(6 of 7)
Oppenheimer's attorneys, in a prompt appeal to the Atomic Energy Commission, turned their professional attention especially to the area where the Gray board tried to assess Oppenheimer's decisions and influence on the H-bomb program.* From the specific case of Oppenheimer, they reasoned a general plea for all scientists. Items: .
¶ On the charge of Oppenheimer's lack of enthusiasm: "How can a scientist risk advising the Government if he is told that at some later day a security board may weigh in the balance the degree of his enthusiasm for some official program? Or that he may be held accountable for a failure to communicate to the scientific community his full acceptance of such a program?"
¶ On the board's finding that asserted political and moral considerations influenced Oppenheimer's H-bomb recommendations: "Does this mean that a loyal scientist called to advise his Government does so at his peril unless, contrary to all experience, he can guarantee that his views are unaffected by his heart and his spirit?"
¶ On Oppenheimer's alleged opposition to the nation's offensive military interests: "Does this mean that a loyal scientist called to advise his Government does so at his peril, if he happens to believe in the wisdom of maintaining a proper balance between offensive and defensive weapons?"
The lack of connection between the Gray .board's findings and the attorneys' replies was obvious. The Gray board implied peculiar attributes of character that now put Oppenheimer in opposition to the basic elements of U.S. security; the attorneys took the more general ground that standards of conduct set up by the board could not be met by any scientist because these standards hampered the free play of opinions and ideas in the search for truth. Most editorial writers who leaped in to take sides in the argument took sides on this big difference, whether they were aware of it or not.* And future argument would only be really relevant in so far as it served to clear up this difference.
Scientists in a Vacuum? In a notable section of "General Considerations" (see box), the Gray board attempted to answer in advance the criticism that was bound to come. Some of their criteria raised new questions; some would be the bases for endless argument. Example: the board's dictum that a scientist's advice should be "uncolored and uninfluenced by considerations of an emotional character" suggested that scientific advisers should act and move in a political and moral vacuum—when, in fact, scientists should be among the first to understand the ideological struggle that demands their diligent research on weapons.
If, on the other hand, the board meant that no scientific expert should be allowed to give a scientific veto to such a vital project as the H-bomb, simply because he has political misgivings about it, then the board was right, for a scientific adviser cannot usurp the power of decision that rightfully belongs to the nation's political leaders.