Abstract
THE interesting criticism by Dr. R. V. Stanford in NATURE of September 2 tempted me to write. Your leading article of September 16 makes me yield to the temptation. There are two lines on which comment may run: broad and narrow gauge. Taking the broad or general view first, we have to appreciate the fact that the changed attitude of the public to the Association is part of a widespread change in social life. Science is more taught in our schools, elementary scholars and others are introduced to it in our museums, and yet the number of keen naturalists in our local societies is decreasing, and the help of amateurs is a diminishing quantity. The opportunity of the war period and the subsequent economic pressure have driven all but a few to earn their living. Those really interested in science become professional workers therein; the others pass into their own special professions. Consequently, a body like the British Association has to rely more on professed workers in science and less on the amateurs and “camp followers,” whose attendance the Times actually deprecates. But of the scientific workers many have had their fill at the end of a year's work, not to mention the society and committee meetings that accompany it. All they want is a holiday, and one as remote as possible from their daily avocation and surroundings.
Similar content being viewed by others
Article PDF
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
BATHER, F. The British Association. Nature 106, 112 (1920). https://doi.org/10.1038/106112a0
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/106112a0
Comments
By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.