Evening star., 1954-06-02
ments and capacity and has
rendered outstanding services.
Calculated Risk Idea
Inoppropriute Now
THOMAS A. MORGAN.

Such a calculated risk was
taken in the employment and
retention of DR.. Oppenheimer
as director of the Los Alamos
Laboratory during the war
years, on the ground of the
overriding need for his
services.
What we have learned in
his inquiry makes the appli-
cation of this principle inap-
propriate in the instant case.
Notwithstanding the undoubt-
ed and unparalleled contribu-
tions of DR.. Oppenheimer to
the atomic energy program. it
appears that his services as a
consultant were used by the
Atomic Energy Commission
during the entire year of 1858
for q period approximating
only two and one-half days
time ...
Another major issue which
has been highlighted by this
inquiry is whether a moral
principle akin to double jeop-
ardy in the traditional legal
sense should have a place in
the jurisprudence of security.
It must be made clear to the
public by the Government that
it's employees and consultants
are not to be subject to re-
peated and capricious reviews
of their loyalty or security
status. :.
There seems to be a wide
spread view that such a prin-
ciple should apply in the case
at hand. It has been suggested
that the clearance by the Man
haitian Engineering District
and the subsequent action Of
the Acc in 1947 should be con-
trolling. We believe this not
TO DC SOulQ.
In the first place, we must
acknowledge the important diff
ference between an adminis-
trative review of files not in
volving the personal appear
ance of the employe and of
which he is probably not aware.
and a hearing before the board
at which the employe appears
and at which testimony is
taken. This is the first occasion
of review of this case by a
personnel security board. In
deed, this is the only time that
all of the available evidence
regarding DR.. Oppenheimer
has been correlated and pre-
sented in a package. This latter
fact suggests the second reason
why DR.. Oppenheimer is not
being placed in double Jeopardy
In a moral sense by this pro.
ceeding. It was necessary to the
national security that material
information not considered in
previous clearances be studied.
New developments have oc-
CURED since the granting of
previous clearances. Among
these are changed national
and international circum-
stances and new security
standards and criteria.
A major question which has
repeatedly emerged in our de-
liberations is whether in de-
termining the security status
Of an individual who is q scien.
tiSt, the Government must take
into account the reactions Of,
and the possible impact upon,
all other scientists.
The board takes cognizance
Of the serious alarm expressed
. to it by witnesses and fire.
quently averted to in the pub
lie press that denial of clear
ance to DR.. Oppenheimer
would do serious harm in the
scientific community. This is
a matter of vital concern to
the Government and the peo-
pie.
Scientists and intellectuals
are ill-advised to assert that
a reasonable and sane inquiry
constitutes an attack upon
scientists and intellectuals
generally. This board would
deplore deeply any notion that
scientists are under attack In
this country. -.
Uncompromising Attitude
OF Scientists Criticized
The board has been i'm
pressed. and in many ways
heartened by the manner in
which many scientists have
sprung TO the defense of one
whom many felt was under un-
fair attack. This is important
and encouraging when one is
concerned with the vitality Of
our society. However, the
board feels constrained to ex-