FINAL PAPERS

Otago Daily Times, Issue 26470, 26 May 1947, Page 6

FINAL PAPERS

THE SCIENCE CONGRESS VALUE OF MATHEMATICS Special to the Daily Times WELLINGTON, May 23. This morning the final papers in most sections of the Science Congress were read. While the mathematicians discussed such topics as “ Mathematics in Research in New Zealand, and “Curve Fitting by Least Squares, the physicists were occupied with radar. The botanists spent the morning on Algae, while the social scientists discussed films and the cinema. Opening with a discussion on ‘‘The Coordination of Geological Work in New Zealand,” the geologists devoted their attention to earthquakes. Discussing mathematics m research, Dr J T. Campbell, lecturer in mathematics at Victoria University College, complained of the ignorance of, and even scorn for, mathematics shown by workers in other sciences. It was, he said, a pity that the medical worker despised the chemist and biologist, who, in turn, looked down upon mathematics—the queen of the sciences. Proceedings in Committee The main event this afternoon was a discussion introduced by Dr J. C. Andrews, an Auckland industrial chemist, Professor P. W. Burbidge, physics professor at Auckland University College, and Dr E. Marsden, secretary of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, on “The CoOrdination of Scientific Research m New ealand.” In order to “prevent any garbled account of the proceedings appearing in the press,” the chairman of the meeting arbitrarily ruled the proceedings should be taken in committee. The final paper was entitled “ The Scientists’ Failure—the ‘ Iron Curtain 9 between Scientists and the Community in New Zealand.” Doubtless newspaper editors’ ears burned at the abuse levelled at the press during the lecture and the subsequent discussion. It was felt that scientific matters and particularly the work of New Zealand scientists, did not receive sufficient prominence in the press. In many ways the congress was disappointing. Quantity seemed all important; quality was often ignored. Horticulture and Speech Therapy are not sciences, and should not have been included in the programme. Many papers, even by men considered leaders in their respective fields, were illDrepared, poorly presented, and dealt with trivialities. Rejection by scientific journals should not qualify a paper for presentation to a congress. Confused Organisation Sometimes, too, organisation could have been better. With some subjects, two meetings were held simultaneously, and were followed by gaps in the programme, with nothing on at all. There was also a degree of confusion over what was being held where and when. There were, however, many good points. Three types of paper were presented:—Reports of new work (including reviews of work done over a number of years); descriptions of new methods; and discussion of present difficulties and future progress of research projects. Excellent examples of the first type were the four papers in the pure chemistry section, yesterday afternoon. A fine review of new methods was Mr I. D. Dick’s paper on the use of statistical methods m chemistry. Strictly speaking, the method described was not new. It was first used in a brewery 45 years ago, but New Zealand chemists were, however, apparently largely ignorant of the potentialities of statistical method. The third class was well represented by the. discussions on the Canterbury Meteorological Research Scheme and the future of New Zealand geology, and by Dr Campbells “blitz” on mathematical ignorance. The individual scientist attending the congress benefited in many ways. He became familiar with local current research in his own and allied fields, learnt of new methods he might use, and was able to talk over problems with his fellow-workers.