The Origins of Operational Research in the Coal Industry: A Tribute to Sir CharlesDrummond Ellis, F.R.S., 1895-1980Author(s): Donald HicksSource: The Journal of the Operational Research Society, Vol. 34, No. 9 (Sep., 1983), pp. 845-852Published by: Palgrave Macmillan Journals on behalf of the Operational Research SocietyStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2580967 .

Accessed: 28/06/2014 11:32

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

Palgrave Macmillan Journals and Operational Research Society are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,preserve and extend access to The Journal of the Operational Research Society.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 91.220.202.141 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 11:32:41 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

J. OpI Res. Soc. Vol. 34, No. 9, pp. 845-852, 1983 0160-5682/83 $3.00 + 0.00 Printed in Great Britain. All rights reserved Copyright $ 1983 Operational Research Society Ltd

THE ORIGINS OF OPERATIONAL RESEARCH IN THE COAL INDUSTRY

A TRIBUTE TO SIR CHARLES DRUMMOND ELLIS, F.R.S., 1895-1980

DONALD HICKS

The story of the work of the Operational Research Branch of the National

Coal Board for the 21 years 1948-1969 is well told in the splendid book

entitled 1"O.R. Comes of Age", edited by Rolfe Tomlinson'. My executive

responsibility for the Group covered the period 1948-1962. What more can I

add? A.J. Ayer,2 in his book on "The Origins of Pragmatism", after

acknowledging Charles Sanders Peirce's edifice as incorporating his theory of

scientific method, for which formal logic provided the cement, said that his

metaphysics was a somewhat florid decoration. Anything I might add to

Tomlinson's story might also be considered as a florid decoration. Origins are

about people and their faith, hopes and fears, and one's judgements on these

matters are usually biased.

One cannot talk about the origins of O.R. in the N.C.B. without talking

about Sir Charles Ellis, who was the first scientific member of the Board,

which he served from 1946 to 1955. I was privileged to work with him for these

nine years, and it was as sad a day for me when he left as it was for him. We

may ask what manner of man was he? After leaving Harrow, he went to the Royal

Military Academy, Woolwich, from where he passed out First and joined the

Royal Engineers. He was in Germany at the outbreak of the First World War and

was interned at Ruhleben. There he met James Chadwick, the discoverer of the

neutron, who in 1914 had been working with Geiger. Chadwick stimulated Ellis'

interest in physics and mathematics and encouraged him to develop his skills

as an experimenter. Together they carried out at Ruhleben some significant

researches with home-made apparatus and with pieces of equipment given to them

by Professors Planck, Nernst and Lise Meinter.

In 1919 Ellis went to Trinity College, Cambridge. After matriculating, he

quickly obtained a First Class in mathematics in Part I and followed with a

First Class in physics in Part II. He remained in Cambridge until 1936 as a

Fellow and as a researcher in the brilliant team surrounding Rutherford. His

particular field of interest was radioactivity and related problems. He

collaborated closely with Rutherford and with Chadwick, and together the three

of them published in 1930 a critical review of progress in this field in the

previous 12 years - "Radiation from Radioactive Substances". His attitude to

science and his philosophy of science was shaped in a hard, competitive and

brilliant school of researchers. It is interesting to record that Imre

Lakatos,3 in his dissertation on "Falsification and the methodology of

scientific research programmes", when discussing crucial experiments and the

end of instant rationality, goes to some length to describe the Meinter-Ellis

controversy about the mechanism of beta-decay and the conservation laws and

the consequences of their two conflicting theories on the development of the

researches in this field.

Ellis' experience at Cambridge and later as Wheatstone Professor of

Physics at Kings College, London gave him a keen sense of the importance and

difficulties of formulating a viable research programme. He knew that

rationality works much slower than most people tend to think and that instant

rationality and instant learning fail. It takes time for new approaches to be developed and absorbed in any culture. Ellis also knew that one of the secrets of the scientific mind is to discern the limits of the legitimate application of scientific methods.

845

This content downloaded from 91.220.202.141 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 11:32:41 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Journal of the Operational Research Society Vol.. 34, No. 9

Ellis was athletic both physically and mentally. He had a wonderful

ability to pare down problems to the bones and thereafter to select the

questions that were amenable to scientific study and experimental proof. When

considering operations, he always stressed the importance of first getting to

understand the nature of the current practices with a satisfying explanation

of why the results were what they were. If the explanations showed how the

practices could be improved, then the way was open for designing experiments

in the field. He himself was a fine experimenter, and what was not often

appreciated in the N.C.B., he was a good engineer. This is a necessary but

inadequate sketch of the scientist who originated O.R. in the coal industry.

He did not dwell on his past achievements. For him the past was gone and done

with. It was the shape of things to come that challenged him. When he was

compelled to leave the Board in 1955, it was the sacrifice of his plans and

his unfinished work that added to the sadness of the occasion.

The Royal Society Biographical Memoir of Ellis (Hutchison et al.4) speaks

of him being "a very private person in his later years". I think that he was

always so; he had few close personal friends. And yet he was always

approachable, and when one took one's problems to him for his help in solving

them, he promptly gave them his undivided attention. He was as economical in

his conversational style as he was in his literary style. It was important to

listen attentively to what he was saying. Not to do so was to risk losing the

full benefit of his advice. To be present when he was drafting a paper or a

memorandum was an education. A good example of his literary style and how his

mind worked is to be found in his essay: "Rutherford: one aspect of a complex

character".5 Ellis' integrity as a scientist (and as a man generally) was

beyond reproach; there was no gap or conflict between what he said and what he

did.

During the Second World War Ellis became Scientific Adviser to the Army

Council. He was also a member of the Advisory Council on Scientific Research

and Technical Development to the Ministry of Supply. Ellis, as Scientific

Adviser, was responsible for the build-up of a considerable O.R. facility in

the army, which was available to commanders at all levels. In saying this, I

do-not wish in any way to minimise the tremendous efforts of Brigadier

Schonland, F.R.S. (later Sir Basil Schonland, Director of Research, A.E.R.E.,

Harwell) of the Ministry of Supply and of Dr J.M. Whittaker, F.R.S., who in

1944 was appointed Ellis' Deputy and Director of O.R. (War Office).

Soon after Ellis was appointed to the N.C.B. in 1946, he conjectured (I

use this word in the Popper sense) that O.R. could make a substantial

contribution towards a better understanding of the very many problems

confronting the Board at that time and thereby help to show how some of these

problems might be solved or ameliorated. In 1947 he was canvassing his

colleagues on the Board to support the setting up of small group of scientists

for this purpose. He was supported by Sir Arthur Street, the Deputy Chairman

of the Board, who had been the Permanent Secretary of the Air Ministry and a

member of the Air Council. Street knew about the O.R. work done with the Air

Force during the war - he knew what O.R. was about. His close association with

Sir Henry Tizard (see Clark6) and his understanding of the writings of Basil

Liddell Hart between the wars convinced Street of the value of having special

teams of scientists to investigate operational problems (see Liddell Hart7).

It was a little later that Lord Hyndley, the Chairman of the Board, in his

quiet and unobtrusive manner, gave his support to our efforts to establish O.R. in the coal industry. This came about from some kind words about our activities from his friend Sir Raymond Streat, Chairman of the Manchester Joint Research Council. In the autumn of 1949 this Council had organised a series of lectures on O.R. in industry and an Open Forum in January 1950, when

846

This content downloaded from 91.220.202.141 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 11:32:41 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

The Origins of O.R. in the Coal Industry

I, as one of the autumn lecturers, shared the platform at the Forum with Blackett, Tippett and Glanville, Director of the Road Research Laboratory.

Support from the Board ensured a pass to get on with the job and access to problems and facilities. This put a considerable responsibility on those who were appointed to do the work. It was necessary, therefore, to try to make certain that their behaviour, the quality of their work and their presentation of it was such as to reinforce this support and not to undermine it; the support was precious and needed to be taken care of and safeguarded. However, the Board depended greatly on the views of the Directors-General of Production, Marketing, Finance and Industrial Relations. The views of these people depended on their judgment as to whether the O.R. work was useful to them and their staffs. This had to be worked for. The Board would only agree to increases in the complement of the O.R. team if the proposed increases were underwritten by the Directors-General.

In 1948 Ellis obtained the Board's approval for the formation of a small section in his Department, which, he said, "for want of a better title, I propose should be called the Field Investigation Group (FIG)". He said that he would start on a modest scale with one Principal Scientific Officer in charge of the section and six junior grades. He added that "not all of these would be taken on until I have seen how it goes". This new section was put under me as Director of Scientific Control. Alan Evans, who had been engaged on O.R. during the war years, was, at the time he was appointed to be in charge of the new section, a member of the Army O.R. Unit at West Byfleet. And so O.R. was launched in the N.C.B. Evans stayed with us for two years. When he left, the section's complement was 12 scientists.

Soon after we started, we were engaged in recruiting staff. This presented us with, perhaps, one of our biggest problems. How could we identify the men, however well qualified academically (and most of the applicants were new graduates), who would have the necessary curiosity and flair for theory and discovery (i.e. their promise for research) which is essential for a good operational researcher. Also, the men appointed would have to be happy working in what is a rough and harsh environment, spending fairly long periods at the collieries and away from their homes and young families. We experimented with many different ways of interviewing candidates, but it is said in "O.R. Comes of Age" that no wholly satisfactory method has yet emerged.

It is interesting to reflect on why Sir Charles Ellis chose not to write O.R. into the title of this new section. First, he was loath to define O.R. Soon after I took on the responsibility for the Group, I learned from Blackett that he also was unwilling to define O.R. Ellis undoubtedly wished to ensure that the fields of enquiry available to the FIG should be as wide open as possible; that is that no problem area would be debarred. Also, by not using the term O.R. officially, he avoided having to define O.R., or what would be worse, having a definition imposed on us which might be restrictive. He used the word 'field' in the title because he knew that the best way of getting a better understanding of the Board's many problems was by investigating them where the operations were carried out and doing so in collaboration with the people involved. If, as a result of the investigations, changes in practices were proposed, these would have to take place in the field, and members of the Group would participate in the necessary experiments. It was the field investigation aspect of the activity that appealed to me and which enlisted my enthusiasm. Up to the time I am speaking about, I had spent my working life in the coalfields, and much of the time underground. I was happy to allow the distinctive features of O.R. to emerge over time, when perhaps a good definition could be written. Even today, there does not seem to be a clear and

847

This content downloaded from 91.220.202.141 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 11:32:41 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Journal of the Operational Research Society Vol.- 34, No. 9

widely acceptable description of O.R. The most careful examination of a definition of O.R. that I know of is by C. West Churchman8 in his paper "O.R. as a Profession". But he left the topic as a very tangled skein. His last words were that any model of O.R. teams should include the essence of "faith, hope and charity". There are many words in our language which serve us well but which are indefinable. Our urge to define is so often unstructured. Is O.R. a simple notion or is the idea or object complex? On this we would do well to read again G.E. Moore's9 dissertation on definitions in the first

chapter of his "Principia Ethica", entitled "The subject matter of ethics".

One of my last acts before leaving the Board's service in 1962 was, in a joint paper with Brian Houlden, to invite the Board to drop the title FIG and adopt the title O.R. Branch. Not all the members of the Board wished to make the change, but Lord Robens was persuaded and the change was made. Incidentally, in the same paper the Board were invited to agree to doubling the strength of the Branch within the following two to three years. I cannot remember what was the strength in 1962, but it was probably between 50 and 60 scientists. I am told that the present strength is more than 120 scientists. If Ellis were alive now, he would be reasonably satisfied that his original guarded and perhaps qualified faith and hope in, O.R. had turned out well. He would still wish to be satisfied on the quality and effectiveness of the work - sheer size carried little weight with him. I have no doubt that George Mitchell would satisfy Ellis on the score of quality and effectiveness. Of course, over the years the concept of O.R. has been enlarged; the methodology and techniques have changed greatly; the facilities for data collection, processing and analysis are very much better. The basis of joint working with

a whole range of other specialists and managers in this complex industry is surer and much more firmly based than it was in the early years of FIG. Sentimentally I can only hope that the present impressive edifice that George Mitchell rules has been built on the foundations laid in the few years

following the formation of the Group in 1948, when the scientists were beginning to learn their trade. It is one thing to get authority to form a

group; it is another thing to have a good programme of work. The staff had to

go out and look for business, and this tested their stamina and imagination. We took many risks and there were some failures and disappointments, but these did not weigh too heavily on the staff, who I like to think learned from their mistakes.

I have had to digress from my main purpose of making this paper an essay about Sir Charles Ellis, from whom I learned so much. I am not certain that I

successfully transmitted what I had learned to the staff for whom I was

responsible. Once Ellis had Board approval to launch an activity like FIG, he did not fuss over its organisation, its programme and progress. So far as I

can remember, he never once suggested a field of enquiry, and certainly he did not propose projects. This was for the managers in production, marketing, finance and industrial relations to do. Occasionally in conversation he would

enquire as to how we had satisfied ourselves that we were asking the right questions and questions for which there was a good chance that the staff could reasonably answer. This was about the extent of his guidance. But he was

always ready to defend the Group before the Board and to take upon himself full responsibility for any shortcomings that critics elsewhere in the organisation may have represented to him.

There was one feature of his general philosophy which was very important in the early days. This concerned the relationship of the Group with specialist groups in other departments, such as the Method Study Branch in Production Department, the Standard Cost Accountants in Finance Department, the Statistics and Economic Adviser's Office and so on. Ellis was never

848

This content downloaded from 91.220.202.141 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 11:32:41 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

The Origins of O.R. in the Coal Industry

worried about the overlapping roles of these various groups of specialists. He had acquired his international reputation as a scientist in a field of endeavour where there was much overlapping of effort by many brilliant scientists spread about the world. He knew that there would be controversy and competing theories, but he would not tolerate an atmosphere of open, or worse, concealed hostility on our part towards those other specialists working on problems which we might think should be ours and which we might think we could tackle more effectively. He always stressed the importance of the complementary functions of the different specialist groups. Irrespective of the comparability of personalities, Ellis argued from the beginning that FIG should learn quickly to work collaboratively not only with the managers and engineers in the field, but also with the various groups of specialists. If there were differences between them, then good sense would suggest that these differences should be resolved amicably between them, if only to avoid having an unsatisfactory compromise forced on them from above. The O.R. Branch has succeeded in working effectively with other specialists in the Board's service to an extent beyond our wildest hopes at the start. The excellent and rewarding collaboration between the O.R. staff and the Method Study engineers is well illustrated in "O.R. Comes of Age", as also is the good working arrangements with the staff of the Staff College and with the Board's computer organisation, which is embedded in the Board's Finance Department. At no time in the formative years was there any serious discussion that the Board's specialist services should be brought together in a Management Services Department under one Director. If this had been suggested, Ellis would have opposed the idea. He welcomed diversity, provided there was purposeful collaboration.

It is difficult at this distance in time to describe the atmosphere of frenzied activity at the Board's Headquarters in the early years of nationalization. People had been appointed to do a specific job, but they soon found themselves loaded with many other jobs; I was no exception. The Board, in an imaginative way, allowed all sorts of ideas mooted by the various departments to be given a run. Some survived, grew and flourished; others, after a promising start, petered out. In my first year, in addition to my prime responsibility as Director of Scientific Control, I took over the responsibility for the Coal Survey Organisation of D.S.I.R. on its transfer to the Board. Then in the second year I was assigned the FIG. But this was not the end. Other additional responsibilities were soon added. I can illustrate by selecting two activities which were closely related to O.R. and which had many common features.

Sir Charles Ellis, almost immediately he came to the Board, realised that if the Board were to handle with confidence the emotional subject of

pneumoconiosis, it would be necessary for them to undertake a long-term study of the prevalence and incidence of pneumoconiosis amongst the miners of Great Britain. Because of my pre-nationalisation experience of collaborating with P. D'Arcy Hart and E.A. Aslett of the Medical Research Council in their study of Chronic Pulmonary Diseases in South Wales Coalminers, Ellis asked me to work out a programme for studying the prevalence and incidence of pneumoconiosis in a representative sample of miners in the country as a whole and to relate these measures to their working environment, as determined by the respirable dust concentrations (and incidentally their smoking habits). After much discussion, especially with the Mines Inspectorate of the Ministry of Power, a programme of work to cover a period of at least ten years was agreed by the National Joint Pneumoconiosis Committee of the Ministry of Power, comprising

849

This content downloaded from 91.220.202.141 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 11:32:41 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Journal of the Operational Research Society Vol: 34, No. 9

representatives of the Ministry, the N.U.M., the N.C.B., the Ministry of

Pensions and National Insurance and the Medical Research Council.

In February 1952, the Board were asked to "undertake a field research in

order to determine how much and what kinds of dust cause pneumoconiosis and to

establish what environmental conditions should be maintained if mineworkers

were not to be disabled by the dust that they breathe during the course of

their work". Because of the preliminary work that had already been done, the

research started almost immediately at 26 collieries, and the medical

examination of some 35,000 miners commenced. I shared the direction of this

massive programme with Dr J. Rogan, the Board's Chief Medical Officer. I was

responsible for the environmental studies and for the assembly and analysis of

the very large amount of data that the research generated. J.W.J. Fay and John

Ashford (now Professor of Statistics and O.R. at Exeter University) were

appointed to do the work. Fay was a physicist from Harwell, and Ashford a

mathematical statistician newly graduated from Cambridge. They did a

magnificent job. They often shared accommodation with the staff of FIG and

sometimes interchanged staff. Often I was struck by some of the common

features of the activities of the two groups and the way they thought about

problems. O.R. scientists might benefit from a closer attention to the work of

epidemiologists (see Snow10).

My second example is of a different kind. Soon after nationalization,

Anthony Wandless, my Deputy in charge of the Coal Survey Organisation, and I

were joined with three senior and respected technical marketing officers

charged with the task of making proposals for a complete revision of the

Board's coal price structure. We worked steadily on our task for many months.

Eventually we put forward what we considered was a logical scheme based

largely on relating prices to the measured quality of the many hundreds of

different kinds and grades of coal marketed by the Board. (There are some

references to the basis of the price structure in the Marketing chapter of

"O.R. Comes of Age".) Looking back, it is now clear to me, although I did not

fully realise it at the time, that this work was an excellent example of an

O.R. study. The model was a comparatively simple one. It was understandable to

the large number of marketing staff who would have to use it, and it was

negotiable. The recommendations of this small working party were quickly

accepted and implemented. This was largely due to the fact that, during the

course of the study, staff in all of the Divisions had been involved in

testing the proposals as they were being developed. The revised price

structure served the Board well for many years. I have given these two

examples to show that the O.R. approach was influencing all my many different

activities.

Returning to FIG, it is desirable to record that from the start we gave

the staff as much responsibility as they could carry; in a few instances

probably more. In the few years after the formation of the Group, one task

fell to me, namely to try to create a sympathetic audience for them. This I

attempted to do by lecturing frequently at the Staff College, to courses run

by the Board at Hastings and to ad hoc courses organised in the Divisions.

These lectures were not designed solely to describe O.R., but rather to

describe some of the major problems confronting the Board at that time and

some of the problems that would be encountered when the reconstuction and

re-equipping of the industry got under way. I also tried to show how the

energy pattern might change in the years ahead and the consequences for the coal industry. The object was to demonstrate that the various problems could be, and indeed should be, tackled scientifically. I did not suggest that the FIG scientists were the only people who could do this. My purpose rather was to lend support to the idea that scientific enquiry and scientific action

850

This content downloaded from 91.220.202.141 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 11:32:41 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

The Origins of O.R. in the Coal Industry

should be a more universally available activity for all individuals in the

industry and not a separatist activity and an irritating part of the environment.

I can remember today one of my perorations lifted word for word from a paper on operational research published by Waddington1l in 1951: "If administrators, civil servants, business executives, production managers and others in similar position fully accept the view that a scientific training teaches a valuable technique of handling problems and if they act on that basis by inviting the scientists' cooperation in their most important discussions, then they are likely to obtain really useful aid. But if they regard science as a mere speciality to be called in on technical details, then the best they can hope for is help on details - and that at a level of originality which one can expect from a man willing to be treated as not competent to contribute to wider issues." All this was evangelical and short- term. I like to think that this flurry of talk had some good effects and that it made life a little easier for the staff of FIG. I tried to ensure that FIG could be trusted. However, this programme of lecturing could not be continued for long. People soon get bored with exhortation. In later years the O.R. Branch's contribution to the Staff College was more purposeful and businesslike, and this is well illustrated by Tomlinson. It was Ellis' view that in time the FIG scientist could and should fulfill an important role as an educational force within the Board's organisation. He gave his full support to the Board developing its own internal education facilities, available to staff at all levels. He was among those few who canvassed the idea that the Board should have its own Staff College.

I have attempted in this essay to give a glimpse of the climate and of the birth and weaning of O.R. in the N.C.B. The story of its growth and development thereafter would make few, if any, references to Ellis and Hicks. It would be the story of the work of Alan Evans, Pat Rivett, Brian Houlden, Rolfe Tomlinson and George Mitchell, who at various times have participated in and directed the day-to-day work. There are also the very many good scientists who worked with them.

I would not go so far as to claim, as did Whitehead12 in his Lowell

Lectures, that it requires genius to create a subject as a distinct topic of

thought with a grip on the evolution of thought. Of course, at its origins and for the seven years afterwards, we had the outstanding scientist in the person of Sir Charles Ellis to guide us. But, in the main, it was the hard work of many enthusiastic, young scientists working with managers in the field who secured a place for O.R. in the coal industry.

At the time that O.R. was launched in the N.C.B., the writings of Karl Popper were not available to us. They are now justifiably famous. But the writings of Charles Sanders Peirce were available. Peirce largely anticipated Popper, and it was on his views on scientific method and logic that Peirce built his edifice of Pragmatism. He ended the last of his seven lectures on Pragmatism, which he delivered in Cambridge, Massachusetts in 1903, by saying that the maxim of the true pragmatist will be: "The elements of every concept enter into logical thought at the gate of perception and make their exit at the gate of purposive action; and whatever cannot show its passport at both these two gates is to be arrested as unauthorized by reason."13 In a way, those of us who were involved in starting O.R. in the N.C.B. were pragmatists. Anyone who may be minded to graft the practices of O.R. on to the limbs carrying the main technologies of an organisation in order to cement them into one creative whole would do well to remember the words of Marcel Proust,14 who

OS34/9- 8 51

This content downloaded from 91.220.202.141 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 11:32:41 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Journal of the Operational Research Society Vol.. 34, No. 9

said that this would require "...the infinite patience of birds building their nests...".

References

1R.C. TOMLINSON (1971) O.R. Comes of Age: A Review of the Work of the O.R.

Branch of the National Coal Board 1948-1969. Tavistock Publications.

2A.J. AYER (1968) The Origins of Pragmatism: Studies in the Philosophy of

Charles Sanders Peirce and William James. Macmillan.

3I. LAKATOS (1970) Falsification and the methodology of scientific research

programmes. In Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge (I. LAKATOS and A.

MUSGRAVE, Eds). Cambridge University Press.

4K. HUTCHISON, J.A. GRAY and H. MASSEY (1981) Charles Drummond Ellis, 1895-

1980. Biographical Memoirs of Fellows of the Royal Society, Vol. 27

(November).

5C.D. ELLIS (1960) Rutherford: one aspect of a complex character. Trinity

College, Cambridge, Review.

6R.W. CLARK (1965) Tizard. Methuen.

7B. LIDDELL HART (1965) The Memoirs of Captain Liddell Hart, Vols. I and II.

Cassell & Co. (See also Operat. Res. Quart. 17, 324-325.)

8C.W. CHURCHMAN (1970) Operations research as a profession. Mgmt Sci. 17, No.

2.

9G.E. MOORE (1903) Principia Ethica. Cambridge University Press. (1st

paperback edition 1959.)

10J. SNOW (1855) On the Mode of Communication of Cholera. John Churchill,

London. (2nd edition.)

11C.H. WADDINGTON (1951) Operational Research. Animal Breeding Abstracts 19,

409-415.

12A.N. WHITEHEAD (1926) Science and the Modern World. Cambridge University

Press.

13C.S. PEIRCE (1934) Collected papers of Charles Sanders Peirce, Vol. V,

p. 131. Belknap Press, University of Harvard. (Reprinted 1965.)

14MARCEL PROUST (1922) Swann's Way, Vol. 1. Scott-Moncrieff translation.

Chatto and Windus.

852

This content downloaded from 91.220.202.141 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 11:32:41 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions