Room for Argument

As scientists have assumed a more and more important and authoritative role in national defense, many self-styled experts on democracy have feared that their political influence might increase accordingly. Some have attempted to force respected specialists to withdraw their weight from the political balances altogether, allowing other to determine social values. The consensus seems to be that if scientists would return to their laboratories and judges retire to their benches, democracy could work more smoothly for the betterment of all. A critic of the University of Chicago's nuclear physicist Harold C. Urey, who recently questioned the fairness of the Rosenburg and Sobell treason trials, wrote that "Professor Urey is undoubtedly a scientist of high order, that fact does not equip him to hold an opinion better than the rest of us who may not know how to make heavy water, but who know and feel the claims of justice." When Harold Urey comments on American law, or Albert Einstein comments on the United Nations, it seems obvious that they are influential beyond their authority in the political fields they discuss.

But the special arguments used against scientists and judges who participate in politics apply with equal force against most other active American thinkers. If a scientist holds political influence far beyond his political authority, so do ministers, doctors, educators, and business men. It would seem to follow that all should hesitate to speak, for fear that their words might imply that their opinions were echoed by America's great institutions. Men of intellect would remove themselves from political controversy, leaving democracy to deal in debased currency.

Whatever the consequence of demands that specialists withdraw from the political scene, the logic of the assaults demands attention. If the political convictions of Professor Urey are respected as scientific verity, democracy will suffer. "It is time that people realize I am but an amateur on these matters of law," Professor Urey states. "In science 'authority' is of no importance, Scientists accept the arguments of the famous and of the most unknown on their merits. We only ask the same treatment in other matters." Only if the moral opinions of specialists are intellectuals assume a rational role in politics.

For nuclear scientists, especially, moral assertion is increasingly necessary. Devoted pursuit of knowledge leads the scientist to discovery of terrifying weapons, yet moral consciousness obliges him to counsel moderation. Conspiracy to withhold scientific information is treason; it is in politics that scientists must combat the forces that drive America toward devastation.

And as scientists speak their convictions, so must educators, doctors, lawyers, and judges divorce their political views from their responsibilities, voicing them without restraint. When Americans hear their educated specialists as citizens, not experts, then politics will gain a new perspective.