Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T14:02:27.722Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

“All for Each and Each for All”: Reflections on Anglo-American and Commonwealth Scientific Cooperation, 1940–1945

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 July 2014

Roy MacLeod
Get access

Extract

Twice this century, the wartime mobilization of civilian academic science has been rightly recognized as one of the most remarkable achievements of Britain, the Commonwealth, and the United States. If the first world war demonstrated the Empire's “strength in unity,” the second placed far greater demands on Allied and imperial resources in research, development, and supply. Where the first war witnessed a limited application of scientific advice, on request, and in response to limited problems, the second saw scientists and engineers develop an enormous range of technologies, frequently ahead of military requirements. In the course of the scientific war, new principles of liaison emerged, replacing peacetime practices of professional and institutional coordination. Imperial relations fostered by peacetime bureaux devoted to natural products and industrial research were overtaken by new, larger, and more powerful ministries devoted to supply and production. In certain respects, the demands of science began to drive imperial policy, weaving a fabric of relationships that survived to influence Commonwealth and international science diplomacy well after the war had ended.

At an official level, these were among the most apparent outcomes of imperial science at war. The principal technical results of Allied collaboration—in radar, jet engines, the atomic bomb, for example—are well known. However, beneath myriad homerics of technical and organizational triumphs resides an equally important legacy of imperial rhetoric, symbol, and metaphor, in which the discourses of imperial science and commonwealth became re-examined and revalorized. The respective roles of the “metropolis” and the “periphery”—the geometries of Empire—were redefined by decisions that governed the supply of raw materials, the sharing of sensitive information, and the development of weapons.

Type
Research Article
Information
Albion , Volume 26 , Issue 1 , Spring 1994 , pp. 79 - 112
Copyright
Copyright © North American Conference on British Studies 1994

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

* This essay arises from a paper delivered to a comparative session on Cooperation and Competition: Allied Scientific and Technical Relations, 1935–45, at the European meeting of the Society for the History of Technology, held at Uppsala in August 1992. For their comments, I am indebted to members of the panel at which it was presented, and to the anonymous referees of Albion. For information on British and Australian scientific liaison, I am indebted to Dr. Alexander King, Mr. D. G. Thomas, the late Dr. Guy Gresford, Dr. Alan Pierce, Sir Frederick White, Dr. George H. Munro, Mr. Michael Moran (former Archivist of CSIRO), and the staff of the Public Record Office (Kew). Research of which this forms a part was supported by a grant from the Australian War Memorial.

1 For the First World War, see Hartcup, Guy, The War of Invention (London, 1988)Google Scholar; Kevles, Daniel, The Physicists (New York, 1978)Google Scholar; MacLeod, Roy and MacLeod, Kay, “The Social Relations of Science and Technology, 1914-1939,” in Cipolla, Carlo, ed., The Fontana Economic History of Europe: Vol. 5: The Twentieth Century, Part I (London, 1976), pp. 301–35Google Scholar; “Scientists, Government and Organized Research in Great Britain, 1914-16,” Minerva 8 (1970): 454–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar; MacLeod, Roy and Andrews, E. Kay, “Scientific Advice and the War at Sea, 1915-1917: The Board of Invention and Research,” Journal of Contemporary History 6, 2 (1971): 3–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and “The Origins of the DSIR: Reflections on Ideas and Men, 1915-1916,” Public Administration 48 (1970): 23–48Google Scholar; “‘Full of Honour and Gain to Science’: Munitions Production, Technical Intelligence and the Wartime Career of Sir Douglas Mawson, FRS,” Historical Records of Australian Science 7, 2 (1988): 189–203Google Scholar; “The ‘Arsenal’ in the Strand: Australian Chemists and the British Munitions Effort, 1916–19,” Annals of Science 46, 1 (1989): 45–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Pattison, Michael, “Scientists, Inventors and the Military in Britain, 1915-19: The Munitions Inventions Department,” Social Studies of Science 13 (1983): 521–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

2 For Britain, see Sir Keith Hancock, et al., the Official Histories of the Second World War; for Australia: Mellor, D. P., The Role of Science and Industry: Australia in the War of 1939–45, Series 4 (Civil), vol. 5 (Canberra, 1958)Google Scholar; for Canada: Zimmerman, David, The Great Naval Battle of Ottawa. How Admirals, Scientists and Politicians impeded the Development of High Technology in Canada's Wartime Navy (Toronto, 1989)Google Scholar, and Phillipson, D. J. C., International Scientific Liaison and the National Research Council of Canada, 1916–1974 (Ottawa, 1985)Google Scholar; for New Zealand: Cairns, D., Scientific Institutions in New Zealand, 1949 (Christchurch, 1949)Google Scholar, and Callaghan, F. R., ed., Science in New Zealand (Wellington, 1957)Google Scholar; for India, see Krishna, V. V., S.S. Bhatnagar on Science, Technology and Development, 1938–1954 (New Delhi, 1993)Google Scholar.

3 This essay draws its inspiration from the recollections of Alexander King, with which at several points it takes issue. See King, Alexander, “Commonwealth Scientific Cooperation during World War II,” Science and Public Policy 14, 3 (June 1987): 152CrossRefGoogle Scholar. A preprint of this essay was kindly made available by Dr. Michaela Smith of the Commonwealth Science Council. At the PRO, the records of the British Commonwealth Scientific Office are held in AVIA 38 and AVIA 42.

4 The received view that Tizard heralded the beginning of Anglo-American technical cooperation is recited by Clark, Ronald W., Tizard (London, 1965)Google Scholar, Allison, David K., New Eyes for the Navy: The Origin of Radar and the Naval Research Laboratory (Washington, DC, 1981)Google Scholar, and Guerlac, Henry, Radar in World War II (New York, 1987)Google Scholar. This view has been modified by David Zimmerman, who correctly dates the history of this phase of Anglo-American cooperation from January 1938, if not earlier (“Churchill, Roosevelt and the Origins of Second World War Anglo-American Military-Technical Cooperation,” paper delivered to the Society for the History of Technology, Uppsala, July 1992). Anglo-American technical cooperation also featured significantly during the 1914-18 war. If Tizard's mission was not the beginning, perhaps we may call it the end of the beginning.

5 The mission was officially affiliated to the British Supply Mission in Washington, directed by Arthur Purvis, a Canadian businessmen of British birth. Tizard's group included, at different times, Col. F. C. Wallace, Capt. H. W. Faulkner, RN, Group Captain Pearce, RAF, Professor R. H. Fowler, Dr. John Cockcroft, and Mr. Wood Nutt (Secretary). In Washington it was joined by Dean C. J. Mackenzie (Canadian NRC), Air Vice Marshal Steadman (Canada), Col. H. F. G. Lettsom (Canadian military attaché in Washington) and Professor A. O. Shenstone, then at the NRC. After Washington, members of the mission toured American laboratories, sending twenty reports a month to London. For its history, see Clark, Tizard; Bowen, E. G., Radar Days (Bristol, 1987)Google Scholar; and Cockcroft, J. D., “Memories of Radar Research,” IEE Proceedings, 132, Pt. A, 6 (1985): 327-39, esp. 329–30Google Scholar; Phillipson, , Scientific Liasion, 23Google Scholar.

6 SirKatz, Bernard, “Archibald Vivian Hill (1886–1977),” Biographical Memoirs of Fellows of the Royal Society 24 (1978): 109, 117–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Tizard's committee was formally the Committee for the Scientific Study of Air Defence, and its successor was the Committee for the Scientific Survey of Air Warfare. As the United States was not yet at war, Hill, a Nobel prizewinner, was described by the British Embassy as a “supernumerary air attaché.”

7 Quoted in Katz, , “Archibald Vivian Hill,” p. 117Google ScholarPubMed.

8 Quoted in ibid., p. 139.

9 Hall, H. Duncan and Wrigley, C. C., Studies of Overseas Supply (London, 1956), p. 360Google Scholar.

10 See Zimmerman, “Churchill, Roosevelt and Military-Technical Cooperation,” and Phillipson, Scientific Liasion.

11 “One heard of his being here, there and everywhere” (Milne, E. A., “Ralph Howard Fowler, 1889–1944,” Biographical Memoirs of Fellows of the Royal Society 5 [1945]: 61–78 at 74)Google Scholar. Like Hill, who had worked in anti-Aircraft defense, Fowler was a veteran of the scientific war in 1914-18. He was knighted in 1942, but his efforts shortened his life; he died in 1944, at the age of only fifty-five.

12 Pursell, Carroll, “Science Agencies in World War II: The OSRD and its Challengers,” in Reingold, Nathan, ed., The Sciences in the American Context: New Perspectives (Washington, DC, 1979), 359–61Google Scholar.

13 Hall, and Wrigley, , Overseas Supply, p. 373Google Scholar.

14 AVIA 38/916. Cockcroft to Tizard, “Memo on the Future of Work arising out of the British Technical Mission,” 25 November 1940.

15 AVIA 38/917. Bush to Rt. Hon. A. B. Purvis, British Supply Council, 29 January 1941.

16 Hall, and Wrigley, , Overseas Supply, p. 378Google Scholar.

17 AB 2/602 Appleton to Thomson, 24 November 1941.

18 Ibid.

19 The classic accounts of the OSRD are Baxter, James Phinney, Scientists Against Time (Boston, 1946)Google Scholar, and Stewart, Irvin, Organising Scientific Research for War: The Administrative History of the Office of Scientific Research and Development (Boston, 1948)Google Scholar. The files of the OSRD are in the National Archives, Washington, DC, Record Group 227.

20 In 1940, King was recruited part-time to the Ministry of Supply to take charge of liaison with Allied scientists. In 1942, he became deputy to the Science Adviser to the Ministry of Production, with direct access to the War Cabinet. After the war, King became head of the Lord President's Scientific Secretariat (1947–50) and Chief Scientific Officer of DSIR (1950–56). In 1956, he became Deputy Director of the European Productivity Agency, where he helped establish the OECD, at which he became Director-General for Scientific Affairs in 1968. During the 1960s, he pioneered the establishment of comparative science policy studies in Europe. He has been for many years a member of the Club of Rome, and now lives in France.

21 The War Cabinet Scientific Advisory Committee continued until 1945 under the chairmanship, first, of Hankey, then of R. A. (later Lord) Butler, and Sir Henry Dale. After the war, it was succeeded (1945–50) by the Advisory Council on Scientific Policy, of which Tizard became (1946–52) chairman. See Gummett, Philip, Scientists in Whitehall (Manchester, 1980)Google Scholar.

22 See Hansard, , House of Lords Debates, 118Google Scholar, cols. 973-99, 2 April 1941, as cited in Hall, and Wrigley, , Overseas Supply, p. 370Google Scholar.

23 A VIA 38/917. Darwin, Charles, “Review of Activities of BCSO and Recommendations,” 22 September 1941Google Scholar. Hall, and Wrigley, , Overseas Supply, p. 380Google Scholar, characterize his reports as “a medley of precise detail, of vague developments of things seen, and of hearsay.” Theirs is a one-sided judgment.

24 Linstead took extended leave of absence from Harvard in 1942, to become Deputy Director of Scientific Research at the Ministry of Supply. Barton, D. H. R., et al., “Reginald Patrick Linstead, 1902–66,” Biographical Memoirs of Fellows of the Royal Society 14 (1968): 309-47 at 310Google Scholar.

25 Kernball, C., “Hugh Scott Taylor, (1890–1974),” Biographical Memoirs of Fellows of the Royal Society 21 (1975): 517-47 at 521Google Scholar.

26 AVIA 38/918. Webster to Dr. E. T. Paris, Ministry of Supply, 5 October 1941.

27 Ibid.

28 Ibid.

29 AVIA 38/918. Egerton, A. C. G., “The British Central Scientific Office,” memo, 13 June 1942Google Scholar.

30 Ibid.

31 Hall, and Wrigley, , Overseas Supply, p. 381Google Scholar.

32 Ibid. p. 382. The Director-General of Scientific Research at the Ministry of Supply was at this time C. J. Gough, whom Guy Gresford described as a “somewhat Olympian figure,” recruited from Unilever (Gresford, “Some Random Notes”).

33 Hall, and Wrigley, , Overseas Supply, p. 314Google Scholar.

34 AVIA 38/918. Webster to Chance, 26 June 1941.

35 AVIA 38/918. Webster to Chance, 26 June 1941; Webster to Egerton, nd (5 July) 1941.

36 AB 1/602 Bush to Darwin, 20 September 1941; Appleton to Thomson, 24 November 1941, Webster to Thomson, 17 December 1941, Bush to Darwin, 23 December 1941, Appleton to Darwin, 12 January 1942.

37 Chadwick Papers (Churchill College, Cambridge), Fowler to Chadwick, June 1941.

38 See Cockburn, Stewart and Ellyard, David, Oliphant (Adelaide, 1981)Google Scholar; Bowen, Radar Days.

39 A. C. G. (later Sir Alfred) Egerton, FRS, was professor of chemical engineering at Imperial College, and Physical Secretary of the Royal Society. In 1917, Egerton had helped set up a Central Research Establishment for the Navy. In 1919, fluent in German, he served on the inter-allied mission that inspected chemical munitions factories in occupied Gemany. See Newitt, D. M., “Alfred Charles Glyn Egerton, 1886–1959,” Biographical Memoirs of the Royal Society 6 (1960): 39–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

40 AVIA 38/918. Chance to Brand, 13 June 1941; Oliver Lyttelton (Minister of Production) to R. H. Brand, Joint Staff Mission, “Most Secret,” 23 July; Brand to Lyttelton, 25 July; Egerton to Brand, 31 July; Egerton to Conant, 31 July 1941.

41 Newitt, , “Alfred Charles Glyn Egerton,” p. 49Google Scholar.

42 See AB 1/357, Akers, BCSO to General Groves, 3 December 1942; Hall, and Wrigley, , Overseas Supply, p. 411Google Scholar.

43 Gowing, Margaret, Britain and Atomic Energy, 1939–1945 (London, 1945), p. 171Google Scholar.

44 AVIA 38/918. memo by Lyttelton, “Secret,” ca July 1941; AVTA 38/919. Note by Joint Secretaries, February 1942. See also King, Alexander, “International Relations in Science,” Report of the Royal Society Empire Scientific Conference, 1946, 2 vols. (London, 1948), 2: 118–20 (hereafter cited as RSESC)Google Scholar.

45 CAB 1221066 Minute, June 1943. See Brinkley, David, Washington Goes to War (New York, 1988)Google Scholar.

46 SirCurfie, George and Graham, John, The Origins of CSIRO: Science and the Commonwealth Government, 1901–1926 (Melbourne, 1966)Google Scholar; “CSIR, 1926–1939,” Public Administration 33 (1974): 230–52Google Scholar; Schedvin, C. B., Shaping Science and Industry: A History of Australia's Council for Scientific and Industrial Research, 1926–49 (Sydney, 1987)Google Scholar.

47 Constantine, Stephen, “‘Bringing the Empire Alive’: The Empire Marketing Board and Imperial Propaganda, 1926–33,” in MacKenzie, John M., ed., Imperialism and Popular Culture (Manchester, 1986), pp. 192–231Google Scholar; SirCurfie, George and Graham, John, “Growth of Scientific Research in Australia: The Council for Scientific and Industrial Research and the Empire Marketing Board,” Records of the Australian Academy of Science 1, 3 (1968): 25–35Google Scholar.

48 MacLeod, Roy and Andrews, E. K., “The Committee of Civil Research: Scientific Advice for Economic Development, 1925–1930,” Minerva, 7, 4, (1969): 680–705CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

49 Hudson, W. J. and Way, Wendy, eds., Letters from a “Secret Service Agent”: F. L. McDougall to S. M. Bruce, 1924–1929 (Canberra, 1988)Google Scholar. In 1937, New Zealand appointed an Assistant Science Liaison Officer in London. See Hamilton, W. M., “Methods of Improving the Interchange of Scientists throughout the Empire, including a discussion of the Future of the Scientific Liaison Offices that have been established during the War,” Report of the Royal Society Empire Scientific Conference, 2 vols. (London, 1948), 2: 20–21 (hereafter cited as RSESC)Google Scholar.

50 Report of the Proceedings of the British Commonwealth Scientific Conference, 1936, 1936–37 [Cmd. 5341 ]; SirChadwick, David, “Dissemination of Scientific Information among Research Workers and Departments,” RSESC, 1: 760Google Scholar. See also Phillipson, , Scientific Liasion, p. 9Google Scholar.

51 Phillipson, , Scientific Liasion, p. 13Google Scholar.

52 Ibid. p. 27.

53 Dean Mackenzie, President of the Canadian NRC, viewed the twenty-eight months between the invasion of Poland and Pearl Harbor as critical to Canada's scientific and industrial development. Sharing Britain's sophisticated and secret weaponry, ahead of the United States, gave Canada an edge it had never before (or since) enjoyed. See Thisle, M. W., ed., The Mackenzie-McNaughton Wartime Letters (Toronto, p. 151)Google Scholar, quoted in Phillipson, , Scientific Liasion, p. 21Google Scholar.

54 He was succeeded first by F. G. Nicholls, then by Guy Gresford (1944–46). See Gresford, , “Some Random Notes on Official Science Collaboration between Commonwealth Countries,” Canberra, 16 November 1986, p. 2Google Scholar.

55 For a Canadian contrast, see David Zimmerman, “The Royal Australian and Canadian Navies and High Technology in the Second World War,” in Roy MacLeod and Richard Jarrell, eds., Dominions Apart: Australian-Canadian Science in Historical Perspective (forthcoming).

56 Allibone, T. E., “Basil Ferdinand Jamieson Schonland,” Biographical Memoirs of Fellows of the Royal Society 19 (1973): 639Google Scholar.

57 Phillipson, , Scientific Liasion, p. 24Google Scholar.

58 Gresford, , “Some Random Notes,” p. 3Google Scholar, King, , “International Relations in Science,” p. 152Google Scholar.

59 AVIA 38/921/4394 Report of a Meeting of UK and Dominions Scientific Liaison Representatives, 28 August 1944, p. 10. Under the chairmanship of Lord Hankey, Secretary of the War Cabinet, the Colonial Products Research Council included the Secretaries of the Medical and Agricultural Research Council; representatives from the DSIR, the Government Chemist, the TUC, the cooperative movement, and the Colonial Office; and several independent scientists including Sir Robert Robinson, FRS, Professor Ian Heilbron, FRS, and Professor (later Sir Norman) Haworth, FRS. Simonsen had earlier served as professor of organic chemistry at the Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, and as Chemical Adviser to the Indian Munitions Board, 1925–1928. See Robinson, Robert, “John Lionel Simonsen (1884–1957),” Biographical Memoirs of Fellows of the Royal Society 5 (1959): 240–41Google Scholar.

60 Colonial Office, “Organization of Research in Respect of the Colonies,” RSESC, 1: 110–13.

61 Home, Rod, “Science on Service,” in Australian Science in the Making (Sydney, 1988), pp. 220–51Google Scholar; MacLeod, Roy, “‘Combat Scientists’: The Office of Scientific Research and Development and Field Service in the Pacific,” War and Society 11, 2 (1993): 117–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

62 V. V. Krishna, “The Organisation of Industrial Research: The Early History of CSIR, 1934–1947,” in Roy MacLeod and Deepak Kumar, eds., Technology and the Raj (forthcoming).

63 AVIA 38/919 Casey to Cordell Hull, Secretary of State, 15 May 1942. See Meaney, N. K., Australia and the World (Melbourne, 1985), p. 340Google Scholar, and Hudson, W. J., Casey (Melbourne, 1986)Google Scholar.

64 AVTA 38/917. Webster, Memorandum on Procedure for Scientific Liaison between the UK and the US, “Secret,” n.d., ca. June 1941.

65 AVIA 38/919. T. W. J. Taylor to King, 21 July 1943.

66 AVIA 38/919. Taylor to King, 21 July 1943.

67 Ibid.

68 AVIA 38/917. Webster to Chance, 31 October 1941.

69 AVIA 38/917. Supply Committee to British Supply Council, 1 November 1941.

70 AVIA 38/917. Darwin to Secretary of Ministry of Supply, 22 September 1941, and British Supply Committee in London to BCSO, 1 November 1945.

71 AVIA 42/77. “India—BCSO Liaison, 1949,” King to Office of Scientific Advisers, Ministry of Production, 10 August 1944; King to Brigadier C. A. Drummond, India Office, 25 May 1945.

72 AVIA 38/934. “Commonwealth Supply Council Organisation, 1942,” Lord Strathallan to Ministry of Production, 14 April 1943.

73 In 1944, Eric Ashby was posted to the Australian Legation in Moscow. See his memoir, A Scientist in Russia (Harmondsworth, 1947)Google Scholar.

74 AVIA 38/919. memo, T. W. J. Taylor to Mackenzie, 16 August 1943.

75 AVIA 42/79. “BCSO: Correspondence regarding History,” 194; CSIRO Archives, Series 3, YV2/6/1, “A Discussion of the Past, Present and Future of the British Commonwealth Scientific Office (North America).” In 1940, Haughton helped establish South Africa's wartime Industrial and Agricultural Requirements Commission, and from 1942–44 served as Controller of Non-ferrous Metals. In December 1945, he was appointed to a top-secret Uranium Research Committee, under the chairmanship of Schonland, which sent Cockcroft regular supplies of uranium. See SirDunham, Kingsley, “Sidney Henry Haughton,” Biographical Memoirs of the Royal Society 29 (1983): 253–54Google Scholar.

76 The Canadian scientific bureau in Washington was an office of the Canadian NRC; as such, it did not represent other Canadian scientific agencies, including the Departments of Agriculture, and Mines and Resources. For this reason, it was incommensurate with the scientific missions of the other Commonwealth countries.

77 After VE Day, Malloch was assigned to relieve Shenstone in London, where he acted as science adviser to the Canadian delegation at the founding of UNESCO. In 1961, he was transferred to Paris, where he opened an NRC liaison office, and cooperated with King at the newly established OECD. He retired in 1964 (Phillipson, , Scientific Liasion, pp. 38–40Google Scholar).

78 CSIRO Archives, Series 3, YV/6/1. Taylor to Sir David Rivett, 3 November 1943.

79 AVIA 42/79. “BCSO: Correspondence regarding History,” King memorandum, 6 June 1944.

80 Cook, A. H., “Ian Morris Heilbron, 1886–1959,” Biographical Memoirs of Fellows of the Royal Society 6 (1960): 63–85 at 66CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

81 AVIA 42/79. Taylor became head of the OR Division and adviser to Lord Mountbatten, Supreme Allied Commander, South East Asia.

82 AVIA 38/921. King's report to the [Second] meeting of the British and Dominion Scientific Liaison Officers, Ottawa, 18 July 1944. Details of these projects are contained in PRO AVIA 42/1–89.

83 Chadwick Papers, Appleton to Webster, 17 March, 24 May 1944. For the administration of British interests in atomic energy and uranium policy, see Roy MacLeod, “The British Scientific Mission in Washington” (forthcoming).

84 AVIA 38/921/4394. Report of the [Second] Meeting of the British and Dominion Scientific Liaison Officers, Ottawa 18 July 1944, p. 2.

85 AVIA 38/921/4394. Report of the [Third] Meeting of the British and Dominion Scientific Liaison Officers, 28 August 1944, p. 2.

86 The Commonwealth Advisory Aeronautical Research Council was the result.

87 AVIA 38/921/4394, Report of the [Second] Meeting of the British and Dominion Scientific Liaison Officers, Ottawa, 18 July 1944, p. 5.

88 Hill, A. V., Scientific Research in India (London, 1944)Google Scholar, and “Scientific Co-operation within the British Commonwealth,” United Empire 36 (1945): 56–60Google Scholar.

89 King, Alexander, “Commonwealth Scientific Cooperation during the Second World War: Some Personal Recollections” (typescript, December 1986)Google Scholar.

90 In 1946, Simonsen, with Heilbron, visited British colonies in East Africa and South Africa, collecting plant material for research. He also fostered laboratory research into the industrial uses of sucrose. See Robinson, , “Simonsen,” pp. 244–315Google Scholar.

91 AVIA 38/921/4394. Report of the [Second] Meeting of British and Dominion Scientific Liaison Representatives, Ottawa, 18 July 1944, p. 10.

92 Ibid., p. 10.

93 Ibid., p. 5.

94 AVIA 38/921/4934, 3, Shenstone's comments. See also CSIRO Archives, Series 3, YV2/6/1. G. H. Munro to Sir David Rivett, 30 January 1945.

95 According to Dr. (later Sir Frederick) White, Secretary of the CSIR, “I feel there may be some justification for a BCSO in Washington postwar, but can see no advantage in establishing one in London” (CSIRO Archives, Series 3, YV2/6/1. F. W[hite], minute, n.d.

96 AVIA 38/921. Report of the [Third] Meeting of British and Dominion Scientific Liaison Representatives, 28 August 1944, pp. 6–7.

97 CSIRO Archives (Canberra), Series 3, YV2/6/1. King, Alexander, et al., “A Scheme for Imperial and Foreign Relations in Science and Technology,” Washington, DC, typescript, n.d., ca. May 1945Google Scholar.

98 King, , “International Relations in Science”, RSESC, 2: 120Google Scholar.

99 Krishna, Bhatnagar.

100 AVIA 39/921/4394. Report of the [Third] Meeting of UK and Dominions Scientific Liaison Representatives, 28 August 1944, pp. 8–10.

101 “Introduction,” RSESC 1: 11–12Google Scholar.

102 Gresford, , “Some Random Notes,” p. 4Google Scholar.

103 HM George V, “Opening Ceremony,” RSESC, 1: 18.

104 SirRobinson, Robert, “Opening Ceremony,” RSESC, 1: 15Google Scholar.

105 Ibid., p. 17.

106 MacKenzie, C. J., “Canadian Delegation,” RSESC, 1: 20Google Scholar.

107 SirAppleton, Edward, “Organisation of Government Science in the United Kingdom,” RSESC, 1: 43, 49Google Scholar.

108 Mann, W. B., “Academic Co-operation in the British Empire,” RSESC, 2: 35Google Scholar.

109 SirRivett, David, “Methods for Improving the Interchange of Scientists throughout the Empire, including a Discussion on the Future of the Scientific Liaison Offices,” RSESC, 2: 83–85Google Scholar.

110 See King, Alexander, “UNESCO's First Ten Years,” New Scientist 2 (1957): 15Google Scholar.

111 SirHuxley, Julian, “Empire Cooperation in the Scientific Field with UNESCO and other United Nations Organisations,” RSESC, 2: 115Google Scholar.

112 See Werskey, P. O., Vie Visible College (London, 1978; reprinted 1988)Google Scholar; MacLeod, Roy, “The Social Function of Science in Britain: A Retrospect,” reprinted in Steiner, Helmut, ed., 1939–1989: J. D. Bernal's The Social Function of Science (Berlin, 1989), pp. 342–63Google Scholar; McGucken, William, “On Freedom and Planning in Science: The Society for Freedom in Science, 1940–46,” Minerva 16, 1, (1978): 42–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Scientists, Society and State: The Social Relations of Science Movement in Great Britain, 1931–1947 (Columbus, 1984)Google Scholar.

113 CSIRO Archives, Series 3, YV2/6/2. T. B. Paltridge to G. B. Gresford, 9 October 1959.

114 See Calder, Ritchie, “Science and the New States,” New Scientist 8 (1960): 526Google Scholar; Blackett, P. M. S., “Planning for Science and Technology in Emerging Countries,” New Scientist 17 (1963): 345Google Scholar; idem. “Science and Technology in an Unequal World,” Science and Culture, 34 (1968): 16; Lonsdale, Dame Kathleen, “Developing Nations and Scientific Responsibility,” Bull. Atomic Scientists 25 (1969): 27CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

115 Gresford, G. B., “Regional Organization of Research in Australia and South-east Asia,” Nature 204 (31 October 1964): 432CrossRefGoogle Scholar; “Science and Technology in the Commonwealth,” Association of Commonwealth Universities, Bulletin of Documentation 97 (1991): 13–14Google Scholar.

116 Dedijer, Steven, “Underdeveloped Science in Underdeveloped Countries,” Minerva 2 (1963): 61–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar, reprinted in Shils, Edward, ed., Criteria for Scientific Development: Public Policy and National Goals (Cambridge, Mass., 1968)Google Scholar; Zinman, John, “Some Problems of the Growth and Spread of Science into Developing Countries,” Proceedings of the Royal Society, 311 (1969): 349Google Scholar.

117 Gresford, “Some Random Notes,”

118 CSIRO Archives, Series 3, YV2/6/1. N. A. Whiffen to Dr. F. W. G. White, 2 November 1945.

119 Mellor, , The Role of Science and Industry, p. 57Google Scholar.

120 CSIRO Archives, Series 3, YV2/6/1. King, , et al., “A Scheme for Imperial and Foreign Relations,” p. 3Google Scholar.