- Email: [email protected]
The Youngest Council
1259
planning, trade unions, and education, addresses itself Youngest Council to how this demand might be met. is THE report1 of the Heyworth Committee studiedly First catch your leveret. The Robbins report indisober, and enthusiasms are notably restrained; but it is far-sighted and realistic, and it is to be hoped that it will cated that students entering university social-science prove influential with Government departments (includ- departments in 1961-62 had a lower academic performThe
ing the Treasury), the universities, and the Foundations, among the users of research, and those, such as local authorities, who should be
users but seldom are. Its central recommendation-the creation of a research council for the social sciences-was not unexpected, and once again the pattern established by the Medical Research Council receives the tribute of imitation. Alternatives are not seriously discussed, and experience of other countries is scarcely recognised as relevant. Yet something might be learnt from, for instance, the United States National Science Foundation and especially from its Social Science Research Council. This body is con-
by the relevant professional organisations, and, though it has little money of its own, it has been powerful in promoting research, such as fresh applications of mathematics in social studies and comparative studies of political development. Twenty years ago when research in the social sciences was last reviewed by a Government committee, university social-studies departments were found to be lamentably inadequate " for teaching and for research; only about 3% of all departmental expenditure was in the social stituted
"
sciences. But that committee combined lamentation with caution; it rejected the idea of a research council, " partly because of the dangers of a premature crystallisation of a spurious orthodoxy "-dangers which the Heyworth Committee believe to be now removed. There is always danger in orthodoxy, not least in the orthodoxies of the unorthodox, but perhaps a greater danger is one Lord ADRIAN recognised, when he urged that for the social sciences " it is too early to be cautious ". In fact, twenty years ago and more the systematic study of social issues offered more than promise. It was already yielding good returns on minute investments in studies of poverty, social influences on health, industrial location, the effects of rehousing policies, migrants’ difficulties in assimilation, differential fertility, vocational guidance, and the distribution of ability. Even then, caution should not have been the paramount virtue. Lately, and with little debt to that earlier committee, teaching and research posts in the social-studies departments in the universities have multiplied rapidly; sociology departments have grown with " explosive force ". The number of undergraduates in social science is growing faster than the total number of undergraduates, and, significantly, the number of postgraduate students has increased
dramatically. The Heyworth Committee affirms and repeats that the base has now been laid for further expansion in teaching and in research and that the social sciences are ready to move to a new level of performance. The committee, having recorded a growing demand, corresponding to a genuine need, for social research in Government, industry, medical services, environmental 1.
Report of the Committee on Social Studies (chairman: Lord Heyworth, LL.D., D.C.L.). Cmnd 2660. H.M. Stationery Office, 1965. 7s. 6d.
than students entering the humanities and science, though higher than those entering applied science and medicine. It would be wrong by all counts if the social sciences were deprived of talented young people because our educational system denies them the opportunity of knowing until too late that these subjects are rewarding to pursue and lead to careers that are worth following. It is a pity that the committee does not propose this as a problem for social research, for here its own suggestions lack boldness. More may come from the current ferment of interest in social service in schools with good academic records, if this interest can be fostered and spread. The " first priority ", in the committee’s view, is an expansion of postgraduate students hips and fellowships (usually postdoctoral) to help able people to enter, continue, and resume full-time research. The value of these awards must be related realistically to the standing of the applicants. Today, compared with science and technology, less than half the graduates with good degrees in the social sciences gain research awards. The committee recommends that candidates with lower second-class degrees should not necessarily be excluded. It is a comment on our primitive provision for research that the committee finds it necessary to say that students should not have to learn techniques on their own. Expanded provision for training must be flexible and varied. For instance, it should permit group research for those taking higher degrees, and encourage maturer people to take " post-experience courses " in research. Possibilities for training outside the universities should be exploited more energetically and should be supported financially; in this context, and elsewhere in the report, the Government Social Survey is given the recognition it has long merited. Research will not be encouraged unless its results are known and applied: important findings in social research have often been obscured or disregarded. This is no accident; for, as the committee points out, the application of results in this specialty is neither simple nor straightforward. The report asks that administrators shall be helped to understand the contribution (and by implication the limits of the contribution) that social research can offer; it attests the value of disciplines " which are able to limit the uncertainties within which decisions have to be taken, and to evaluate their outcome ". It points out that useful research in organisations implies that there are experienced and influential researchers working at the points where problems appropriate for study can be recognised early, and it recommends that people should be trained how to apply research findings in, for instance, engineering. Mr. ANTHONY CROSLAND, the Secretary of State for Education and Science, promptly accepted the committee’s major recommendations in principle. A Social Science Research Council is to be set up, and in great ance
1260
its members will determine whether the Heyworth recommendations are effective; their choice is crucial. The danger lies in excess of safety; it is essential that the Council should include members with an eye measure
for
and an ineradicable streak of daring. Mr. CROSLAND has said that the Government recognise the important part that social scientists could play in forming policy and in carrying it out; with ministerial caution he added that, while accepting that increased financial support was desirable, the scale must wait for advice from the Council and on " other claims " which must be taken into account. The Heyworth Committee suggests a Council expenditure of some E2/4 million in four years, mainly on grants, research fellowships, and other means of promoting training. If the Government is in earnest it will not quibble over such a sum. The Council’s income should be real additional expenditure on research in social studies. Research supported by Government departments and through outside bodies should continue to grow, partly for the obvious reason that expansion, not just a lumping together, is needed, but also because variety of support is vital if promising opportunities are to be exploited. The report only touches on the coordination of research, but the Council is to keep the state of research under review, disseminate information, and perhaps maintain a register of research and advise users. Coordination of research is a suspect activity, thought by some to threaten the independence of researchers, slanting their work to immediate difficulties to the neglect of more basic problems. Without coordination, urgent practical problems may be neglected; but coordination could impose a sterile tidiness and promote the hunt for fruit at the cost of the search for light. With such a dilemma, it would have been easy for the committee to nail their flag to the fence "; by not nailing it at all they indicate where they think the greater danger liesand perhaps how little there still is to coordinate. new
developments,
"
Obesity
and Diabetes
THE close association between obesity and diabetes mellitus is well known.12 Two-thirds of diabetic patients between the ages of 30 and 65 are obese,3and after the age of 40 newly diagnosed diabetics are usually mean excess being almost appreciably overweight-the 4 in each sex.4 Various workers have found that 12% about 60% of obese people have abnormal glucosetolerance tests.56 Thirty years ago, in a study of 65 obese subjects, OGILVIE7 showed that the frequency of impaired carbohydrate tolerance increased in proportion to the duration rather than the degree of obesity. People who had been obese for six to eleven years had 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.
7.
E. P., Dublin, L. I., Marks, H. H. Am. J. med. Sci. 1936, 192, 9. E. P., Root, H. F., White, P., Marble, A. The Treatment of Diabetes Mellitus; p. 64. London, 1959. Newburgh, L. H., Conn, J. W. J. Am. med. Ass. 1939, 112, 7. Pyke, D. A., Please, N. W. J. Endocr. 1957, 15, 26. Paullin, J. E., Sauls, H. C. Sth. med. J., Nashville, 1922, 15, 249. John, H. J. Endocrinology, 1929, 13, 388. Ogilvie, R. F. Q. Jl Med. 1935, 4, 345.
Joslin, Joslin,
normal glucose tolerance, but all those with a history of obesity for eighteen years or more had a slightly or definitely decreased tolerance to glucose-a finding that was in line with the modem view that obesity predisposes to the diabetic state of carbohydrate intolerance. In an earlier investigation of the islets of 19 obese nondiabetics, however, OGILVIE8 found hypertrophy of these areas, which were otherwise normal, and in none was there any evidence of atrophic changes suggestive of a transition to the diabetic state, as might be expected if indeed obesity did predispose to diabetes. MEDLEY9 has now examined obese people for susceptibility to diabetes. He compared intravenous glucose-tolerance tests performed before and after an oral dose of 2-5 mg. per stone body-weight of prednisolone, divided equally and given eight and a half and two hours before the test was performed. He found that this amount of steroid produced no change in glucose tolerance in normal controls, whatever their age. But it did impair glucose tolerance in prediabetic controls (young women who had given birth to large babies, and of whom half also had a first-degree relative with diabetes). The obese subjects could be divided into two groups: those with a response similar to the normal controls (no impairment of glucose tolerance); and those with a prediabetic response with definitely impaired tolerance to glucose. This second type of response was commoner in obese people with a family history of diabetes (19 out of 40) and among the parents of children whose birthweight was 9 lb. or more (14 out of 24). Only 11 out of 77 gave an abnormal response when neither of these predisposing factors was present. The response was independent of age, or degree or duration of obesity. The results suggest that obesity per se is not a cause of diabetes, but the question of whether obesity acts as a precipitating factor in those already predisposed to diabetes or whether obesity is a consequence of the prediabetic state is left open. VALLANCE-OWEN and his associates 10-12 have shown that the plasma-albumin from patients with essential or idiopathic diabetes, whether obese, insulin-dependent, or in the latent prediabetic phase, has more antagonism to insulin than that prepared from normal subjects or patients with pancreatic " diabetes following acute pancreatitis, hsmochromatosis, or pancreatectomy. The antagonism is apparently caused not by the albumin itself but by an associated substance-the synalbumin antagonist-which may be the B chain of insulin. 13 11 Several recent studies also indicate that early juvenile and obese diabetics, including those with slight changes in carbohydrate tolerance, have increased amounts of available insulin or insulin-like activity.15-19 These "
8. Ogilvie, R. F. J. Path. Bact. 1933, 37, 473. 9. Medley, D. R. K. Q. Jl Med. 1965, 34, 111. 10. Vallance-Owen, J., Dennes, E., Campbell, P. N. Lancet, 1958, ii, 336. 11. Vallance-Owen, J., Lilley, M. D. ibid. 1961, i, 806. 12. ValIance-Owen, J. Ciba Fdn Colloq. Endocr. 1964, 15, 217. 13. Ensinck, J., Vallance-Owen, J. Diabetes, 1963, 12, 353. 14. Ensinck, J., Mahler, R. J., Vallance-Owen, J. Biochem J. 1965, 94, 150. 15. Yalow, R. S., Berson, S. A. Diabetes, 1961, 10, 339. 16. Hales, C. N., Walker, J. B., Garland, P. B., Randle, P. J. Lancet, 1965, i, 65. 17. Steinke, J., Taylor, K. W., Renold, A. E. ibid. 1961, i, 30. 18. Taylor, K. W. Br. med. J. 1960, i, 1853. 19. Steinke, J., Soeldner, J. S., Camerini, R. A., Renold, A. E. Diabetes, 1963, 12, 502.
planning, trade unions, and education, addresses itself Youngest Council to how this demand might be met. is THE report1 of the Heyworth Committee studiedly First catch your leveret. The Robbins report indisober, and enthusiasms are notably restrained; but it is far-sighted and realistic, and it is to be hoped that it will cated that students entering university social-science prove influential with Government departments (includ- departments in 1961-62 had a lower academic performThe
ing the Treasury), the universities, and the Foundations, among the users of research, and those, such as local authorities, who should be
users but seldom are. Its central recommendation-the creation of a research council for the social sciences-was not unexpected, and once again the pattern established by the Medical Research Council receives the tribute of imitation. Alternatives are not seriously discussed, and experience of other countries is scarcely recognised as relevant. Yet something might be learnt from, for instance, the United States National Science Foundation and especially from its Social Science Research Council. This body is con-
by the relevant professional organisations, and, though it has little money of its own, it has been powerful in promoting research, such as fresh applications of mathematics in social studies and comparative studies of political development. Twenty years ago when research in the social sciences was last reviewed by a Government committee, university social-studies departments were found to be lamentably inadequate " for teaching and for research; only about 3% of all departmental expenditure was in the social stituted
"
sciences. But that committee combined lamentation with caution; it rejected the idea of a research council, " partly because of the dangers of a premature crystallisation of a spurious orthodoxy "-dangers which the Heyworth Committee believe to be now removed. There is always danger in orthodoxy, not least in the orthodoxies of the unorthodox, but perhaps a greater danger is one Lord ADRIAN recognised, when he urged that for the social sciences " it is too early to be cautious ". In fact, twenty years ago and more the systematic study of social issues offered more than promise. It was already yielding good returns on minute investments in studies of poverty, social influences on health, industrial location, the effects of rehousing policies, migrants’ difficulties in assimilation, differential fertility, vocational guidance, and the distribution of ability. Even then, caution should not have been the paramount virtue. Lately, and with little debt to that earlier committee, teaching and research posts in the social-studies departments in the universities have multiplied rapidly; sociology departments have grown with " explosive force ". The number of undergraduates in social science is growing faster than the total number of undergraduates, and, significantly, the number of postgraduate students has increased
dramatically. The Heyworth Committee affirms and repeats that the base has now been laid for further expansion in teaching and in research and that the social sciences are ready to move to a new level of performance. The committee, having recorded a growing demand, corresponding to a genuine need, for social research in Government, industry, medical services, environmental 1.
Report of the Committee on Social Studies (chairman: Lord Heyworth, LL.D., D.C.L.). Cmnd 2660. H.M. Stationery Office, 1965. 7s. 6d.
than students entering the humanities and science, though higher than those entering applied science and medicine. It would be wrong by all counts if the social sciences were deprived of talented young people because our educational system denies them the opportunity of knowing until too late that these subjects are rewarding to pursue and lead to careers that are worth following. It is a pity that the committee does not propose this as a problem for social research, for here its own suggestions lack boldness. More may come from the current ferment of interest in social service in schools with good academic records, if this interest can be fostered and spread. The " first priority ", in the committee’s view, is an expansion of postgraduate students hips and fellowships (usually postdoctoral) to help able people to enter, continue, and resume full-time research. The value of these awards must be related realistically to the standing of the applicants. Today, compared with science and technology, less than half the graduates with good degrees in the social sciences gain research awards. The committee recommends that candidates with lower second-class degrees should not necessarily be excluded. It is a comment on our primitive provision for research that the committee finds it necessary to say that students should not have to learn techniques on their own. Expanded provision for training must be flexible and varied. For instance, it should permit group research for those taking higher degrees, and encourage maturer people to take " post-experience courses " in research. Possibilities for training outside the universities should be exploited more energetically and should be supported financially; in this context, and elsewhere in the report, the Government Social Survey is given the recognition it has long merited. Research will not be encouraged unless its results are known and applied: important findings in social research have often been obscured or disregarded. This is no accident; for, as the committee points out, the application of results in this specialty is neither simple nor straightforward. The report asks that administrators shall be helped to understand the contribution (and by implication the limits of the contribution) that social research can offer; it attests the value of disciplines " which are able to limit the uncertainties within which decisions have to be taken, and to evaluate their outcome ". It points out that useful research in organisations implies that there are experienced and influential researchers working at the points where problems appropriate for study can be recognised early, and it recommends that people should be trained how to apply research findings in, for instance, engineering. Mr. ANTHONY CROSLAND, the Secretary of State for Education and Science, promptly accepted the committee’s major recommendations in principle. A Social Science Research Council is to be set up, and in great ance
1260
its members will determine whether the Heyworth recommendations are effective; their choice is crucial. The danger lies in excess of safety; it is essential that the Council should include members with an eye measure
for
and an ineradicable streak of daring. Mr. CROSLAND has said that the Government recognise the important part that social scientists could play in forming policy and in carrying it out; with ministerial caution he added that, while accepting that increased financial support was desirable, the scale must wait for advice from the Council and on " other claims " which must be taken into account. The Heyworth Committee suggests a Council expenditure of some E2/4 million in four years, mainly on grants, research fellowships, and other means of promoting training. If the Government is in earnest it will not quibble over such a sum. The Council’s income should be real additional expenditure on research in social studies. Research supported by Government departments and through outside bodies should continue to grow, partly for the obvious reason that expansion, not just a lumping together, is needed, but also because variety of support is vital if promising opportunities are to be exploited. The report only touches on the coordination of research, but the Council is to keep the state of research under review, disseminate information, and perhaps maintain a register of research and advise users. Coordination of research is a suspect activity, thought by some to threaten the independence of researchers, slanting their work to immediate difficulties to the neglect of more basic problems. Without coordination, urgent practical problems may be neglected; but coordination could impose a sterile tidiness and promote the hunt for fruit at the cost of the search for light. With such a dilemma, it would have been easy for the committee to nail their flag to the fence "; by not nailing it at all they indicate where they think the greater danger liesand perhaps how little there still is to coordinate. new
developments,
"
Obesity
and Diabetes
THE close association between obesity and diabetes mellitus is well known.12 Two-thirds of diabetic patients between the ages of 30 and 65 are obese,3and after the age of 40 newly diagnosed diabetics are usually mean excess being almost appreciably overweight-the 4 in each sex.4 Various workers have found that 12% about 60% of obese people have abnormal glucosetolerance tests.56 Thirty years ago, in a study of 65 obese subjects, OGILVIE7 showed that the frequency of impaired carbohydrate tolerance increased in proportion to the duration rather than the degree of obesity. People who had been obese for six to eleven years had 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.
7.
E. P., Dublin, L. I., Marks, H. H. Am. J. med. Sci. 1936, 192, 9. E. P., Root, H. F., White, P., Marble, A. The Treatment of Diabetes Mellitus; p. 64. London, 1959. Newburgh, L. H., Conn, J. W. J. Am. med. Ass. 1939, 112, 7. Pyke, D. A., Please, N. W. J. Endocr. 1957, 15, 26. Paullin, J. E., Sauls, H. C. Sth. med. J., Nashville, 1922, 15, 249. John, H. J. Endocrinology, 1929, 13, 388. Ogilvie, R. F. Q. Jl Med. 1935, 4, 345.
Joslin, Joslin,
normal glucose tolerance, but all those with a history of obesity for eighteen years or more had a slightly or definitely decreased tolerance to glucose-a finding that was in line with the modem view that obesity predisposes to the diabetic state of carbohydrate intolerance. In an earlier investigation of the islets of 19 obese nondiabetics, however, OGILVIE8 found hypertrophy of these areas, which were otherwise normal, and in none was there any evidence of atrophic changes suggestive of a transition to the diabetic state, as might be expected if indeed obesity did predispose to diabetes. MEDLEY9 has now examined obese people for susceptibility to diabetes. He compared intravenous glucose-tolerance tests performed before and after an oral dose of 2-5 mg. per stone body-weight of prednisolone, divided equally and given eight and a half and two hours before the test was performed. He found that this amount of steroid produced no change in glucose tolerance in normal controls, whatever their age. But it did impair glucose tolerance in prediabetic controls (young women who had given birth to large babies, and of whom half also had a first-degree relative with diabetes). The obese subjects could be divided into two groups: those with a response similar to the normal controls (no impairment of glucose tolerance); and those with a prediabetic response with definitely impaired tolerance to glucose. This second type of response was commoner in obese people with a family history of diabetes (19 out of 40) and among the parents of children whose birthweight was 9 lb. or more (14 out of 24). Only 11 out of 77 gave an abnormal response when neither of these predisposing factors was present. The response was independent of age, or degree or duration of obesity. The results suggest that obesity per se is not a cause of diabetes, but the question of whether obesity acts as a precipitating factor in those already predisposed to diabetes or whether obesity is a consequence of the prediabetic state is left open. VALLANCE-OWEN and his associates 10-12 have shown that the plasma-albumin from patients with essential or idiopathic diabetes, whether obese, insulin-dependent, or in the latent prediabetic phase, has more antagonism to insulin than that prepared from normal subjects or patients with pancreatic " diabetes following acute pancreatitis, hsmochromatosis, or pancreatectomy. The antagonism is apparently caused not by the albumin itself but by an associated substance-the synalbumin antagonist-which may be the B chain of insulin. 13 11 Several recent studies also indicate that early juvenile and obese diabetics, including those with slight changes in carbohydrate tolerance, have increased amounts of available insulin or insulin-like activity.15-19 These "
8. Ogilvie, R. F. J. Path. Bact. 1933, 37, 473. 9. Medley, D. R. K. Q. Jl Med. 1965, 34, 111. 10. Vallance-Owen, J., Dennes, E., Campbell, P. N. Lancet, 1958, ii, 336. 11. Vallance-Owen, J., Lilley, M. D. ibid. 1961, i, 806. 12. ValIance-Owen, J. Ciba Fdn Colloq. Endocr. 1964, 15, 217. 13. Ensinck, J., Vallance-Owen, J. Diabetes, 1963, 12, 353. 14. Ensinck, J., Mahler, R. J., Vallance-Owen, J. Biochem J. 1965, 94, 150. 15. Yalow, R. S., Berson, S. A. Diabetes, 1961, 10, 339. 16. Hales, C. N., Walker, J. B., Garland, P. B., Randle, P. J. Lancet, 1965, i, 65. 17. Steinke, J., Taylor, K. W., Renold, A. E. ibid. 1961, i, 30. 18. Taylor, K. W. Br. med. J. 1960, i, 1853. 19. Steinke, J., Soeldner, J. S., Camerini, R. A., Renold, A. E. Diabetes, 1963, 12, 502.