Science and Planning

Abstract

IN a memorandum "Science and the Real Freedoms" issued by the Association of Scientific Workers (price 3d.), Sir Robert Watson-Watt gives a very fair appraisal, under the title "Freedoms of Science", of the issue between planning and freedom, successfully avoiding the political prejudices with which the discussion is apt to become entangled. Sir Robert's article is based on a speech delivered in Manchester last October. He insists first on the necessity for clearly defining our terms. Science he regards as organized knowledge; but he considers that those constructive pursuits requiring for their prosecution, expansion and usefulness the application of a like process of thought are also properly covered by the term 'scientific'. The pure and applied sciences are in fact planned sciences. There is no human activity which is not a planned activity, and Sir Robert urged that we should consider whether organization in hope is not a nobler and more fruitful aspect of human endeavour than the organization of and through fear which has inspired our planning for war and even extended to the medical sciences. Asserting that the freedom to learn, to choose, to think, to work and to speak are the fundamental freedoms of the individual and the pillars of any tolerable society, Sir Robert urged that the real question is whether planning—which is inevitable—is to be open and public, or sectional, secret or selfish. He visualizes a structure in which the user who wants a definite result asks the research worker, the developer and the producer how best, by what particular kind of planning, he can attain his result; the research worker, the developer and the producer co-operate with the user, indicating to him the full possibilities. The greatest danger is over-simplification; but the planning of science in the application to national life is possible with no substantial risk to the freedom of fundamental science.