There is no doubt that at the end of the war the reputation of the Royal Society was high and its involvement with national policy greater than ever before; but these very facts faced it with a dilemma. What should be its future role? Three possible courses seemed open to it. First, it could have dropped all contact with government and reverted to being an isolated scientific elite with little or no influence on affairs - a pattern adopted by the national academies of the Latin countries and Japan. Secondly, it could have gone to the other extreme and become closely integrated as an organ of government with its officers holding political appointments; this is, of course, the pattern found in the Soviet Union, Eastern Europe and China. The third possibility was to adopt an intermediate stance in which the Society would retain its independence of government and avoid political involvement while maintaining informal contacts and being available to offer objective scientific advice as appropriate. It was entirely in keeping with Dale's passionate belief in the freedom and universality of science (a view reinforced by what had happened in Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union) that he chose the third of these possible modes of action; that choice was too, much closer to the tradition of the Society than any of the others. The resulting pattern has also been in varying degree adopted in Commonwealth countries, South Africa and Scandinavia. The National Academy of the United States although not integrated with government has much closer links with it than the Royal Society and carries out quite large-scale investigations or studies on its behalf.
Before it finally dissolved, the Scientific Advisory Committee to the War Cabinet instigated the setting up of the so-called Barlow Committee to advise inter alia on the best way in which scientific advice could be made available to government at Cabinet level in time of peace. The Committee proposed that two bodies should be set up, an Advisory Council on Scientific Policy (A.C.S.P.) to deal with the whole field of civil science and technology and a Defence Policy Research Committee (D.P.R.C.) which for obvious reasons had to be a separate body. Under this scheme, which was in fact adopted, the link between these two bodies was provided by a common chairman, Sir Henry Tizard. As originally constituted in 1948 A.C.S.P. consisted of seven independent scientists and technologists from the academic and industrial worlds (one an Officer - not the President - of the Royal Society) together with an equal number of officials (secretaries of the Research Councils, chairman of the University Grants Committee and three others representing the Treasury, atomic energy and government science). When Sir Henry Tizard retired in 1952 I, who had been with Solly (now Lord) Zuckerman an original member of A.C.S.P., became its Chairman on a part-time basis with no personal commitment to the D.P.R.C. which had a separate chairman. (This position I held continuously until the dissolution of A.C.S.P. in 1964.) This seemed a very satisfactory arrangement at the time, giving as it did to the Royal Society a direct contact with the main civil science advisory body in government reporting to the Lord President of the Council who in those days was the Minister responsible 'for the formulation of government scientific policy' and indeed was given the added title of Minister for Science a few years later. The stage then seemed set for an effective system of advice to government in which the Society could play a role but which still ensured its essential independence and freedom of action.
Unfortunately the Society did not take full advantage of the situation. From 1950 under three successive Presidents the Society gradually lost influence and drifted away from matters of public policy; it became rather introspective and the Presidents were mainly concerned with such problems as accommodation, celebration of the Society's tercentenary and the like. This had unfortunate results in the early 1960s when a number of important - and in my view retrograde - steps were taken which radically altered the relationships between government, science and perhaps more especially the Royal Society. At that time there was much unease about the way in which Britain seemed to lag behind some other nations in technological innovation and there was a feeling that we were not making full use of the talent available in our rising generations because of inadequacies in our educational system. The Robbins Report recommending a huge (and to my mind ill-considered) expansion of higher education was accepted, in toto and almost without discussion, by both Government and Opposition in Parliament and the responsibility for science, the Research Councils and the University Grants Committee transferred to the new Secretary of State for Education and Science. The advent of a Labour Government in 1964 with its wild talk of a 'white hot technological revolution' completed the story. A.C.S.P. was abolished, technology was separated from science in a new ministry and a new Council for Scientific Policy was set up under the Department of Education and Science. Apart from recommending the pattern of division of available resources between the various Research Councils, this body had really very little function coexisting as it did with a Ministry of Technology with its own advisory council, and with the newly created post of Chief Scientific Adviser in the Cabinet Office. In these changes the Society took regrettably little part and its independence was in some measure affected by the political commitment of Lord Blackett to the Labour Government during his Presidency. Before my own election in 1975 several further changes occurred. The Council for Scientific Policy was dissolved and replaced by the more restricted but more more useful Advisory Board for the Research Councils, and following the resignation of Sir Alan Cottrell the office of Chief Scientific Adviser was abolished. Finally, changes - some of them not yet wholly absorbed - in the operations and interrelations of Research Councils and executive departments concerned with science, technology and medicine have occurred following the introduction of the so-called 'customer- contractor principle' adumbrated in the Rothschild Report of 1971.
When I assumed office I was unhappy about the fragmented state of science-government relations and the position of the Royal Society in that connection. The fact that the retirement of Lord Rothschild and the abolition of the Chief Scientific Adviser's post had left the Central Policy Review Staff without any scientific expertise at its disposal within government was a source of concern to its Chairman as it was to me, and in due course a scientific member was appointed to the C.P.R.S., much to its benefit. This appointment, although useful and indeed necessary, did not in my view provide more than an amelioration of our problems, most of which remained. I can, of course, give only a personal view of these problems and on possible ways of resolving the vexed questions of relations between science and government although I believe that view is substantially shared by my fellow Officers. To begin with, I hold that government needs a high-level independent scientific adviser who should be Chairman of an advisory council similar to the original Advisory Council on Scientific Policy. He could be whole-time or part-time but he should be independent of any department and should report direct to the Cabinet. Whether he should report direct to the Prime Minister is doubtful - Prime Ministers are likely to be so tied down by the day to day exigencies of government that it would probably be wiser to make science, technology and scientific policy the responsibility of a senior and influential Minister without Portfolio as it was in the days of the A.C.S.P. In the absence of an advisory body such as this which could call on the resources not just of departments but of the Royal Society and the Fellowship of Engineering, government will continue to depend on internal advisers from executive departments whose views must necessarily be in some measure partisan. What I here propose would entail the removal of responsibility for science and the Research Councils from the Department of Education and Science; I believe such a change would be in the best interest of science which must inevitably play second fiddle to education under present arrangements. It would moreover make easier and more effective the revision of our dual support system for research in universities which is sorely in need of reform.