Sir Ernest Rutherford

Sun (Auckland), Volume II, Issue 543, 21 December 1928, Page 7 (Supplement)

Sir Ernest Rutherford

(By

H. J. KAVANAGH

fpHE measure of a man’s distinction must necessarily be examined in relation to the exactions of his particular field of activity. Beyond that limit, of course, it loses all significance, comparatively. At the same time we are not unfamiliar with the pathetic sort of futility which would determine the decrees of greatness attaching, say, to Shakespeare and Galileo. By the very explicit nature of the field of Science, however, we are permitted to be more arbitrary in assessing greatness therein than in the domain of abstract thought. In the arts, an eminence, however lofty, is intrinsically a concession. It has Its foundation in prejudice, and inasmuch as the artist’s guarantee of fame is dependent upon the comeliness with which he has invested his individual —and hence contentiousideas, the great artist is therefore in continuous exposure to the iconoclastic tendency in man. There would ever appear to be a tacit acknowledg-

ment of the Insecurity of-an artistic status in the fervour with which artists of accepted greatness have been defended from irresponsible criticism based on purely irrelevant grounds. A calumniatory pen employed on the personal characteristics of a great scientist could surely excite only derision. From the fact that Newton has remained immune from attack, we may deduce that no one has so far worked out an acceptable alternative to the Law of Gravitation. And one wonders, likewise, to what extent Bacteriology would be perturbed by disclosures of an unsuspected amorousness in Pasteur. ... But the point that a scientist Is vulnerable only on a consideration of his achievement Is scarcely in need of emphasis. Now, too, with the ideal of the League of Nations within measurable distance of realisation, the preponderance of figures of a wholly partisan renown within our Halls of Fame would surely embarrass a choleric Indian colonel. There is no necessity, though, to inquire too closely into the expediency out of which have arisen the bulk of historical figures since we are fast approaching a stage when in perspective we may appraise their value, direct or indirect, in maintaining or raising social standards. Their vindication on grounds of righteousness has, in the past, provided a fertile soil for the seeds of jingoism. Without coming closer to platitude, then, it may be said that, to the historian of the future who would reduce to a minimum the provocativeness of a nation’s story, the task will be rendered the easier in proportion to the amount of scientific achievement there is to his hand. So having conceded it as a favourable portent for the future that all nations are keenly sensible to this “stocktaking” incidental to the revision of history, New Zealand turns to a consideration of the circumstance which enables her to view the process without any feeling of inadequacy. It may be defined, in short, as a consciousness of the unequivocal distinction of her most distinguished son. The New Zealander who measures up most generously in the new, and higher, standard of values Is Sir Ernest Rutherford. As there can be no more potent instrument in furthering the human ideal than an example of disinterestedness, the world may see in the fraternity of scientific investigators an anticipation of that toward which it is labouring. And where the force of example is operating for ultimate good the extent of the appreciation may be national even when the real value of a man's work is apparent only through formulae and the higher mathematics. Thus it is that, when the average New Zealander would voice an appreciation of Sir Ernest Rutherford, he is confronted with the nonspectacular nature of the great physicist’s work For this, of course, we may assume that Sir Ernest, with the preoccupation of the first-rate scientific man, is duly grateful. The “Man in the Street” is content, perhaps eager, to admit the Science of Physics to his philosophy as something instituted in an orchard by Sir Isaac Newton; it is rare that anything emerges from that quarter calculated to raise the eyebrows. From other fields of scientific research he is continually being dazzled with new wonders—in medicine, in bio-

chemistry, in anatomy. It Is probably the investigation into the properties of radium alone that has attracted the attention of laymen to the Cinderella of the Sciences. Only a fractional part, it is feared, of the totality of research work into material forces from Newton up to the present would, if it could be submitted to the common judgment, elicit more than an apathetic "What happens then?”

We must be content to follow at a respectful distance. For the most of as, what little we know of Sir Ernest’s work is the product of a desultory reading—gleanings from the periodicals and popular “Guides to Science.” But it may be that the problem of rendering assimilable by the mass the more significant scientific features of his work may overtax even the resources of the tabloid method which contrives to keep the Great British Public comfortably abreast of its scientific workers and, not Infrequently, a little In advance of them. What we do. understand, however, what indeed must be apparent to the most casual, is that a New Zealander has attained a rank among physicists equal probably to that of Crookes and Thompson. And we realise that such a standing remains eternally elusive of the opportunist; that It is the achievement of true genius sustained by an unflagging industry.