CO-OPERATION OR CHAOS?

New Zealand Listener, Volume 14, Issue 350, 8 March 1946, Page 14

CO-OPERATION OR CHAOS?

fade weeks ago we published an address by Professor Polanyi on the place of the scientist in the community. Another aspect of the same question, not without some bearing on the atomic bomb and the Canadian spy hunt, is discussed in this article which we reprint from "The Saturday Review of Literature" (New York).. The author is Robert R. Wilson, assistant director of the Los Alamos Division of the Atomic Bomb Project and professor of nuclear physics at Princeton University.

N the desk beside me as I write is a book, not yet read through, by J. D. Bernal, called The Social Function of Science. I have already read J. G. Crowther’s The Social Relations of Science. Before the war, while I might have thumbed through books of this sort curiously, I could well have said that the science I pursued, nuclear physics, had no immediate social function. The truth is that while scientists were as aware of social and political conditions as most men, they liked to think that their work as explorers of the unknown was an end in itself. The scientist of a few years ago working in his laboratory felt only a slight interest in the technological developments stemming, usually years later, from any discoveries he had made. He was pained to read the repeated slogan that his was a Scientific Age, for his connection with the world of radio and refrigerators, of bigger, better airplanes was reasonably remote. "Social function of Science,’ he might have muttered to himself. "The social function of science is to produce good physics or good chemistry or good physiology." Smack Into Politics This detachment of science and scien- tists was shaken when scientists were recruited for war work. There were few men who could leave their peaceful laboratories for experiments on weapons of death without scrutinising their consciences and the relation of their profession to society more thoroughly than they had before. But when the first successful atomic bomb ripped the air

of a desert in New Mexico called, appropriately enough, Jornada del MuertoJourney of Death-the scientists were catapulted smack into political activity. Only six years after the discovery of uranium fission by Hahn and Meitner, bombs utilising the energy released by that fission fell upon Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Technology and science were no longer separate entities, but were fused into an awesome marriage. With more truth than it realised, the press

proclaimed the dawn of a new era; "The Atomic Age" they called it. We scientists then found ourselves among the few who understood the implications of this development. We found ourselves prophets of the new age. Even before the successful test, we had begun tentatively to organise. At first a handful, then 50, and finally about 500 of us at Los Alamos met to consider the sociological implications of our work. Spontaneously and separately, the scientists at Chicago’s Metallurgical Laboratory, at Oak Bridge in Tennessee, and at Los Alamos formed associations. These _ scientific organisations, like the atomic bomb, were something new upon the American scene. Up to this time, American men of science had remained aloof from any sort of political organisation. No matter what our personal political colour, professionally we were rugged individualists. There have been causes which might have evoked united action — the same economic drives andthe same insecurity which lie back of most trade unionism. It is significant to me that when scientists did organise it was not for personal objectives, but rather as a result of a deep and profound sense of moral responsibility. "Horrified at the Possibilities" We would be automatons, indeed, if, having unleashed a power like nuclear energy, we did not try to explain its implications. The men who worked on the atomic bomb are horrified at the possibilities of its misuse. All of the newly organised scientific groups. have issued statements indicating their belief that atomic weapons are a radical development which will distort the picture of traditional warfare. These statements

examine the possible paths that the United States can take in respect to nuclear power and conclude that only one road is feasible-removing the atomic bomb from an armaments race by placing it under strict international control. It is not an easy job for us to interpret the ramifications of nuclear energy to the American people. The rift between the scientists and the man in the street is one of long standing, and Sunday supplement articles have never bridged the gap. The language of science is admittedly difficult to understand. Scientists can command little influence through weight of numbers. Furthermore, scientists have always shunned personal publicity. What one has. then, in effect, is a handful of obscure men rising up and insisting on certain political reforms. It appears almost quixotic. On our side we have amazing unanimity. More thar 90 per cent. of the scientific personnel who developed the bomb belong to the new organisations and they are unanimously agreed that international control of nuclear power is imperative. "It Would be an Ironic Calamity" Our whole position during the war was an anomalous one. To work under conditions of secrecy and without contact with the scientists of other nations was, for, us,.a new experience. Indeed, had this condition been initiated a few years previously, we might not have known of the discovery of fission. Scientists normally do not recognise international boundaries. For them, the border is that between fact and superstition, and the only frontier is between the known and the unknown. Despite this internationalism, reinforced by publication of results all over the globe, and international congresses of scientists, the United States Government had no difficulty in mobilising its scientists for war, in many instances more than a year before Pearl Harbour. Fascism’s ultranationalism and its mystical unreason made it a force inimical to us as scientists as well as to us as men. It would be an ironic calamity, however, if the tools we placed in the hands of our Government in order that it might defeat militant and threatening nationalism served only to reinforce chauvinistic tendencies here at home. It was not to give the United States nuclear energy as @ great club that we sweated four years on the problem of the atomic bomb. It was, rather, to release the world from the fear of aggressive and imperialistic nations. We hoped also to make nuclear energy a reality at a time when it could be a great force for peace and collaboration between nations. "We Cannot Go Back" One might ask, "Why do not the scientists return to their laboratories, now that they have finished their war work, leaving the social and political problems

they have raised to men better qualified 7 solve them?" We ‘cannot go back to ‘work when we -are® not convinced thie ‘our politicians adequately understand the dangers presented by our achievements, or that they are prepared to take the radical measures required to prevent the destruction of humanity. In the past, ‘scientists have been inarticulate on questions about which they were no more. qualified to speak than the next man. However, there are many technical aspects to this present dilemma, We do feel impelled t6 disctss them. Defence measures, the possibility of development of the atomic bomb in other countries, and the scientific feasibility of international control are examples of subjects to which we have tried to confine ourselves. It cannot be emphasised too strongly, however, that implicit in these technical problems are deeper and more difficult political problems. We scientists are broadening our perspectives. We not only study quantum mechanics and relativity; we now also study the United Nations Charter and "The Social Function of Science." Where

we previously only perused Science, Nature, and The Physical Review, we now also read the to us equally abstract and baffling Congressional Record. Our organisations subscribe to clipping services which inform us of all that is currently printed about nuclear energy. One of our goals is to educate the public. We are availing ourselves of the means of public expression, falteringly at first; but we are becoming more confident. We have explored the possibility of the press release and radio talks; we give speeches before the public whenever we can. We even write articles. In view of the wide geographical separation of the various organisations and the small amount of collaboration which has been obtained until recently, I am amazed at the profound agreement of the public utterances of scientists. ‘ Washington, too, receives our attention. Some of us are called to testify before Senate and House hearings. Some are called to give official advice to the various branches of the administration. Still others are sent as representatives of our organisations to present our point of view, and then to report back on the activities of the Congress. Considered Judgments Indeed, there is a new spirit in science. At Los Alamos the Executive Committee

of the A.L.A.S. (Association of Los. Alamos Scientists) has daily meetings, and there are weekly general meetings, usually attended by more than five hundred. At these meetings, reports are given and current problems are discussed. Perhaps the most significant feature of the discussion is the obvious sincerity of the members of the group. Technical questions are referred to committees of experts, the foremost scientists in the field. When we say, therefore, that adequate defence against atomic bombs is unlikely, it is because a committee consisting of scientists who came here from the radar development laboratory have considered the problem deeply. When we say there is no scientific secret, we speak the considered judgment of those scientists who actually developed the bomb. When we say another country can develop atomic bombs within a few years, it is again the judgment of those scientists who developed the processes and skills required to manufacture the materials of a bomb. It may be said that science will suffer because of scientists’ preoccupation with world affairs-and undoubtedly it will. Still, unwise political action or inaction can destroy science as we know it. Even more important, it can destroy humanity. I think it probable that political thought may well benefit by the application of the traditional objective spirit of science. We can return wholeheartedly to our work only when we are convinced that our political leaders and the public are truly aware of the revolution in destructive force which we have brought about, and that they are committed to political action adequate to insure world peace. Revolutionary Methods Needed The expensive experiment culminating successfully on a in New Mexico was an experiment perilous for all concerned. It was a risk of finance, of manpower, of material. It was something new. It was apparent to all of us who participated in that test at Jornada del Muerto that this new power which we had unleashed could not’ become the plaything of so-called power politics. As the best scientific vision was mobilised for the bomb, so must the_ best political vision be mobilised for its control. A new revolutionary force demands a revolution in methods of dealing with the problem of peace. It is a problem which cannot be solved in the framework of existing sovereign nations. Scientists do not think that the atomic bomb is the only problem. It is rather an immediate and ‘dramatic danger that epitomises all of the threats to our security. A new opportunity has presented itself, but this time in terms of real co-operation or total annihilation. World control of the atomic bomb, it must be understood, will only be a step toward peace. The deeper causes of war must be attacked if a true and lasting peace is to be achieved. I did not need my authors, Messrs. Bernal and Crowther, to inform me that science, which helps to shape society, is in turn shaped by it. The atomic bomb is only another and particularly monstrous product of a warring world. Science can fulfil its functions of being a real benefit to humanity only when nations are at peace. Otherwise scientific endeavour will be perverted to prepare for that next war, that Wellsian war, that fantastic battle of fantastic instruments which. will destroy so much-our homes, our science, and ourselves.