Many years ago, I was listening to a lecture by a Los Angeles policeman concerning civilian survival on the streets of his city. He advised that now it was best to resist muggers rather than to submit as had been sensible in earlier days. Apparently, muggers were now so capriciously violent that one's chance of survival was greater through immediate resistance rather than cooperation. As the policeman finished making this point, a voice from the side of the room said: "Besides, not to resist would be
That voice belonged to Jeff Cooper. Even then, in the late 1970s, most of the audience searched their passive memories for the word "dishonorable'' and realized that it was no longer in their active vocabularies. Yet, their freedom and their way of life were substantially dependent upon this precept. The United States was created, preserved, and protected for 200 years primarily by people who understood clearly and valued greatly the principle of personal "honor.''
"Harassment at VMI'' by John McGinnis in
The Wall Street Journal, December 19, 1996, p A18, describes Clinton administration efforts to change the Honor Code of the Virginia Military Institute. For 157 years this code has read in full: "A cadet will neither lie, cheat, steal, nor tolerate those who do.'' Now, the retainers of Bill Clinton, whose sexual misconduct is legendary, demand that VMI dilute its Honor Code with a "discussion of sexual harassment.'' Honor codes are not taught in courses. They are taught by the only means that human beings really learn the most important things in life - they are taught by example. As simple as possible in statement, they must become a way of life. Moreover, just as young military officers must be taught a code of honor, so must young scientists.When I attended the California Institute of Technology (1959-1963), the Institute honor code was even simpler than VMI's. It said in full: "You will not take unfair advantage of your fellow man.'' That is the text to the best of my memory, since I did not see it in written form, and no course or lecture ever mentioned it. It was taught entirely by the example of the faculty and upperclassmen - and it was very strictly enforced.
A board of students, one elected from each student house and presided over by the vice president of the student body, investigated complaints and determined punishment. This board considered knowledge of a violation without reporting it (designated
toleration at VMI) to be as serious as the violation itself. The proceedings were confidential and final. I know of one student who was expelled from Caltech after this board verified that he had pretended to be ill so as to have more time to study for an examination. He did not cheat during the exam. He just took a makeup exam later as result of his "illness.'' I once accidentally lost my slide rule on the campus. Weeks later, I found it in the classroom where I had left it. Theft was unthinkable -it was "dishonorable.'' Nor was this code only for students. One tenured and quite famous Caltech faculty member was stripped of most of his privileges and eventually caused to resign by the weight of faculty opinion as a result of dishonorable conduct, even though he had carefully avoided actions that would violate his contract of tenure.There have, of course, always been soldiers and scientists whose behavior was often dishonorable. Moreover, there probably has never been a soldier or a scientist who did not, at some time in his life, commit at least one dishonorable act. With, however, the principle of personal honor pervasive among one's peers and dishonorable conduct not tolerated by those peers, such actions are rare and usually quickly corrected and punished when they do occur.
Readers of
Access to Energy often write that they appreciate the "ammunition'' that it provides them for argument against the ozone and global warming frauds and other dishonest misuses of science that have become so pervasive in our body politic. Such ammunition is useful, but the greater need is for peer pressure against dishonorable conduct - against those who engage in it and those who tolerate it.Global Warmers Wirth and Schneider, Nuclear Winter Sagan, Resource Depletion Ehrlich, Radiation Demonizer Pauling, the Ozone Depletion Trio, and the gaggles of Chemical Haters and Innovation Repressors at the EPA and FDA have a characteristic in common -they have practiced dishonest and, therefore, dishonorable science.
The greater problem, however, is that their lies and distortions are
tolerated by their peers.. By this, I do not mean that they should be prevented from writing or speaking. Free expression is an absolutely essential part of freedom and must not be abridged.I mean that their dishonorable conduct in self-serving exaggeration and in outright lies about the truths of science should be immediately met with outrage by their peers. The scientific community should not tolerate dishonesty. It should respond vigorously and, by peer pressure, reduce the effects and frequency of fraudulent science.
Unfortunately, during the past 40 years, the American scientific community has gradually lost its intoleration of dishonorable scientific conduct. Where this intoleration remains, it is primarily found among scientists in their 50s, 60s, 70s, and 80s in age.
Personal pragmatism has replaced honor among scientists, especially with the hammers of government funding hanging over the heads of most academic scientists and government regulation over the heads of most industrial scientists. Pragmatism says "get along by going along'' and "do not speak up against fraud when such speech can be avoided.'' The second part of the honor codes of VMI and Caltech are being violated by most scientists. They are
tolerating dishonorable conduct. Were this not so, the chorus of voices raised in opposition to the frauds mentioned above would completely cancel the effect of those frauds upon our political process, and peer pressure against such frauds would markedly reduce their frequency.Science is the study of natural truth. It progresses by a rigorous process of experiments, ideas, hypotheses, and theories. There is room within this process for almost any thoughts and trials. As a trustworthy discipline, science can serve as an anchor of rationality for the great benefit of our civilization. It cannot serve this purpose, however, if dishonorable conduct is common and tolerated within it.
This dishonorable conduct is the greatest problem in science today. It must be eliminated by example - by honorable acts of intoleration by greater numbers of our scientists and scientific institutions.
|
|
Vol. 24, No. 5
Newsletter: Access to Energy Newsletter Archive Volume: Issues Issue/No.: Vol. 24, No. 5 Date: January 01, 1997 03:47 PM (For actual publication date see newsletter.) Title: Science and Honor
Copyright © 2004 - Access to Energy Newsletter Archive
|