It must have been during a lecture at Sheffield that I first heard of William Rowan—the man who established the importance of change in day length in controlling reproduction and migration in animals. From that work in the early decades of the 20th century the science of photoperiodism grew, particularly in birds, the organisms Rowan had worked on. I also learnt that day that Rowan had succeeded under the most difficult of circumstances and that he had been badly treated in Canada where he worked.
Sixty-odd years on I have now read a biography of Rowan published in 1993.
The culprit who treated Rowan badly, even persisting with that animus when Rowan had achieved international fame for his research, was the founding president of the University of Alberta, Henry Marshall Tory (1864-1947), who took it on himself as a mathematician to decree the nature of proper zoological research as wholly laboratory based. He forbade fieldwork—an order Rowan ignored by working in his own time. Tory had been desperate to recruit somebody who could teach biology in 1919. A new medical building and an intake swelled by veterans of the First World War needed a zoology department since just as in Britain at the time, many medical students were unable to study biology at school and an elementary foundation, i.e. remedial, course mirrored that throughout the medical schools of the British Empire.
 |
| Henry Marshall Tory |
Rowan’s biographer, the late Marianne Gosztonyi Ainley (1937-2008) skewers Tory’s reputation as an academic and research funding organiser and administrator, not only for his personal treatment of Rowan but also his short-sighted motives, his later leadership of what became the National Research Council of Canada and his disdain for the biology.
Born in Nova Scotia, Tory was a graduate of McGill University in maths and physics having begun his course at the age of 22. His mother was intent on her son becoming a Methodist minister and he then obtained a degree in theology, and spent two years in the church. In 1893 he jumped ship and became a lecturer in maths at McGill. To assist the setting up of a new physics department, Tory was sent to Cambridge for two terms to learn how things were done by the big boys. He thus became involved with two departments and worked his way up the academic ladder and doing administrative jobs for the university in setting up outstations, in British Columbia, for example, that in turn, became independent institutions.
In 1905, the new province of Alberta was formed and decided it needed its own university. The various accounts I have read state that Tory was appointed President in 1907. I found this rather odd since most universities in the Empire would have had either a Vice-Chancellor or Principal, following English or Scottish usage, respectively, for its chief executive position. McGill until recently had a Principal á la Glasgow and Edinburgh, before succumbing to the American and inaccurate usage of ‘President’ for the post.
There is no doubt that Tory was successful in building a new university from scratch. From his initial appointment of five academic staff in 1908 and admitting 32 students, Tory left in 1928 a university with five faculties, in modern buildings with 1,600 students.
Tory clearly regretted his appointment of Rowan almost as soon as he had made it. Indeed he went so far as to write to University College London to enquire if his degree was real, despite the fact that Rowan had continued to an MSc. The fact that Rowan did field work was anathema to Tory, which I suggest says more about Tory than it does Rowan who was equally at home with all aspects, approaches and techniques of zoology of the time.
Even when Tory had moved on to manage Canadian research funding he continued to prevent Rowan from getting grants even though he had already obtained funding from American foundations and the Royal Society in London and his research was strongly supported by leading British zoologists of the time, Julian Huxley and James Peter Hill FRS (1873-1954) of UCL being two of them. Marianne Ainley wrote:
…Rowan submitted a major application to the NRC, but applied nowhere else. This was an error that he soon came to regret. After a decade of teaching and working under adverse conditions, Rowan must have realized that in Canada money for all but practical research was always scarce. He may not have known, however, that this was because Canadian science had been “guided by an entrepreneurial scientific ideology,” brought to this country by the original Scottish settlers.“ In the late 1920s, this “entrepreneurial ideology” still influenced the funding of Canadian science. Rowan often mentioned the lack of government money for basic biological research in his correspondence with Taverner, but, in his enthusiasm and naivety, Rowan paid no heed to the well-known fact that all the scientific departments of the federal government (the Geological Survey, Experimental Farms, and the Biological Board) had been established with practical aims in mind. In Canada, utilitarian science was supreme, and the NRC was no exception.
In early I930, Rowan joined the ranks of'Canadian scientists who continued to encounter discouragements and difficulties and even indifference to pure research. Tory’s presidency of the NRC further exacerbated the already difficult situation many scientists faced across the country, Tory was renowned as a vocal advocate of applied research, a firm believer in the usefulness of science. He was later described as a man “tended to favour the practical short-term problems that would make a noise; among the long-term projects, he favoured those with a staggering pay-off, preferably in tens of millions of dollars.” Tory’s attitude towards science exemplified the prevailing Canadian one. Unfortunately for Rowan, Tory was in a powerful position where he could prevent the funding of basic research and promote the projects of his choice, mostly those that involved applied research. A careful perusal of the list of projects funded by the NRC from I920 to 1935 shows, however, that some basic research was funded, particularly in Tory’s area, the physical sciences.
Tory also denigrated Rowan personally at this time even though it was Rowan who was putting Canada in general and the University of Alberta in particular on the map for world-famous and highly respected biological research. Ainley unearthed a letter written by Tory in 1932 and continued:
“During the last two or three years I was in Alberta I gave very little attention to Rowan due to the fact that only elementary work was done in the department” In fact, Tory’s last years in Edmonton (1925 to 1928) coincided with those of Rowan’s most intense research activity. And while Rowan carried out his early experiments during his spare time in his own backyard, nothing could long remain a secret in a small, closed, university community. Ironically, it was during this period that Rowan’s research on the effect of daylight on the reproductive organs of birds put the University of Alberta on the scientific world map. From Tory’s letter it is evident, however, that he continued to consider only laboratory work as real science, and chose to disregard Rowan’s pioneering investigations and subsequent fame. By ignoring Rowan’s ornithological research and the enthusiastic recognition given it by members of the larger scientific community, Tory could maintain that “only elementary work was done” in the university’s zoology department. For Tory, Rowan “had reached his limit” as both teacher and researcher. By taking this attitude,
Tory could with a clear conscience prevent Rowan from being funded by the NRC, and later destroy the younger.man’s chances for academic advancement.
But Tory did not finish there. He damned Rowan’s chances of getting the vacant chair of zoology at McGill. Despite glowing references from his supporters in London, Edinburgh and the USA, those responsible for the important took more notice of Tory who had been asked to provide an opinion. Ainley again:
…Tory replied: "With regard to Rowan, I find it a little difficult to write about him because I am afraid that what I have to say will not be of any great help to him in securing an appointment at McGill." Tory wrote, Rowan "got a B.Sc. from the University of London... on a semi-war basis," and informed Currie that he, Tory, had not been impressed with Rowan as a scientist, because Rowan "would not stick to the laboratory." Tory recalled he had told Rowan that "his only hope of becoming a competent zoologist and of proving his right to the headship of the department... would be by taking up some special line of work and sticking to it until he had proved his position as zoologist." Tory added, "Unless Rowan has completely changed since I knew him I would not consider him at all capable of ever organizing such a department or of drawing to it men who would be zealous for work.”
By contrast, Julian Huxley thought Rowan ‘a rare combination of fieldworker, systematist, general zoologist and experimentalist” who would make an excellent head of department.
I would argue that Ainley hit the elongated metal fastening on the cranium when she concluded that Tory was a product of the Scottish tradition. Here, I suggest, Ainley missed a trick. I suspect there were other influences at play. Tory clearly saw physics as superior in every way, as physicists so long have done, to the other pursuits that seek to explain and to exploit knowledge of the natural world. In McGill with Tory in the physics department was no other than Ernest Rutherford (1871-1937; later Lord Rutherford). It was Rutherford who is alleged to have said ‘all science is either physics or stamp collecting’. While there have been attempts to argue that Rutherford did not mean it quite like that, there is no doubt that if reflected a common view from the Age of Physics.
My view of Tory is perhaps summed by a line in Gilbert & Sullivan’s The Gondoliers, first performed in 1889. The King of Barataria had become a ‘Wesleyan Methodist of the most bigoted and persecuting type’.
With the tune of the Grand Inquisitor firmly fixed as an earworm, I will leave Tory and return to William Rowan himself and his biography by Marianne Gosztonyi Ainley to another article. But I least I know now how he was badly treated.
Ainley MG. 1988. Rowan vs Tory: Conflicting views of scientific research in Canada, 1920-1935. Scientia Canadensis: Canadian Journal of the History of Science, Technology and Medicine 1, 3-21.
Ainley MG. 1993. Restless Energy. A Biography of William Rowan 1891-1957. Montreal: Véhicule Press.
No comments:
Post a Comment