ANDREI SAKHAROV
505
sion; genetic engineering; regulation of industry to protect the envi–
ronment; protection of air quality, of flora and fauna, and of rivers,
lakes, seas and oceans; the impact of mass media. Unfortunately,
despite the urgent and serious nature of the issues at stake, such dis–
cussions are often uninformed , prejudiced , or politicized, and some–
times simply dishonest. Experts, therefore , are under an obligation
to subject these problems to unbiased and searching examination,
making all socially significant information available to the public in
direct, firsthand form, and not just in filtered versions. The dis–
cussion of nuclear power, a subject of prime importance, is an
instructive example . I have expressed elsewhere my opinion that the
dangers of nuclear power have been exaggerated in the West, and
that such distortion is harmful.
With some important exceptions (primarily affecting totalitar–
ian countries), scientists are not only better informed than the aver–
age person, but also strive for and enjoy more independence and
freedom . Freedom, however, always entails responsibility. Scientists
and other experts already influence or have the capacity to influence
public opinion and their governments . (That influence should not be
exaggerated, but it is substantial.) My view of the situation of scien–
tists in the contemporary world has convinced me that they have
special professional and social responsibilities. It is often difficult to
separate one from the other - the communication of information, the
popularization of scientific knowledge, and the publication of en–
dorsements or warnings are examples of activities with both profes–
sional and social aspects.
Similar complications arise when scientists become involved in
questions of disarmament: in developing strategy for or partici–
pating in international negotiations ; in advancing proposals or issu–
ing appeals to governments or to the public; and in alerting them to
dangers. Disarmament is a separate , critically important issue which
requires a profound, thorough, and scientifically daring approach. I
realize that more detailed treament is needed, but now I will simply
outline a few ideas. I consider disarmament necessary and possible
only on the basis of strategic parity. Additional agreements covering
all kinds of weapons of mass destruction are needed. After strategic
parity in conventional arms has been achieved, a parity which takes
account of all the political, psychological and geographical factors
involved, and if totalitarian expansion is brought to an end, then
agreements should be reached prohibiting the first use of nuclear
weapons, and later, banning such weapons.
