Oppenheimer
Can a great scientist be both loyal and discreet and at the same time a " security risk "? That was the question which the special Personnel Security Board of the Atomic Energy Commission had to ask itself in the case of Dr. Oppenheimer. Its affirmative answer has aroused, as the Board well knew it would, a storm among American scientists who have almost to a man come to the defence of Dr. Oppenheimer: In the United States and beyond there is no lack of sympathy both for the brilliant man whose reputation is endangered by the Board's ruling and for all other scientists who see in it a menace to -the freedom of thought. But this is no simple matter of black and white, and careful thought must be given to the Board's decision, as expressed in phrases both tortured and tortuous, that this is in effect a necessary injustice. The first fact to note is that President Eisenhower, reviewing an old case some months ago, lost confidence in Dr. Oppenheimer and denied him the right of access to classified material. Tho major factor in this reassessment of Dr. Oppenheimer was, presumably, not the charges which had been disposed of by a security board years ago, but rather his later opposition to the hydrogen bomb. But his attitude in this respect must neces• sarily have awakened old doubts, not as to his loyalty or his discretion but simply as to his suitability, in the widest sense, as an adviser in these matters of life and death. His con- fidence having been lost (whether rightly or wrongly, no one can say as yet), the Chief Executive's duty was clear. When the White House aimed a barb at Senator McCarthy the other week by declaring that the Executive has the " sole and fundamental responsibility for the enforcement of law," a responsibility which " cannot be usurped by an individual who may seek to set himself above the laws," the sense of it just grazed Dr. Oppenheimer as well. Surely he knew the risk he was running when, in his peculiar position', he opposed the development of the hydrogen bomb after the Executive's decision had been taken. It is inevitable that the atomic scientist should, like the general, be the servant of the State. But it may be asked why Dr. Oppenheimer's services could not have been dispensed with without fuss. The answer is that Dr. Oppenheimer was given the choice of resigning or of being investigated' again. He himself chose investigation.
Previous page
