In the tenth century, our relationship with Nature underwent significant changes. In 1910, Theodore Roosevelt established the first national monument, Devils Tower, in Wyoming, United States, which serves as a guide for environmental protection efforts. In 1912, the RMS Titanic expedition tragically sank, showing the frailty of humans amidst the vastness of nature. In this decade, the modern environmental movement was born, with the establishment of the National Park Service in the United States in 1916. In 1919, the International Labor Organization (ILO) was founded, recognizing the importance of environmental conditions to workers’ welfare. Among these events, World War I (1914–1918) had a profound impact on the land and ecology of a continent like Europe, revealing the natural destructive power of human conflict. Overall, the 1910s were a revolutionary period of environmental protection efforts, as well as the hard reality of man-made destruction and nature’s resilience in the face of adversity.
The 1910s marked a period of profound change and upheaval throughout the world, affecting a variety of fields, including science and education. Amidst this ridicule, the renowned journal Nature faced significant challenges. With its worldwide reach, the publication countered the effects of the First Science War, which reshaped the social, political, and scientific landscape of Europe. As the country began to understand the demands of war, the flow of submissions to Nature slowed, leading to a decline in subscriptions—for the first time in the magazine’s history. Furthermore, the German hypothesis, once admired for its scientific achievements, had already taken on a very different form as it came to be seen as a rival. Previously admired for its advances, especially in the chemical branch, Germany’s scientific prowess now came to be viewed from the perspective of wartime conflict.
When war broke out in 1914, there was a marked change in Natural’s editorial approach with regard to German science. Much of what had previously been considered excellent, particularly the harmony between German science and industry, was now facing harsh criticism. In a September 1914 editorial, under the headline “The War – and After”, the magazine announced a return to the days of the Huns, using historical references to further explain the threat posed by Germany’s perceptions there. was expected. This argument was enhanced by an editorial written by William Ramsey on October 8, in which he accused the Germans of pursuing ambitions for global rule and of making unjust use of others’ discoveries and inventions. Ramsey’s editorials lampooned German science with ideas of immorality and unreliability, and made allegations of barbarity against the German military.
Amidst high tensions and growing hostility toward Germany, Nature attempted to coordinate former collaborations and identities in the new wartime context. In a strange change, Ramsey’s editorship advised English scientists to retain titles and prizes gifted by their German colleagues—contrary to German practice, in which such honors were returned. This call to maintain relations with German scientists of this period, despite ongoing hostility, represented a nuanced approach to addressing the complexities of wartime sentiments. Despite the ill effects of the war, Nature attempted to maintain the values of scientific exchange and cooperation, albeit against a backdrop of changing political tensions and perceptions.
As a result of the conflict, Richard Gregory assumed the official editorship of Natural in 1919, signaling a new chapter for the magazine. While taking on the task of guiding the publication through the post-war era, Gregory turned the conversation into a landscape punctuated by the conflicts and turmoil of previous years. As Nature set out on its next fifty-year journey, it turned against the role of the First World War—a steadiness in the face of an earthquake of historical events and the strange prestige of science and scholarship.
On April 22, 1915, during the Battle of the Second Ypres at the Western Main Fire Station, the German Army released a new and deadly asphyxiation gas. This incident caused widespread outrage and suspicion among the general public as to the exact nature of the gas actually used. Among the explanations, a Sunday newspaper suggested that carbon monoxide was used, while Natural Science, a week after the attack, rejected this suspicion due to the light weight of carbon monoxide compared to air. . Through a combination of scientific investigation and interviews, Natural correctly identified chlorine as a likely agent, considering sulfur dioxide as less likely. The article raised important questions about the production and management of this gas, citing the alliance of German science and industry as crucial in producing it in sufficient quantities. However, the challenge of managing the gas to prevent harmful effects on users remained, which was made painfully clear by both sides with hundreds of thousands of casualties.
Between 1915 and 1919, there was a significant increase in focus on industry and social issues. Even before the war’s conclusion, discussions of post-war reconstruction began. For example, a book review dated 7 November 1918 began by stating: “‘Reconstruction,’ like Mesopotamia, is a blessed word.” This reflects a growing awareness of the need to rebuild societies destroyed by war. Furthermore, an editorial three weeks later hinted at a stronger social stance in the magazine’s approach, recognizing the important role of labor in shaping the future. The rise of communism in Russia after the Revolution adds a new dimension to the relationship between capital and labor, intensifying a dangerous dialogue over the prospects for peace. Natural organization accommodates itself with the labor movement, acknowledging the importance of labor’s demands and the need for a balanced and careful approach to both workers and employers for a stable post-war society.
The use of nature as a result of the social upheaval caused by war and the World War brought about a deep reflection on the future perspective of human civilization. The destruction brought about by industrialized warfare and the rise of ideologies such as communism emphasized the need to reexamine social structures and power dynamics. Nature, through its editorial approach, contributed to the atmosphere around these issues, which favored a more interactive distribution of power and resources. As the world had to deal with the consequences of the Great War, the magazine played a role in fostering discussions that would ultimately influence the direction of post-war reconstruction efforts and the search for a more just and stable global order.
In 1918, Joseph Norman Lockyer, 82 and contemplating retirement, exchanged letters with Frederick Macmillan in which he expressed satisfaction at William Gregory’s contribution, amid sharp criticism. Lockyer, a prominent man with experience who was not an associate of the Royal Society, approved of Gregory’s efforts. Lockyer described administrative skills as more important than mere scientific honours, saying that many Royal Society members lacked such abilities. Lockyer’s preference for Gregory as editor was evident in his communications with him, assuring him of his qualifications with Macmillan, despite him not being a member of the Royal Society.
Henry Norris Gregory served as editor until he left for the University of Sidmouth in 1912. He transferred to this role in November 1919. His dedication and contribution were honored when he received a knighthood for his work in arranging scientific exhibitions in 1918 and 1919. Despite his absence, Gregory’s significant contributions to the scientific community were recognized when he was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society in 1933.
Lockyer’s correspondence shows his deep appreciation of Gregory’s work during his difficult times in 1918. Lockyer’s departure created a need for his successor, and Gregory, despite lacking some distinguished qualifications, displayed admirable administrative and editorial abilities. Gregory’s subsequent knighthood and eventual membership in the Royal Society attest to his significant contributions to science and editorial leadership. Lockyer’s support of Gregory reflected the importance of practical skill and dedication in scientific leadership, which transcended the traditional parameters of membership in great institutions such as the Royal Society.