Geoscience Reference
In-Depth Information
Continuous research by our best scientists … may be made impossible by the creation of an
atmosphere in which no man feels safe against the public airing of unfounded rumors, gossip,
and vilification.
—President Harry S. Truman (September 13, 1948)
In
The Demon-Haunted World
, Carl Sagan recounts an episode from the McCarthy era involving the
Manhattan Project to develop an atomic bomb; the director of the National Bureau of Standards; and
president of the American Physical Society. In 1948, he came under attack by the House Committee
on Un-American Activities, chaired by Representative J. Parnell Thomas (R-NJ). During the course
of the hearings, Thomas variously referred to Condon as “Dr.
Condom,
” the “weakest link” (i.e., for
American security],
2
and even the “missing link.” Most remarkable, though, was this accusation by an
inquisitor at a later hearing: “Dr. Condon, it says here that you have been at the forefront of a
revolutionary movement in physics called [read slowly] 'quantum mechanics.' It strikes this hearing
that if you could be at the forefront of one revolutionary movement, you could be at the forefront of
address to the 1948 annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.
Condon, it might be added, was never found guilty of any wrongdoing; J. Parnell Thomas later served
a term in Danbury Federal Prison on an unrelated conviction of fraud.
A Dangerous Mix
The scientific process—left to operate freely—is inherently self-correcting, even if the gears may at
times turn more slowly than we would like. Science is unlike almost any other human endeavor in that
regard. Scientists are inherently skeptical—of a claim, a hypothesis, a finding, a new piece of data.
They want to see the evidence and form their own opinions about it. This skepticism leads scientists
to vigorously challenge each other—in papers, at scientific meetings, and in their private exchanges
—when they believe they have good reason or data to question or refine another's conclusions or
methods. The arguments that hold up in this process eventually prevail; those that don't, fall to the
wayside. If people with ulterior motives—be they political, religious, social, or otherwise—attempt
to rig the rules governing scientific inquiry in their favor, they threaten that objective, self-correcting
process. Most pernicious of all have been the efforts of those who feel threatened by scientific
findings to stifle scientific investigation, to censor scientific knowledge, to intimidate and attack
scientists for their work, and to interfere with their ability to do their work or communicate their
