Evening star., 1948-10-04
Letters to The Star
Checking on Scientists

NhecklnS on SclentlSfS
TO the Editor Of The star:
My attention has been called to an editorial
Checking On Scientists" which appeared tn
the September 16 issue Of The Star, and which
contains several unfortunate errors and mis-
interpretations Of this committees latest re-
port.
This report, entitled "some Individual Cases
Of Clearance Procedures" stated that we have
received complaints of unfair clearance pro-
cedures regarding Sc scientists, and that in
view OF the natural reluctance Of an accused
individual to discuss such matters, this prob
ably represents q small fraction Of the total
number Of cases."
The major error in your editorial is your
assertion that: 1T is not clear what agencies of
the Government were involved" In each of the
seven cases which we selected to describe in
detail, the agency involved was specifically
stated. They were the Army in three cases,
the Atomic Energy Commission In three, and
the Air Force in the remaining one. (The Navy
was omitted from this selection purely by
chance, since many Of the other cases in our
f1les concern that agency) 1t is well known
that clearance procedures and policies are set
fairly uniformly on q national level by each Of
these agencies.
The report was prepared by q committee Of
scientists and primarily as report to scientists.
1t was not our function nor did we have the
means to send out investigators or collect legal
evidence After receiving letters from many
different persons all over the Nation, some
known to us and some not, we believe that it
is highly probable that at least some Of the
current clearance procedures are unfair. Ref
erences were given in our report to the oficial
announced policies, which the reader can eval-
AS io rTp,a
June 8, we gave the officials involved ample
opportunity to present their point of view on
this issue Directors of Atomic Energy Com
mission laboratories co-operated with us in our
survey, and their response was reported by U.s.
The armed. forces, on the other hand, refused
to tell us even what their procedures are sup
posed to be, although this is a matter of public
record.
As to the resignation Of 40 per cent of the
senior scientists at Oak Ridge, you state that
this estimate Is inaccurate, but you fail to
prove 1t wrong Fifteen men might easily in.
cude larger percentage of the senior scien-
lists IN any laboratory. Your naming the total
number Of technical personnel" at Oak Ridge
scarcely seems germane.
Your desire that we publish the names of the
sample cases also seems beside the point Our
report was intended to call the attention of
fellow scientists to the procedures now being
employed. We would not wish to subject our
correspondents to the nuisance of publicity,
even If we had been given permission to do so.
1t seems to me that it is the duty of the
press, not the scientists, to determine where
abuses and injustces exist in the Government,
and to describe them vividly to the public.
Our committee will gladly help any reputable
reporter to learn in detail about such abuses
IN the current clearance procedures, which
diner considerably in the different Government
agencies. If these injustices were given wide
spread publicity, perhaps the force of public
opinion would see to it that In all agencies
where loyalty checks are needed, fair hearing
and appeal procedures are established.
r. S. ROCHLIN,
Secretary. Committee on Secrecy and Clear
ance, Federation of American Scientists.