Sir Peter Medawar was respected by scientists and literati alike. It was perhaps not surprising, then, that he would choose to involve himself in the 'two cultures' debate of 1959 and beyond. The focus of his intervention was the philosophy of Sir Karl Popper. However, Medawar's Popper was not the guru of falsification familiar from philosophy textbooks. Medawar's distinctive interpretation of Popper treated him instead as the source of insights into the role of creativity and imagination in scientific inquiry. This paper traces the context for Medawar's adoption of Popperian philosophy, together with its application before the debate. It then examines, within the context of the debate itself, the way in which Medawar attempted to reconcile scientific inquiry with literary practice. Medawar became increasingly convinced that not only was induction epistemologically unsound, but it was also damaging to the public role of the scientist. His construction of Popperianism would, he envisaged, provide a worthy alternative for scientists' self-image.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

In 1971 Lord (Victor) Rothschild published his report for the government, The organisation and management of government R&D, and Sir Peter Medawar launched a campaign for the election of Sir Karl Popper to Fellowship of the Royal Society. We explore these two developments in the contexts of the then current views of the role and purpose of science, and their underpinning philosophy. Although the political battle was won by Rothschild, resulting in major changes to the funding and management of applied R&D, we argue that, despite this, Medawar's campaign for Popper provided an embattled science community with a philosophical basis for defending pure research and the unity of basic and applied science.