ON MR. GREENWALD

To the Editors of the CRIMSON:

The recent letter of Mr. Anthony Greenwald raises some issues which require comment. It is difficult to access the validity of his objections to the views of Dr. Kelman, as he apparently did not attend the meeting and states that he is not associated with the psilocybin activities. However, he has touched upon several important matters relating to academic freedom, ethics and responsibility. The misconceptions which he has created warrant some analysis.

Dr. Kelman--like Mr. Greenwald--has a right to speak on matters which concern him. Freedom of speech is in no way subordinate to any other freedoms, including the freedom to do research on a topic of one's own choosing. The suggestion that criticism be satisfied in order to protect investigators from public pressure is simply absurd, and we find it hard to believe that it was offered seriously. Where an individual feels that he sees an ethical problem, he has not only the right but the duty to present it for discussion. We know that the members of the academic community cherish this opportunity as an important part of the academic heritage.

A second error which requires discussion is the implication that the value of an activity is in some way proportional to the amount of criticism which it draws. It is true that Freud was criticized. It is equally true that criticism was levelled at phrenology, astrology, diabetics, snake-worshipping and the Flat Earth Society. As Mr. Greenwald himself points out, the proof of the pudding is in the data. Quantity of criticism is no guide.

The most effective reply to criticism is full information, not an attack on the critic. A common and rather tiresome tactic is the substitution of a diagnosis of the critic's motives for the provision of answers to his questions. We are so often assured that a critic's questions stem from his own emotional reactions to taboo areas, that it becomes impossible to get sensible discussion on these topics. Where there are serious questions to be asked, it should be possible to provide answers.

We at the Center for Research in Personality are deeply concerned with preserving the privilege of academic freedom. By the same token, we are concerned with the grave responsibilities which this entails. We have obligations to society, to our subjects, and to the students to whom we offer an example. Mr. Greenwald has rightly drawn attention to the miserable consequences which can arise when novel techniques are applied with more enthusiasm than care. We are sure that he cannot intend that responsibilities are lessened just because research is "fascinating." Bendan Maher,   Walter Mischel,   Justin Welss,   Jonas Cohier,   Irving Gottesman.