Abstract
THE motive underlying the Chancellor's circular letter is excellent, indicating, as it does, a sense of governmental responsibility for the safeguarding of the interests of the investing public. The method suggested is plausibly sound; but several aspects require to be considered. It is understood that if a request were made for advice to any of the three organisations mentioned, they would first consult with the particular learned institution whose field of activity was involved. Nevertheless, such a practice is calculated to occasion uneasiness to practising consultants in the fields of science and technology. The safeguard suggested by the Chancellor would not confer on an investor who had lost money the right to prosecute either of the Depart-ments concerned; and altogether it is rather a heavy responsibility to be shouldered by any Government department if it is to be effective. Consultants have suffered from the depression of recent years, and it would not be in the public interest if regulations were to be made limiting the prospects of the consulting field in science and technology. Just recently the question of scientific and technical advice has been exercising those connected with the mining industry in South Africa; and a suggestion has been made that the Companies Acts should be so amended as to make it illegal for a mining company to be formed unless its board. includes a scientific expert or technician of independent status. Provided that the experts so appointed are actually independent, there is a good deal to be said for such a suggestion; but it would probably prove necessary to make such experts personally and financially responsible for their advice.
Article PDF
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Safeguarding Interests of Investors. Nature 136, 861 (1935). https://doi.org/10.1038/136861b0
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/136861b0