PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
|||||
Reference :-
C.O.885
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO
18 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
content themselves for the most part in giving merely the titles of their papers, the two workers of the London School have given detailed, and often repeated, accounts of theirs, and have even republished in the Report several entire papers. Had the same thing been done with the work of our School and of the Royal Society, it follows that the Report would then have been extended from a total of 56 pages to one of many hundreds of pages, accompanied by a large number of plates, that is to say, the report would then have brought out all the matter which is contained in our various publications, and also in those of the Royal Society. Naturally, there- fore, the Report as it stands does not give a perfectly accurate impression regarding the respective magnitude of the researches of the several institutions to which the Further, we observe that in the Advisory Committee has distributed its funds. preface written by the Chairman and Secretary of the Advisory Committee, special importance is attached to the work of Mr. R. L. Leiper of the London School based on the researches of Fedschenko conducted 35 years ago (not in association with Sir Patrick Manson, as might be inferred from page 5 of the Report). Mr. Leiper's work is undoubtedly good, but the exceptional notice of it given by the Advisory Committee would appear to be chiefly due to the detailed nature of his report of it. It is, of course, quite clearly understood that the Advisory Committee has merely published our reports just as they were sent in by us to them. But when we were asked for these, we did not apprehend that so much detail was required of us, or we should certainly have taken care to forward all our entire papers, just as Messrs. Leiper and Wenyon, of the London School have done; with the result that, if our papers had been published as those of Messrs. Leiper and Wenyon have been, the Report of the Advisory Committee would have been swelled to many times its present size. I may add that the nature of much of our work is such that it cannot be easily abridged, or, indeed, published at all, except in extenso, and with numerous and costly illustrations.
I think, therefore, that these facts might be brought to the notice of the Advisory Committee, which might also be asked to pass a ruling as to the extent of detail in which work carried out or assisted by their fund is in future to be described in their Annual Report. Under present arrangements hardship is likely to be inflicted on those institutions whose work by its very magnitude cannot easily be described in detail in the Report. It has, indeed, come to my notice that the public has already drawn unfavourable comparisons between the various institutions from the Report and from the prefatory remarks of the Advisory Committee, with the probable result that the subscriptions to this School may be diminished.
The Advisory Committee might also be asked whether it is necessary to give details regarding teaching, as now shown on pages 28 and 29 of the Report.
To the Secretary of
5018
Yours, &c.,
RONALD ROSS, Professor of Tropical Medicine.
The Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine,
Liverpool,
DEAR MR. MILNE,
No. 9.
MR. C. P. LUCAS to MR. A. H. MILNE. [Answered by No. 10.]
Downing Street, February 18, 1907. YOUR letter of the 8th of February,* enclosing a copy of a letter addressed to the Committee of the Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine by Professor Ross will, if desired, be laid before the Advisory Committee for the Tropical Diseases Research Fund at the next meeting. But in the ordinary course that meeting will not be for some little time, and meanwhile I think it may be of advantage that as a member of the Committee, and at the same time a warm friend of the Liverpool Tropical School, I should write to you, not for publication, but for communication in a friendly manner if thought desirable to your Committee, my own views on the subject.
• No. 8.
2. Professor Ross, in his letter, which you state your Committee wish to publish, if the Advisory Board have no objection, takes exception to the greater space given in the report to the work done by the London Tropical School than to that done by the Liverpool School and by the Royal Society, and he asks for a ruling as to the extent of detail in which work carried out or assisted by the Tropical Diseases Fund is, in future, to be described in the Annual Reports. I question whether, in writing the letter, and making the request or claim, the circumstances of the case and the interpretation which may be given to the request have been fully appreciated. I wish, therefore, to put the matter in the light in which it appears to me.
3. The first report of the Liverpool School for 1906* was received in June, 1906. The Advisory Committee thought that, as compared with the London School's Report for the same period, it did not give sufficient details of the work done, and they asked, in a letter of the 2nd of July,† for those details. They also asked one of their members, Sir Ralph Moor, who had offered to do so, to confer with the Authorities of the School on the subject with a view to their giving a report on the same lines as the reports given by the London School which Sir Ralph Moor had seen. An amended report was subsequently sent by the Liverpool School, and acquiesced in by the Committee, and so was the second reports for the year. I do not think therefore, that the responsibility for the character of the Liverpool Reports rests on the Advisory Committee. Precisely the same request for reports was made to both Schools, and when it appeared that that of the London School was more suited for the purposes of the Committee's Report than that of the Liverpool School, the opportunity was given to the latter School to revise its report. What we required and require is such a clear account of scientific research which has been definitely aided from the resources of the Tropical Diseases Research Fund as will be intelli- gible to the ordinary reader, and will convince the contributories to the fund that their money is being well expended.
4. What appendices to the reports will be printed in extenso the Advisory Committee must decide, but I mention the following points:-
(a) It is obviously impossible, and beyond the scope of this annual report, to reprint such a long list of publications as the Liverpool School, to their credit, have issued, but copies of those publications have been sent to the contributing Colonies in a circular despatch from the Secretary of State.
(b) Dr. Leiper's and Dr. Wenyon's Reports were printed as they stand for two reasons: first, because those on the Committee who were able to judge considered that in quantity and quality they were the class of report that we wanted to publish as evidence of the use to which our money is being put; secondly, and principally, because the writers are specifically and wholly paid for from the Research Fund. These two appointments are endowed exclusively from this source, and it is right that the results of the grant should be set out in extenso when the reports sent in are of this clear and practical kind. If the £500 given to Liverpool is applied to one or more specific appointments which are paid wholly and exclusively from this source, and if the holders of the appointments give similar accounts of their year's work, they would, in the ordinary course, be similarly treated. On the other hand, the Committee were glad to receive and print a brief account of the general work of the School in order to remind the public of the excellent work done by it, and the multifarious nature of its activities. No such report of the general work of the London School was printed.
I may note in passing, for what it is worth, that, as it is stated in the report that the London School receives £1,000 as against £500 given to the Liverpool School, it would be natural that the space allotted to the work of the former School should be precisely what it happens to be in the present report, viz., twice as large as that assigned to the latter School.
5. But the real point is this. Professor Ross practically claims that the Committee is to lay down how many pages are to be assigned to one School or Society as against another in each Annual Report of the Advisory Committee. His letter implies that the London School, the Liverpool School, and the Royal Society are rival and competing agencies, which the Advisory Committee, and, "I am sure, the Secretary of State also, are not the least likely to admit, and it is a claim that an agency which receives a grant from this Fund is, as a matter of right, to be assigned
• See No. 89 in Miscellaneous No. 173.
No. 95 in Miscellaneous No 173
See No. 102 in Miscellaneous No. 173. § See Appendix IV. No. [Cd. 3306], January 1907.