Editor's Page
Scientists and human rights: some recommendations Physicist Owen Chamberlain of the University of California, Berkeley, earlier this month addressed a meeting of an ad hoc subcommittee of the House of Representatives' Committee on Science & Technology. The meeting was probing the issue of science policy and human rights and was triggered by the recent trials of Anatoly Scharansky and other Soviet scientists. Here, from the transcript of the meeting, is most of what Nobel Laureate Chamberlain had to say. I wish to outline for you some of the reactions of myself and my fellow scientists to the Soviet trials and convictions and to make at least some recommendations on what the response of the U.S. government ought to be. I turn first to the reactions of scientists. The personal reactions of scientists have ranged from intense anger to deep sorrow. Some have signed a strong Statement of Conscience that includes the pledge to "withdraw all personal cooperation with the Soviet Union until Anatoly Scharansky and Yuri Orlov are released from prison." Other scientists wish to cut off any personal cooperation with the Soviets at this time, but also wish to leave open the question of how long their cooperation will be withheld. Others intend to withhold selectively certain forms of cooperation, within the context of ongoing U.S.-Soviet exchanges. Still others say that, although they are deeply distressed at the Soviet trials, there continues to be a pressing need for contacts and exchanges between Soviet and U.S. scientists; that only by continuing exchanges can we best promote science and at the same time expose Soviet scientists to U.S. freedoms—that is, full freedom of expression and full freedom to criticize their government. Indeed, some U.S. scientists may choose to attend conferences in the Soviet Union and there complain about the absence of certain Soviet colleagues— perhaps insisting that their own work will be withheld unless their missing Soviet colleagues are invited and allowed to attend. In summary, U.S. scientists are becoming more demonstrative in their opposition to Soviet strictures on human rights. Our presence today demonstrates that scientific exchange programs and cooperation in international meetings will suffer as long as the present climate of persecution persists in the U.S.S.R. Although there is a spectrum of responses to the present situation,.this does not reflect any difference of purpose. All scientists agree that science is an endeavor that transcends national boundaries, that it is therefore important for the U.S. to have the widest possible knowledge of scientific work in every nation, and that science can flourish only in an atmosphere of free expression. Therefore, all scientists wish to encourage liberalization of thought in the Soviet Union, and are eager for open and unfettered cooperation with their Soviet colleagues. To further these ends, we would like to submit the following recommendations to Congress: One, that violations of human rights be weighed in future negotiations with the U.S.S.R. when considering commercial transactions involving technology transfers and most-favored-nation status for the Soviet Union. Two, that when Congress considers the fostering of scientific exchanges, it should seek to eliminate the pervasive political restrictions imposed by the Soviet government on Soviet participants in these exchanges. Thus, Soviet and U.S. scientists, and not the governments, should agree on both the format of exchanges and the participating individuals. Three, that Congress should recognize that in most areas of science and technology the U.S. enjoys a considerable lead over the U.S.S.R., that the Soviet government is fully aware of this, and that this provides the U.S. with some leverage in striving toward our goals. Four, that Congress not respond to Soviet violations of agreements, or restrictions, on U.S. and/or Soviet participants in scientific exchanges, with petty tit-for-tat reprisals. We should not lose sight of one of our objectives, which is to demonstrate the values of an open society, and we only undermine our efforts by aping Soviet behavior. •
C&EN editorials represent only the views of the author and aim at initiating intelligent discussion
July 31, 1978 C&EN
3
