Evening star., 1959-06-15
Nobel Winners
Say,Secrecy
Hurts Science
BY the Associated Press

~ the AeeoeAeeea EANss
Less secrecy means faster
progress in science. II Amer
ican Nobel prize-winning sci-
entists.
In general, that was their
view expressed in letters to the
Senate Constitutional Rights
Subcommittee headed by Sen
ator Hennings, Democrat vf
Missouri. The subcommittee
made the letters public yester-
day in connection with its in
quiry into freedom Of informa-
ton.
Senator Hennings said the
subcommittee has heard num-
erous complaints that scientific
progress and development in
this country have been serl-
ously Kindred by undue secrecy.
AS part Of its efforts to find
out II this is true, and II so.
what should be done about it,
Senator Hennings said he had
written to all American Nobel
prize winning scientists asking
for their views.
Some Need Seen
In the II replies received to
date, he said, there was a gen.
eral recognition that under
present world conditions some
areas of information must be
classified in the interest Of ma
tional security.
However, Glenn T. Seaborg.
chancellor of the University Of
California, wrote:
II think that if there is any
conclusion upon which all
scientists have complete agree
ment it is that exchange Of in
formation is vital for maximum
progress and elimination of
waste motion"
Referring to the difficulty of
striking a balance between Sc
curity requirements and free
exchange of information, some
of the scientists stressed the
distinction between pure scien-
tific research and applied or
development research.
For example, p. w. Bridg-
man. Harvard University ply
sicist. wrote that "in purely
technical matters I think most
scientists realize that there are
practical considerations which
make secrecy necessary"
But with regard to purely
scientific matters" he con-
tinued, Il think no scientist
willingly accepts restrictions.
and / furthermore believe that
most scientists feel that many
such restrictions have been un-
necessarily imposed"
Physicist Walter H. Brattain,
writing from his home in Muir
ray Hill, N. j., said 1T just does
not make sense to classify fun
damental scientific informa-
ton"
He wrote "a few restrictions
III considered in special areas
make a lot Of sense" But he
said he feels that most re-
Strictions done in the name of
national security turn out to
be foolish" "a
Not Secret for Long
Fritz Lipmann, Rockefeller
chemist, wrote that
generally little is to be gained
by restricting information about
scientific research.
"In a much-worked-upon
field" he said, information
will not remain secret for long.
not because of leaks but be-
cause others will think on SINH
lar lines"
While most of the scientists
said they had had relatively
little experience with security
restrictions in their work. some
OF them cited instances in
which they felt advances had
been slowed.
However, DR.. William P.
Murphy of Boston wrote that
"it is my impression that the
effect of restrictions on the free
exchange of information on
science developments is at least
somewhat exaggerated and that
it is actually rather minimal."
DR.. Murphy said he believes
that restrictions should be
continued and perhaps in
creased in those branches of
science which are concerned
with the sensitive areas of
scientific development where
restriction may be more i'm
portant than would be the
benefits which might be derived
from the free dissemination Of
information"
Polykarp KuSch, Columbia
University physicist, wrote that
he doubts that this country's
rate of prograsS in building up
basic knowledge would have
been significantly enhanced by
no restrictions at all on
the exchange of information in
science and technology"