The Trial of a Security System.

AFTER weeks of arduous work, a special personnel 1) We find that Dr. Oppenheimer's continuing security board of the Atomic Energy Commission conduct and associations have reflected a serious dishas concluded that Dr. J. Robert Oppenheimer is of regard for the requirements of the security system. unquestioned loyalty to the United States but that his 2) We have found a susceptibility to influence clearance should not be reinstated. Reactions to these which could have serious implications for the secudecisions have been prompt and vigorous. Among 3) We find his conduct in the hydrogen bomb prothem, Mr. Walter Lippman echoed an attitude he gram sufficiently disturbing as to raise a doubt as had expressed at the time the case first became public to whether his future participation, if characterized information: "The one intolerable result is the result by the same attitudes in a Government program rewe have got, a divided, confused, contradictory verdict lating to the national defense, would be clearly conthat raises enormous issues and settles none of them." sistent with the best interests of security. Enormous issues are raised. The review board has 4) We have regretfully coneluded that Dr. Oppenasked itself questions of the utmost importance eonheimer has been less than candid in several instances cerning relations between the nation's security system in his testimony before this board. and the rights of individual men. The report is a The first, second, and fourth of these points are provocative document which merits careful study in debatable. They were controlling in the minds of two its entirety. Yet it comes to conclusions that to many board members but not in the mind of the third. De-including one of the three members of the review bate on these points will unquestionably continue. board itself-appear contradictory. Clearly the case The third controlling factor-Dr. Oppenheimer's cannot be allowed to rest here. Whatever in the way of conduct in the hydrogen bomb program-is the most additional process precedes the final decision, the conserious of the four, for it raises a basis for denying tradiction and inconclusiveness of the review board's clearance that seems both foreign to democratic conrecommendations, and of some of the bases upon cepts and stultifying to the progress of military rewhich they were made, must be removed. Until this is search and development. It had been charged that Dr. done, the case will continue to be unfinished business. Oppenheimer opposed the development of the hyThe verdict of "loyal but a security risk" is logically drogen bomb and that even after the decision to go defensible and has in fact been reached in other cases. forward with its development had been reached he A person may have not the slightest taint of dishad continued to oppose it, had declined to cooperate loyalty and yet be a security risk. If he is incautious fully in the project, and had attempted to persuade in speech; if alcohol makes him overly loquacious; if other scientists not to work on the project. With reimmoral habits or the presence of near relatives in gard to his initial opposition, there appeared to be lands occupied by an unfriendly nation render him no uncertainty: he had opposed it. Once the decision particularly susceptible to pressure, then it may be to go forward was made, however, the board found dangerous to entrust vital information to him. He is a that Dr. Oppenheimer had not opposed it, did not security risk, even though his loyalty is unchallenged. decline to cooperate in the effort, and had not atIt is not therefore in the bare decision itself that tempted to persuade others not to work on the projthe difficulty is to be found. Dr. Oppenheimer's loyect. However, the majority report goes on to point out alty was unquestioned. His discretion in handling that Dr. Oppenheimer's views had been widely known classified information was commended. Why then was "and since he did not make it known that he had he not reinstated? The majority members of the board, abandoned these views, his attitude undoubtedly had Gordon Gray and Thomas A. Morgan, found the folan' adverse effect on recruitment of scientists and the lowing four points to be controlling in leading to their progress of the scientific effort in this field." decision: (Continued on page 886)