EDITOR'S NOTE
Andrei Sakharov's letter on the Responsibility of Scientists
was sent to the conference of American scientists at Rockefeller Uni–
versity on May 1 and 2, 1981, honoring the Russian physicist on his
sixtieth birthday. The autobiographical resume was written for
samizdat.
It was a very impressive gathering. The participants included
leading nuclear physicists, advisors to several presidents and govern–
mental agencies, several philosophers, and outstanding scientists in
other areas besides physics. Among the speakers were: Victor Weiss–
kopf, Herbert York, Stanislaw Ulam, Jerome Wiesner, McGeorge
Bundy, Sir Karl Popper, Bayard Rustin, Harrison Salisbury, Philip
Handler, and Ernest Nagel.
There was also a more informal celebration and tribute to the
Soviet scientist at the New School, at which John Everett, president
of the New School, offered a teaching post to Sakharov if he were
ever permitted to leave.
Some of the talks described Sakharov's scientific accomplish–
ments, others stressed the inhuman treatment ofSakharov and other
dissidents in the Soviet Union. There was an exhilarating feeling of
solidarity with the great Russian figure and with other victims of the
Soviet regime.
However, another note crept into the conference, mostly in the
discussion, but also in the prepared papers: an insistent and shrill
note that had little to do with the main purpose of the meeting and
was often in conflict with it.
It
came from all sides: from the walls,
from the underground. From the hearts of many of the participants
came the cry for peace and disarmament. It was the desperate call of
the human conscience for a sane and peaceful world. This was obvi–
ously the voice of the radical-liberal mind in this country and in
much of Europe, the voice of decency and political innocence; and in
the context of this conference it demonstrated that scientists were
like everyone else.
If
one were to compare them to writers, they were
neither more sophisticated nor more naive . But this undercurrent of
pacifist sentiment, however sincere and passionate, was to some ex–
tent in opposition to the original spirit of the meeting, and not only
to the general meaning of Sakharov's dissidence but specifically to
the message of his letter.
