A hard line to draw Attempts to assign clear blame

for aiding war go only in a futile circle

I t is said that wars are begun in the minds of men. This thought can be carried further in

the atmosphere of modern communications for, increasingly, the minds of men are manipulable instruments in the political forces involved in wars.

In such an atmosphere the appeal by over 400 French and Japanese university scientists to American scientists to refuse to have American universities involved in military and secret research (page 19) is disappointing.

There are points of polarity that can be over­looked. For example, the absence of mention that scientists in universities of countries other than the U.S. ought also to abstain from secret or war-directed research.

The statement accompanying the press release from Paris says " . . . scholars throughout the world condemn the American war in Vietnam/' Surely scholars throughout the world ought to condemn war anywhere if their reason, as they state, is "the benefit of humanity and the integrity of scholarship."

Accept the principle that universities are devoted to the concept of open research and urge it on all universities in the world. That is good. Unfortunately it is not beyond reason to suggest that a scientist in a university accepting support from a government that maintains a military establishment of such strength as to claim rank as even a secondary major power is really involved in action that increases the chance of war.

One of the reasons for government support of science is the development of a better fighting machine. Surely any country that has developed an atomic bomb has drawn heavily on the resources of knowledge produced by scientists in its universities. Yet some countries with strong

scientific tradition have refused to sign the nu­clear test ban agreement.

Is it possible to draw a line beyond which pos­sible contribution to war is excusable? Is an effort to aid in building defense excusable? Is work acceptable if useful to a war machine, but not pursued with that objective in the scientist's stated purpose? Or is there real evidence of the scientist's accepting responsibility to humanity only when he takes significant personal action? For example, competent scientists can change their fields and still maintain both integrity and excellence of scholarship—although perhaps not a developed reputation. Some areas of science are less likely to be exploitable for man's in­humanity than are others, although no new funda­mental knowledge can be assuredly beyond pos­sible use in war.

The basic plea that scholars bend their every effort to the search for truth where it cannot aid war or oppression is admirable, as is their "never willingly permitting" their discoveries to be exploited for destructive purposes. Men of intel­ligence know that what can be made useful for destruction is likely to be used for destruction, and willingness cannot be totally divorced from likelihood.

The arguments as presented in the paper issued from Paris must be viewed to some extent as political. Had they been expressed with admis­sion of political position it would have been more effective, for politics is the area from which the answer will come.

FEB. 5, 1968 C&EN

EDITORIAL

5