As it sees fit! Here is a weighty responsibility. We are bound by no hampering definition of what we shall understand by the term “science,” we are not unduly shackled by outside control. During the years, the necessary machinery has been set up for the conduct of our affairs; we have to see to it that the machinery is kept in full running order, the parts fully co-ordinated, and new parts fitted where and when necessary. But there is more than machinery; we must be imbued with the will to serve the community within the province assigned to us. The British Association for the Advancement of Science has of late been much concerned whether it was really fulfilling one of its avowed aims, “to obtain a greater degree of national attention to the objects of science.” Are we confident that our own house is in full and proper order in this respect?

The Editor of Nature, in 1943, grandly said: “Science is one of the spheres of human activity which knows nothing of boundaries and frontiers, of races and creeds. It appeals neither to tradition nor sentiment, it has no folk-lore or legends. Its study is free to all, it speaks in one language, it has but one object, but it is the handmaid of all art, all industry, and all human progress.” A noble ideal, this, to which all scientists must work, and a timely reminder, when nation was still at nation's throat, when developments in science were still being jealously kept secret, lest they reached enemy hands to our discomfort. Let us recall the words of Pasteur, “Science has no nationality because knowledge is the patrimony of humanity, the torch which gives light to the world.” The time is almost at hand when mankind may, if it will, break down the barriers, restore the patrimony, and make the torch brightly to shine. Science must again serve humanity, not the clique.

We are all, as individuals, eagerly looking forward to the time when we may re-knit the broken threads, and once again communicate directly with workers the world over engaged in researches kindred to our own, so that by inter-communication of our results, our difficulties, our ideas, our methods, we may obtain the fullest co-operation, and the best advancement of our science. But combined effort is very necessary.

Our Society would do great service by acting in a fuller measure as a co-ordinating body, ensuring the best possible collaboration between different organisations and groups of workers, and the most profitable utilisation of information. Perhaps an approach to this end could be made by a Select Committee of the Society functioning as a liaison service, exploring all avenues whereby we could move towards the ideal of full collaboration of scientific workers, no matter what their nation or creed.

The Society might consider seriously the possibility of helping this approach by electing Corresponding Members willing to accept, not only the honour of such a designation, but also the duty of acting as information officers for their particular science and their particular country. We in our turn should be prepared to shoulder similar duties.

It will be advantageous, too, I feel, to review our system of exchange of publications, modifying it to meet the needs of coming years. Again, it would help the approach if means could be devised whereby prompter and more adequate representations of the results of our workers could be secured in the various abstracting journals; while it should be possible to secure a more comprehensive and more fully organised abstracting service for our own country.

Could we not also follow the lead of the Homeland and set up a means, say by the Standing Committee assuming this as one of its definite functions, whereby visiting scientists may spend their time in our country most profitably to our people and to themselves?

We have a splendid list of Honorary Members—men of mark in their particular subjects, men often of broad vision. Could we not endeavour to secure from them more frequently papers for our Transactions illuminating the advances made in their sciences?

However desirable it is to secure this international unification of scientific effort, so that science may truly serve humanity as a whole, there is a worthy sense in which science should be national, though not parochial. While freely offering our results for the good of all, we should endeavour to further to the utmost the aspects that more especially apply to the welfare and progress of our own country, and the researches for which our own country offers the best resources. There is need for co-ordination and unification here also.

Alexander Fersman has recently given us a vivid account of “Science in the U.S.S.R.”, from which we may learn much. He says, “During the past 25 years the most considerable achievements have been attained, and the widest prospects have been opened up, on the boundaries lying between two or more of the older branches of science. Wherever the methods and ideas of one science are introduced into another there have been created, in the boundaries between the two, new scientific tendencies armed simultaneously with the methods of both.” In New Zealand some tentative efforts have been made in this direction, witness the as yet faltering efforts of our plant ecologists and our pedologists to find a common ground of endeavour. But the opportunities are vast, and our Society might well “see fit” to take a lead in seeing that opportunities are grasped.

Fersman also tells us: “All the success of contemporary natural science and its wide recognition in our country are explicable by the practical achievements which natural science has introduced into practical life, and succeeded in developing into actual results in industry and the national economy.” Scientists in this country have already made significant advances on these lines, but again there is opportunity for our Society to play a full part in securing that the benefits of scientific findings are properly utilised in our national economy. For, again to quote Fersman, “The development of Soviet science is inseparable from that of industry and from cultural growth. For this reason science—the corner stone of planned development of national economy—has achieved in our country that

extensive recognition and that profound interest which has penetrated to the masses of the people and moved them deeply.”

Our people have been stirred by the drama of penicillin, but they are still far from a reasoned recognition and appreciation of what their scientists have accomplished, and given opportunity, could accomplish. The quiet daily work, the solid foundation work—the value of these needs to be appreciated as well as the occasional spectacular feats. Should we not ask ourselves as a Society how far we can bring about the position that Fersman claims the U.S.S.R. has reached, so that the aims and achievements of science that so vitally affect them should become part of the common cultural background of all our citizens?

The Society has followed the wise policy, indicated so long ago by Sir George Bowen, of leaving “its affiliated societies unfettered in the performance of their separate functions.” The branches submit from time to time proposals to the Council and the Standing Committee, but, I feel, there is need for closer touch to be kept than at present, both with the Standing Committee and between the branches themselves. Unfortunately, it is not often possible for members of the Council not resident in Wellington to attend meetings of the Standing Committee and give news of the doings of the Branches. Would it not be worth while for the Branches to send, say bi-monthly, word of their activities to our Secretary, for the information of the Standing Committee, and for forwarding on to the other Branches? Would this not help us to realise that we are one body corporate, with one aim? Also the Society as a whole, and more especially the branches, might be able to hold meetings from time to time in country centres, as has been done so successfully in the past by the Canterbury Branch, so that a wider public might be informed directly of the progress of science. A branch to be fully functioning must remain a part of the living tree, and the tree must nourish the branches.

Might the Society not, as an integral part of its operations, inaugurate a series of annual memorial lectures in each centre? Such lectures would not only keep fresh the memory of the giants of the past, but provide occasion for general reviews of developments in science in terms that could be appreciated by laymen. It has been suggested to me that when our Memorial Medals are presented the recipient might be invited to deliver an address concerning work in his own field.

Fersman claims that, “In 25 years of the Soviet power the number of readers in scientific libraries multiplied some seven times, the number of scientific research centres multiplied 15 times, that of scientific workers 20 times, and the number of scientific specialists in the Academy of Sciences of the U.S.S.R. 40 times,” and that science has penetrated into the remotest parts of the country.

New Zealand is a small country, governed on other lines, with a different historical and cultural background, but until the value