Gerta Vrbova
Faculty of Life Sciences, University College London

https://doi.org/10.36866/pn.104.7a

The vote to leave Europe has been a shock to most physiologists. This is perhaps not surprising since science benefits most clearly from international cooperation. The recognition of the international nature of scientific activity has been fought for by the distinguished physiologist AV Hill before and during the second world war. He and his colleagues believed that research is best served and most successful when there is cooperation between scientists from different countries and that support of such cooperation by governments and agents in power helps to promote research. There are many examples showing that science and physiology have benefitted from the freedom enjoyed by individuals to collaborate, exchange ideas and have the opportunity to move between different countries without restrictions. Brexit threatens this cherished liberty. There are many examples to illustrate the benefits of this principle of international cooperation, but the ideas behind it were clearly expressed by AV Hill both before and during the second world war.

In the 1930s in Germany and Austria the fascist governments perpetrated a policy that excluded Jewish scientists and other professionals from continuing their work. In England a group of academics including AV Hill expressed strong objection to this persecution. Hill had a strong belief that scientists have a special responsibility towards society and that this is linked with the international nature of science. In an article in Science (Hill 1941) he writes: ‘It is nevertheless a fact that the nature of our occupation makes scientific men particular international in their outlook. In its judgment on facts science claims to be independent of political opinion, of nationality, of material profit. It believes that nature will give a single answer to any questions properly framed and that only one picture can ultimately be put together from the very complex jigsaw puzzle which the world presents. Individual and national bias, fashion, material advantage, a temporary emergency, may determine which part of the puzzle at any moment is subject to the greatest activity. For its final judgment however, for its estimates of scientific validity, there is a single court of appeal in nature itself, and nobody disputes its jurisdiction. Those who talk, for example of Aryan and non Aryan physics or of proletarian and capitalist genetics, as though they were different simply make themselves ridiculous.

For such reasons the community of scientific people throughout the world is convinced of international collaboration.’ And later: ‘In no other form of human activity, therefore, has so complete an internationalism spread throughout the national structure of society: in no other profession or craft is there so general an understanding or appreciation of fellow workers in other parts of the world. This implies no special merit or broadmindedness on the part of scientific men; it is their very good fortune, a good fortune which involves obligations as well as privileges. For example when the Nazis in 1933 began their persecution of Jews and liberals in Germany it was the scientific community in many other countries which came most quickly to  the rescue of their colleagues; not out of any special generosity but because firstly  they had personal knowledge of those who were being persecuted, and secondly they realized that such persecution  struck at the basis of the position of science and scientific workers in society’ and later: ‘It may be then that through this by-product of international cooperation science may do as great a service to society (just as learning did in the Middle ages) as by any direct results in improving knowledge and controlling natural forces: not- as I would emphasize again- from any special virtue which we scientists have, but because in science world society can see a model of international cooperation carried on not merely for idealistic reasons but because it is the obvious and necessary basis of any system that is to work’ (Hill 1941).

These views and ideas motivated Hill to become a founder member of the Academic Assistance Council (AAC) an organization that offered help to  scientists persecuted in Nazi Germany and other fascist countries.

In 1933 whilst studying in Vienna, William Beveridge the director of the London School of Economics learned that academics deemed ‘undesirable’ by the Nazi government either because they were Jews or of a different political opinion than the Nazis were dismissed from their position and unable to work. Dismayed by this, Beveridge returned to England keen to help these scholars (Beveridge 1953).  He established the Academic Assistance Council (AAC) which in 1936 became The Society for Protection of Science and Learning (SPSL) in 1939 Council for Assisting Refugee Academics (CARA) and finally in 2014 Council for at Risk Academics (CARA). This organization assisted academics forced to flee Nazi Germany, and later other countries ruled by Nazi Germany. He persuaded the prominent physicist Ernest Rutherford to become the first President and Hill Vice President of AAC.

In May 1933 Beveridge (Beveridge 1933) distributed a letter signed by many distinguished academics amongst them 5 Nobel laureates to publicize the new organization. The letter was published in major British newspapers. In June, Rutherford (Rutherford 1933) identified the charity’s aims as twofold: 1/ to create a fund for academic assistance of displaced scholars, and 2/ to act as a centre of information, i.e. putting academics in touch with organizations that can best help them (Rutherford 1933). By the outbreak of the war the SPSL had aided at least 900 scholars. AV Hill’s commitment to the organization that enabled scientists to continue scientific work was expressed in his letter to Beveridge on New Year’s Day 1934: ‘It is not that these people will perish as human beings, but that as scholars and scientists they will have to take up something else in order to live.’ With hindsight and our present knowledge of the Holocaust this statement seems to have greatly underestimated the dangers and perils faced by these scientists, who would have  perished had they not got out of the countries ruled by Nazi Germany. Thus by helping their colleagues, scientists in England more than any other intellectual group helped their colleagues to leave, continue to work and above all survive the Holocaust. This is in marked contrast to other professional organizations such as the medical or legal who for fear of competition did not offer help to their colleagues (Zimmerman 2006).

Scientific achievements are difficult to measure, but the number of Nobel prizes gives some indication. Before 1933 German scientists had won 33 prizes in science since 1900, the highest number of any nation, Britain won 18 and the USA 6. After Hitler’s rise to power 7 Nobel Prize winners left Germany and 20 of the refugees subsequently obtained the Nobel Prize (Pyke 2000).

It is likely that by rescuing a generation of scholars from Nazi ruled Europe AV Hill and other members of the SPSL contributed more to scientific development in the West then any single individual could achieve (Vrbova 2003). Therefore AV Hill’s views that international cooperation of scientists plays an important role for scientific achievement, have been confirmed.  His contribution to bring about this cooperation while at UCL gives the college a special place in helping to initiate outstanding scientific developments in science and is consistent with UCL’s liberal and secular values.

Brexit threatens these values and endangers the hard won freedom of scientific cooperation without frontiers. It is therefore pertinent that physiologists should remember one of their distinguished members and Nobel laureate, AV Hill, who championed these views under equally adverse conditions as those of today.

The views forged by AV Hill were accepted by many others in the west and helped to win the scientists the freedom to interact with each other even under most difficult conditions such as during the cold war. The cooperation between scientists from the Soviet Union and Russian-dominated countries and those from the west was an extraordinary example of the value of international cooperation. Making such interactions more difficult by restricting free movement as implied in Brexit is a dangerous backward step.

Beveridge Lord (1953). Power and Influence  London Hodder and Stoughton, 234-235

Hill AV (1941). Science National and International and the basis of cooperation. Science 93, 579-584

Rutherford Lord (1933). The British Academic Assistance Council. Science New Series 77, 620-621

Pyke D (2000). Contributions by German emigrés to British medical science. QJM 93, 487-495

Vrbova G (2003). Archibald V. Hill’s contribution to science and society. European  Journal Translational Myology – Basic Applied Myology 23, 73-76

Zimmmerman D (2006). The Society for The Protection of Science and Learning and the Politicization of British Science in the 1930s. Minerva 2006: 44, 25-45