New Text WALTER J. MURPHY, Editor
Should the McMahon Act Be J.N CERTAIN quarters demands are being made that the atomic energy legislation dealing with the domestic control of atomic energy be revamped in tho next regular session of Congress. The usual argument in favor of a change in the basic concepts of the law under which we now operate is that the McMahon measure was based on the promise that international control would quickly become a reality and domestic control made subservient to it. The proponents of a revision conclude that a new approach in handling control at a national level is necessary and inevitable now that international agreement seems more remote than ever. Those who are critical of the present law are not in agreement on the changes that are desiraHe. Some, in view of the tenseness of the international situation, insist that the custody of atomic bombs be placed with the defense authorities. Perhaps this has been done by order of the AEC—who knows? Such a decision would be a top secret and very few individuals would know just what provisions have been made for a sudden emergency. Rumors persist that certain members of the armed forces are still insistent that complete control of atomic energy be returned to military authorities. Still others demand the creation of a new top policy making board consisting mainly, if not wholly, of presidential appointees. In such a plan the Atomic Energy Commission would be relegated to a lower echelon of authority, largely, if not entirely, one of administration. Some suspect that such a plan is merely a cloak to turn control of atomic energy in this country back to the military, while still others think that this is merely the opening wedge to make the control of atomic energy a major political football. No one can or will deny that hope of early adoption of a workable program of international control has been dashed to pieces at Lake Success during the past year. Russia and her satellites have steadfastly refused to accept proposals satisfactory to all other nations. Therefore, an impasse has been reached unless by one peaceful means or another we can convince Soviet representatives to the United Nations, the Kremlin, and the Russian people that the latest proposals and recommendations of the United Nations Atomic Energy Commission are not a threat to Soviet Russia but instead constitute a strong guarantee of the future poace of the world. That we should continue our efforts in these directions is obvious; indeed, it is our duty to continue to labor for an understanding satisfactory to every nation, but it is natural that the optimism so pronounced two years ago should give way to a certain degree of pessimism. We personally are not at all convinced that the present unsettled international state of affairs or the lack of agreement on international control make it necessary or desirable to revamp existing legislation. In other words, we feel the burden of proof rests on those who seek such legislation to prove that the law now on the statute books is inadequate. One must bear in mind that the Atomic Energy Commission has been in existence but a relatively short period, and no agency could reasonably be expected to reach a high degree of perfection in that space of time. We, along with a representative group of editors of scientific and technical publications, have just concluded a
Revised?
rather rugged three-day series of conferences with AEC officials and personnel, with the U. S. delegate on the UN Atomic Energy Commission, and with a number of scientists engaged in nuclear energy research. Included in the three-day program was an inspection of certain nonmilitary production facilities at Oak Ridge. A day in New York, one at AEC headquarters in Washington, a third day at Oak Ridge—four successive nights on sleepers—is not a particularly pleasant assignment or experience when the temperature roams in the higher nineties. Individuals are apt to become supercritical under such conditions; yet we must report that we personally, and, we believe, several other editors of scientific and technical publications as well, concluded that the over-all performance of the commission to date is a commendable one. Of course, a three-day, somewhat cursory conference such as the one described is not a substitute for a soul-searching congressional investigation, but editors are trained observers and are likely to detect serious flaws, if such exist, in the present administration of the atomic energy legislation. Again and again spokesmen for the AEC stressed the determination of the commission to expand the policy of encouraging private industry to participate in nuclear energy activities. The commission will continue to ask private industry to serve as contractors in the operation of most, if not all, activities except those of a strictly military character. A policy of drawing private industry into the nuclear energy field will not meet with the enthusiastic approval of those who believe in government monopoly and who insist that all basic industries be owned, operated, and administered by the Federal Government. Nor will it please those who would remove all government control over research and development of fissionable materials. It is a healthy sign that the AEC clearly recognizes that private industry usually operates more efficiently than government and has access to larger numbers of highly qualified administrators, scientists, and executives. The commission further recognizes that security can be deadening, indeed disastrous, if carried to illogical extremes. Achievement, not secrecy, will provide in the long run the greatest degree of security. The administration of nuclear energy activities in this country must be divorced from politics. If the major political parties of this country will wholeheartedly follow the provisions of the present legislation, partisan politics can be kept to a minimum. There may exist a need for modifications in the present law, but we believe that before any basic revision is undertaken the entire problem should be investigated thoroughly and the American public be made aware of what changes are propose'd and what the true significance^ these proposals are likely to be in the future life of the nation. This is a matter of greatest importance to the citizens of this country. All proposals should bear scrutiny by the American public before being incorporated into law. Only an interested and enlightened public can prevent partisan politics from influencing future decisions and can stop those with private axes of various kinds and hues to grind from gaining ideological and selfish ends inimicable to the best interests of this country.
