254 THE ANALYST. REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE OF THE NATIONAL PHYSICAL LABORATORY. THE members constituting this Committee were the Right Hon. G. Balfour (Chair- man) ; Sir Acdrew Noble, Bart., K.C.B., F.R.S. ; Sir J. Wolfe Barry, K.C.B., F.R. S. ; Mr. W. J. Crossley, M.P. ; and Mr. R. Chalmers, C.B. ; and a comprehensive abstract of their Report has already appeared in the April number of the ANALYST. Our readers will doubtless remember that the Committee appointed by the Treasury t o consider the desirability of establishing a National Physical Laboratory reported in 1898 that in their opinion ‘( a public institution should be founded for standard- ishg and verifying instruments, for testing materials, and for the determination of physical constants.” The Report was a tolerably long one, and dealt in some detail with the nature of the work with which it was thought that the new Laboratory might rightfully and usefully deal. I n order that there might be no misunderstand- ing as to the meaning which the Committee attached to the words “testing of materials,” the point was discussed at some length in the body of the Report.In paragraph 9 it is stated that “There is much evidence that further facilities are needed by the public for the standardising and verifying of instruments both for scientific and commercial use ; and also that it would be of great benefit to trade if means were provided for the public testing of the quality of certain classes of materials.” The paragraph then gives espression to the following important opinion : “ I t would neither be necessary nor desirable to compete with or interfere with the testing of materials of various kinds as now carried out in private or other labora- tories, but there are many special and important tests and investigations into the Btrength and behaviour of materials which might be conducted with great advantage st a Laboratory such as is contemplated in the reference.” After giving instances of several kinds of investigations which might most usefully be conducted at a National Physical Laboratory, the Report continues : We could give other instances of the same nature, and have merely referred to the above subjects as examples of such matters as would, in our opinion, be proper for investigation at a public institution, as distinguished froin the ordinary testing of materials used in commerce or in construction and machinery, which can be, and is, now efficiently conducted at private establishments.” From this it is abundantly clear that the Treasury Committee foresaw the possibility of competition springing up between the new National Laboratory and private institutions, and desired to place on record a clear statement of their opinion as to the proper functions of the former for the guidance of the future Director and.Executive Committee. It may perhaps be pointed out in passing, that of the five members of the recent Treasury Committee no fewer than three (Sir Andrew Noble, Sir J. Wolfe Barry, and Mr. R. Chalmers) were members of the original Committee, and sub- scribed to the above views as to the restriction of competition.The Laboratory was opened in 1902, and in 1903 a case came t o light which showed that the staff of the Laboratory were not averse to undertaking ordinary testing work in corn-THE ANALYST. 255 petition with private chemical practitioners. Into the details of the case, which was concerned with the chemical examination of a sample of cod-liver oil taken under the Sale of Food and Drugs Acts, it is not necessary to go. I t is sufficient to say that the certificate given by the Nationd Physical Laboratory brought that institu- tion into collision with Dr. Thorpe, and was instrumental in raising the question as to whether the Laboratory authorities had not exceeded their proper functions in undertaking such work. Other evidence of a similar character was forthcoming, and it was felt that, unless some steps were promptly taken, the existenceof the National Physical Laboratory would prove a serious menace to the interests of independent professional men.Protests were therefore addressed to the Chairman of the Executive Committee by the Society of Public Analysts, the Institute of Chemistry, and the Society of Chemical Industry. A good deal of correspondence ensued, and ultimately the matter was referred to His Majesty’s Treasury, who in 1906 appointed the Com- mittee referred to at the commencement of this article. This Committee was requested to inquire generally into the work now performed at the National Physical Laboratory, with special reference to- 1. The character of the mechanical, physical, and chemical tests undertaken 2.The possibility of these interfering unduly with the business of other 3. The desirability of publishing the results of such testing work, and to (1) Whether, having regard to the industrial interests of the country generally and to those of private agencies, any change is desirable in the scope of the work of the Laboratory; and (2) On what lines any further developments of its business should proceed. The above brief outline of the circumstances attending the foundation of the National Physical Laboratory, and of the events which led up to the appointment of the recent Treasury Committee, has been given in order that those of our readers who are not intimately acquainted with the details of the matter may be in a better position to appreciate t,he true character of the Committee’s Report.A considerable amount of evidence was given by witnesses representing the interests of professional analysts and others. From the point of view of analysts and testing engineers, the point of chief importance was whether the National Physical Laboratory had shown a tendency to ignore the principle clearly embodied in paragraph 9 of the Report of the original Committee, in reference to the undesirability of interfering in the testing of materials such as is now being carried out in private or other laboratories. This matter is, of course, dealt with somewhat fully in the Report under review, but in a manner which can scarcely be considered satisfactory to the professional men, who rightly considered that their interests had been threatened, The Committee arrive at the conclusion that the language in the original Report was so ambiguous as to render profitless any inquiry a~ to its there.agencies. report-256 THE ANALYST, correct interpretation, and they therefore consider it better to attempt to re-define the policy which they think should guide the National Physical Laboratory in the future. I t is pointed out, in extenuation, that the number of cases in which routine or commercial tests of materials have been undertaken has been in the past exceed- ingly small, but analysts can scarcely be blamed if they have considered it better to attack a practice at its birth than to wait until it had assumed serious proportions. That their fears were not without foundation is shown by the statement of the Committee that, if the Laboratory has hitherto done little in the way of ordinary testing of materials, this is due not mainly to a recognition of the restrictions referred to in the Report of the original Committee, but rather to want of adequate equipment and to the situation of the Laboratory itself.I n addition to this, there is Lord Rayleigh’s significant admission that the Treasury had urged upon the Laboratory authorities the necessity of increasing their income as far as possible by means of fees, and that this had induced them to undertake work which they might otherwise have refused, and which presumably did not properly come within the sphere of their activities. The Committee, while expressing the opinion that the fears of professional analysts and other practitioners are exaggerated, is neverthe- less compelled to admit that these fears had some reasonable foundation, and, while suggesting that the testing of materials should continue to be carried out by the Laboratory under proper restrictions, it yet states that a more precise formulation of the testing work proper to be undertaken is desirable, in order that public and private interests may as far as possible be harmonised.The Committee in their Report differentiate ‘‘ commercial testing ” into two branches-viz., ‘( contractual testing ” and ‘( investigatory testing.” The first of these ernbraces all cases of ordinary testing of materials for the purpose of ascertaining whether their quality and behaviour are in accordance with the contracts.The second branch comprises systematic investigation of various substances for commercial pur- poses where no question of contract arises-for example, the examination of copper for conductivity, of insulating materials such as gutta-percha, balata, or india-rubber, the systematic experimental work necessary to ascertain the value of various specimens of concrete, stone, or mortar required for harbour-building, and other examinations of this character. So far as ‘‘ investigatory testing ” is concerned, the Committee is of opinion that the Laboratory should have an absolutely free hand, but it recommends that, as a general rule, ‘‘ contractual testing” should not be undertaken. Not only is this recommendation-qualified by the words ‘‘ as a general rule,” but it is subject to certain exceptions, one of these being that, in the case of “any electrical, thermal, optical, and other physical tests, which cannot be carried out adequately, if at all, in any existing private establishment,” the Laboratory should not be debarred from undertaking the work merely on the ground that the tests are intended to ascertain whether certain materials comply with the requirements of a contract. There is, however, no mention in the Report of the person who is to decide the important point as to whether the special work referred to can or cannot be adequately carried out in a private establishment.This is only one example ofTHE ANALYST. 257 a want of definiteness in the Committee’s Report which may possibly conduce to unfortunate misunderstandings in the future between the Executive of the National Physical Laboratory on the one hand, and analysts and testing engineers on the other.I t will be obvious that no sharp line can be drawn between ‘‘ contractual ” and “investigatory” testing; and, to use the words of the Report, “ i t is not a question of the kind of testing applied to any particular substance or material, but of the nature and objects of the investigation to be undertaken, which differentiate ‘ contractual ’ and ‘ investigatory ’ testing.” I t is clear therefore that, as the National Physical Laboratory is to have a free hand in respect of the latter, divergences of opinion between the Executive Committee and analysts in private practice are not unlikely to occur in the future.I t is noteworthy that two members of the Committee-Sir Andrew Noble and Sir J. Wolfe Barry-go even farther than their colleagues, and, in a note appended to the Report, suggest that the debarring clause relating to ‘‘ contractual ” testing shall only hold for a period of ten years, leaving the Laboratory absolutely free after that time to undertake any kind of work that may present itself. Special reference is made in the Report to the question of fees, and the Committee express the opinion that, as an additional safeguard against injurious competition with private enterprise, the fees charged by the Laboratory should be at least as high as those ordinarily charged by independent practitioners. While it is satisfactory to note that the National Physical Laboratory have no desire to undercut in the matter of fees, the presence of this paragraph in the Report clearly indicates the possibility of future competition; and it must not be lost sight of that, even if the fees charged by the National Physical Laboratory were appreciably higher than those normally current, many manufacturers and others would prefer a report emanating from a public institution to one given by a private individual, and, as one of the professional witnesses put it, would be willing to pay more for the cachet. To sum up, the Report is one that can only be regarded with feelings of dissatisfaction and disappointment by the analytical profession, since, as has been indicated above, it suggests no adequate means for the safeguarding of private interests, the interpretation to be placed upon the somewhat vague expressions employed being apparently left to the Executive Committee itself.Quite apart from the impropriety of State-aided institutions entering into direct competition with individuals, it seem a pity that any of the energies of the Laboratory sliould I)e expended in the direction of routine testing (much of which, it should be said, can be far better done in existing private laboratories) when so nisny problems of national importance await solution-problems with which a, National Laboratory alone can deal in an efficient and satisfactory manner. A. C. C. P. A. E. R.