Main LA Index | Main Newspaper Index
Encyclopedia of Trotskyism | Marxists’ Internet Archive
From Labor Action, Vol. 14 No. 16, 17 April 1950, p. 5.
Transcribed & marked up by Einde O’Callaghan for ETOL.
The infringements on civil rights of scientists and curtailment of freedom of science were until recently of mere academic interest to many engaged in pure basic research. Suddenly, however, with the passage in the House of the greatly amended National Science Foundation bill, these issues have become a very personal concern of these scientists.
Some of these “elite” of the scientific profession passed lightly over the clearance problems of hundreds of their brethren working in industrial and applied research and development. Now, all groups of scientists are in the same crucible since the NSF bill, which provides for basic research was passed in amended form, requiring not only FBI investigation but also clearance by that bureau for every scientist associated in any way with the foundation.
This aspect of the civil-rights struggle is not a bright one at present. A recent Newsletter of the Federation of American Scientists summed it thus:
“ The situation we now face on National Science Foundation is not a happy one. We are offered legislation which preserves the concept of a federal agency devoted to support of scientific education and research, with the responsibility to think in terms of a broad national science policy ... [But] Under HR 4846 as amended, we have not realized the hope of freeing basic research from security limitations by segregating such research in an exclusive agency. Finally, the bill contains provisions profoundly repugnant to the traditions and aspirations of scientists.”
The Federation of American Scientists and similar organizations have decided to urge defeat of the present foundation bill unless the FBI investigation clauses are deleted in the joint House-Senate conference committee to which it has been referred. Undoubtedly, some changes in wording will be made, since FBI spokesmen have stated that they wish only to carry out the security investigations and want to give some other agency the job of deciding “that such person is loyal to the U.S., believes in our system of government, and is not and has not been at any time a member of any organization declared subversive by the attorney general or any organization that teaches or advocates the overthrow of the government of the United States by force and violence.” It is encouraging to see the CIO come to the aid of the scientists by demanding deletion of the amendments from the NSF bill.
Currently, the Scientists Committee on Loyalty Problems has made public a summary of the security and loyalty problems confronting individual scientists in the present period. In the fall of 1948, the SCLP was set up as a committee of the Federation of American Scientists to deal with immediate and practical problems.
In its first year, this committee handled 62 cases, bf which over half are still open, some pending for over a year. About 20 cases were those of prospective employees, mostly of the Atomic Energy Commission, while the others were employees of the AEC, Defense Department, and their contractors. The report is published in Science, weekly publication of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.
Of the limited nature of its efforts, the SCLP says: “The steps it has taken and the measures it has recommended are all designed to ensure a fair hearing of all the available evidence; they are not designed to increase the number of clearances given in cases that are actually doubtful.” The report contains several instructive case histories which illustrate the loss of reputation and income which is often the result of security investigations.
The committee has made a careful study of the appeal procedures and lists seven safeguards which they view as essential and compares these with those in actual operation by the various agencies. All are found to be lacking in most safeguards.
For example, the Industrial Employment Review Board, which handles appeals of employees of private contractors for Department of Defense, still “classifies its hearing and does not permit cross-examination of witnesses or accusers.” Prospective employees are in most cases even denied the right of a hearing or appeal despite the fact that a job refusal in itself becomes a derogatory entry in the individual’s FBI record. The SCLP insists that further reforms in clearance procedures should be made.
A section of the report, dealing with the relation of science and secrecy, is worth citing:'
“For example, vital secrets in atomic energy can be adequately protected for the time being by classifying the technology and status of bomb construction. However; extension of secrecy into the field of nuclear physics would be unwise in the long run. Any security gained by general secrecy of our fundamental data would be rapidly overweighed by the diminished vigor of our own research. These remarks will be accepted as truisms by most members of the scientific community; but the point is worth making in view of the widespread tendency among the laity to regard ‘science’ and ‘secrecy’ as synonymous.”
The action on the National Science Foundation indicates that the federal government is quite eager to substitute secrecy for science. Only an increased struggle for civil rights and freedom of science will prevent the establishment of a National Secrecy Foundation.
Main LA Index | Main Newspaper Index
Encyclopedia of Trotskyism | Marxists’ Internet Archive
Last updated on 26 January 2024