. - 1978 - On Freedom and Planning in Science

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

On Freedom and Planning in Science:

The Society for Freedom in Science,

The Social Function of Science

Bernal, with many of his contemporaries, resented " t h e inefficiency,

naturally generated proposals for vast improvements in the cultivation

Reaction to Bernal: The Formation of the Society

o n e had to agree in general with four propositions based upon Dr.

9 .~ Baker, $. R., circular letter to 49 scientists, November 1940, BPP.

it explained, was the defence of scientific freedom--as that freedom is

2s Tansley, A. G., 1941 Address, BPP.

While it thus recognised the necessity of some measure of direction

The Choice o] Tactics

aging individual members to publish articles. An attempt, apparently

"above." A drea~y uniformity descends. Each person is a cog in a vast

contributions which propagated the philosophy of the Society. This was

part of which was relevant to the cause of freedom in science, at Oxford.

The State of Soviet Genetics as a Consequence o] the Planning oJ Science

r2 Material from this lecture was subsequently published as parts of Chapter IV

produced by grafting, and thereby the achievement of revolutionary

London Centre of the Internatio~ml Association o,f Poets, Playwri.gt~.ts,

80 See OUN, Herman (ed,), Freedom of Expression: A Symposium (London: Hutchinson

Towards a General Theory oJ the Freedom o] Science

91 Hayek, F. A., letter to M. Polanyi, 1 July, 1941, PP, Box 22.

generation .to generation a public intellectual heritage accessible to all

a reprir~t o f Polanyi's article written in 1939, Rights and Duties o/

O] the Society for Freedom in Science, a g a i n inviting h i m to j o i n the

conditions which would limit it would be tolerated." 113 Consequently, he

113 Nature, CXLIX, 3775 (7 March, 1942), p. 261.

Department of Scientific and Industrial Research and the Agricultural

Critics of the Society

121 Ibid., CXLVIII, 3756 (25 October, 1941), p. 497.

The Turning of the Tide

128 As quoted in Electronic Engineering, XV, 175 (September 1942), p. 139.

war; such a requirement for the application of science could only be

1-:~0 Association of Scientific Workers, Science in the Universities (London: Association

was generally welcomed, and the fundamental importance of freedom

a45 Nature, CLVII, 3975 (5 January, 1946), pp. 1-3.

Germany? 5~ This circumstance had ,been realised before t h e war in

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi