214
PARTISAN REVIEW
misleading, and inhibited the public's ability to make informed decisions
on the future use of science and technology. Acknowledging that exam–
ples of misuse do belong in such an exhibit, he stressed that what was
missing was balance. He offered the services of the APS to work with the
Smithsonian and with others to develop a more appropriate exhibition,
and indeed arranged for the whole Executive Committee of the APS to
visit the Smithsonian staff in Washington. On that occasion, the flaws
were pointed out, and the possibility of a rethinking seemed achievable.
Three-and-a-half months later, the chairman of the Board of Direc–
tors of the American Chemical Society also made the principal concerns
of his society known to the Smithsonian. He described the constant frus–
tration, over several years, as the Smithsonian staff consistently ignored
the advice given them by an advisory committee jointly put together by
the ACS and the Smithsonian. He spoke of arrogance and high–
handedness on the part of some of the museum personnel assigned to the
project, the demonstration of a strong built-in bias against science, and
the tendency to revise and rewrite history. He too offered to provide ad–
vice and personal attention to result in a more balanced presentation, one
which would repair the damage done to the reputations of both organi–
zations. As a resu'lt of these communications, the Smithsonian has
promised to revise at least the most egregious parts of the "Science in
American Life" exhibit. When that actually happens, the principle I am
advocating will have been demonstrated again: The moral authority of
science, as of any professional field, depends importantly on its assertion
of a sense of self
To our Romantic rebels, and to the other purveyors of the equation
that science equals pollution and death, the intervention of the scientists
in the standards story, and of the physical and chemical societies in the
Smithsonian exhibit, will probably be only additional proofs of their point
of view. Theirs is a win-win position: If scientists do not object to an un–
balanced presentation, then it will have its intended effect on the
populace. And if scientists do object and bring about reconsiderations of
the documents and exhibition, that will be said only to illustrate how sci–
entists wield undue influence. But the fact is, as I noted, that the scientists
and their organizations until recently have usually been too negligent and
reluctant to speak out and defend themselves against the dissemination of
false images. They seem to begrudge any moment away from the exciting
work in their labs. Perhaps they are now beginning to discover the costs
and dangers of letting others define the ideological, educational and cul–
tural context of science in today's society.
