SCIENTISTS AND CHEMICAL WARFARE

Dominion, Volume 14, Issue 108, 31 January 1921, Page 7

SCIENTISTS AND CHEMICAL WARFARE

The refusal of the distinguished English scientist, Professor Soddy, to cooperate with the British War Office in undertaking chemical warfare research has attracted considerable attention. Few will question the sincerity of his/motives (says the “New York Evening Post”). On the face of it the justification of applied science is its power to increase the possibilities of life and to confer upon the community the benefits of progress, in tho one field where even the most sceptical must admit that, mankind hag moved forward. That the advantages of scientific progress are frequently eexploited for destructive purposes has been pointed out by pessimists, aud Professor Poddy’s revolt lias been heralded as a sign of regeneration. The National Union of Scientific Workers has appointed a committee to co , ns if er I/ 1 '? question of how far science is justified In withholding its co-operation in the work of destruction. , It is hard to see how Professor Soddy s position can hold. Science is not exempt from tho obligation resting upon .ill other branches of creative labour to produce what is needful for the actual present requirements of the human racm It has no right to define what ouglit to be the needs of mankind and then to < eclino io consider its real needs. At lim present staize of human development munitions of war are demanded because men still lielieve in war as the Ann arbiter. The producers of swords and shells nod cannon cannot refuse to OJ • tinguirti between practical and ideals. Take Nobel, whose fortune was mode out of nn essential of war thev mnv work for the furtherance of an -idcnl' contrary to the toirnose for which their products ar? mtendesl. 11 scientist who is onno-sed to the useof nnison pas wnv strive^to rin? . 1 the chance which will cause its elmiin. ■• fion. Rut in so far as ho . posse... o knowledge which can ho of assistance 1 a community that needs poison, css. in a world not vet converted io pacifism. ■ is his duty to co-operate. A surgeon will not lie nnnlanded for refus.ne to P p ™\™ an operation on a rrttient Ivyause 1 nunroves of the latter’s opinions or elievos that tho life so saved, will be misspent. Scientists cannot avoid the pejaltv of livinc. in this world as it m. however certain they may be of what H should be. \