¹ Soddy, Frederick, Matter and energy, London, 1912, p. 251Google Scholar. Soddy, F., ‘Transmutation, the vital problem of the future’, Scientia, 1912, 11, 199.Google Scholar

² Soddy, F., ‘Advances in the study of radio-active bodies’Google Scholar, two lectures to the Royal Institution on 15 May and 18 May 1915, as recorded in The Royal Institution Friday evening lectures, 1907–1918, privately bound at the Royal Institution, London, n.d. The original MS is in the Bodleian Library, Soddy-Howorth Collection, 58 (Alton, 111). The lectures are apparently unpublished but were reviewed in Engineering, 1915, 99, 604Google Scholar. The quotation is from the MS, p. 11, 9.

³ Soddy, F., Science and life: Aberdeen addresses, London, 1920, p. 6Google Scholar. The original address entitled ‘Science and life’ was given in December 1918.

⁴ F.Soddy, concluding statement from Typescript-A of Soddy's biographical records, in the Bodleian Library, Soddy-Howorth Collection, 4 (Alton, 2).

⁵ Paneth, F. A., ‘Classical radioactivity and its sequence’, Nature, 1950, 166, 800.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁶ SirCrookes, William, ‘Presidential address’, Report of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, 1898, p. 18.Google Scholar

⁷ Ibid., p. 19.

⁸ Trenn, T. J., The self-splitting atom: a history of the Rutherford-Soddy collaboration, London, 1977.Google Scholar

⁹ Soddy, F., ‘Radio-activity’, The electrician, 1904, 52, 646.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Soddy, F., ‘The internal energy of elements’, Journal of proceedings of the Institution of Electrical Engineers, 1906, 37, 8Google Scholar. The cost of production is now over ten times greater; cf. Hansen, M., ‘Trends in uranium supply’, International Atomic Energy Agency bulletin, 1976, 18, 16–27.Google Scholar

¹¹ Soddy, , ‘Transmutation’, op. cit. (1), p. 187.Google Scholar

¹² Ibid., p. 198.

¹³ Ibid., pp. 199–200.

¹⁴ Ibid., p. 200.

¹⁵ Ibid.

¹⁶ Ibid.

¹⁷ Ibid.

¹⁸ Ibid., p. 201.

¹⁹ Ibid., p. 202.

²⁰ Soddy, , Energy, op. cit. (1), p. 246.Google Scholar

²¹ Ibid., pp. 246–7.

²² Soddy, F., op. cit. (3), p. 36Google Scholar. The original address, ‘Physical force—man's servant or his master?’, was given in November 1915. The quotation is from the section dealing with science and war. See also Barber, Bernard, Science and the social order, New York, 1970 (reprint of 1952 edn.), p. 288.Google Scholar

²³ Soddy, , op. cit. (3), p. 107Google Scholar. The original address ‘The evolution of matter’ was given in February 1917.

²⁴ Trenn, T. J., ‘The justification of transmutation: speculations of Ramsay and experiments of Rutherford’, Ambix, 1974, 21, 53–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

²⁵ Soddy, F., The wrecking of a scientific age, London, 1927.Google Scholar

²⁶ Soddy, F., Dishonest money; or why a larger pay-packet now buys less than it did, London, 1950.Google Scholar

²⁷ Soddy, F., Wealth, virtual wealth and debt: the solution of the economic paradox, London, 1926Google Scholar, The arch-enemy of economic freedom: what banking is, what first it was, and again should be, London, 1943.Google Scholar

²⁸ Hiebert, E. N., The impact of atomic energy, Newton, Kansas, 1961Google Scholar; and Smith, Alice K., A peril and a hope, Chicago, 1965.Google Scholar

²⁹ Soddy, F., Money reform as a preliminary to all reform, Birmingham, 1950, p. 2.Google Scholar

³⁰ Stewart, M., Keynes and after, 2nd edn., Harmondsworth, 1972, p. 60.Google Scholar

³¹ Ibid.

³² Soddy, F., Cartesian economics: the bearing of physical science upon state stewardship, London, 1922Google Scholar; The inversion of science: and a scheme of scientific reformation, London, 1924.Google Scholar

³³ Gesell, Silvio, Die natürliche Wirtschaftsordnung durch Freiland und Freigeld, 3rd edn., Arnstadt & Thüringen, 1919Google Scholar; Die Verwicklichung des Rechtes auf den vollen Arbeitsertrag durch die Geld- und Bodenreform, Hauts-Geneveys, Switzerland, 1906Google Scholar. Kitson, Arthur, A scientific solution of the money question, London, 1894Google Scholar; The money problem, London, 1903Google Scholar; A fraudulent standard; an exposure of the fraudulent character of our monetary standard, with suggestions for the establishment of an invariable unit of value, London, 1917.Google Scholar

³⁴ Soddy, , Inversion, op. cit. (32), pp. 5–6Google Scholar; Douglas, Clifford Hugh, Credit-power and democracy; with a draft-scheme for the mining industry, London, 1920Google Scholar; Economic democracy, London, 1920.Google Scholar

³⁵ Soddy, , Inversion, op. cit. (32), p. 5.Google Scholar

³⁶ Stewart, , op. cit. (30), p. 76Google Scholar; Keynes, John Maynard, The general theory of employment, interest and money, London, 1936.Google Scholar

³⁷ Wells, H. G., The work, wealth and happiness of mankind, London, 1932, p. 365.Google Scholar

³⁸ Ibid.

³⁹ Ibid., p. 487.

⁴⁰ Ibid., p. 492.

⁴¹ Ibid., p. 488.

⁴² Ibid., p. 492.

⁴³ Soddy, , Energy, op. cit. (1), p. 251.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ Soddy, , ‘Transmutation’, op. cit. (1), p. 187.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ Soddy, , op. cit. (3), p. 27.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ Ibid.; cf. Soddy, F., Money versus man: a statement of the world problem from the standpoint of the new economics, London, 1931Google Scholar; The role of money, London, 1935.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ Soddy, F., ‘Unemployment and hope’, Nature, 1930, 125, 346CrossRefGoogle Scholar; cf. Linn Cass, W. G., ‘Unemployment and hope’, Nature, 1930, 125, 225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁴⁸ Soddy, , Inversion, op. cit. (32), p. 6.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ Wells, , op. cit. (37), pp. 349, 365Google Scholar. Fisher, Irving, The making of index numbers, New York, 1922Google Scholar; The nature of capital and income, New York, 1906Google Scholar; The purchasing power of money, New York, 1911Google Scholar. Cf. Hayek, Friedrich A., The pure theory of capital, London, 1941, passim.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ Wells, , op. cit. (37), p. 365.Google Scholar

⁵¹ Ibid.

⁵² Ibid.; Keynes, J. M., A tract on monetary reform, London, 1923Google Scholar, ‘constituted an attack on one of the main pillars of the British economic system’, and, according to Stewart, , op. cit. (30), p. 22Google Scholar, Keynes found himself ‘virtually alone’ in his rejection of Britain's return to the pre-war gold standard system; cf. Keynes, , A treatise on money, London, 1930.Google Scholar

⁵³ Soddy, , Inversion, op. cit. (32), p. 23.Google Scholar

⁵⁴ Ibid., p. 41.

⁵⁵ Wells, , op. cit. (37), P. 371.Google Scholar

⁵⁶ Stewart, , op. cit. (30), pp. 228–9.Google Scholar

⁵⁷ Lekachman, Robert, The age of Keynes: a biographical study, Harmondsworth, 1966, p. 88.Google Scholar

⁵⁸ Ibid.

⁵⁹ Stewart, , op. cit. (30), p. 229.Google Scholar

⁶⁰ Ibid.

⁶¹ Soddy, , op. cit. (26), p. 20.Google Scholar

⁶² Barber, , op. cit. (22), p. 292.Google Scholar

⁶³ Ibid.

⁶⁴ Ibid., pp. 292–3.

⁶⁵ Bernal, John Desmond, The social function of science, Cambridge, Mass., 1967 (original edn., London, 1939), p. xv.Google Scholar

⁶⁶ Ibid., p. 386.

⁶⁷ SirHall, Daniel et al. , The frustration of science, London, 1935 (reprinted New York, 1975)Google Scholar. This contains a Foreword by Soddy on the inversion of science; chapter I by Sir Daniel Hall on science and agriculture; chapter II by J. G. Crowther on aviation; chapter III by J. D. Bernal on science and industry; chapter IV by V. H. Mottram on medicine; chapter V by E. Charles on the invention of sterility with respect to the population explosion; chapter VI by P. A. Gorer on bacterial warfare; and chapter VII by P. M. S. Blackett entitled ‘The frustration of science’. Blackett insists that science must become involved in social and economic issues: ‘Unless society can use science, it must turn anti-scientific, and that means giving up the hope of the progress that is possible. This is the way that capitalism is now taking, and it leads to Fascism’ (p. 139). The only other alternative envisioned here is socialism, which encourages science, instead of rejecting science like fascism. These claims of Blackett clearly set the tone of the volume.

⁶⁸ Soddy, , op. cit. (67), pp. 7–9Google Scholar. Soddy refused to accept the socialist gambit and followed neither the rank individualism of Gesell nor the creed of Wells. He preferred democracy. ‘The dispute between Socialism and individualism centres on one point, the question of the ownership of revenue-producing enterprise … [The alternative], democracy stands for a fair deal between the individual and the community … Do not trust labels. Look well to realities. An equally sinister fate is as likely to come from Socialism itself [as from extreme individualism or Fascism]. If it does not understand the origins of social injustice, it is as likely to end in an oligarchy, supported by military power …’; Soddy, , Inversion, op. cit. (32), p. 47Google Scholar. Cf. Soddy, F., ‘What I think about socialism’, Socialist review, 08 1928.Google Scholar A decade later, Soddy expounded further on this point in the light of the political polarity that had hardened in the meantime. ‘There is growing up among the masses, who have no part in or liking for the power-politics of their rulers, a feeling of fatalism that the threatened conflict is inevitable. According to the Marxist doctrine, capitalism carries within itself the seeds of its own collapse, so that they are coming to regard communism as the only alternative. My thesis is that the threatened collapse of our Western civilization has nothing to do with the political issues between capitalism and communism, but is the consequence of its false money system. Not only the impending collapse but its whole development, culminating in this very concentration of power into two opposing world-groups, has been due to the creation and issue of money having passed out of the hands of the several nations, at first into the hands of private bankers and now into the supranational Money Power which has usurped sovereignty over the whole Western World. The alternative is for the West certainly not communism, which … would be the substitution of one form of tyranny for another … [but] the restoration to the several nations of their traditional sovereign powers over the creation of money, and … an honest money system, with money of constant purchasing power, operated, not for profit, but … as a public service, like those provided for the maintenance of just weights and measures …’; Soddy, , op. cit. (29), p. 2.Google Scholar

⁶⁹ Soddy considered science to be the creator of wealth, but under the inversion of science the ‘exploiters of the wealth of the world are not its creators’. Under this inversion, from ‘the point of view of the community, capital is not wealth but debt, the not owning by the community of the resources of the planet whereon it resides …’; Soddy, , op. cit. (3), pp. 23–4Google Scholar. The rise of the ‘scientific civilization’ which Soddy advocated would meet with many obstacles, as he acknowledged just after the first world war. ‘The war being now over, it is not out of place to add that an even greater danger than neglect awaits the scientific investigator, the danger that he along with every other creative element in the community will be remorselessly shackled and exploited to bolster up the present discredited social system. There is abundant evidence since the war that science rules the world, and he who would aspire to rule it must first rule science’; Soddy, , op. cit. (3), p. 109Google Scholar; cf. Soddy, F., ‘Social relatons of science’, Nature, 1938, 141, 784–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁷⁰ Soddy, , op. cit. (67), p. 9.Google Scholar

⁷¹ Wells, , op. cit. (37), p. 781.Google Scholar

⁷² Ibid., p. 777.

⁷³ Bernai, , op. cit. (65), pp. xxxiv–xxxvGoogle Scholar. These comments appear in his essay ‘After twenty-five years’ included in this volume and originally published in Goldsmith, M. and Mackay, A. (eds.), Society and science, London, 1964.Google Scholar

⁷⁴ Soddy, , op. cit. (4).Google Scholar

⁷⁵ Mumford, Lewis, ‘Commemorative message’, in Commemoration of Professor Frederick Soddy, London, 1956/1958, pp. 11–12Google Scholar. The lack of alertness and sensitivity here described is represented typically by Soddy's biographer and close colleague in earlier research on isotopes, Sir Alexander Fleck: ‘The basis of his thought for the whole of his life after coming to Oxford was an endeavour to resolve the weaknesses of our modern civilized life … [Soddy's] main conclusion was that “it was entirely due to the fictitious money system which arose contemporaneously with the birth of the scientific civilization and that now was being purposefully and consciously used to frustrate it and to preserve the earlier civilizations founded on slavery” … To most of us,’ Fleck admitted, ‘these writings have little attraction and the best that can be said of them is that they represented an attempt to base a monetary system on an assessment of energy quantities … He continued to write and think on these lines until the 1950s but the impact of these writings tended to diminish’; Fleck, Alexander, ‘Frederick Soddy’, Biographical memoirs of Fellows of the Royal Society, 1957, 3, 210–11Google Scholar. Twenty years later it can be asked whether Soddy's views should not have attracted more attention within the scientific community, and whether to have ignored them can be justified.

⁷⁶ Barber, , op. cit. (22), p. 293.Google Scholar

⁷⁷ Soddy, , op. cit. (3), p. 172.Google Scholar