-
A Commentary (July 1927)
- Johns Hopkins University Press
- document
- Additional Information
We have received a small pamphlet published in Paris by the League of Nations, and entitled: The international organization of bibliography and scientific information. The extension of the international exchange of publications. The unification of scientific nomenclatures. International measures to facilitate the circulation of books and printed matter. The adoption of a general scheme for the exchange of professors and students, and for the equivalence of degrees and credentials. The possibility of creating rights of scientific property. The extension of the laws and regulations protecting works of art and the rights of the artist in their productions. The development of instruction on international questions. The regulation by international agreement of archaeological research, and the protection of historic buildings. International co-operation among museums and exhibitions. International co-operation among libraries. International measures for the development and improvement of the cinematograph. [6-8] Our first suspicion is that the Institute, after founding itself, has cast about for causes to further. This may be unjust, but certainly there is a lack of coherence, of any unifying idea; some of the causes seem rather trifling to occupy the time of an Institute in the Palais Royal; others seem more adapted to specialized bodies; and all are vague. Even though the Institute has been in existence only a few months, it must know what it means by “The extension of the international exchange of publications”; but the uninstructed reader would like to know too. We are frankly sceptical about the improvement of the cinema by any such sanctified organization. (a), (b), (i) and (j) seem good, but vague. (h) depends on the instructors. As for (c) we should think that that might be dealt with by international scientific congresses of the various sciences. If (d) is concerned with the difficulties of sending books from country to country, that is a good point. (e) “the equivalence of degrees and credentials” in the present state of education, seems pernicious; until education is far more standardized there can be no equality: even inside America alone, the value of any degree varies indefinitely according to the university which gives it. Of all these proposals, the most needed and hopeful reforms appear to be contained in (f) and (g), which deal with scientific property and copyright. Here is a matter which touches closely anyone who publishes a book, or even a periodical article, in Great Britain. Yet here, perhaps, we may find our ray of hope deceptive. The Institute does not “in any way concern itself with the private relations of one nation to another.” (In this it seems more cautious than the League itself, which undoubtedly concerned itself with the private relations of Sweden and Finland over the Åland Islands).